or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research! - Page 11

post #201 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

it must make absolute no sense to you to define dangerous with the definition of it meaning - exposure or vulnerability to harm or risk.

 

 

again you can't have risk if you don't have danger but you are not defining it like the word means

 

Did you not read or understand my post where I stated that I acknowledged that there are risks to vaccines?  It's post #194.  However, just in case you missed it, I'll say it again.  There are risks to vaccines.

 

I believe, based on the available evidence, that there are GREATER risks, both individually and societally, to remaining unvaccinated.

 

If you feel like you won because you "caught" me acknowledging the risks, then yay for you.  It doesn't change my position.  And really, whether you agree with it or not, it's not a difficult position to understand:  vaccines carry a small amount of risk (can be dangerous), not vaccinating carries more risks (can be more dangerous).


Edited by chickabiddy - 3/10/13 at 5:58am
post #202 of 261
Quote:
I don't believe they are as dangerous as some other people believe they are.

Are you admitting there are dangers to vacs?

 

Quote:

Did you not read or understand my post where I stated that I acknowledged that there are risks to vaccines?  It's post #194.  However, just in case you missed it, I'll say it again.  There are risks to vaccines.

NO I don't understand what you mean?

 

 

IF they (vacs) are as you state, as dangerous- what does dangerous/danger mean to you?

 

Where would your risks come from? 

 

 

 

and please help me here too- 

 

Quote:
I am entirely in favor of making vaxes safer.  All for it!

 

 

Quote:
I believe, based on the available evidence, that there are GREATER risks, both individually and societally, to remaining unvaccinated.

you seem to be saying (and please clear this up) NOT vaccinating is the GREATER risk YET you say you favor making vaxes "safer" at the same time saying there is RISK to vaccing too-correct?------so what is the "making safer" you are referring too mean? How are they NOT safe?


Edited by serenbat - 3/10/13 at 6:34am
post #203 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There are reasons those vaccines are sent to other countries. They better suit the needs there. It's not just "meh, these aren't safe enough for American kids, send em to Africa"

Way to tow the company line. Sure, Thimerosal containing vaccines are way more suited to the needs of African babies. 

post #204 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Sure, Thimerosal containing vaccines are way more suited to the needs of African babies. 

They actually are. Thimerosol is there as a preservative. Not such a big deal when vaccines are stored in refrigerators in your doctors office. More important in remote parts of rural Africa.
post #205 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

They actually are. Thimerosol is there as a preservative. Not such a big deal when vaccines are stored in refrigerators in your doctors office. More important in remote parts of rural Africa.

Those are the needs of the manufacturers, organizations and personnel administering the thimerosal (49% mercury) laced vaccines, not the African babies being given them.

post #206 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

It's just not true that only pharmaceutical company employees are checking safety. They might do most of it - since they are in fact required to safety monitor their own products. But there are independent scientists also studying these things.

Of course scientists are human, and of course they are partially motivated by money. But a lot of them are also fairly ideological, could make a lot more money by becoming bankers (e.g), and geniunely care about or even love the subject they study. Scientific integrity for those people is a huge deal, and they would not hide major safety concerns.

Someone asked if we could still be in the phase where the industry is managing to hide safety concerns - I don't think so because vaccines have been around so long. Also remember there are examples of vaccines being withdrawn due to safety concerns (e.g. OPV, the brand of flu vaccine used in Europe which has been tied to increase incidence of narcolepsy) I think I could even argue that the removal of thimerosl from pediatric vaccines demonstrates the system is working (although that seems to be based less on evidence of any harm from thimerosol, more that publi perception of it was so bad many more people wold decline vaccines of it were left in).

But none of this means vaccines are 100% safe. No medicine is. So I agree absolutely with the statement that we need to keep monitoring vaccines for safety, especially as they are also slowly being changed to improve efficacy, so they don't stay exactly the same forever. smile.gif where I disagree is that many of you seem to think this isn't already happening.


Bankers get rich?!? I know people in banking who *wish* that was true! Care to try again?

And can you support the statement that most scientists are ethical?
post #207 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Serenbat is English your first language? There seem to be some major communication barriers lately.

To quote you to you : "Now, now, no need to get personal."
post #208 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Those are the needs of the manufacturers, organizations and personnel administering the thimerosal (49% mercury) laced vaccines, not the African babies being given them.

I think all children need vaccines which are safely preserved yes. And I think children in Africa need vaccines which are produced as cheaply as they safely can be and which can be distributed to remote locations.

