vaccines and harm

[kathymuggle]

What are your thoughts on vaccines and harm?

Here are the two scenarios I have running through my head.

1. Vaccines harm everyone.  The harm might be temporary or invisible (perhaps they temporary lower your immune systems ability to fight things off) or they might be permanent and severe  but all vaccines harm everyone in some way.

2.  Vaccines only harm those who have vaccine reactions.  This might include short or long term reactions, but it does not affect everyone.  Some people are completely unscathed from vaccines.

What are your thoughts?  Links are cool, but if you just want to share your opinion without digging up a bunch of links, that is fine too.  I am more interested in what non-vaxxers think on this issue than trying to debate.

Kathy.

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/6/12 at 6:48pm

[Monkeygrrl]

I think vaccines harm everyone who has been given a vaccine. Even those who say "I had all these vaccines and I'm just fine". Maybe they have allergies that they wouldn't have had. Maybe they have food allergies or sensitivities that they wouldn't have had. Who knows.

I was given all the vaccines "necessary" for my growing up years (I am 34.). I have random health issues, and I have no idea if any of them are linked to vaccines, but I can see how some would be.

[Mirzam]

I also think vaccines harm everyone to a greater or lesser degree, I do think you can (but not always) mitigate major damage through good maternal nutrition, natural birthing practices - most importantly avoiding premature cord clamping, and of course breast feeding. I also suffered ill health from vaccines, especially as a teen, the BCG vax caused me years of chronic swollen lymph nodes and throat inflammation.

[Shanesmom]

Well, I'd be inclined to agree with the first one.

Buuuuuut......I am fully vaccinated and wasn't breasted for that matter, and am super super healthy. (I'm 31) never been real sick, never met a food my body couldn't handle, and never had any problems with any internal body parts. But who knows "what could've been", huh?

I'm still inclined to say they harm everyone in some way. It just seems logical

[kathymuggle]

I tend to think it is mostly number 2, but (and it is a big "but") I really do not know.  I am open to the possibility of it being number one.

I am also interested in epigenetics.  Perhaps we as individuals may escape harm from vaccines (or pesticides, BPA, etc)  but our progeny won't?  I think it may already be happening - things like allergies, autoimmune disorders, asthma, autism are way more common now than 40 years ago, despite the fact pesticides, BPA, vaccines, etc existed 40 years ago.  

Here is one article - it is on autism (shocking ! )  however it was also the first hit when I googled "vaccines and epigenetics."

http://www.autismone.org/content/can-epigenetics-explain-autisms-causes

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/9/12 at 9:04am

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I tend to think it is mostly number 2, but (and it is a big "but") I really do not know.  I am open to the possibility of it being number one.

I did not have a vaccine" reaction" to the BCG. But in the months and years following the vaccine I certainly had relatively minor ill health.

[Jennyanydots]

I don't know... I like to think #2 is right, but I worry about #1. My two DDs were both born in the late 90s, two years apart, and received every vaccine & booster on the schedule. I stopped completely after DD1 had her second guardasil shot, though I'd had reservations for years. Even befor guardasil, DD1 has had a whole host of chronic health issues including animal & food allergies, and severe asthma. DD2, however, has always been the picture of health. She's energetic and athletic, tall and strong, and aside from a broken bone and a sports related knee injury, she hasn't needed to see a doctor at all for years.

I hope there's no hidden injury she'll have to face later.

[katelove]

I incline towards option 2 but I would also not consider myself strongly non-vax. We have yet to give our toddler any vaccines but probably will ultimately.

I am fully vaxxed and get the flu vax except when I'm pregnant. I have never had anything I would consider a vaccine reaction, beyond a sore arm but I am allergic to dust mites and, recently, something in bought curry paste. I also have IBS and had my tonsils removed last year for recurrent tonsillitis. Are any of those related to vaccines I've had? No idea. I don't attribute any of them to my vaccination history but I can't say I'm 100% sure none of them are related. If I was really pressed I'd say they were more likely related to my only being breastfed for a few months and being given solids before 6 months but I wouldn't say I was 100% sure about that either. It's most likely to be a complicated combination of environmental and genetic factors rather than one specific trigger IMO.

[emmy526]

I think vaccines have the potential for harming both sets....the person receiving it, the live virus shedding to the nonvaxed, and causing a problem there, too.  There are cases of nonvaxed becoming ill from a  person shedding the live virus portion of their vaccine onto the unsuspecting individuals, such as chicken pox from one vaxed child to another UNvaxed child...whether or not that person who was ill had lifetime complications from the illness is not known, and unlikely, since mainstream media would have been all over that story......there seems to be more reports of complications from the vaccines, not the illnesses the vaccines are supposed to protect against, at least in the USA.  

