or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New study links certain IVF treatments to autism, mental disability.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New study links certain IVF treatments to autism, mental disability. - Page 3

post #41 of 82

http://virology-online.com/viruses/Enteroviruses2.htm

 

 

B. Clinical Features

"The incubation period is usually 7 - 14 days (range 3 - 35 days). Following ingestion, the virus multiplies in the oropharyngeal and intestinal mucosa. The lymphatic system, in particular the tonsils and the Peyer's patches of the ileum are invaded and the virus enters the blood resulting in a transient viraemia. In a minority of cases, the virus may involve the CNS following dissemination. The following are the possible outcomes following poliovirus infection: -

  1. Subclinical infection (90 - 95%) - inapparent subclinical infection account for the vast majority of poliovirus infections.
  2. Abortive infection (4 - 8%) - this group of patients only suffer the minor illness which comprises of influenza-like symptoms such as fever, malaise, drowsiness, headache, nausea, vomiting, constipation and sore throat. Recovery occurs within a few days and the diagnosis can only be made by the laboratory. The minor illness may be accompanied by aseptic meningitis which is similar to the meningitis caused by other enteroviruses and usually resolve without sequelae within 2 - 10 days.
  3. Major illness (1 - 2%) - the major illness may present 2 - 3 days following the minor illness. In most cases though, the major illness occur without evidence of any preceding minor illness. Signs of aseptic meningitis are common. Involvement of the anterior horn cells lead to flaccid paralysis. Painful muscle spasms and incoordination of non-paralysed muscles may occur. Involvement of the medulla may lead to respiratory paralysis and death. The paralysis usually develops over several days and some recovery may take place. Any effects persisting for more than 6 months are uaually permanent."

 

So we're talking maybe 1% who had major problems from polio.

 

Funny, tea cozy--you seem completely unconcerned that more than 1% have vaccine reactions….

post #42 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

http://virology-online.com/viruses/Enteroviruses2.htm

 

 

B. Clinical Features

"The incubation period is usually 7 - 14 days (range 3 - 35 days). Following ingestion, the virus multiplies in the oropharyngeal and intestinal mucosa. The lymphatic system, in particular the tonsils and the Peyer's patches of the ileum are invaded and the virus enters the blood resulting in a transient viraemia. In a minority of cases, the virus may involve the CNS following dissemination. The following are the possible outcomes following poliovirus infection: -

  1. Subclinical infection (90 - 95%) - inapparent subclinical infection account for the vast majority of poliovirus infections.
  2. Abortive infection (4 - 8%) - this group of patients only suffer the minor illness which comprises of influenza-like symptoms such as fever, malaise, drowsiness, headache, nausea, vomiting, constipation and sore throat. Recovery occurs within a few days and the diagnosis can only be made by the laboratory. The minor illness may be accompanied by aseptic meningitis which is similar to the meningitis caused by other enteroviruses and usually resolve without sequelae within 2 - 10 days.
  3. Major illness (1 - 2%) - the major illness may present 2 - 3 days following the minor illness. In most cases though, the major illness occur without evidence of any preceding minor illness. Signs of aseptic meningitis are common. Involvement of the anterior horn cells lead to flaccid paralysis. Painful muscle spasms and incoordination of non-paralysed muscles may occur. Involvement of the medulla may lead to respiratory paralysis and death. The paralysis usually develops over several days and some recovery may take place. Any effects persisting for more than 6 months are uaually permanent."

 

So we're talking maybe 1% who had major problems from polio.

 

Funny, tea cozy--you seem completely unconcerned that more than 1% have vaccine reactions….

 

"In the late 1940s to the early 1950s, polio crippled an average of more than 35,000 people in the United States each year; it was one of the most feared diseases of the twentieth century."  http://www.cdc.gov/features/poliofacts/

 

That's how many people were crippled by polio. Not how many people got Polio.  Even if 35,000 crippled by Polio is .000001 percent of people that got Polio that does not change the fact that 35,000 people is a lot of people. And that is just in the United States. You also have to remember that there were a lot fewer people in the US in the 1940s than there are now so that number is even more significant. 

 

The percentage doesn't matter. It was incredibly contagious. If 1% of people that got chicken pox became crippled pre vaccine that would be A LOT of people that were crippled because before the vaccine most people got chicken pox. Even though on the surface 1% doesn't seem like a lot it would be a significant amount of people. 

