or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Evidence of govenrment cover-up re: vaccines and autism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Evidence of govenrment cover-up re: vaccines and autism - Page 13

post #241 of 281

I dont think that I could vax my kids seeing everything that they cause. :( THanks for the info ladies!!!
 

post #242 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinendacity View Post

I dont think that I could vax my kids seeing everything that they cause. :( THanks for the info ladies!!!
 

 

Why is it that the miniscule risk due to immunisation concerns you so much but the major risk to catching these diseases does not.

 

It's a question that I ask all the time, and I never get an answer.  The closest I can get is that because we live in a world where those before us have made the hard decisions and protected us, people simply have no memory of what these diseases can do and therefore it's irrelevant in the consideration.

post #243 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

 

Why is it that the miniscule risk due to immunisation concerns you so much but the major risk to catching these diseases does not.

 

It's a question that I ask all the time, and I never get an answer.  The closest I can get is that because we live in a world where those before us have made the hard decisions and protected us, people simply have no memory of what these diseases can do and therefore it's irrelevant in the consideration.

You most likely  get answers to your questions...you just don't like them.   I ask the same question, and i get answers ALL the time...maybe your'e not asking the right people.   

post #244 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

 

Why is it that the miniscule risk due to immunisation concerns you so much but the major risk to catching these diseases does not.

 

 

It's not so much this, but my hesitation to mess around with Mother Nature. It seems that tends to backfire. Badly. I'm happy to roll the dice, so to speak, with my family's health. If anything, it's a nod to the medical community that I trust they might be able to save the day if we ever caught such things. I mean, isn't that what medicine is for?

 

FWIW: when DD was a fetus, I compared rates of injury/death from the vax versus from the actual disease. I ended up going with the lower risk. I'm a statistician. I can't help myself.

post #245 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

 

Why is it that the miniscule risk due to immunisation concerns you so much but the major risk to catching these diseases does not.

 

It's a question that I ask all the time, and I never get an answer.  The closest I can get is that because we live in a world where those before us have made the hard decisions and protected us, people simply have no memory of what these diseases can do and therefore it's irrelevant in the consideration.

 

I've had three of the VADs personally, for two of them I had been vaccinated. I remember them well. It's not irrelevant in the consideration in our particular case. Part of my decision re: what vaccines my children receive is based on effectiveness.

 

It's anecdotal though right? Well, at whatever point medical history becomes anecdote. If I bring up, "I had pertussis and I'm okay," it's supposedly different from, "I nearly died from chicken pox." My experiences with VADs, and my husband's, are valid to this family only and something we use as a part of our decision making in consultation with our GP (whose own kids had CP, mumps, and pertussis).

post #246 of 281
If the risk is lower its only because the prevalence of various vpd are so low, for which we have vaccines to thank!
post #247 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

If the risk is lower its only because the prevalence of various vpd are so low, for which we have vaccines to thank!

 

Yeah that.

 

 And of course if too many people start not vaccinating all the science suggests the rates will rise quite a bit (maybe not as high as they have been in the past due to improved hygiene - but certainly higher than they are now). 

 

 Personally I'm all for messing with mother nature where it helps us survive. I like my spectacles so I can actually see stuff, my childbirth with access to medical care where necessary - I'm pretty keen on contraceptives too for that matter, and I like to be protected from getting sick as much as possible (which in my view includes better hygiene, nutrition, and vaccines). :) 

post #248 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 Personally I'm all for messing with mother nature where it helps us survive. 

I want more from medicine.  Of course I want to survive, but I also want to thrive.

 

Do childhood vaccines at this exact moment cause more of us in developed nations to survive?  Maybe.  Do they prevent diseases from coming back that could risk survival?  Perhaps even more so (but that is VAD dependant).

 

Do vaccines help us to thrive?  I truly doubt it.  Off the top of my head, there is data, anecdotes, court settlements to support a link between vaccines and asthma, autism, allergies, auto-immune disorders, other neurological issues…..I am sure you will deny there is any link, and I am sure I can shoot studies at you all day long to support this statement (some studies would turn out to be crappy, but some would not).

 

Thriving is linked to surviving.  Asthma can be fatal.  Autism can be as well (they cannot communicate when they are ill, autistic individuals are often flight risks and at danger from being hit from cars, drowning, etc).


Edited by kathymuggle - 12/26/12 at 6:13pm
post #249 of 281
Kathy I'm glad that you have so much privilege in your life that you can make that statement.
post #250 of 281

Vaccines have risks.  Most children are just fine after vaccinations, but a few are not.