[threenorns]

i know this makes me sound like an evil person, but i'd rather nurse my child through a bout of polio, accepting that there's the <1% possibility of her dying, than have to watch another child grow up the way my oldest daughter did.  i had no idea what was wrong with her - she was 9 before the tourette's was diagnosed and the social damage by then was massive.  we never bonded and even though i love her to bits and am so proud of all she's accomplished (she's actually quite known in certain music genres), there isn't that "click!" i get when i hear my other two daughter's voices.  

my youngest daughter also has asperger's (and she also reacted to vaccine, middle daughter didn't - she wasn't vaccinated until she was 4yrs old and then she was up to date in 2 shots done a month apart!).  unlike my oldest, she is VERY VERY social - she's *too* social.  she is very huggy, very clingy, has absolutely no concept of personal boundaries.  ppl love her to bits - and i think that's only bec i'm now educated on what is going on and can redirect and educate her so she doesn't suffer the social isolation and bullying my oldest one did.

now, i have asperger's - i was an infant immigrant, so i was bombarded with round after round, as we went through and stayed in a couple countries before landing in canada where i got nailed again with more vaccines; the TB vaccine scar is on my back and measures a good 3" across.  i was also a sickly child, failure to thrive, but how much of that is from the vaccines and how much from the hare lip/cleft palate, impossible to say.

i think it's most likely that ppl with the genetic tendency toward asperger's or a latent inability to process the crap that goes into vaccines (our family is riddle with food intolerances and allergies) are the ones to get hit with asperger's.  i do know families that are in the pink of health - absolutely a-okay across the board - and were vaccinated to schedule.

[Marnica]

Understanding how vaccines challenge and skew the immune system, I'm going to say #1. With that being said , I think the human body is an amazingly resilient thing - and a person's genetic makeup will also have a lot to do with how much "damage" it can withstand. I believe that just because someone doesn't have any obvious (or even not so obvious) problems after vaccines, doesn't mean that they do not do damage. This damage can be on a cellular level, and over time and after repeated vaccination, may cause problems much later on in one's life. 

[geezbees75]

Anybody here can direct me on a good resource to find a non-vax friendly or very delayed vax friendly doc? My pedi office used to follow my requested delay schedule but has told me they no longer do that so new baby will be vaxed on THEIR terms or we will be discharged from care. Due at end of January. Located between Lincolnton and Hickory, NC. Ones I found on Dr Sears site are 90+ minutes away or more.
 

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by geezbees75 

Anybody here can direct me on a good resource to find a non-vax friendly or very delayed vax friendly doc? My pedi office used to follow my requested delay schedule but has told me they no longer do that so new baby will be vaxed on THEIR terms or we will be discharged from care. Due at end of January. Located between Lincolnton and Hickory, NC. Ones I found on Dr Sears site are 90+ minutes away or more.
 

Off topic!  But - you are new, so you are forgiven.  

Here are some links - hopefully one of these work:

http://www.cafemom.com/group/4388/forums/read/2738581/Anti_Vax_Friendly_Docs_List_Directory

http://community.babycenter.com/post/a30859003/new_list_of_vaccine_friendly_doctors_state_by_state

I would also post on the finding your tribe section of MDC (there might be a NC section) and ask your question there. 

There are a decent amount of non-vaxxers on MDC. I bet someone can help you out.

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/5/12 at 4:02pm

[ssun5]

I say Number One in ways we may never fully be able to understand:

The extracts were from a book called 2nd Duran-Reynals International Symposium on Viral Replication and Cancer published by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science, Barcelona, in 1973, which states:

Quote:

It was well known that the acute effects of vaccinia in human and animal skin are preceded by a proliferative response often indistinguishable from pre-malignant neoplasia, and there was also evidence that malignant tumors had been observed to develop in man at the site of the skin lesions caused by Smallpox vaccination. Although in recent years a significant number of these tumors have been reported, Duran-Reynals knew of only a few cases which for the most part, had not been reported. However, he was certain that these tumors were highly significant in that they seemed to reveal effects of vaccinia which under the right conditions would be consistently repeated...Duran-Reynals was the first to demonstrate that an acute virus infective in man enhances the neoplastic effects of a chemical carcinogen. With these studies he also demonstrated that the development of malignant tumors at the site of vaccinia-induced skin lesions can be a consistently reproducible, predictable event.

What does all this mean?

The second interesting correlates are combined. Up until the 1880's, in the UK the only vaccine was the smallpox - scratched onto the skin. And up until the 1880's all (get this ... ALL) reported autopsies in the medical literature, only show cancers to have been on the outside of the bodies.

