or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › "The increasing evidence that aluminum/adjuvants cause . . . "
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"The increasing evidence that aluminum/adjuvants cause . . . " - Page 7

post #121 of 149
Thread Starter 
There's also no evidence they're not caused by tv, iPhones, the Internet, or hybrid cars.
post #122 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There's also no evidence they're not caused by tv, iPhones, the Internet, or hybrid cars.

No but there are studies that link certain adjuvants to the above mentioned issues. (Taxi has posted several multiple times on this thread and many others here) To my knowledge there are no studies that have found a link that the TV or hybrid cars etc may be linked to eczema. 

post #123 of 149
Thread Starter 
Well have they looked?
post #124 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There's no evidence that's caused by vaccines.

Nor is there any evidence to state definitively that they are NOT

 

In any case, many of today's highly-vaccinated children have lots of health issues.

 

In the 70s when I was a kid, I didn't know a single person with asthma, autism, eczema or allergies. Kids got colds mainly in the winter, and hardly ever in the summer. No one had ear infections. 

 

I was telling a friend of mine about this forum, and she said her two oldest boys who were fully vaccinated used to get them all the time. One of them had them so bad that the doctor said ear tubes would be "necessary."  

 

She didn't like that idea and sought the advice of alternative practitioners. A homeopath suggested that they were related to vaccines, so she stopped. The boys stopped getting ear infections.

 

Years later she had another son who is completely unvaccinated, and he has never had one. 

post #125 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

Nor is there any evidence to state definitively that they are NOT

 

Generally speaking, one needs to prove a claim, not a negative.

post #126 of 149
Thread Starter 
Chicha I think it's great you find anecdotal evidence so convincing. Not everyone does.

Even conceding that all of those things are more prevalent than they used to be, lots and lots of things have changed since the 70s.
post #127 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Chicha I think it's great you find anecdotal evidence so convincing. Not everyone does.

 

I put this out there so that other people who have the same experiences can start putting two and two together.

 

Thank goodness for the Internet because it was nearly impossible to do this before (which reminds me to look up a story I heard about vaccine "hot lots" that were distributed in different parts of the country so that the bad effects would be chalked off as "rare" and "isolated").

 

 

 

Even conceding that all of those things are more prevalent than they used to be, lots and lots of things have changed since the 70s.
 

Yes, like the amount of vaccines they're being jabbed with.

post #128 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

 

Generally speaking, one needs to prove a claim, not a negative.

 

Especially given that it's impossible to prove a negative!

 

 

 

Quote:
In the 70s when I was a kid, I didn't know a single person with asthma, autism, eczema or allergies. Kids got colds mainly in the winter, and hardly ever in the summer. No one had ear infections. 

 

 

Well, now you do.  I was a kid in the 70's and I had allergies and eczema.  Still do, as a matter of fact.  I know several people who had ear tubes (I remember a good friend always having to make sure she had earplugs in when she came over to swim).  My father-in-law had asthma as a kid, and he was born in 1942.

 

Does my anecdotal evidence outweigh yours?

 

I thought not.  That's why it's useless.

post #129 of 149

My sister was born in the early seventies, and she had ear tubes, she had bad reflux as a baby and a perpetual runny nose. She also had a very severe reation to the first DPT vaccine that so concerned my mother and her doctor that she never received another vaccine until she was an adult (she wasn't immune to Rubella, still isn't despite having had the vaccination twice). 

 

We can all type up our ancedotes and if we put them all together we will have data.

post #130 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

Quote:

I was a kid in the 70's and I had allergies and eczema.

Does my anecdotal evidence outweigh yours?

 

That's why I said:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

I put this out there so that other people who have the same experiences can start putting two and two together.

 

 

On a related note, does anyone know when the policy of having separate lunch tables at schools for those with allergies started to become commonplace at public schools? 

Edited by Chicharronita - 11/30/12 at 7:20pm
post #131 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

We can all type up our ancedotes and if we put them all together we will have data.

I love that!
post #132 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


Yes of course vaccine reactions occur. Nothing is 100% safe.
The issue isn't whether or not vaccine reactions happen.  It's that they happen far, far more often than doctors know.  Saying that "Nothing is 100% safe,"  is not an adequate excuse for the appalling lack of safety surrounding today's vaccines and the schedule and mandates regarding those vaccines.
Taxi - I am very sad for you that your child had what hou believe is a major vaccine reaction.
This comment is dismissive, condescending, and downright mocking. The fact that you phrase it "your child has what hou [sic] believe is a major vaccine reaction" clearly implies that you think that my child didn't REALLY have a severe reaction.
 
I have posted over and over again that my child was diagnosed by mainstream MD's.  I've never taken him to a naturopath or homeopath or any other kind of alternative doctor.  He (and ALL my children) have had serious reactions to vaccines, ALL diagnosed by mainstream doctors.  Not just one doctor; SEVERAL doctors, as the pediatrician sent them to specialists.
 
And yet you imply that my child didn't REALLY have a major vaccine reaction? 
 
Well, this is a brilliant example of why so many doctors today have lost the respect and trust of patients.
 

