or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › There are ZERO risks for Not Vaccinating
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

There are ZERO risks for Not Vaccinating

post #1 of 103
Thread Starter 

Zero. The PR industry has mass persuaded people to believe that the natural, balanced, innate immune system is defective and that you must "fix" it with vaccines. They created the illusion that vaccines are your one and only option for fighting diseases. They manipulated the herd by leading them to believe there are zero other options for fighting diseases.

 

The illusions that were created by and programmed by the PR Industry have successfully hidden many effective methods of fighting diseases that cause no harm and that cause no side effects. Of course those effective methods have zero $commercial$ value.

 

There are no risks whatsoever for not vaccinating.

post #2 of 103
Um. Where to even begin.
post #3 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post

Zero. The PR industry has mass persuaded people to believe that the natural, balanced, innate immune system is defective and that you must "fix" it with vaccines. They created the illusion that vaccines are your one and only option for fighting diseases. They manipulated the herd by leading them to believe there are zero other options for fighting diseases.

 

The illusions that were created by and programmed by the PR Industry have successfully hidden many effective methods of fighting diseases that cause no harm and that cause no side effects. Of course those effective methods have zero $commercial$ value.

 

There are no risks whatsoever for not vaccinating.

what about the risk of catching one of the diseases out there and giving to an immunocompromised person?   like measles, flu, whooping cough, chicken pox, pneumoccocal pneumonia, for example......

post #4 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

what about the risk of catching one of the diseases out there and giving to an immunocompromised person?   like measles, flu, whooping cough, chicken pox, pneumoccocal pneumonia, for example......

it use to be if you were compromised you attempted to protect yourself, I no longer see this (IRL) I know those who are doing chemo, going to Wal-mart from their session - just to "get out"!

 

this goes back to the same old argument, is the compromised more important vs forcing others to have to risk their child and themselves for the sake compromised person?

 

 you need to factor in cost to those you are asking to be vaccinated (and elderly don't have all their vaccines covered- have to think about that too), you have to have a govt. policy that covers ALL to have paid sick days and you have to take care of those who vaccinate and have a reaction for the sake of taking one for the herd and right now in the US we don't have those things- to me it's a weak argument that is always throw out and the practical issues with it are not addressed - to just say it's all about the compromised is missing the ones you are expecting to toe the line-no one seems to care about others just as long as their agenda is put first

 

 

I have notices a real push to now represent all babies (regardless of premature or not) that their immune systems is born compromised - they are ALL born compromised and must be vaccinated ASAP and ALL around them must be too and the mother prior to giving birth. If you plant the seed and repeat it, many do buy it.

 

I personally feel money is a factor in the majority of medical decisions/lack their of as well and that money drives policy good or bad, if you can't make money off it, it's simply not pushed.


Edited by serenbat - 5/2/13 at 4:37am
post #5 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

it use to be if you were compromised you attempted to protect yourself, I no longer see this (IRL) I know those who are doing chemo, going to Wal-mart from their session - just to "get out"!

 

this goes back to the same old argument, is the compromised more important vs forcing others to have to risk their child and themselves for the sake compromised person?

 

 you need to factor in cost to those you are asking to be vaccinated (and elderly don't have all their vaccines covered- have to think about that too), you have to have a govt. policy that covers ALL to have paid sick days and you have to take care of those who vaccinate and have a reaction for the sake of taking one for the herd and right now in the US we don't have those things- to me it's a weak argument that is always throw out and the practical issues with it are not addressed - to just say it's all about the compromised is missing the ones you are expecting to toe the line-no one seems to care about others just as long as their agenda is put first

 

 

I have notices a real push to now represent all babies (regardless of premature or not) that their immune systems is born compromised - they are ALL born compromised and must be vaccinated ASAP and ALL around them must be too and the mother prior to giving birth. If you plant the seed and repeat it, many do buy it.

 

I personally feel money is a factor in the majority of medical decisions/lack their of as well and that money drives policy good or bad, if you can't make money off it, it's simply not pushed.

i have a friend who is on dialysis, and his wife thinks nothing of telling everyone who is sick to stay away, since her dh is so immuno compromised, --yet, they go out to crowded bars on the weekends..??...makes NO sense to me what so ever...if you're going to be vigilant about germs at home, your should also be that way in public too.  She even had him go in the back door of the office for his treatments, to avoid potentially exposing him to stuff, but  then they go around literally  1000 people a day later at a niteclub...smh

post #6 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post

Zero. The PR industry has mass persuaded people to believe that the natural, balanced, innate immune system is defective and that you must "fix" it with vaccines. They created the illusion that vaccines are your one and only option for fighting diseases. They manipulated the herd by leading them to believe there are zero other options for fighting diseases.