 

Women today have a 1 in 143 (ish) lifetime risk of getting a cervical cancer diagnosis and that is with about 12,000 diagnoses a year.  So if 35,000 a year were crippled by Polio and the population was a lot smaller that is a significant amount of people that were crippled. At my local high school the student population is something like 2500 students. So if 1 in 100 people were crippled by Polio in the 1940s that would be 25 people that were crippled for life by Polio in my highschool.  I am sorry you do not feel like that is a significant number but I completely disagree.  

 

"Funny, tea cozy--you seem completely unconcerned that more than 1% have vaccine reactions…." 

 

Yeah, sure. If you count reactions like swelling and redness and temporary fever.  Even with the "dangerous" Gardasil vaccine which most anti vaxxers agree is the worst of the bunch as far as adverse reactions go you are talking about fewer than 400 people that had adverse reactions out of 79 MILLION doses.  That is something like .00001 percent. I did not really do the math this time but I have in another thread and it did not even come CLOSE to being 1 percent of people. 

 

Are you trying to say that 1% of people that receive vaccines become crippled? And no, I do not believe that vaccines cause autism so if you are counting that as a "vaccine reaction" I am going to disagree with you. 


Edited by teacozy - 7/9/13 at 7:54pm
post #43 of 82
dbl post
post #44 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

 

You do know that Polio is not eradicated right? You do know that people travel internationally from countries where it is still prevalent right? And that it could easily come back if people stopped vaccinating for it? 

 

I think everyone on this forum knows Polio is not eradicated globally.

 

You may choose to vax if you like to prevent it coming over here (despite the fact last time a case of Polio was brought into the USA was in 1993 -http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/dis-faqs.htm) but I have to wonder…do you also choose to get the yellow vaccine?  It exists elsewhere, but not here.  Take anti malaria meds? - it exists elsewhere but not here.  

 

This whole "it is just a plane ride away" thing strikes me as illogical.   Lots of diseases are a plane ride away - we do not prophylactically treat for them.  

post #45 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I think everyone on this forum knows Polio is not eradicated globally.

 

You may choose to vax if you like to prevent it coming over here (despite the fact last time a case of Polio was brought into the USA was in 1993 -http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/dis-faqs.htm) but I have to wonder…do you also choose to get the yellow vaccine?  It exists elsewhere, but not here.  Take anti malaria meds? - it exists elsewhere but not here.  

 

This whole "it is just a plane ride away" thing strikes me as illogical.   Lots of diseases are a plane ride away - we do not prophylactically treat for them.  

 

Except Malaria and Yellow fever are not contagious. They are transmitted by mosquitos. That is like comparing the flu to west nile virus.  I could sit next to 100 people on an airplane that have Yellow fever and not catch it.  Also, unlike Malaria, there is no cure for Polio. 

 

So I guess I am not seeing why you think it is illogical to vaccinate against a disease that is highly contagious, has no cure and is still prevalent in parts of the world where people travel. It is no more illogical than conceding you could catch any contagious illness in an airport. The flu? Is that illogical? A cold? What about a stomach virus? Is that illogical too? As I pointed out in an earlier thread, fecal matter is everywhere. You touch it everyday and if you think than an airplane or airport is immune to surfaces being contaminated with fecal matter you are sorely mistaken. 

post #46 of 82
Thread Starter 

Just some statistics :

 

8/9 of kids play areas/ball pits had fecal matter http://thestir.cafemom.com/toddler/124597/your_toddlers_favorite_place_to

 

Over 50 percent of public pools have fecal matter in them http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2013/05/17/cdc-fecal-matter-found-in-many-public-pools

 

Hotels: According to the study, which was presented at the General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, researchers from the University of Houston swabbed down 19 areas in various hotel rooms, including remote controls, telephones and door handles, and found that more than 81 percent of the surfaces held the fecal bacterium E. coli, ABC News reported.

http://www.ketv.com/news/health/Study-Fecal-matter-rampant-in-hotel-rooms/-/9674364/15141264/-/9f8t3c/-/index.html#ixzz2Ye6Q4lfT

 

1/6 cell phones have fecal matter http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/17/study-1-in-6-cell-phones-contaminated-with-fecal-matter/

 

70 percent of shopping carts have fecal matter on them http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/03/03/fecal-matter-72-percent-grocery-carts/

 

virtually every movie theatre has fecal matter: Dr. Wallace tells us, "it was everywhere, there wasn't a lot of difference where you tested whether it was the seat, the headrest, the armrest or the floor.  They were all heavily contaminated."