 

Vaccine-avoidable diseases have risks, too.  Most children recover just fine after a VAD, but a few do not.

 

It is naive and romanticized to assume that Mother Nature wants everyone to survive and thrive.  The human race is "designed" to lose a few along the way, and VADs are one of the ways that we've lost babies and children in the past. 

post #251 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

Vaccines have risks.  Most children are just fine after vaccinations, but a few are not.

 

Vaccine-avoidable diseases have risks, too.  Most children recover just fine after a VAD, but a few do not.

 

It is naive and romanticized to assume that Mother Nature wants everyone to survive and thrive.  The human race is "designed" to lose a few along the way, and VADs are one of the ways that we've lost babies and children in the past. 

Mother Nature does not want everyone to survive. She cleans house now and again, but the human race has continued. I just wonder if we've gotten a bit big for our britches and in a few generations they'll still be cleaning up the mess (if the species makes it that far). We've done so much monkeying around with things in the last century--I believe this is why we're all stuck with the questions. Our society is so afraid of death that we're willing to spend decades living in pain to cheat it. I just cannot fathom that the survival of humans is dependent upon pharma. I just can't.

post #252 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Kathy I'm glad that you have so much privilege in your life that you can make that statement.

I acknowledge the privilege of being in good health and in a wealthy country.  I am quite grateful for it smile.gif

post #253 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

Vaccines have risks.  Most children are just fine after vaccinations, but a few are not.

 

Vaccine-avoidable diseases have risks, too.  Most children recover just fine after a VAD, but a few do not.

 

It is naive and romanticized to assume that Mother Nature wants everyone to survive and thrive.  The human race is "designed" to lose a few along the way, and VADs are one of the ways that we've lost babies and children in the past.

 

Who said this?  I said I wanted more from medicine - which is to survive and thrive.  

 

Mother nature doesn't "want" anything.  

 

I tend to think following the path of mother nature is usually a good thing for most people; I also think knowing when to intervene and when not to intervene is one of the cruxes of health.  

post #254 of 281

I'd be dead (ruptured appendix) if I followed the path of Mother Nature.  I'm kind of glad I didn't.

post #255 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 View Post

Mother Nature does not want everyone to survive. She cleans house now and again, but the human race has continued. I just wonder if we've gotten a bit big for our britches and in a few generations they'll still be cleaning up the mess (if the species makes it that far). We've done so much monkeying around with things in the last century--I believe this is why we're all stuck with the questions. Our society is so afraid of death that we're willing to spend decades living in pain to cheat it. I just cannot fathom that the survival of humans is dependent upon pharma. I just can't.

 

I have been working on this response for twenty minutes.

 

It comes down to "I cannot believe you just spouted that ridiculous, anti-humanist, eugenicist thing that you just spouted.  Holy shit."  There is a coda about all the dead people that I know, and that I suspect you know.

 

Nature does not have a plan, and nature is a lousy enforcer.  The people with the least access to modern medicine and pharmaceuticals are not doing better then the rest of us, they are not evolving to some more perfect species, and they get to deal with a lot more grief then we do.  if Nature was going to winnow us to that perfect species, Nature wasted its chances over the course of many thousand years.

post #256 of 281
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

I have been working on this response for twenty minutes.

It comes down to "I cannot believe you just spouted that ridiculous, anti-humanist, eugenicist thing that you just spouted.  Holy shit." 

One can just as easily say that sacrificing the subgroup who have terrible reactions to vaccines in order to protect the "herd" against "vaccine-preventable diseases" is ridiculous, anti-humanist, eugenicist rhetoric.

And that's not even considering the fact that increasing evidence is being uncovered that some of the most heavily marketed vaccines are not effective, and that some are not even necessary in countries with adequate sanitation and health care.

With flu being marketed as a "vaccine-preventable disease," in spite of the poor effectiveness and high risks of the flu shot, and with health care companies FIRING workers--even pregnant women--for refusing the flu shot, the ol' eugenicist argument against those who question and criticize vaccine safety just doesn't carry any water.

It's also now recognized as one of many industry strategic ploys: "let's demonize vaccine questioners as eugenicists as a way of getting the focus away from the many problems with today's vaccinations. And while we're at it, let's deny that vaccines are a multimillion dollar business, and pretend that pharmaceutical companies don't make money from them. And let's pretend vaccine reactions are vanishingly rare. If we say it enough, people will believe it."
post #257 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 View Post

Mother Nature does not want everyone to survive. She cleans house now and again, but the human race has continued. I just wonder if we've gotten a bit big for our britches and in a few generations they'll still be cleaning up the mess (if the species makes it that far). We've done so much monkeying around with things in the last century--I believe this is why we're all stuck with the questions. Our society is so afraid of death that we're willing to spend decades living in pain to cheat it. I just cannot fathom that the survival of humans is dependent upon pharma. I just can't.

