or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Non-Vax Mamas, I need your help!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Non-Vax Mamas, I need your help!

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 

I have a friend who's graduating med school this spring and we got into a discussion about vaccines. He sent me two links on the Finland MMR study and said that that's proof that vaccines are safe, etc. I've done some searching around on these studies, and from what I've read the last one was partially funded by Merck, however, I don't know how else to go through this and sort of find out what's wrong and missing from these studies. I'm hoping some of your  could help me with this as the MMR vaccine is one that I'm extremely skeptical about.

 

Here's the studies:

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199411243312101

 

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band84/MMR.html

 

Thanks a bunch gals!

post #2 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissCee View Post

I have a friend who's graduating med school this spring and we got into a discussion about vaccines. He sent me two links on the Finland MMR study and said that that's proof that vaccines are safe, etc. I've done some searching around on these studies, and from what I've read the last one was partially funded by Merck, however, I don't know how else to go through this and sort of find out what's wrong and missing from these studies. I'm hoping some of your  could help me with this as the MMR vaccine is one that I'm extremely skeptical about.

 

Here's the studies:

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199411243312101

 

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band84/MMR.html

 

Thanks a bunch gals!

The first link has everything to do with vaccine effectiveness and nothing to do with safety.

 

The second does discuss vaccine safety…but honestly, I smell a rat.

 

"In the event of a possible serious adverse event (defined as any temporal association without limit of time between MMR and a life-threatening disorder, triggering of a chronic disease or hospital admission), then a form was completed forwarded to a central office with a serum sample. A second form and second sample followed two weeks later. Forms, envelopes and collection tubes were available at child health centres and hospitals."

 

The link then goes on to say that out of the 1.8 million people vaccinated (and the vaccines are given around 14-18 months, then again around 6) no one developed autism.  Really - no one?????   Scientists- there is no autism in Finland!  Please study that country in depth! That makes no sense given what we know about 14-18 months being a very common age for onset of autism symptoms.    Likewise no one developed ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease or any chronic disorder affecting the gastrointestinal tract.  (hmmm….think results might have been skewed in an attempt to discredit Wakefield?)

 

Maybe it was a case of poor wording on the part of journal (it hardly inspires confidence when they whitewash things) but perhaps what they meant was "there are no cases of autism, crohns, etc.,  that scientists attribute to  vaccines."

 

 

In any event, the second link was more an article that a study, and as we know full well people can cherry pick what they want out of a study for an article (an article from the pro-vax side, which is hardly unbiased to begin with…..)


Edited by kathymuggle - 2/20/13 at 10:26am
post #3 of 9

So, are you just looking for a good argument should it come up with your friend again, or are you thinking of perhaps getting this vaccine if you find his information credible?

 

Personally, the last person I would discuss vaccines with is anyone connected with the medical field. They are so brainwashed and have rarely done any independent research. Having said that, my DH has brought the subject up with people in the medical field and in some cases they agree with him!

post #4 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissCee View Post

 He sent me two links on the Finland MMR study and said that that's proof that vaccines are safe, etc.

Is he seriously trying to imply that if one vaccine is safe they all must be?  That kind of thinking should be grounds to not graduate.  Also, he really needs to get a bit of clarity on the difference between "not shown to be harmful" and "proven safe". 

post #5 of 9
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloebelle View Post

So, are you just looking for a good argument should it come up with your friend again, or are you thinking of perhaps getting this vaccine if you find his information credible?

 

Personally, the last person I would discuss vaccines with is anyone connected with the medical field. They are so brainwashed and have rarely done any independent research. Having said that, my DH has brought the subject up with people in the medical field and in some cases they agree with him!

I'm more looking for a good argument since I told him that I'd read the studies and get back to him about it. I'm still a bit inexperienced with reading research like this so I'm not sure what to look for and it's making me wonder about this vaccine . . if it really prevents measles, etc.

 

Thanks for going through those, Kathy. Those were points I missed! And I definitely agree with you Rachel . . there's a huge difference between not shown to be harmful and proven safe.

post #6 of 9
You tube
This;
It's the Merck scientist that created the MmR vaccine and admits its a carcinogen etc!!!
post #7 of 9
You tube interview; Vaccine Pioneer admits adding cancer causing to mmr
post #8 of 9
Thread Starter 

Hey Ladies! I just wanted to post what I emailed back to my friend with regards to the MMR. I have to admit, I'm pretty impressed with myself for the research I did orngbiggrin.gif

 

_______________

 

For the first one, from what I got from it, it was mostly about the efficacy of the vaccine . . correct? I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it interesting, however, I do still think the risks associated with any reactions outweigh the benefits in my opinion. I know that a lot of you won't agree with that, but there are still adverse reactions that COULD happen and I find those worse than dealing with the disease itself should my son get it.

That said, I found this study on the efficacy of the MMR vaccine in Finland with regards to an outbreak that occured in 1989, so not long after the MMR vaccine campagne started. I also want to point out that this study was done by one of the same researchers that did the studies Natsku posted. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten.../1103.full.pdf

A few points I wanted to post on here directly from the study:

1) Outbreaks have occurred among highly vaccinated schoolchildren, especially after documented airborne transmission, even in groups with close to 100 percent vaccination coverage.