Dr. Wallace adds out of all 13 cultures there was only one where they found no gram negative rods, and amazingly it happens to be from the floor at the Jacksonville movie theater. 

Everywhere else--fecal matter and at every theater.  Dr. Wallace says that's a direct result of someone going to the bathroom and not washing their hands. http://www.kltv.com/story/8319159/the-disgusting-results-to-our-dirty-movie-theater-investigation?redirected=true

I am adding these because people always ask me for evidence or sources for the claims I am making. So here they are! Hope you have already eaten breakfast wink1.gif

post #47 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Except Malaria and Yellow fever are not contagious. They are transmitted by mosquito's. That is like comparing the flu to west nile virus.  I could sit next to 100 people on an airplane that have Yellow fever and not catch it.  Also, unlike Malaria, there is no cure for Polio. 

 

So I guess I am not seeing why you think it is illogical to vaccinate against a disease that is highly contagious, has no cure and is still prevalent in parts of the world where people travel. It is no more illogical than conceding you could catch any contagious illness in an airport. The flu? Is that illogical? A cold? What about a stomach virus? Is that illogical too? As I pointed out in an earlier thread, fecal matter is everywhere. You touch it everyday and if you think than an airplane or airport is immune to surfaces being contaminated with fecal matter you are sorely mistaken. 

Malaria can be blood borne.

 

For any history buffs - Malaria in Eastern Ontario 200 years ago.  They think it might have been brought in by soldiers who also served in India, Africa etc…  There was also a temperate form of malaria that lived here.

 

http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Canada/malaria_in_canada.htm

 

In any event, it doesn't matter Teacozy.  You think a disease that does not exist in North America is worth vaxxing for and I do not.  As I noted upthread, per CDC, the last time a case of Polio landed in North America was 1993.  I think the whole "it is just a plane ride away thing" is a little on the fear mongering side and not related to real data ( I also think the whole "plane ride away" thing plays a little of peoples fear of foreigners, ignorance and their beliefs that they are dirty, disease ridden and oh-so-scary).  You do know there were only 223 cases of polio in the world in 2012? http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs114/en/

 

Yes, the low Polio rate is a good thing, and yes, that probably is due to vaccines.  You, however, have been arguing that Polio is a just a plane ride away - it is not. The numbers are infinitesimally low. You are not going to get Polio.  Want to vaccinate to contribute in a tiny way to herd immunity or the eradication of Polio - knock yourself out (although I do think that is a risk adults should take and should not be asked of children too young to consent) but trying to sell Polio as an actual current danger and that is why we should vaccinate is very, very weak.  

post #48 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

You can think I am wrong all you want.  The vast majority of doctors, scientists and researchers fortunately agree with me.  

 

"After 2 minutes of waffling, the CDC's Dr. Coleen Boyle admits that there has never been a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study." 

 

I am not sure what you mean by "admits". It is a fact that a randomized double blind study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids has never and will never be done. There is nothing to "admit".  If there was a double blind randomized study would you enroll your child knowing there was a 50% chance he/she might be put into the vaccinated group?  Yeah didn't think so.  So It'd be great if the anti vaxxers would stop saying it should be done if they themselves would not be willing to participate in it. Very hypocritical. I know that's not what you were saying in that paragraph but I have seen it many times from anti vaxxers and just felt like addressing it. 

 

In any case, there is a study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids, although it did not look for autism but overall health and there was no difference except that unvaccinated kids were more likely to get VPDs.  

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

This is a cop out. 

 

A study comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated does not have to be a double blind randomized study to be of value. 

 

And you have actually illustrated the point I was trying to make about being close minded quite nicely - Thanks!

post #49 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Malaria can be blood borne.

 

For any history buffs - Malaria in Eastern Ontario 200 years ago.  They think it might have been brought in by soldiers who also served in India, Africa etc…  There was also a temperate form of malaria that lived here.

