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 4

post #61 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHinJersey View Post

Of course it isn't black and white. It's the AntiVaxers who keep bringing up this lifestyle nonsense though. We all understand that lifestyle choices affect human health. A three year old understands that if you eat too much you get fat. So does rather random infection. I'm pretty sure most ProVaccination posters here are in favor of both vaccination to protect from communicable diseases and wise lifestyle choices to promote general healthfulness. It's only the anti-vaxers that are black and white.

Pop quiz. I can count at least two cases of self-refutation in this post, Who would like to take a stab at it?
post #62 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHinJersey View Post

 

Of course it isn't black and white. It's the AntiVaxers who keep bringing up this lifestyle nonsense though. We all understand that lifestyle choices affect human health. A three year old understands that if you eat too much you get fat. So does rather random infection. I'm pretty sure most ProVaccination posters here are in favor of both vaccination to protect from communicable diseases and wise lifestyle choices to promote general healthfulness. It's only the anti-vaxers that are black and white.

How on earth would you know?  Are you are non-vaxxer?  Well then, you do not speak for them.

 

Non-vaxxers have a variety of beliefs - just like pro-vaxxers.

 

I believe health is the combination of genetics, environment, choices, exposure and good or bad luck….bet that is the same as many pro-vaxxers.  I simply do not choose to lessen the (frequently small) amount of risks from VADs as I believe the harm may outweigh the benefits where vaccines are concerned.  None of it has to do with thinking eating well will magically protect me from disease, although I still eat well to load the dice in my favour.

post #63 of 103
Perhaps something we can all agree on - neither side is as black and white in their thinking as the "other side" seems to think.

Could we throw in there's not really sides, more a continuum of opinions too?

Back to the OP - why we're here debating it?
post #64 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Perhaps something we can all agree on - neither side is as black and white in their thinking as the "other side" seems to think.

Could we throw in there's not really sides, more a continuum of opinions too?

Back to the OP - why we're here debating it?

I agree with this!!!
post #65 of 103
(And I am an "antivaxer"!) *cue twilight zone theme*
post #66 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

I actually believe cancer is primarily environmental, but many will also tell you that cancer (like everything else in their estimation) is 'genetic'.

Ot, but you might enjoy this article:

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39687039/ns/health-cancer/t/cancer-man-made-disease-controversial-study-claims/#.UYZ6IY6RCkg

post #67 of 103
Badly edited.
post #68 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Funny you should say that, by the way.

That's the exact mentality of every utilitarian extremist who believes that all individuals, with extreme and narrowly defined medical exceptions, should engage in medical risk-taking for the good of the almighty Herd.
post #69 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


Funny you should say that, by the way.

That's the exact mentality of every utilitarian extremist who believes that all individuals, with extreme and narrowly defined medical exceptions, should engage in medical risk-taking for the good of the almighty Herd.

 

What would happen if 80 percent of the population of this country decided to adopt the antivax position?

 

"My baby matters more than yours" folks are quite willing to piggyback off the investment the rest of us have made in the public good to spare their child the infinitesimal risk of a vaccine reaction. Hey, remember when themerisol cause autism?! 

post #70 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalia View Post

(And I am an "antivaxer"!) *cue twilight zone theme*

And here was me thinking I couldn't post that kittens were cute on this forum without being told there was evidence against it and I'm only saying that because I'm being paid to! wink1.gif

Does us all good to remember we're all talking to real people on here. Not characatures. (Sp?)
post #71 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

And here was me thinking I couldn't post that kittens were cute on this forum without being told there was evidence against it and I'm only saying that because I'm being paid to! wink1.gif

Does us all good to remember we're all talking to real people on here. Not characatures. (Sp?)

ZOMG I agree with that as well! WTH?????? Must be the margaritas (HAPPY CINCO DE MAYO!!!)
post #72 of 103
By the way I think kittens are ugly (kidding)
post #73 of 103

Care to give us a citiation on the actual level of risk of ANY reaction from each vaccine. (Hint: it's not infinitesimal). Nevermind the combined risk from the entire schedule.

 

My baby matters. They don't matter more or less than any other baby, but let me remind you that ALL in society need to be vaccinated (in a vax system) not just babies, you do NOT build a lifelong immune system with infant vax, you cover the infant for some years, until they need to get boosters, which would continue through the lifespan. Babies just comply the most and complain the least (unlike say, adults). Thimerisol is still in the Vax Schedule for adults and is still given in annual Flu Shots, including Prenatally. In the Swine Flu Year, when H1N1 and Annual Flu were given seperately, a pregnant woman complying with CDC recs would have received 75mcg of Thimerisol, more than any pregnant woman in previous history (unless somehow she got THREE Rhogham shots during pregnancy in the 1980s). They took it out of the Childhood schedule and doubled down on the Prenatal Schedule. Now the more educated women can request Thimerisol free Flu shots but the CDC position is that there is no difference and Public Health Clinics do not generally stock Thimerisol Free Flu Shots, making it a class issue.

 

Plus the claim is that it is largely excreted. So where does it go, when you consider all the Thimerisol in the world's vax supply that is not environmentally inert.

 

What is the 'investment' if the risk is negligible? If there were truly NO or negligible risk to Vaccination, then no one would be sweating it. It isn't like people are upset that there are too few people in the VIP lounge. If Vaxes were truly risk free, then Vaxing parents would just feel sorry for those of us who don't access them, they wouldn't be all like 'NO FAIR' because what would be unfair about it? An investment requires RISK, that is the nature of an investment.


Edited by dinahx - 5/5/13 at 9:13am
post #74 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHinJersey View Post

 

What would happen if 80 percent of the population of this country decided to adopt the antivax position?