Many people have great immune systems! I count myself among their number--I rarely get sick. However, diseases vaccines prevent (like polio) are pretty hearty and it is not easy to fight them even for the healthiest person.
post #7 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleZB View Post

However, diseases vaccines prevent (like polio) are pretty hearty and it is not easy to fight them even for the healthiest person.

 

That is a myth, in 90 to 95% of healthy people polio infection is sub-clinical. Some people have minor symptoms, like a sore throat, low grade fever, headache, fatigue and nausea. Some may develop meningitis and temporary paralysis of an arm or a leg, but fully recover in a few weeks. In about 1 - 2% of cases, the polio virus infects the central nervous system and paralyzes the muscles of the arms or muscles required for breathing and swallowing, and this can lead to permanent paralysis or even death.

 

Given that the mild symptoms of polio are common  to many other conditions, for example flu, how do we really know that polio no longer exists in the western hemisphere unless people are tested when they display these all too common healing symptoms?

 

 

 

post #8 of 103

I found the Op's initial post a little ranty but I do not disagree with the title.

 

At the most basic level there is Zero risk for not vaccinating.  How can a non-activity have a risk?  If I don't go paragliding,  I am not in danger of being in a paragliding incident.  

 

If you are not vaxxed, you will not be vaccine injured (unless it is epigenetically, but that is far too specualtive for this post….)

 

On a less concrete level, not vaccinating could potentially cause some disease to rise in prevalence.  The trick is sorting out which ones, to what degree, if they are dangerous and if a theoretical risk (if enough of us do this, the disease may rise) is enough to justify having children accept vaccine risks.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 5/2/13 at 8:27am
post #9 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

what about the risk of catching one of the diseases out there and giving to an immunocompromised person?   like measles, flu, whooping cough, chicken pox, pneumoccocal pneumonia, for example......

I don't find this argument compelling.

 

I do not think it is fair for one child to assume a real risk (vaccine) so another person will avoid a potential risk.

 

My youngest is prone to chest infections.  We are working on it - successfully, I think.  I have never, ever thought other people should get their child vaxxed against pneumococcal or pertusiss because my child should not get those diseases.  This is not something I would put on other parents - have your child put at risk for a vaccine reaction to potentially protect mine.  

post #10 of 103
Kathymuggle - by your logic not using seat belts or car seats in the car, not looking both ways when crossing the street, not avoiding cigarette smokers all carry no risk.

Vaccines do help to lower the risk that a person will catch the diseases they are aimed for. This is documented many many times. So not vaccinating does increase the risk of catching diseases. Which maybe is fine if you are healthy, or maybe not, or maybe you won't always be 100% healthy. How can you predict when you might be exposed to these diseases?
post #11 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I don't find this argument compelling.

 

I do not think it is fair for one child to assume a real risk (vaccine) so another person will avoid a potential risk.

 

My youngest is prone to chest infections.  We are working on it - successfully, I think.  I have never, ever thought other people should get their child vaxxed against pneumococcal or pertusiss because my child should not get those diseases.  This is not something I would put on other parents - have your child put at risk for a vaccine reaction to potentially protect mine.  

but there is still a risk...just not a zero risk...if a non vaxed person gets another nonvaxed person sick with a contractable disease, who's to say who is or is not going to have complications from the disease? Living life is a risk.  

post #12 of 103

well, i guess i ran the risk of being hearing impaired since the mumps damaged my eardrums....and having rubella as an infant gave me more of a risk of arthritis, which is manifesting now as an older adult, and arthritis runs in my family.  None of my sibs have the arthritis problems i'm having but i can't discount rubella exacerbating the inherited condition. 

post #13 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

 Living life is a risk.  

and we also need to remember people catch and die from complications from bronchitis (chronic and unspecified) deaths: 620

Mortality

  • Number of bronchitis (chronic and unspecified) deaths: 620
  • Bronchitis (chronic and unspecified) deaths per 100,000 population: 0.2
  • Number of emphysema deaths: 10,034
  • Emphysema deaths per 100,000 population: 3.2
  • Number of deaths from other chronic lower respiratory diseases (excluding asthma): 124,022
  • Other chronic lower respiratory diseases (excluding asthma) deaths per 100,000 population: 40.2
 
post #14 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Kathymuggle - by your logic not using seat belts or car seats in the car, not looking both ways when crossing the street, not avoiding cigarette smokers all carry no risk.
 