 

http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Canada/malaria_in_canada.htm

 

In any event, it doesn't matter Teacozy.  You think a disease that does not exist in North America is worth vaxxing for and I do not.  As I noted upthread, per CDC, the last time a case of Polio landed in North America was 1993.  I think the whole "it is just a plane ride away thing" is a little on the fear mongering side and not related to real data ( I also think the whole "plane ride away" thing plays a little of peoples fear of foreigners, ignorance and their beliefs that they are dirty, disease ridden and oh-so-scary).  You do know there were only 223 cases of polio in the world in 2012? http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs114/en/

 

Yes, the low Polio rate is a good thing, and yes, that probably is due to vaccines.  You, however, have been arguing that Polio is a just a plane ride away - it is not. The numbers are infinitesimally low. You are not going to get Polio.  Want to vaccinate to contribute in a tiny way to herd immunity or the eradication of Polio - knock yourself out (although I do think that is a risk adults should take and should not be asked of children too young to consent) but trying to sell Polio as an actual current danger and that is why we should vaccinate is very, very weak.  

 

" In fact, the only mechanisms for direct transmission between humans are when malaria parasites are passed between a mother and her unborn child via the placenta (congenital transmission) and through unscreened blood transfusions."  http://www.malaria.com/questions/malaria-contagious-spread

 

So as long as I don't receive a blood transfusion or receive an organ while on the plane or pick up a dirty heroine needle and inject myself with it I'm safe eyesroll.gif.   Again, it is not contagious. 

 

'

Is malaria a contagious disease?

No. Malaria is not spread from person to person like a cold or the flu, and it cannot be sexually transmitted. You cannot get malaria from casual contact with malaria-infected people, such as sitting next to someone who has malaria."  http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/faqs.html

 

Yes, there has not been a case of Polio in the US for a long time because of the polio vaccine.  You yourself *just* said "Yes, the low Polio rate is a good thing, and yes, that probably is due to vaccines"  So what would happen if we stopped vaccinating for Polio? Since it is not eradicated it could come back! How can you say that low Polio rates are due to vaccines and then in the next sentence say you don't think children should be vaccinated for it?  That's like saying "we have far fewer cases of the flu in X town because everyone is so vigilant about washing their hands, so lets just all stop washing our hands now!"  It makes no sense. 

 

There is no medication or cure for Polio even today. There is nothing stopping it from coming back other than vaccines, we don't have some magic anti fecal matter pill today that they didn't have back then.  Yes we know today how it is spread but that doesn't mean that that type of transmission is something that is easy to control. It's not. 

post #50 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

" In fact, the only mechanisms for direct transmission between humans are when malaria parasites are passed between a mother and her unborn child via the placenta (congenital transmission) and through unscreened blood transfusions."  http://www.malaria.com/questions/malaria-contagious-spread

 

So as long as I don't receive a blood transfusion or receive an organ while on the plane or pick up a dirty heroine needle and inject myself with it I'm safe eyesroll.gif.   Again, it is not contagious. 

 

'

Is malaria a contagious disease?

No. Malaria is not spread from person to person like a cold or the flu, and it cannot be sexually transmitted. You cannot get malaria from casual contact with malaria-infected people, such as sitting next to someone who has malaria."  http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/faqs.html

 

Yes, there has not been a case of Polio in the US for a long time because of the polio vaccine.  You yourself *just* said "Yes, the low Polio rate is a good thing, and yes, that probably is due to vaccines"  So what would happen if we stopped vaccinating for Polio? Since it is not eradicated it could come back! How can you say that low Polio rates are due to vaccines and then in the next sentence say you don't think children should be vaccinated for it?  That's like saying "we have far fewer cases of the flu in X town because everyone is so vigilant about washing their hands, so lets just all stop washing our hands now!"  It makes no sense. 

 

There is no medication or cure for Polio even today. There is nothing stopping it from coming back other than vaccines, we don't have some magic anti fecal matter pill today that they didn't have back then.  Yes we know today how it is spread but that doesn't mean that that type of transmission is something that is easy to control. It's not. 

Hmmm reminds me a bit of Hepatitis B..........

post #51 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

This is a cop out. 

 

A study comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated does not have to be a double blind randomized study to be of value. 

 

And you have actually illustrated the point I was trying to make about being close minded quite nicely - Thanks!

 

It doesn't *have* to be, no. But that is the gold standard and if the results of the study could potentially mean a change of policy on vaccines it needs to be a damn good study. 

 

I guess you didn't read the rest of what I wrote? It also couldn't be a random sample because so few children are actually 100% vaccine free and those that are 100% vaccine free due to their parents choice tend to be in certain pockets and are not indicative of the general population. I already posted earlier in the thread what kind of children are most likely to be unvaccinated.  So the results would have too many variables to have a great deal of significance. Children's diets, where they live, how educated the parents are, what kind of chemicals they live near, do they live close to an electric plant etc. 

