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 - Page 2

post #21 of 103

Eh never mind.

post #22 of 103
All risk is "potential," Kathy. That's what makes it risk and not causation.
post #23 of 103

what about the potential risk of an unvaxed child catching a VAD from a freshly vaxed child who is shedding a live virus?  There is a risk either child could get sick.  For a short time, my child was at potential risk while in daycare, and other children were receiving live virus vaccines in his room.  Did i weigh the risk of not vaccinating with the potential risk he could become ill?  Yes, i did.  For us as a family, yes, it was worth the risk of not vaccinating.  For all i know, he may have picked up passive immunity due to being ebf, and having an intact immune system.  

post #24 of 103
What's an intact immune system?
post #25 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

All risk is "potential," Kathy. That's what makes it risk and not causation.

I think we are just focusing on different things.

 

If you are not vaxxed you have zero risk of a vaccine reaction.  I doubt anyone denies this. Anytime someone is vaccinated there is a chance they will have a vaccine reaction. 

 

If you are not vaxxed, your risk of getting a VAD might be higher than a vaxxed person (how much higher depends on the disease and the vaccine).  


Edited by kathymuggle - 5/2/13 at 7:08pm
post #26 of 103
Thread Starter 

The natural, innate immune system is perfectly designed. The perfectly designed body produces autoimmune diseases when foreign junk (i.e. vaccines) enters the body. Thats what happens when you upset nature's already perfect balance. After being vaccinated, you may not see an adverse reaction right away, but the vaccine is likely to be the culprit of that autoimmune disease that you now have. Or that cancer that you now have, a decade or two later down the line.

Quote:

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

 

The assumption of the "higher" risk goes along with the illusion/advertising that vaccines are your one and only option for fighting diseases and that there are absolutely zero other effective methods of fighting diseases.

 
People are talking about how diseases can kill you and that vaccines might be able to "lower the risk". Well, its a good thing that there are many other methods that are way more effective than vaccines at fighting diseases. And unlike vaccines, these other methods are not harmful. Instead, these other methods create a robust, balanced, natural immune system, or you can call it an intact immune system as someone else said.
 
Vaccines create imbalance and alter and damage the natural immune system. When you mess with nature, it tends to fight back (i.e. autoimmune diseases).
post #27 of 103

I said this

 

Quote:

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

 

Then you quoted me and said this:

 

The assumption of the "higher" risk goes along with the illusion/advertising that vaccines are your one and only option for fighting diseases and that there are absolutely zero other effective methods of fighting diseases.

 

_______________________

 

Here we go:

 

I do not think I am under any illusion from advertising on this issue.  You do not know me; it is pretty presumptuous of you to assume that.

 

I believe some VADs experienced some decline due to vaccines.  Not all diseases, and not all of the decline within a VAD is due to a vaccine- but some, yes.  Ergo the "there is a higher risk a child might catch a VAD"

 

What do you mean fighting disease?  - Do you mean fighting off a disease  so you do not catch it?  Or do you mean fighting a disease if you do catch it?  (which I did not talk about at all).

 

Either way you seem to be assuming things - I am very firmly aware that there are multiple ways to support health so you do not catch a disease in the first place, and multiple ways to keep yourself healthy so you can fight off diseases if you do get them.   Under no circumstances do I think there are "absolutely zero other effective methods of fighting off disease."  

 

I did not dislike the rest of your post, btw.  I do think jumping from someone (me) seeing things differently that you to "you are under the illusion of advertising" without any evidence is pretty whack, though.  

 

 

 

 


Edited by kathymuggle - 5/3/13 at 9:01pm
post #28 of 103

^^^I'm just entertained that someone is apparently criticizing you (Kathy) for not being non-vax enough. wink1.gif

post #29 of 103
Thread Starter 

By not vaccinating, there is no "higher" risk whatsoever, including no "potential" higher risk for developing a disease that has vaccines available. Correlation does not equal causation. Most diseases were already significantly in decline, well before the vaccine for it was ever invented. There are zero risks for not vaccinating, and that includes zero "potential" risks.

 

Fighting a disease = not developing the full disease (mild symptoms may show up during the fight). The word "catching" is not applicable. Diseases aren't "caught" (the "germ theory" has more holes than swiss cheese). Diseases are only developed, depending on the conditions inside the body. This further supports that there are zero "potential" risks for not vaccinating.

 

Furthermore, why even bring up there "might" be a "potential" higher risk of "catching" a disease because of not vaccinating? If you truly believed there are "more effective & non-harmful" methods of avoiding & fighting diseases instead of vaccines, then there would be "less" risk of "catching" a disease. Bringing up the "potential" makes as much sense as "I have the "potential" to win the lottery tomorrow" or "there is a "potential" chance it might rain tomorrow".

 

(I'm not and I haven't been aiming my posts at anyone in particular. I'm questioning statements for discussion purposes, aimed at the general population and not to anyone in particular.)

post #30 of 103
If you don't believe diseases are caused by "germs" (viruses and bacteria) then there's not a lot of point discussing the benefit if vaccines with you.

All I can say is there is a lot of evidence supporting that diseases are caused by germs and while vaccines aren't the only thing which can help reduce the risk of catching and/or having serious complications from a VPD they demonstrably do help lower (significantly in many cases) those risks.
post #31 of 103
lurk.gif
post #32 of 103

This sounds like your goal of discussing vaccines with people is to convert them to vaxxing.  Proselytising.