You cannot possibly think pharmaceutical companies make significant amounts of their money out of vaccination aid programmes in the developing world. Can you?
post #209 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

Bankers get rich?!? I know people in banking who *wish* that was true! Care to try again?

And can you support the statement that most scientists are ethical?

Maybe this is a difference in terminology In the UK. Bankers in London get very rich indeed. I don't mean the cashiers or bank managers - the investment bankers.

I can only speak about the scientists I've met. Mostly physical scientists I'll admit. Very ideological and ethical group of people in my experience. smile.gif
post #210 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Those are the needs of the manufacturers, organizations and personnel administering the thimerosal (49% mercury) laced vaccines, not the African babies being given them.

I think all children need vaccines which are safely preserved yes. And I think children in Africa need vaccines which are produced as cheaply as they safely can be and which can be distributed to remote locations.

You cannot possibly think pharmaceutical companies make significant amounts of their money out of vaccination aid programmes in the developing world. Can you?

You cannot convince me in any shape or form that Thimerosal containing vaccines are acceptable to give any living being (dogs included). You are trying to justify these vaccines by cost which is the pharma party line. You too are a loyal "company" spokesperson. 

post #211 of 261
No. i just haven't seen any evidence of harm from the amounts of thimerosol which are found in vaccines. It's truely minuscule. And it's not metallic mercury any more than salt is chlorine, or water hydrogen.
post #212 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

No. i just haven't seen any evidence of harm from the amounts of thimerosol which are found in vaccines. It's truely minuscule. And it's not metallic mercury any more than salt is chlorine, or water hydrogen.

And others have seen evidence of harm from thimerosal in vaccines. Your argument is tired and very flimsy to say the least, but only to be expected from pharmaceutical companies and their loyal followers. 

post #213 of 261
Show me something you take as evidence of harm and I'll be happy to talk about what I see as the flaws with it.
post #214 of 261
I had no idea it was so simple to switch career tracks from science to investment banking!
Most people don't have the luxury of retraining midway through their careers, when family and financial obligations make starting over with school and quitting an established job prohibitively expensive. It seems unlikely that "scientists" as a class are somehow different and that they are immune to factors which might decrease job satisfaction in other fields, thus ensuring they will remain eternally idealistic. Sounds like a bunch of crap.

And you really have to try hard to be willfully ignorant about the dangers if thimerosal. Do you not remember the huge scandal from a few years ago with the US govt trying desperately to cover up the vast and mounting evidence of thimerosal's contribution to children's neurological problems? Guess they brainwashed some folks quite successfully.
post #215 of 261
It's the maths skills. smile.gif Also poor career/job security for young scientists (and long training period) leads to many leaving in their 30-40s for other jobs.
post #216 of 261
And I don't remember a huge scandal. Maybe before I had kids - didn't think much about vaccines until then. Happy to discuss it on this thread if you point us to the research.
post #217 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

No. i just haven't seen any evidence of harm from the amounts of thimerosol which are found in vaccines. 

Actually, you have seen plenty of evidence of harm from thimerosal in the amounts found in vaccines. 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02772240802246458

 

Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry

Volume 91Issue 4, 2009

 

Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity, degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level exposure to thimerosal and other metal compounds

post #218 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

And I don't remember a huge scandal. Maybe before I had kids - didn't think much about vaccines until then. Happy to discuss it on this thread if you point us to the research.

The huge scandal has also been discussed here, many times.

 

In an effort to put a stop to lies being posted here, I have permission from autismhelpforyou to repost the following quotes from the Simposonwood Meeting (full transcript here http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/HG%20IN%20VACCINES%20-%20Simpsonwood%20-%20Internet%20File.pdf):

 

 

 

The following were quotes from the Simpsonwood Meeting - the secret CDC meeting attended by 51 persons during which that original report had been discussed (link 1 above) - emphasis added and [blue brackets added by Jeanne A. Brohart as comments/OPINIONS] - note page numbers vary a little based on fact that report actually includes a few "duplicate" pages...

 

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 40-41:  “…we have found statistically significant relationships between the exposure and outcomes for these different exposures and outcomes.  First, for two months of age, an unspecified developmental delay, which has its own specific ICD9 code.  Exposure at three months of age, Tics.  Exposure at six months of age, an attention deficit disorder.  Exposure at one, three and six months of age, language and speech delays which are two separate ICD9 codes. Exposures at one, three and six months of age, the entire category of neurodevelopmental delays, which includes all of these plus a number of other disorders."  [I for one would certainly be interested in knowing what all those "other disorders" were... although I have a very good idea!!!  Note that, at least in my opinion, although those attending the meeting varied greatly in their "concern", the population sample used in this study, in my opinion, could only be described as very "white washed".   When you don't want to see "a link", as clearly stated in the Simpsonwood transcripts, the children you allow in your study will certainly impact the results!]

