Immunotoxicity and Vaccines - Page 2

[Suvroc]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 


I'm not really sure what the point of these questions is. I obviously avoid things when I can, hopefully keeping my toxic load low enough it's ok when I can't. I think that's the only sane approach.

I think I'm going for a few points here. One is that often toxins are in unexpected places and they last much longer in us and the environment than we often think. For example, just because you avoid teflon at home doesn't mean that any of the restaurants you eat at do. Also, just because you stopped using teflon in the last few years, if you used it or your parents used it prior, then you were accumulating it over the years and it takes a long time to break down in your body. (Note: teflon is an example of the millions of toxins we're exposed to on a daily basis)There seem to be many other studies that link various toxins and pollutants to decreased immune response. If we are experiencing natural decreased immune response then it's probably safe to assume that we're not responding as well to vaccines either, as was shown in the study.

If you vaccinate your child, how do you know that he/she developed an appropriate immune response? You probably don't because we don't check. Maybe this is why we're seeing outbreaks in highly vaccinated communities? Maybe this is why we keep having to add boosters to vaccines that supposedly years ago provided lifetime immunity? Maybe parents should start requesting antibody tests? Would you still vaccinate if they were only 25-50% effective? Would the risk be the same? Would you still vaccinate if we now needed to get boosters every two years for all shots? Do you vaccinate with all that are recommended? If not, why?

The other point I think I was trying to make (probably not effectively) is that I feel like the general population assumes that if it's legal, then it is safe, and we're finding out more and more that it's so much more complicated than that. And I think that's why many of us have a hard time believing things when big business is involved. If history can teach us about the present, it often takes a LONG time for the government to declare that something is unsafe. These conversations about vaccines are the same types of conversations that happened about trans fats. Years ago when I was first learning about the controversy, most people said it was "nutso" thinking that they weren't safe/good for us but the paradigm is shifting, and I think that's happening with vaccines.

Do you believe the government's recommendations over the manufacturers? For example, the manufacturer acknowledges that studies haven't been done in pregnant women so it should only be used if there is a clear need. The CDC recommends all pregnant women get the shot. Would you? What if the manufacturer says that nursing women should avoid it because it hasn't been studied yet your doctor highly recommends that you get it? Who do you believe? What decisions do you make? Why?

By the way, all of these questions are open to all to answer.

[Rrrrrachel]

In your first paragraph: I agree with you that toxins are pernicious and persistent in our environment. That's actually the main reason I don't think vaccines are the cause of the increase in various chronic health conditions. The amountoftoxins in vaccines is literally a drop in the bucket to exposure from other sources. I will point out, though, that you're making a lot of assumptions about my lifestyle and my history. I'm not pointing that out to cause a stink or attack you, but just to make you aware.

In your second paragraph, you are taking several things that are true about ONE disease, pertussis, and generalizing it to "several" diseases. It is simply not true that we suddenly have all kinds of outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations. The reasons there are outbreaks of pertussis in highly vaccinated population have been discussed her many times, so I won't go into it now, but pfcs are far from the only issue at play.

As I believe vaccines are safe, boosters don't particularly bother me, although again I think you are overstating the issue and generalizing what's true for one or two vaccines to vaccines in general. What boosters have recently been added to the schedule, other than pertussis? You are also jumping to some conclusions about effectiveness. No, I haven't had myself or my child's titers done. There's really no point, because if our vaccines didn't take there's no much I can do about it. Meanwhile, research shows effectiveness levels are far higher than what you're hypothetically proposing. I will reasses my decision to vaccinate as the facts change, of course.

I agree that the government is often slow to act. That's the nature of the beast, I think. Fortunately, we often havea large body of research aside from govern,net recommendations to use to make out decisions. Vaccines have been researched extensively over many years by many many different groups, and they've been shown to be safe.

Manufacturers pretty much have to say those things about pregnant and nursing women. Almost no medications have been studied in nursing and pregnant women because its very difficult to do in an ethical way. If you look, those cautions are even on homeopathic and natural remedies. I make my decisions by consulting with my doctor, who understands my individual situation and health history as well as the risks involved with using a particular medication.

[Suvroc]

Just to be clear, I've never made any mention of toxins in vaccines. The post is about vaccine efficacy as it relates to our toxic burden. I want to clarify because twice now you've argued about the small amount of toxins in vaccines.

The 'you' is not specifically aimed at you; however, with the apparent quick access you have to the world wide web, I think it's safe to assume you live in a developed area. ;-) But, again, I was not really meaning you specifically. They are theoretical questions to invoke conversation and for me to learn from other people. I appreciate your responses and wish other people would participate more because I believe a lot can be learned from the community.

As far as pertussis being the only outbreak, you may not have seen the news about the mumps outbreaks in 2009 and 2010 among a mostly vaccinated population in which the CDC 'experimented' with giving a third booster shot. It will not surprise me if in the future we will have a third shot of MMR.(http://vaccinenewsdaily.com/medical_countermeasures/320514-third-mmr-dose-likely-stopped-2009-2010-new-york-mumps-outbreak/) There was a study about the booster shot but I can't find it now.

Also, you've made it sound like we know why there are pertussis outbreaks but the CDC's statement from the pinkbook is here:

Pertussis incidence has been gradually increasing since the early 1980s. A total of 25,827 cases was reported in 2004, the largest number since 1959. The reasons for the increase are not clear.