 

Whatever the results were the other side would claim the study was flawed, and it would be flawed. 

post #52 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

Hmmm reminds me a bit of Hepatitis B..........

Except Malaria can't be spread through sexual intercourse or from saliva, but Hep B can. 

 

In any case, I don't think it is imperative that a newborn get the shot, but I think all children should get the injection by about age 10. You never know when your child is going to start having sex and it's better to be safe than sorry.  I also don't think teenagers would walk up to a parent and say " Guess what?! I am going to try heroine today!" 

post #53 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

It doesn't *have* to be, no. But that is the gold standard and if the results of the study could potentially mean a change of policy on vaccines it needs to be a damn good study. 

 

I guess you didn't read the rest of what I wrote? It also couldn't be a random sample because so few children are actually 100% vaccine free and those that are 100% vaccine free due to their parents choice tend to be in certain pockets and are not indicative of the general population. I already posted earlier in the thread what kind of children are most likely to be unvaccinated.  So the results would have too many variables to have a great deal of significance. Children's diets, where they live, how educated the parents are, what kind of chemicals they live near, do they live close to an electric plant etc. 

 

Whatever the results were the other side would claim the study was flawed, and it would be flawed. 

 

You've got pretty stringent requirements for a study.  I have to wonder how many of the studies that are touted as evidence of the need/efficacy/etc. of vaccines currently on the market are up to these standards.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Except Malaria can't be spread through sexual intercourse or from saliva, but Hep B can. 

 

In any case, I don't think it is imperative that a newborn get the shot, but I think all children should get the injection by about age 10. You never know when your child is going to start having sex and it's better to be safe than sorry.  I also don't think teenagers would walk up to a parent and say " Guess what?! I am going to try heroine today!" 

In reading many of your posts in the vax forums, I see a lot of fear-based questions/answers/statements.  Now I see lack of trust in both the child & in that the parent can educate the child.  Seems to be quite the negative POV.

 

Also, I think you said you are the parent to one boy who is pretty young.  I wonder if a few more years of perspective on what your child has to have & what is acceptable risk to take w/ that child will change.  I imagine I might have been more like you when my first was young, 10 years ago.  As I've gotten older, she has gotten older & her brothers have come into my life & I've learned what they really need, I realize that vaccinations are far too big a risk to take w/ *their* bodies.  

 

Best wishes,

Sus

post #54 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

It doesn't *have* to be, no. But that is the gold standard and if the results of the study could potentially mean a change of policy on vaccines it needs to be a damn good study. 

 

I guess you didn't read the rest of what I wrote? It also couldn't be a random sample because so few children are actually 100% vaccine free and those that are 100% vaccine free due to their parents choice tend to be in certain pockets and are not indicative of the general population. I already posted earlier in the thread what kind of children are most likely to be unvaccinated.  So the results would have too many variables to have a great deal of significance. Children's diets, where they live, how educated the parents are, what kind of chemicals they live near, do they live close to an electric plant etc. 

 

Whatever the results were the other side would claim the study was flawed, and it would be flawed. 

No I read the rest of what you wrote, I just don't feel the need to comment on each and every tidbit you post. All research is flawed and biased to some degree or another and one cannot control for each and every variable that a child is exposed to, its just not possible. IMO that doesn't mean useful information cannot be obtained. Any topic that has "sides" as polarized as this somone is going to crap all over whatever study comes out no matter what it claims or shows and since all studies are going to be flawed or biased to some degree, that is precisely WHY any study that has been done cannot be used as conclusive evidence. No need to state your disagreement here, I get it.

post #55 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Except Malaria can't be spread through sexual intercourse or from saliva, but Hep B can. 

 

In any case, I don't think it is imperative that a newborn get the shot, but I think all children should get the injection by about age 10. You never know when your child is going to start having sex and it's better to be safe than sorry.  I also don't think teenagers would walk up to a parent and say " Guess what?! I am going to try heroine today!" 

Wow you really are a concrete thinker winky.gif

 

If I vaccinated my children for anything - Hep B would NOT be it. 

post #56 of 82
Thread Starter 

"No need to state your disagreement here, I get it." 

 

Ok, I wont :) 

post #57 of 82

On the subject of the eradication of polio, here is an interesting discussion on how changing the diagnostic criteria of polio right when the vaccine was introduced changed the statistics in favor of vaccine effectiveness.