 

Dr. Bernier, pg. 113:  "We have asked you to keep this information confidential.  We do have a plan for discussing these data at the upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices on June 21 and June 22.  At that time CDC plans to make a public release of this information [THIS WAS SEVERAL YEARS AGO FOLKS!!!], so I think it would serve all of our interests best if we could continue to consider these data.  The ACIP work group will be considering also.  If we could consider these data in a certain protected environment.  So we are asking people who have a great job protecting this information up until now, to continue to do that until the time of the ACIP meeting.  So to basically consider this embargoed information. 

 

Dr. Keller, pgs. 116 & 118:  "…we know the developing neurologic system is more sensitive than one that is fully developed…"

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 165:  "Personally, I have three hypotheses.  My first hypothesis is it is parental bias.  The children that are more likely to be vaccinated are more likely to be picked and diagnosed. Second hypothesis, I don't know.  There is a bias that I have not recognized, and nobody has yet told me about it.  Third hypothesis. It's true, it's Thimerosal.  Those are my hypotheses." [In other words, either the parents made it up and we really don't have an issue - it is just a matter of "skewed data", or,  we made it up or it really IS thimerosal!!!   Good luck proving the first two hypotheses... looks like that leaves only one!!!]

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 166:  "When I saw this, and I went back through the literature, I was actually stunned by what I saw because I thought it is plausible.  First of all there is the Faeroe study, which I think people have dismissed too easily, and there is a new article in the same Journal that was presented here, the Journal of Pediatrics, where they have looked at PCB.  They have looked at other contaminants in seafood and they have adjusted for that, and still mercury comes out.  That is one point.  Another point is that in many of the studies with animals, it turned out that there is quite a different result depending on the dose of mercury.  Depending on the route of exposure and depending on the age at which the animals, it turned out that there is quite a different result depending on the dose of mercury.  Depending on the route of exposure and depending on the age at which the animals were exposed.  Now, I don't know how much you can extrapolate that from animals to humans, but that tells me mercury at one month of age is not the same as mercury at three months, at 12 months, prenatal mercury, later mercury.  There is a whole range of plausible outcomes from mercury.  On top of that, I think that we cannot so easily compare the U.S. population to Faeroe or Seychelles populations.  We have different mean levels of exposure.  We are comparing high to high I the Seychelles, high to high in the Faeroe and low to low in the U.S., so I am not sure how easily you can transpose one finding to another one.  So basically to me that leaves all the options open, and that means I can not exclude such a possible effect."

[MY PERSONAL FAVORITE... NEXT...]

 

Dr. Johnson, pg. 198:  "This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two years old not be immunized with Thimerosal containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available.  I do not believe the diagnoses justifies compensation in the Vaccine Compensation Program at this point.  I deal with causality, it seems pretty clear to me that the data are not sufficient one way or the other.  My gut feeling?  It worries me enough.  Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out a eight o'clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by C-section.  Our first male in the line of the next generation, and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.  It will probably take a long time.  In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meantime I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines." [In other words, all of us at this meeting could make an informed decision for our loved ones, but, we'll just keep all this to ourselves and let those "other kids" get these mercury-laced vaccines even though we knew there were some major and statistically significant concerns here!!!]

 

Dr. Weil, pg. 207 - the man representing the American Academy of Pediatrics [the very organization that helped to set guidelines for vaccine policy - the organization said to be "dedicated to the health of all children"]:  "The number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant.  You can play with this all you want.  They are linear.  They are statistically significant.  The positive relationships are those that one might expect from the Faroe Islands studies.  They are also related to those data we do have on experimental animal data and similar to the neurodevelopmental tox data on other substances, so that I think you can't accept that this is out of the ordinary.  It isn't out of the ordinary." [It certainly appeared to me that Dr. Weil - like me - also was seeing a group of people trying to play with the data to manipulate or change the outcome of the data.]

Dr. Weil, pg. 208:  "The rise in the frequency of neurobehavioral disorders whether it is ascertainment or real, is not too bad.  It is much too graphic.  We don't see that kind of genetic change in 30 years." [More than any, this was the statement that told me that "genetics" were fairly stable over time - a very critical point as explained in "book 3"].