 

"My baby matters more than yours" folks are quite willing to piggyback off the investment the rest of us have made in the public good to spare their child the infinitesimal risk of a vaccine reaction. Hey, remember when themerisol cause autism?! 

 

Even if 100% are anti-vax, it - won't - change my vax decision. Not at all.

post #75 of 103
Hmmm, you don't have my permission to submit it for publication, in case that was the next move. Are we really allowed to repost removed posts on here?
post #76 of 103
Quote:
Are you seriously asking that question? You might not know so much about Native American history then. They were KILLED with BioWarfare & Genocide, by being deprived to their land and then intentionally exposed to virulent disease. Heard of Jeffery Amherst and his SmallPox blankets. 

The epidemics started as soon as first contact was made, long before being kicked off their land. Read "1491" by Charles Mann or better yet "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. I am not a believer in the whole "Noble Savage" living in perfect health and harmony with the Earth thing, but they sure did breastfeed, birth vaginally, and avoid pesticides and vaccines, and on exposure to novel viruses and bacteria they died en masse.

 

And actually, when it comes to parasite load, that may STRENGTHEN our immune systems. There is a theory backed with some interesting research that people who have parasites have fewer allergies and autoimmune diseases.

 

As WildKingdom says, it seems there is a real resistance here to the idea that sometimes, shit just happens.

post #77 of 103
Right, especially when Colonists from another continent invade your land en masse. Wars & battles & land theft started immediately. I am sure Guns, Germs & Steel dealt with the intentional Genocide via primitive BioWarfare. No one but PP mentioned anything about Noble Savages living in perfect harmony with the Earth. To use that to diminish the harm we currently suffer from Pollution, Pesticides, HFCS, Epidemic Diabetes, Obesity, Lung Disease, etc, is patently ridiculous.

There is also resistance on the ProVax side that sometimes, pharmaceutical products are what is flawed, not the recipient's inferior 'genetics'. Read Pox: An American History, Vax Injury was being discussed in Congress 100 years ago, by the Mothers of the Injured. There are books with pictures of Injured & Maimed Children, etc. Vax then & Vax now has a casualty level, which is why I believe our Creator will always protect both Religious Exemptions 2 Vax & CO to War. Because if those in power had their way, neither of these would have ever existed.
post #78 of 103
Why did you put the word genetics in quotes? Are you not a believer in that theory either? And why would you say inferior? There is no superior or inferior when it comes to evolved traits. There is what worked or at least did not hurt much in the past, and it may or may not be helping the individual now. Sickle cell trait is s good example most people are familiar with.
post #79 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

 

As WildKingdom says, it seems there is a real resistance here to the idea that sometimes, shit just happens.

Did someone say this (other than the OP).  Who?  

 

Some pro-vaxxers are hyper focusing on this in this thread - and I am not sure why.  Maybe they are hoping for some sort of Halo effect:  Let's take the position (good health choices contribute to good health), make them more extreme, jump to some weird conclusions  (aka Wild Kingdom) and hope all non-vaxxers looks bad? 

 

I think most people can see through this.

 

I also think the whole thing is irrelevant as far as not-vaxxing goes - I believe in "sh** happens" and still don't vax.  

 

The other reason I see for this line of discussion is fear mongering.  Hey if we can get people to admit "sh** happens" maybe they will start worrying it could happen to them.  In other word, let's engage in fear mongering.  If this is the purpose behind this line of questioning - let's have at it - but let's throw some commonly accepted stats behind them. Anyone want to discuss the risk of getting tetanus or diphtheria in the vaxxed versus unvaxxed in wealthy countries? 


Edited by kathymuggle - 5/6/13 at 5:32am
post #80 of 103
I believe that DNA exists, but I don't believe in genetic susceptibility. I believe in genetic resistance. I certainly reject Eugenics & It's entire legacy.

So here is an example of Genetic Resistance vs. Susceptibility: you spray some bugs with DDT. Only 50% die. You could say that that 50% were genetically susceptible to DDT, but I say 50% were genetically RESISTANT to something that is inherently toxic. It is a paradigm shift. Whereas now we might spend years researching the genes that caused the bugs to die from *inherent toxicity*, we could instead be researching which genes allowed the bugs to resist the toxic onslaught, or better yet: alternatives to DDT!

Same deal with Breast Cancer. We have tons of research into 'genetics' & instead we ignore the FACT that *most* women use makeup, hair products, cleaning products, etc. Chock Full of *known carcinogens*. Only like 25% of women nurse @ all in the US & we know that nursing 2 years reduces Breast Cancer risk 50% (Yale). But instead women are focused on 'Do I have BRAC1&2 & let me get a carcinogenic series of XRays every year' Instead of blaming the plastic factory up the street & getting some monetary help with treatment, women are encouraged to blame Great Aunt Sally.

So I mean that focus on genetic 'susceptibility' can be:
*A Form of Blame the Victim (no that Vax was awesome, it was just your kid's genes sucked, that's why they had a seizure after!)

*A Dead End (they pour tons of research into genetics for Autism & NOTHING has emerged there in terms of prevention or cure)

*Misleading (Sandra Steingraber says that 80% of Cancer is Environmental but the public believes it is mostly genetic & lifestyle)

*Eugenic (just a slightly more sophisticated modern version)

I feel that by Hyperfocusing on Genetics, we systematically ignore the area where we can make an impact for ALL people: the Environment (both macro & micro). I think it is a systematic ignoring so we can continue business as usual for Corporations & Polluters & just focus on 'hey, not EVERYone who lives near a (Frack Operation, Aerial Spray, Fiberglass Factory) gets cancer!' 'Only 1 in 31 boys get Autism' etc
Edited by dinahx - 5/6/13 at 7:36am
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