Apples and oranges.  If I do not take a pharmaceutical,  I do not risk the possible side effects from said pharmaceutical.  It is pretty simple.

post #15 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

but there is still a risk...just not a zero risk...if a non vaxed person gets another nonvaxed person sick with a contractable disease, who's to say who is or is not going to have complications from the disease? Living life is a risk.  

Vaccines carry a certain risk.

 

Diseases are a possible risk - as who knows who is going to get them?

 

I would say in a literal, direct sense the Op is correct - there is zero risk from not vaccinating.  

 

In a less direct, more potential sense, there is risk from not vaccinating.  There is a higher risk a child might catch a VAD.

 

Vaccines carry real risks, whereas not vaccinating carries potential risk.  

post #16 of 103

Vaccines carry risk.  Not vaccinating carries risk in that you leave yourself more vulnerable to VPD and their complications.  1 in 1000 people who get measles die.  More than that get serious complications like encephalitis or pneumonia.  

 

I respect peoples choice not to vaccinate if they decide that's whats best for them and their family, but saying there's no risk or consequence of that decision, or even that the risk is just "potential," is lying to yourself.

post #17 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

At the most basic level there is Zero risk for not vaccinating.  How can a non-activity have a risk?  If I don't go paragliding,  I am not in danger of being in a paragliding incident.  

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Apples and oranges.  If I do not take a pharmaceutical,  I do not risk the possible side effects from said pharmaceutical.  It is pretty simple.

 

If you don't wear a seatbelt, you do not risk being trapped by your seatbelt in a burning or sinking car.  It is pretty simple. 

 

Would anyone say there is no risk to not wearing a seatbelt? How can a non-activity have a risk?

 

The problem with the paragliding comparison is that paragliding is not intended to be something that keeps people safer than they would be if they did not go paragliding.  Seatbelts and vaccines are not something people wear/get just for fun, they are intended to reduce a risk that already existed.  When people choose to drive in cars, that puts them at risk.  They wear setbelts to reduce that risk.  When people interact with other humans, that puts them at risk for getting a disease such as measles.  They get the measles vaccine to greatly reduce that risk.  Of course, we could deal with the risk of dying in a car accident by not ever travelling in one and the risk of infectious disease by living in a bubble and having no contact with anyone ever, but you know, what's the fun in that?

 

Life has risks.  We have means of preventing or reducing some of them.  Failure to make use of these means leaves a person at increased risk.  

 

In our society, that's how we look at it, anyway.  I do get your point that a failure to prevent something is not quite the same as causing it, but that's just semantics, not substance. 

post #18 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

 

I respect peoples choice not to vaccinate if they decide that's whats best for them and their family, but saying there's no risk or consequence of that decision, or even that the risk is just "potential," is lying to yourself.

Please explain to me how the risk is not "potential".

 

Of course it is potential - you have no idea if you will be exposed to a VAD and which one.

 

Some VADs carry a likely risk of exposure and some carry a neglibile (in my estimation) risk of exposure - but they are still potetial, not certain, risks.

post #19 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 


 

If you don't wear a seatbelt, you do not risk being trapped by your seatbelt in a burning or sinking car.  It is pretty simple. 

 

Would anyone say there is no risk to not wearing a seatbelt? How can a non-activity have a risk?

 

 

Some of this is semantics…but still...

 

Let's break this down for kicks.

 

Seatbelt:

 

-The act of putting on or leaving it off carries no immediate risk.  

-People put on a seatbelt because they believe it will ultimately help them in case they are in an accident.  Accidents are a potential risk.

 

Vaccines

-the act of vaccinating carries an immediate risk, not vaccinating does not.  You cannot have a vaccine reaction if you did not vaccinate.

-the act of not vaccinating carries a potential risk - you might be exposed to a VAD and as an unvaxxed person, might be more likely to get it.  

 

Both carry no immediate risk -both putting on a seatbelt and vaccinating are only useful if you are exposed to a certain type of situation (accident or VAD).

 

I do not vax, but do use a seatbelt.  Using a seatbelt causes no harm if I am not in an accident (unlike vaccines which can harm even if there is no VAD around) and I am more concerned with the potential risks of car accidents than the potential risks of VADs.  To each there own, obviously.

post #20 of 103

I am going to leave the assertion that "there is no risk to not vaccinating" alone. There's nothing I can say that wouldn't result in a padlock.

 

 

 

Quote:
They created the illusion that vaccines are your one and only option for fighting diseases.

I don't understand how anyone could be under this impression. Handwashing? Condom use? Avoiding crowded public spaces while symptomatic? Staying home if immunosuppressed? Safety guidelines for food preparation? Universal precautions in the hospital? Public sanitation? Public health as a field is a lot bigger than just vaccination. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › There are ZERO risks for Not Vaccinating