Dr. Caserta, pg. 234:  "One of the things I learned at the Aluminum Conference in Puerto Rico that was tied into the metal lines in biology and medicine that I never really understood before, is the interactive effect of different metals when they are together in the same organism.  It is not the same as when they are alone, and I think it would be foolish for us not to include aluminum as part of our thinking with this." [Given aluminum was a KNOWN gene mutant, I would agree with that statement - especially since during the Aluminum Conference in Puerto Rico, participants were told that when you mix metals, the toxicities were generally "additive" ... in other words, the effects were greater than you would expect from either metal alone!  Note a quote from a completely separate article/paper talking about the effect of "mixing metals":

"Another important factor with regard to mercury on the mind, which officials at the CDC, FDA and the professors in the IOM do not consider, is synergistic toxicity (refer to: http://www.talkinternational.com/health/report_on_mercury_toxicity_bh_050803.htm) – mercury’s enhanced effect when other poisons are present. A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that will kill 1 in 100 rats, when combined have a striking effect: all the rats die. Doses of mercury that have a 1 percent mortality will have a 100 percent mortality rate if some aluminum is there. Vaccines contain aluminum. " [Emphasis added - This quote taken from:  Dr. Donald W. Miller, Jr., Mercury on the Mind, http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller14.html, refer also to: J. Shubert, E. Riley & S. Tyler. Combined Effects in Toxicology--A Rapid Systemic Testing Procedure: Cadmium, Mercury and Lead. J.Toxicology and Environmental Health v4, p763, 1978]]

Now... back to quotes from the transcript on mercury in vaccines...

Dr. Clements, pg 247- 249:  "I am really concerned that we have taken off like a boat going down one arm of the mangrove swamp at high speed, when in fact there was not enough discussion really early on about which was the boat should go at all.  And I really want to risk offending everyone in the room by saying that perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted, and we have all reached this point now  where we are left hanging, [In other words, we really don't want these studies done because the public could be proven right] even though I hear the majority of consultants say to the Board that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes." 

" I know how we handle it from here is extremely problematic.  The ACIP is going to depend on comments from this group in order to move forward into policy, and I have been advised that whatever I say should not move into the policy area because that is not the point of this meeting.  But nonetheless, we know from many experiences in history that the pure scientist has done research because of pure science.  But that pure science has resulted in splitting the atom or some other process which is completely beyond the power of the scientists who did the research to control it.  And what we have here is people who have, for every best reason in the world, pursued a direction of research.  But there is not the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work that has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in ways beyond the control of this group.  And I am very concerned about that as I suspect it already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say."

"My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day the 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with Thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe." [You just have to love this typical "my objectives come first... after all... I get evaluated on that... so, let me proceed blindly even though there were obviously some major concerns here!!!]

"So I leave you with the challenge that I am very concerned that this has gotten this far, and that having got this far, how you present in a concerted voice the information to the ACIP in a way they will be able to handle it and not get exposed to the traps which are out there in public relations.  My message would be that any other study, and I like the study that has just been described here very much.  I think it makes a lot of sense, but it has to be thought through.    What are the potential outcomes and how will you handle it? [In my opinion, looks like this was saying... be careful because this could come back to bite us...].  How will it be presented to a public and media that is hungry for selecting the information they want to use for whatever means they in store for them?"

"…but I wonder how on earth you are going to handle it from here." [That was what we were all wondering now given parents were finally realizing they had been lied to by the CDC... The CDC obviously knew that immature neurologic systems were quite vulnerable...  yet, clearly, they still refused to recall mercury-laced vaccines and continued to vaccinate thousands each day!!!]

...  AND JUST WHERE EXACTLY WAS THAT PRESS RELEASE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH THE PUBLIC SEVERAL YEARS AGO!!!

NOTE:   There were certainly many, many comments stating that attendees felt the "relationship was weak" between exposure and outcome, but then again, there were many, many issues with the data itself - especially as it related to what I could only described as a very "white washed population sample".   In spite of those comments, however, there certainly did appear to be "reason for concern" and a definite need for "better data" and "more studies".

LIST OF MEETING ATTENDEES

Note that the "draft" report was significantly different than what was released to the public as discussed in this article.  "Thimerosal Linked To Autism In Confidential CDC Study", http://healing-arts.org/children/cdc.htm 

post #219 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Show me something you take as evidence of harm and I'll be happy to talk about what I see as the flaws with it.

Really? I doubt that because you have been shown this evidence countless times on this forum. 

post #220 of 261
The BODY OF EVIDENCE points to thimerosal being safe in the amounts present in vaccines. Quote mining aside.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research!