 

 

So afraid of death that we are willing to spend decades living in pain to cheat it?  Really?

 

Or rather, perhaps, so in love with life that many find it is worth dealing with the pain so that they may continue to enjoy the beauty of a sunset or the thrill of a good book or the joy of the company of a good friend.  It is possible to be in considerable pain and yet still want to live not because of fear of death but because they find life is still worth living.

 

The human race as a whole is not in danger of extinction.  It would continue on just fine, if in lower numbers, if pharma disappeared overnight. Would we be happier though with more of our children or nieces or nephews or friends children dying?  With more people living crippled from polio, having children with terrible birth defects from congenital rubella, brain damaged from measles, deaf from untreated ear infections, dead from asthma attacks (or is urban pollution going to magically disappear with pharma?  that would probably help some), brain damaged from PKU.  With leprosy and tuberculosis making a comeback? Both are still diagnosed in the US occasionally, but rare because they are not very contagious so usually don't spread to too many people (sometimes not anyone else at all)  before antibiotics kick in and make them no longer contagious.  But if they were left untreated? 

 

The survival of the human race is not dependant on pharma.  The survival of many individuals in it, however, is.  

post #258 of 281
So can I assume these people who are all "quit fooling around with nature" live in caves wth no artificial lights to mess with their natural sleep/wake cycles or electricity or wireless routers to produce harmful emf?

The irony of the argument is astounding.
post #259 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

I'd be dead (ruptured appendix) if I followed the path of Mother Nature.  I'm kind of glad I didn't.

There is so much black and white thinking in this thread it makes my head spin. When did everybody get so concrete? 

 

 

Lets recap. I'm pretty sure NOBODY on this thread has said they would never ever ever ever use allopathic medicine if the need arose. Many people have said that they prefer to follow mother nature for many things. Kathy has summed it up nicely. It is figuring out when to use what that is they key. I have said this myself in another thread. I prefer to use alternative medicine most of the time. In fact I used to be an allopathic medicine junky. On lots of rx meds for all kinds of things, had asthma, allergies, chronic pain you name it and I'm young (or was when I had all these things going on). It was when I decided allopathic medicine wasn't helping me, it had nothing to offer me and I decided to start researching and trying alternative medicine that I began to regain my health. My asthma "disappeared" I haven't used an inhaler in 8 years. My allergies barely bother me - no meds here. I get sick a hell of alot less and have no more chronic pain - go figure. Does that mean when I had an atypical presentation for appendicitis that I didn't go to the doctor and have my appendix out? No. Does that mean when I had an ear infection that didn't respond to all of my natural things that I use which usually help, I didn't go to the doctor and get abx? No. Why is is such a problem for allopathic worshipers to let those of us who choose to follow mother nature when appropriate for ourselves and our family? We are not sitting around putting ourselves or our kids in danger and not seeking medical attention when it is warranted.

post #260 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

 

I have been working on this response for twenty minutes.

 

It comes down to "I cannot believe you just spouted that ridiculous, anti-humanist, eugenicist thing that you just spouted.  Holy shit."  There is a coda about all the dead people that I know, and that I suspect you know.

 

Nature does not have a plan, and nature is a lousy enforcer.  The people with the least access to modern medicine and pharmaceuticals are not doing better then the rest of us, they are not evolving to some more perfect species, and they get to deal with a lot more grief then we do.  if Nature was going to winnow us to that perfect species, Nature wasted its chances over the course of many thousand years.

…and a merry festivus to you too!!!!!  

 

 

lanamommyphd07 sorry you were called a eugenicist, anti-humanist, etc for voicing your opinion.  I was called it once for suggesting mumps did not need to be on the vaccine schedule.  Yeah.  It is not about you or your post -  it is about demonizing non-vaxxers. I read your post and I agree with a lot of it.  I do not think there is going to be a "cleaning house" so to speak, but I do think as we get rid or lessen one disease, another one pops up or increases. We are not meant to live forever.  I also do not  think the survival of the species relies on pharmaceuticals, but they can be very useful in certain circumstances.  I think pharmaceuticals can promote health (defined broadly) when used appropriately, and do not promote health when used inappropriately. 


Edited by kathymuggle - 12/27/12 at 9:21am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Evidence of govenrment cover-up re: vaccines and autism