In the 1880's diphtheria toxin-anti-toxin, which is not the vaccine, was developed, and it was administered by needle. In the 1890's, cancer experts started seeing, for the first time, internal cancers, and pathologists started reporting them.
 

Duran-Reynals also proved that virus + hormone + carcinogen === sure fire malignant cancers.
 

Lets look at the huge the mainstream media is crawling all over the meningitis outbreak stemming from fungus contaminated steroidal injections, and blame is focused on lack of regulation controlling small compounding pharmacies.

ANY medical professional should be able to tell us that Common fungus - when ingested - is rarely a problem. When injected with steroid to shut down the immune system and therefore stop pain..., it can take on a whole new dimension.

The issue which should be being discussed, is the difference between ingestion, and injection, and why a contaminant, can cause problems in a body not normally seen in the real world.

The fact is that vaccines can have contaminants in them, which we just might not know about, like bacteria, viruses and other ingredients considered by the medical system to be safe. Even... DNA!!!  A book Cell Cultures for Virus Vaccine Production written in 1967 (with such an innocent title), and detailed what was known in that year, about culture contamination in live virus vaccines. Never mind the killed vaccines, which the medical literature states are also often contaminated.

What do vaccine contaminants do? What about DNA? What about aluminium? There are lots of medical articles now being published, sounding the alarm about aluminum in vaccines, but the medical system defaults to its routine dogma which says: “You “eat” aluminum, so it’s safe to inject it and the body just expels it from the body really fast.” Their own medical literature has stated for 11 years, that aluminum in vaccines is a significant contributor to the body burden (Yokel McNamara 2001) , because unlike “ingested” aluminum, the body absorbs injected aluminum into organs and bones.

Who is right? The medical literature or the medical system? What else, does the medical system not know, or admit to?

Years ago, we also heard that, “Squalene can be eaten, so there’s nothing wrong with injecting it as a vaccine adjuvant.” Really?

The USA meningitis outbreak from fungally contaminated steroid injections, graphically illustrates that something “injected” can create havoc in the body in a way which rarely happens in the normal world. 

What else do we not know? I think everyone is effected in some way even if we don't see the results for years and years. I also hold cancer to a vaccine damage.Compound that with our genetics, other environmental factors, nutrition, and other unknowns, the results can be different for everyone. Some of these points alone bring me to the conclusion that EVERYONE will suffer in some way.

Edited by ssun5 - 11/6/12 at 11:02pm

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by ssun5 

The second interesting correlates are combined. Up until the 1880's, the only vaccine was the smallpox - scratched onto the skin. And up until the 1880's all (get this ... ALL) reported autopsies in the medical literature, only show cancers to have been on the outside of the bodies.

In the 1880's diphtheria toxin-anti-toxin, which is not the vaccine, was developed, and it was administered by needle. In the 1890's, cancer experts started seeing, for the first time, internal cancers, and pathologists started reporting them.

This just is not true.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/thehistoryofcancer/the-history-of-cancer-sixteenth-to-eighteenth-centuries

Sixteenth to eighteenth centuries

During the Renaissance, beginning in the 15th century, scientists developed greater understanding of the human body. Scientists like Galileo and Newton began to use the scientific method, which later was used to study disease. Autopsies, done by Harvey (1628), led to an understanding of the circulation of blood through the heart and body that had until then been a mystery.

In 1761, Giovanni Morgagni of Padua was the first to do something which has become routine today — he did autopsies to relate the patient’s illness to pathologic findings after death. This laid the foundation for scientific oncology, the study of cancer.

The famous Scottish surgeon John Hunter (1728−1793) suggested that some cancers might be cured by surgery and described how the surgeon might decide which cancers to operate on. If the tumor had not invaded nearby tissue and was “moveable,” he said, “There is no impropriety in removing it.”

A century later the development of anesthesia allowed surgery to flourish and classic cancer operations such as the radical mastectomy were developed.

[boomer78]

I'm leaning more towards option no. 1. While someone may have issues right after vaccine, someone else could experience them later in life, maybe much later. Maybe their future children could be affected in some way. We don't know much about vaccines so the term 'vaccines are safe' is just not convincing to me. 

[pers]

Originally Posted by ssun5 

The second interesting correlates are combined. Up until the 1880's, the only vaccine was the smallpox - scratched onto the skin. And up until the 1880's all (get this ... ALL) reported autopsies in the medical literature, only show cancers to have been on the outside of the bodies.

In the 1880's diphtheria toxin-anti-toxin, which is not the vaccine, was developed, and it was administered by needle. In the 1890's, cancer experts started seeing, for the first time, internal cancers, and pathologists started reporting them.
 