 

I think it is incredibly unlikely a firm vaxxer or non-vaxxer is going to be converted (move very slightly?  Maybe) .  We discuss for numerous reasons - but one of the nobler ones is put out info and alternate POV for the undecided lurkers. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

If you don't believe diseases are caused by "germs" (viruses and bacteria) then there's not a lot of point discussing the benefit if vaccines with you.

 
post #33 of 103

You don't have to believe in germs. They believe in you!

post #34 of 103

Diseases aren't EXCLUSIVELY caused by Viruses & Bacteria, they are also influenced by the 'Terrain', that is true. If HIV has shown us nothing else, it should have shown us this: I sometimes think Paul Offit and Co are SO ProVax because they know exactly how many people are immunosuppressed, either by HIV or intentionally immunosuppressive treatments associated with Organ Treatment, Psoriasis, etc. 

 

I think every conversation about Herd Immunity should include a discussion of those who drink Soda by the 12 pack, those who smoke Tobacco and expose their children, those who don't have safe sex and contract HIV through careless behavior, those who Formula Feed purely by choice/culture, those who take immunosuppresants for NON life threatening conditions (like IBD, Eczema) etc. Herd Immunity should be a MUCH broader discussion than just Vaxes, because SO many people actually influence their immunity so many different ways.

post #35 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

We discuss for numerous reasons - but one of the nobler ones is put out info and alternate POV for the undecided lurkers. 

Yeah I guess I put it badly, because I meant something like "I'm not posting to convince you if anything because that's obviously hopeless, but here's a counter point for lurkers."

I think we should get back to the point. I don't really think another thread on my reasons for posting here will be all that helpful. smile.gif
post #36 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Diseases aren't EXCLUSIVELY caused by Viruses & Bacteria, they are also influenced by the 'Terrain', that is true. If HIV has shown us nothing else, it should have shown us this: I sometimes think Paul Offit and Co are SO ProVax because they know exactly how many people are immunosuppressed, either by HIV or intentionally immunosuppressive treatments associated with Organ Treatment, Psoriasis, etc. 

 

I think every conversation about Herd Immunity should include a discussion of those who drink Soda by the 12 pack, those who smoke Tobacco and expose their children, those who don't have safe sex and contract HIV through careless behavior, those who Formula Feed purely by choice/culture, those who take immunosuppresants for NON life threatening conditions (like IBD, Eczema) etc. Herd Immunity should be a MUCH broader discussion than just Vaxes, because SO many people actually influence their immunity so many different ways.

 

Wait, Formula Feeding causes disease now?

post #37 of 103

Yes, it does. I guess if you work for a Formula Company, you would say 'Breastfeeding enhances immunity', but really Breastfeeding is the biological norm, so yes, Formula Feeding REDUCES immunity. Breastfeeding enhances immunity in several ways: we know it colonizes the gut with every suckle @ the breast, we also know that mothers share their antibodies in a fluid way: i.e. mother is exposed to the same antigens as the baby and creates antibodies to them . . . I have witnessed this many times, but it is also supported by science. Here is an anecdote and then I will follow with some links: this week, my older son was sick. He had a fever for about 24 hours, and several episodes of diarrhea. My younger son was nursing for 2 days afterwards, and then got sick. He was literally only sick for 8 hours, because he had already been exposed to the antibodies through my milk . . . 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081026101713.htm

 

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/138/9/1782S.full

 

There are thousands more, I didn't even go to PubMed yet.

 

Also please notice the sources I am using are NOT KellyMom and Natural News. That is how I would like everyone to behave, no Natural News or Mercola on the VaxSafety side, no Orac, SBM, or Paul Offit on the ProVax side . . . 

post #38 of 103
Good links. Thanks.
post #39 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Diseases aren't EXCLUSIVELY caused by Viruses & Bacteria, they are also influenced by the 'Terrain', that is true. If HIV has shown us nothing else, it should have shown us this: I sometimes think Paul Offit and Co are SO ProVax because they know exactly how many people are immunosuppressed, either by HIV or intentionally immunosuppressive treatments associated with Organ Treatment, Psoriasis, etc. 

 

I think every conversation about Herd Immunity should include a discussion of those who drink Soda by the 12 pack, those who smoke Tobacco and expose their children, those who don't have safe sex and contract HIV through careless behavior, those who Formula Feed purely by choice/culture, those who take immunosuppresants for NON life threatening conditions (like IBD, Eczema) etc. Herd Immunity should be a MUCH broader discussion than just Vaxes, because SO many people actually influence their immunity so many different ways.


I am AMAZED at how often we are called to defend this position on MDC. Amazed. Explaining this rationale on a natural parenting site....why.?

If healthy nutrition and lifestyle has no effect on health, then tell me now. I'll need to schedule a trip to McDonald's!

post #40 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post


I am AMAZED at how often we are called to defend this position on MDC. Amazed. Explaining this rationale on a natural parenting site....why.?

If healthy nutrition and lifestyle has no effect on health, then tell me now. I'll need to schedule a trip to McDonald's!

Or any site, really.

 

I think it is common knowledge that healthy choices often go hand in hand with being healthy.

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