 

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/vaccine_awareness/Polio_Meningitis_Diagnosis.html

 

"The criteria for diagnosing polio did change when the vaccine was introduced in the 1950s and this change in diagnosis apparently reduced the statistic for the number of polio cases dramatically."

 

"Dr. Bernard Greenberg, a biostatistics expert, was chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association during the 1950s. He testified at a panel discussion that was used as evidence for the congressional hearings on polio vaccine in 1962. During these hearings he elaborated on the problems associated with polio statistics and disputed claims for the vaccine's effectiveness. He attributed the dramatic decline in polio cases to a change in reporting practices by physicians."

 

"Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used."

 

There are other sites that discuss this issue:

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/06/11/cdc-and-friends-sprinting-towards-the-polio-finish-line-by-suzanne-humphries-md/

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/06/02/polio-and-acute-flaccid-paralysis/

http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/whohides

http://vactruth.com/2012/04/25/change-names-of-diseases/

 

And let's not forget that the oral polio vaccine (not used here any more due to the fact that it could CAUSE polio cases) is responsible for thousands of cases of "acute flaccid paralysis" in India alone.  What is "acute flaccid paralysis?"  It's what they decided to call polio in patients that were vaccinated for polio--because the prevailing belief was "it can't be polio if they've been vaccinated for it!"

 

http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-and-47500-cases-of-paralysis/

 

Let me pre-empt teacozy's tendency to refuse to discuss issues by attacking the messenger. If you want to discuss this issue--fine and dandy. Let's discuss it.  Feel free to disagree, and to post links refuting the specific facts as they've been presented here. But if you're just going to attack the people discussing the issues, that's not okay.

post #58 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

On the subject of the eradication of polio, here is an interesting discussion on how changing the diagnostic criteria of polio right when the vaccine was introduced changed the statistics in favor of vaccine effectiveness.

 

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/vaccine_awareness/Polio_Meningitis_Diagnosis.html

 

"The criteria for diagnosing polio did change when the vaccine was introduced in the 1950s and this change in diagnosis apparently reduced the statistic for the number of polio cases dramatically."

 

"Dr. Bernard Greenberg, a biostatistics expert, was chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association during the 1950s. He testified at a panel discussion that was used as evidence for the congressional hearings on polio vaccine in 1962. During these hearings he elaborated on the problems associated with polio statistics and disputed claims for the vaccine's effectiveness. He attributed the dramatic decline in polio cases to a change in reporting practices by physicians."

 

"Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used."

 

There are other sites that discuss this issue:

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/06/11/cdc-and-friends-sprinting-towards-the-polio-finish-line-by-suzanne-humphries-md/

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/06/02/polio-and-acute-flaccid-paralysis/

http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/whohides

http://vactruth.com/2012/04/25/change-names-of-diseases/

 

And let's not forget that the oral polio vaccine (not used here any more due to the fact that it could CAUSE polio cases) is responsible for thousands of cases of "acute flaccid paralysis" in India alone.  What is "acute flaccid paralysis?"  It's what they decided to call polio in patients that were vaccinated for polio--because the prevailing belief was "it can't be polio if they've been vaccinated for it!"

 

http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-and-47500-cases-of-paralysis/

 

Let me pre-empt teacozy's tendency to refuse to discuss issues by attacking the messenger. If you want to discuss this issue--fine and dandy. Let's discuss it.  Feel free to disagree, and to post links refuting the specific facts as they've been presented here. But if you're just going to attack the people discussing the issues, that's not okay.

 

I have already posted what the CDC says the incidence of Polio was from the late 1940s to the 1950s. I would link it again but that seems redundant.Something that one man said over 50 years ago is not sufficient to discount what the CDC and other health organizations say the rate of Polio was. Also telling was that the only information I could find on this man and his claim was from anti vaxxing sites.  

 

This is what the WHO says about how quickly Polio could come back "Endemic transmission is continuing in Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Failure to stop polio in these last remaining areas could result in as many as 200 000 new cases every year, within 10 years, all over the world."   http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs114/en/

 

So that is what the WHO says could happen if Polio is not stopped. If people stopped vaccinating it could be a worldwide epidemic in as little as 10 years.  So no, saying that it is dangerous to stop vaccinating for Polio is not "fear mongering" it is reality. Unless someone here has more knowledge about infectious diseases and how they spread than the World Health Organization does you should concede that it could be a huge problem and yes, a "plane ride away". 