I'm not clear on whether this bit is trying to say that internal cancer was rare enough prior to injected vaccines that they doctors never encountered them in autopsies before this, or if it is actually trying to say that internal cancer didn't exist at all before the 1880's.  In either case, it is absolutely not true. 

Google Giovanni Morgagni and cancer.  He's generally considered the father of modern pathology, and many of the autopsies he did were for cancers including breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, and stomach cancer.  He died in 1771, over a hundred years before this quote claims internal cancers started to be found. 

If you do a little more looking into the history of cancer, you will find many other examples of cancer autopsies from before those dates as well as that they were actually attempting cancer surgeries on live patients, including mastectomies for breast cancer, long before then.  Doctors often had strange ideas about the cause of cancer (blaming it on curdled milk among other things, or upon observing that reproductive cancers were more common in nuns than in the general population of women concluding that it was due to lack of sex and so sexually active women who got these cancers must not be having vigorous enough sex and so getting lymph blockages...)  but they knew cancer existed.  Written descriptions of tumors from breast cancer remain from ancient egypt, and cancer has been found in tissue from very old human remains.  It is not a modern disease. 

[rush2ady]

I think #1.  Like others have already said, our bodies can be amazingly resilient in healing the damage done to them.  So of course not all people see a reaction.  And those who do react badly, it may be months or years later that the damage shows up...so it's unlikely to make the connection back to a vaccine. 

I've been reading Dr Campbell-McBride's book on GAPS (Gut and Psychology Syndrome) and her recommendation is to do basic testing on babies and children to see if their gut flora and immune system is healthy before vaccination.  I'm paraphrasing, but basically she believes those with already poor gut flora (and hence more prone to immune problems) will be more susceptible to vaccine damage...and you can test for this risk prior to vaccination.

It's also difficult for us to judge true health because for so long our society has routinely vaccinated, drank fluoridated and chlorinated water, installed mercury in teeth, eaten pesticides, processed diets, and other practices which effect health.  So when someone is in poor health, it's almost impossible to trace the problem back to it's roots.  And now with the growing knowledge of epigenics, you cannot rule out the impact your parents and grandparents lifestyles have had on your health.  Weston Price's studies are valuable to us in that he studied populations still untouched by these modern interventions.  Nowadays it's almost impossible to find populations who are untouched by vaccines and other modern inventions.

Within my circle of family and friends, there are maybe a couple people I know who are pictures of health: with glowing skin, radiant eyes, thick hair, vibrant energy, healthy weight and muscle tone, socially and emotionally balanced, healthy mentally.  Almost everyone I know has poor skin (usually pale, or overly dry or greasy, or acne), hair problems, weight issues, fatigue, needs glasses, has food allergies, circles under their eyes, back or joint problems, emotionally unstable, and of course more serious issues like MS.  Not that I judge them, I'm in the same boat!

In general I think we barely even know what true health looks like anymore.  It's not surprising to me that we fail to recognize when our already questionable health is compromised just a little bit further by vaccines.

[Minerva23]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

Understanding how vaccines challenge and skew the immune system, I'm going to say #1. With that being said , I think the human body is an amazingly resilient thing - and a person's genetic makeup will also have a lot to do with how much "damage" it can withstand. I believe that just because someone doesn't have any obvious (or even not so obvious) problems after vaccines, doesn't mean that they do not do damage. This damage can be on a cellular level, and over time and after repeated vaccination, may cause problems much later on in one's life. 

I totally agree with you on that one.

Who knows for sure what happens exactly inside our bodies when vaxxed. We will probably never know the answer to that. Even the CDC and other authorities can only speculate or assume about it. Having experienced vaccine reactions myself and how long lasting they can be, I don't understand how others could deny problems caused by vaccines even if reactions do not occur within a certain timeframe.

[SweetSilver]

OT, and re: autopsies in the 19th century.

I listened to a story on NPR or PRI (tried to find this) about how skewed autopsies were, because all the bodies "provided to" the medical community were the poor, destitute, and criminal.  Poorhouses and jails were big donors.  

Apparently, some of these autopsies offered measurements for (some gland, that's what I was looking for and couldn't find).  It was "supposed to be" small.  In the 1920's doctors started noticing in children that this gland was "too large" and put these children under massive amounts of radiation to shrink it.  Which it did.  

Problem was, the size of the gland is affected by stress and poverty.  And where did they get the measurements from?  19th century autopsies, which were done almost exclusively on the poor.

The medical community, due to this limitation, had never seen a normal size--small-- gland (I'm thinking pituitary?  I'm hoping someone else here has heard this one) and as a result, thousands of perfectly healthy, very much not poor children were given massive doses of radiation.

Nothing to do with vaccines, but I would bear this discrepancy in mind when taking information from autopsies in the 19th century or before.