I'm not implying that any of my questions are fact. I'm just curious about the answers to theoretical questions. For example, you mention that as the facts change, you would re-assess. I'm curious about what would change your mind. Would it be related to effectiveness or safety or something else? Or all of the above. In other words, if there were a headline that would cause you to re-assess, what would it be? Who would it be from? What is important to you? [Not necessarily you specifically -- please anyone answer]

I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm not trying to change your or anyone's mind. I'm trying to have a heartfelt conversation from one parent to another (I'm assuming you're a parent :-) ) I apologize if the tone of my wording implies otherwise. It is incredibly difficult for me to effectively communicate by typing alone.

[Rrrrrachel]

There is not a headline that would change my mind. My decision making isn't that reactionary. My decision making is based on balancing risk and benefit, so a significant change to either would influence me.

We don't know what's causing the rise in pertussis, but I think it's safe to say there are a lot of factors at play.

[Jennyanydots]

Bolding mine.

Originally Posted by Suvroc 

I think I'm going for a few points here. One is that often toxins are in unexpected places and they last much longer in us and the environment than we often think. For example, just because you avoid teflon at home doesn't mean that any of the restaurants you eat at do. Also, just because you stopped using teflon in the last few years, if you used it or your parents used it prior, then you were accumulating it over the years and it takes a long time to break down in your body. (Note: teflon is an example of the millions of toxins we're exposed to on a daily basis)There seem to be many other studies that link various toxins and pollutants to decreased immune response. If we are experiencing natural decreased immune response then it's probably safe to assume that we're not responding as well to vaccines either, as was shown in the study.


Good questions here, and a great reminder that I need to throw out those last two non stick pans in my pantry.


If you vaccinate your child, how do you know that he/she developed an appropriate immune response? You probably don't because we don't check. Maybe this is why we're seeing outbreaks in highly vaccinated communities? Maybe this is why we keep having to add boosters to vaccines that supposedly years ago provided lifetime immunity? Maybe parents should start requesting antibody tests? Would you still vaccinate if they were only 25-50% effective? Would the risk be the same? Would you still vaccinate if we now needed to get boosters every two years for all shots? Do you vaccinate with all that are recommended? If not, why?

i have not vaccinated my youngest, but if vax effectiveness were that low or if the frequency of boosters were increased, it would make the decision that much easier, sure.
To the last 2 questions here, my short answer is that we don't vaccinate right now because there is a risk to my son of negative side effects/reactions, and the authorities are obviously not completely disclosing or adequately researching the risks associated with vaccines. Instead, they respond to parents' concerns and questions with a paternalistic pat on the head and evasion. I don't have enough information to know how unsafe vaccines are, just that they are unsafe to some degree, and the official response is suspicious. My understanding of the risk posed by most of the VADs (based on their prevalence, treatability, and our risk factors) leads me to choose, at this time, to abstain from vaccination. If reasonable questions about vaccine safety and effectiveness were answered thoroughly and satisfactorily and if there didn't seem to be a nebulous and possibly significant risk of harm associated with vax, I would probably want to vaccinate

The other point I think I was trying to make (probably not effectively) is that I feel like the general population assumes that if it's legal, then it is safe, and we're finding out more and more that it's so much more complicated than that. And I think that's why many of us have a hard time believing things when big business is involved. If history can teach us about the present, it often takes a LONG time for the government to declare that something is unsafe. These conversations about vaccines are the same types of conversations that happened about trans fats. Years ago when I was first learning about the controversy, most people said it was "nutso" thinking that they weren't safe/good for us but the paradigm is shifting, and I think that's happening with vaccines.

yes, I agree. Though as more voices raise more questions, the more aggressive the propaganda becomes. I hope we are finally going to get some questions answered and see real progress made on addressing the safety issues associated with vax

Do you believe the government's recommendations over the manufacturers? For example, the manufacturer acknowledges that studies haven't been done in pregnant women so it should only be used if there is a clear need. The CDC recommends all pregnant women get the shot. Would you? What if the manufacturer says that nursing women should avoid it because it hasn't been studied yet your doctor highly recommends that you get it? Who do you believe? What decisions do you make? Why?
no. I think the government's advice in these cases glosses over information that might be important to an individual's decision making. Mine, anyway.

By the way, all of these questions are open to all to answer.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by Suvroc 

I'm not implying that any of my questions are fact. I'm just curious about the answers to theoretical questions. For example, you mention that as the facts change, you would re-assess. I'm curious about what would change your mind. Would it be related to effectiveness or safety or something else? Or all of the above. In other words, if there were a headline that would cause you to re-assess, what would it be? Who would it be from? What is important to you? [Not necessarily you specifically -- please anyone answer]

Somehow I missed this study when it was first published; now that I've read it it has made me more firm in my decision not to vaccinate. 

I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are other environmental toxins besides PFCs that are causing reduced immunity in vaccinated children.

[Rrrrrachel]

So part of your decision not to vaccinate is because you don't think it works?

[Chicharronita]

Yes, but it's a small part.

I so wish I could rely on doing something every three years or so to make all the baddies go away, but as they say "Mother Nature bats last."

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

I so wish I could rely on doing something every three years or so to make all the baddies go away, but as they say "Mother Nature bats last."

I have never heard this expression - but what a cool one!!!