Vaccines do no work like magic miracle dust either - but they demonstrably have saved millions of children from dying of vaccine preventable diseases, and countless more for suffering unneccessarilly.
The thousands of parents whose children's lives were lost or ruined as a result of vaccines would certainly take issue with your statement, as they either died of something completely preventable or suffered unnecessarily.  For that matter, the same goes for the adults who lost either their health or their lives from vaccines.
 
In addition, more and more researchers are pointing out that horrendous flaws in the studies that supposedly show vaccine effectiveness.  The Cochrane review has shown that the flu shot is about as effective as a placebo--but health care workers are getting fired for not getting it.  Reports are just now surfacing of the miscarriage rate rising preciptously after the H1N1 vaccine was recommended for pregnant women.  Governments in European countries are admitting that the flu shot caused narcolepsy (a type of seizure disorder) in children.  Merck's own virologists are alleging that Merck lied about the effectiveness of the rubella portion of the MMR.
 
It's far, far too late to pretend that vaccines are safe and effective.  We all know better
 
post #133 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Well have they looked?

Wouldn't it be better to first look more closely at the chemicals injected unnecessarily into a healthy individual--chemicals that recent research has already linked to autoimmune disorders?

Otherwise, it would become like the autism issue, where the pharmaceutical companies are frantically funding studies on aging fathers, highly educated parets, proximity to highways, etc., to shift the focus away from vaccines.

 

Oddly, they seem to think that nobody wil realize that older fathers are more likely to have completed their education and hold steady jobs--and are more likely than, say a teenage father, to bring their babies in for scheduled vaccine visits.

 

DItto for highly educated parents.

 

And families living near highways are also more likely to be compliant with the recommended vaccine schedule than, say, a low-income, inner-city parent.

 

So before we go barking up any unnecessary (and expensive to fund) trees, let's learn as much as possible about the risks of vaccines to our health, since there's obviously a lot more there than scientists originally expected.

post #134 of 149

Precautionary principle: adjuavants have to be PROVEN SAFE not proven dangerous. <3 So those defending them need to post citiations attesting to proof of their safety. Preferably double blind placebo trials (and the usual assurances that those would be 'unethical because vaccines are SO benefical' won't suffice because no one claims that adjuvants are essential to establishing immunity, only that they assist in establishing stronger immunity).

post #135 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Precautionary principle: adjuavants have to be PROVEN SAFE not proven dangerous. <3 So those defending them need to post citiations attesting to proof of their safety. Preferably double blind placebo trials (and the usual assurances that those would be 'unethical because vaccines are SO benefical' won't suffice because no one claims that adjuvants are essential to establishing immunity, only that they assist in establishing stronger immunity).

How do you "prove" something safe?
post #136 of 149

With a randomized double blind placebo study? Preferably with in house observation for side effects? This is how all non-vaccine pharmaceuticals are tested. Even tho the bulk of the tests are actually funded by interested parties.

 

I know it is a foreign concept in 'chemicals are innocent until proven guilty' USA, but actually the Precautionary Principle is well known.

 

“When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

 

Since we do know that Aluminum has evidence of causing harm in IV solutions, I believe it applies here. For sure.

post #137 of 149
W
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

With a randomized double blind placebo study? Preferably with in house observation for side effects? This is how all non-vaccine pharmaceuticals are tested. Even tho the bulk of the tests are actually funded by interested parties.

I know it is a foreign concept in 'chemicals are innocent until proven guilty' USA, but actually the Precautionary Principle is well known.


“When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”





Since we do know that Aluminum has evidence of causing harm in IV solutions, I believe it applies here. For sure.
What do you mean by in house observation for side effects?
post #138 of 149
Thread Starter 
I think she means when you make the subjects spend the night for observation and the like. But I'm not sure.
post #139 of 149

That is what I mean. A relative of mine participates in pharmaceutical research as a career (surpirse, he is a healthy 18-30 year old male). He never ever has to spend the night if it is a vaccine, he self reports his own side effects & phones it in. And there is often no even nominal placebo.

 

Wheras with an oral medication, he is observed in a controlled setting by medical professionals for a minimum of two weeks and has in person follow ups.

 

The nominal explanation for this is that people will only receive a shot once whereas they will take a medications for a period of time. However, we know, that with repeated doses in infancy, with DTaP now thought to have to be (for example) every 3-5 years through the lifespan, it is no longer true that a vax will only be recieved once.

 

There are really some legit issues with Aluminum, with safety in general, with testing procedures. I would hope that those on the ProVax side would spend time proving things safe or advocating for increased safety rather than critiquing any attempt to learn about why some experience something that looks very much like danger.

 

Or responding to what I actually said rather than deconstructing details.

post #140 of 149
Thread Starter 
There is currently no recommendation for Dtap every 3-5 years.

I think the "pro vax side" is interested in advocating safety. I very much hope they continue to monitor and study the safety of things like aluminum, and I believe various groups are. Wonderful! What I don't do, though, is go down every rabbit hole and feel like I have to prove or disprove every assertion made on the Internet. I also think, going by the current body of scientific evidence, vaccines unequivocally do more good than harm. Is that possibly subject to change? Sure. Absolutely. In a few years I might be eating crow. But I'm gonna go by the science, not speculation.
Edited by Rrrrrachel - 12/2/12 at 6:10pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › "The increasing evidence that aluminum/adjuvants cause . . . "