 

"Let me pre-empt teacozy's tendency to refuse to discuss issues by attacking the messenger. If you want to discuss this issue--fine and dandy. Let's discuss it.  Feel free to disagree, and to post links refuting the specific facts as they've been presented here. But if you're just going to attack the people discussing the issues, that's not okay." 

 

I haven't been attacking people. I have been discussing Polio. I do not know what you are talking about. I have been responding to questions and providing links and sources for all of my claims. If anything, I have been attacked. I've told what a "concrete thinker" I am and been told that, basically, I am only pro vaccine because my son is young and I do not have enough real world experience.  I have also been called close minded and been accused of fear mongering. I just posted what the WHO said could happen with just these small pockets of people that have Polio.  So if you are going to call me out on something then you should call out everyone in this thread. 

post #59 of 82

The CDC conveniently does not admit that the diagnostic criteria for polio changed, and that this completely changed the statistics on polio. They don't deny it, either.  They simply pretend that it never happened.

 

Go look up the diagnostic criteria yourself.  This is not based on what one man says.  And while you're at it, look how the cases of "non-polio acute flaccid paralysis" skyrocketed while the cases of polio diminished.

 

Do I think the polio vaccine is a good thing?  Yes, and no.  I think the current killed-cell vaccine is good, at least, when it's NOT given in conjunction with other vaccines.  The oral polio vaccine is clearly causing severe problems, and should be replaced.  It's not good enough by a long shot to say, "it does more good than harm," because by that criteria, a vaccine that kills 49% of those who get it, but prevents a deadly disease in 51%, could be said to do more good than harm. 

 

What is needed is a vaccine with a much better safety record, and with screening procedures in place to head off problems before they start, and to deal swiftly and effectively with problems that can't be prevented.

 

That's not what we have with the polio vaccine that's used in developing countries, and that's not what we have with the current vaccine schedule in the US.


The reason we don't have that is the greed and corruption in the vaccine industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and in the government committees that are supposed watch over them--and the ignorance of the people who insist that both the industries and the government are totally trustworthy.

post #60 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

The CDC conveniently does not admit that the diagnostic criteria for polio changed, and that this completely changed the statistics on polio. They don't deny it, either.  They simply pretend that it never happened.

 

Go look up the diagnostic criteria yourself.  This is not based on what one man says.  And while you're at it, look how the cases of "non-polio acute flaccid paralysis" skyrocketed while the cases of polio diminished.

 

Do I think the polio vaccine is a good thing?  Yes, and no.  I think the current killed-cell vaccine is good, at least, when it's NOT given in conjunction with other vaccines.  The oral polio vaccine is clearly causing severe problems, and should be replaced.  It's not good enough by a long shot to say, "it does more good than harm," because by that criteria, a vaccine that kills 49% of those who get it, but prevents a deadly disease in 51%, could be said to do more good than harm. 

 

What is needed is a vaccine with a much better safety record, and with screening procedures in place to head off problems before they start, and to deal swiftly and effectively with problems that can't be prevented.

 

That's not what we have with the polio vaccine that's used in developing countries, and that's not what we have with the current vaccine schedule in the US.


The reason we don't have that is the greed and corruption in the vaccine industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and in the government committees that are supposed watch over them--and the ignorance of the people who insist that both the industries and the government are totally trustworthy.

 

Ok, so the CDC is covering it up eyesroll.gif do you have any proof of that?  When you have asked me to prove something I have.  So I would like some unbiased sources. When I googled "diagnostic criteria for polio changed" the only sites that came up were insidevaccines.com, whale, vaxtruth.org, homeoprophylaxis.com and other anti vaccine sites. For me, that raises a red flag.  If my proof of something was a blog written by a staunchly pro vaccine doctor you probably would take that information with a grain of salt.  Which is fine, you can believe or not believe whatever you like as can I.  I find sources like the CDC, WHO, NIH to be reputable sources and you may disagree. This is a debate board after all.  But when there is no real evidence because the CDC "pretends like it never happened" that screams conspiracy theory to me. That is my personal opinion and I am entitled to it. 

 

As for the oral polio vaccine, that hasn't been used in the US in 13 years because of the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis. The CDC decided the risks outweighed the benefits and discontinued it here. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New study links certain IVF treatments to autism, mental disability.