2) Some clarification may be afforded by a theory which postulates that a large measles inoculum can cause vaccine failure, since airborne transmission might occasionally entail a massive inoculum

3) An 18-year-old male nonvaccinee at the high school developed symptoms.The 18-year-old index case was unvaccinated because he did not belong to the birth cohorts included in the official vaccination programs, nor had he been exposed to live virus in the sparsely populated rural areas covered by the Mo vaccination program beginning in 1975. **Yes, I realize that an unvaccinated teen started the spread of this within in school, but I think it's worth noting that even in this study they mention there was no way to track how he even got the measles . . whether or not it was from another unvaccinated person or a vaccinated person.**

4) 21 13 to 15-year-old junior high school students and one senior high school student developed measles in one generation during days 8-14 of the epidemic


5) All vaccinees who contracted measles had received their first vaccination after 15 months of age.

6) Vaccinated individuals contracted the disease earlier, on average, than unvaccinated individuals, and two incubation period distributions seemed to be superimposed on the first bimodal wave of high school cases

7) Thirty-six percent of the vaccinated junior high school students
and 8 percent of the vaccinated senior high school students with no history of measles were attacked

8) Unexpectedly, the attack rate among unvaccinated senior high school students who had no record of previous measles was only 6 percent

9) Measles risk was high among within-family exposed subjects, regardless of the number of vaccinations

10) In relatively new and airtight buildings, the vaccine failure rate was 48 percent. In contrast, no cases occurred in the older, more air-permeable houses. At least 69 percent of vaccine failures occurred after intense indoor exposure, either in the local high school or at home.

11) Both properly vaccinated and unvaccinated primary patients were equally contagious within families: The attack rates among family members were 47 percent and 43 percent, respectively.

12) Almost 80 percent of vaccinations could have been technically deficient, as seven out of nine failed when a sibling shared a bedroom with an index case

13) Furthermore, even if the division of vaccine failures into clearly either primary or secondary failure was accurate, an increased inoculum of measles would not have altered vaccine failure risk

14) However, our vaccinated index cases were no less contagious than unvaccinated index cases

15) In general, one has to be cautious when making generalizations from exceptional outbreaks, as they need something "unusual" in order to be
triggered, not just an unvaccinated individual.


16) Since airborne transmission might occasionally exceed the measles inoculum threshold, this could explain why even revaccinated individuals get
measles. It would thus appear that the presence of airborne transmission is one reason why eradication of measles has been much more difficult than originally anticipated.

I also wanted to post this:
"Peltola and Associates contributed a research letter to The Lancet, which was published in May 1998. The study terminated in 1996, two full years before Wakefield published his original findings and when he was specifically questioned, Professor Peltola stated that the study had not been designed to identify autism as a complication. Professor Peltola reported that about three million doses of the combined live-virus vaccine [MMR or Virivac Merck, West Point, PA, USA] had been administered in Finland between 1982 and 1996. He also listed the adverse events reported shortly after vaccination and their follow-up. The study, which was supported by a grant from Merck, did not investigate or report complications, which started weeks or months after vaccination. Again, Autism and IBD were not suspected to be, in any way related to MMR vaccination before 1998, and had not once been mentioned in the original 1994 publication." Here's a link to that letter: http://www.lancet.com/journals/lance...018-9/fulltext

Lastly, I found this study published in 2005 on the increase in autism in Northern Finland. I do want to point out that I don't think the MMR vaccine is the primary cause of autism, however, I do believe that the heavy metals in vaccines can trigger autism in some children. Here's the link for the study: http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn95142762...9514276221.pdf

Some points from the study I wanted to post:

1) About three to fourfold prevalence of AD in Northern Finland was found when compared to 16 years ago. **16 years ago, according to this study, would have been 1989 . . only 7 years after the MMR campaign started**

2) More concerning is the fact that the increase in younger children, all born in the second half of the MMR campaign, was even more spectacular. The cumulative incidence in the 5-7 age group specifically was 20.7/10,000 or more than 1 in 500 children.

3) A cumulative incidence of autism in Northern Finland of 12.2/10,000 an alarming increase when compared to the previously reported incidence of 4.75/10,000 in 1991.

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind when I post my opinion or studies I find, but one of the main reasons I chose not to vaccinate my son was because there really are no long-term safety tests done on these vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies and the FDA have a bad reputation for releasing certain drugs and deeming them safe and it's not until years later that we find out the damage they truly cause. I strongly believe this could be the case with vaccines. If, at some point, I feel the need to vaccinate my son . . if we travel somewhere, etc . . then of course I'll revist the idea of getting him vaccinated, but until then, I believe that he is better off without them for various reasons including the long-term safety testing mentioned above.

 

_________________________

 

What do you guys think? I know it's a bit lengthy, but I learned a lot!

 

Thanks for the infor Iluv . . I'll look that up right now! :)

post #9 of 9
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IluvmyboyK View Post

You tube interview; Vaccine Pioneer admits adding cancer causing to mmr

WOW! I have no words for this video . . how these people live with themselves is beyond me :( Thank you so much for posting this!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Non-Vax Mamas, I need your help!