or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › BEST articles on non-vaccinating info
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

BEST articles on non-vaccinating info

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 

Hello All,

 

I am a non-vaccinating mom of 2 with one on the way. In my business we get a LOT of soon to be parents and parents of older children coming to us for information on vaccinations. Obviously, my views are very strong for not vaccinating but because of legalities I cannot direct their decision, I can only provide information for them to research. 

I usually take it on a case by case basis and direct them that way but its getting time consuming and tedious (gone from 1 or 2 a week to 20-30) so I am putting together an info package they can download from our site for free. 

With all that being said - I'm looking for copious amounts of articles and information. Can everyone share their favourite  articles, books, graphics - whatever you have or refer people to would be great. Articles de-bunking current marketing trends would be fabulous as well. 

I have my favourites but I know there are others out there that would be great to share with people as well. Many minds are always better than 1.

Thanks a million in advance!

post #2 of 27

This has been my new favorite just because it contains so much info in one place - it can be overwhelming to those just starting out so I would suggest filtering through and maybe choose a few of the links within for various studies, but the graphs on here are great:

 

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

post #3 of 27
post #4 of 27
I would recommend the book Vaccine Epidemic.
post #5 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennyanydots View Post

I would recommend the book Vaccine Epidemic.

I agree. I recommend Dissolving Illusions by Suzanne Humphries.

post #6 of 27
Thread Starter 

thanks for the input everyone. As usual, all websites I haven't seen which is exactly why I put it out there.

post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

This has been my new favorite just because it contains so much info in one place - it can be overwhelming to those just starting out so I would suggest filtering through and maybe choose a few of the links within for various studies, but the graphs on here are great:

 

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

 

This is a topic which I honestly know very little about and really need to educate myself. I appreciate all the references. So far I've just vaccinated my kids on schedule and hoped for the best, but I know there are risks involved.

 

Unfortunatley, I don't have time to look into this in detail, but I quickly looked at the website above. I just tried to understand the first two graphs about measles and maybe I'm not reading them correctly, but they don't seem very convincing to me. The second one in particular seems to be showing that when the vaccine was introduced in the 1960s, both the number of cases and number of deaths went down by an order of magnitude, which seems pretty pro-vaccine to me. The trend lines seems to be showing that without the vaccine, the number of predicted deaths in the US would be 4 per 100 million today. Since there are over 300 million people in the US, I think it's saying 12 people a year would die in the US without the vaccine. I know it's a very small percentage of the total population, but that still seems like a lot to me. Especially compared to effectively none with the vaccine. Again, maybe I'm interpreting the graph wrong, which is why I figured I'd ask.

post #8 of 27

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf

Quote:
 Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually, with epidemic cycles every 2–3 years. However, the actual number of cases was estimated at 3–4 million annually. More than 50% of persons had measles by age 6, and more than 90% had measles by age 15. The highest incidence was among 5–9-year-olds, who generally accounted for more than 50% of reported cases.

 

The first measles vaccine introduced in 1963 was a killed vaccine and it did not work very well at all.

 

There was a huge outbreak of measles at that time.

 

The live virus/attenuated vaccine was not available until 1967. I remember it well.

 

The CDC promised that it would take ONE SHOT for full lifetime immunity.  Now we know that is not true. It takes one shot, and three boosters and a lifetime of boosters to maintain immunity.

Quote:
 The vaccination-induced measles virus antibodies decline in the absence of natural booster infections. It is important to follow how long the protection achieved by the present vaccine programme will last after elimination of indigenous measles.


Doctors are wary of generations to come wherein whole populations may not have natural immunity to measles. Measles is innocuous in healthy children, but there are plenty of terrible side effects if an adult gets measles. Since measles is more deadly in adults, measles nowadays is a much more dangerous disease. Millions of adults are not immune to measles because they were vaccinated in childhood and their vaccine immunity has waned. The CDC boldly proclaimed that their vaccine would wipe out measles in one year in 1967. Now we know that is not true.http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836830-1,00.html

The CDC even said that measles was not a very dangerous disease http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919891/pdf/pubhealthreporig00027-0069.pdf

And please read the package insert for measles; pan encephalitis, deafness, blindness, and pneumonia are all side effects of the vaccine - these are complications of the disease also.

 

FURTHERMORE, let me add that my son and niece had measles cerca 1990. NO, they were NOT vaccinated. My son was too young for the MMR. But they both had measles. How did I know? Because I had measles! I knew the disease. And the older, more experienced doctor diagnosed it. However, when I took my son and my sister took her daughter to the doctor, the young intern was totally clueless; she had no idea what my son had - "a virus". No sh*t, Sherlock. So, I wonder if doctors these days are totally in the dark about childhood diseases and are ignorant about how to diagnose them.  And of course, if these diseases are missed, these diseases are not being reported.

 

Remember that 9 of the 10 babies who died in CA from pertussis were not properly diagnosed in time because the doctors did not know what the babies had, even though they were coughing. BTW, these babies were too young to be vaccinated against pertussis and they lived in heavily vaccinated communities.


Edited by applejuice - 1/25/14 at 9:19pm
post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by researchparent View Post

This is a topic which I honestly know very little about and really need to educate myself. I appreciate all the references. So far I've just vaccinated my kids on schedule and hoped for the best, but I know there are risks involved.

Unfortunatley, I don't have time to look into this in detail, but I quickly looked at the website above. I just tried to understand the first two graphs about measles and maybe I'm not reading them correctly, but they don't seem very convincing to me. The second one in particular seems to be showing that when the vaccine was introduced in the 1960s, both the number of cases and number of deaths went down by an order of magnitude, which seems pretty pro-vaccine to me. The trend lines seems to be showing that without the vaccine, the number of predicted deaths in the US would be 4 per 100 million today. Since there are over 300 million people in the US, I think it's saying 12 people a year would die in the US without the vaccine. I know it's a very small percentage of the total population, but that still seems like a lot to me. Especially compared to effectively none with the vaccine. Again, maybe I'm interpreting the graph wrong, which is why I figured I'd ask.

I think the graph is misleading in how the numbers on the left hand side are arranged, which makes the drop in 1967 look like it's a much more precipitous drop than it really was. Try remaking the graph with the numbers on the left EVENLY SPACED, and see wat that does to the graph.

It's an old business trick, to make trends appear different than they really are.
post #10 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


I think the graph is misleading in how the numbers on the left hand side are arranged, which makes the drop in 1967 look like it's a much more precipitous drop than it really was. Try remaking the graph with the numbers on the left EVENLY SPACED, and see wat that does to the graph.

It's an old business trick, to make trends appear different than they really are.

 

As an engineer, I'm familiar with the logarithmic scale. Since I see it and use it frequently, I personally don't consider it misleading. In fact, when people want to hide something in my field, they use a linear (evenly-spaced) scale. For this type of data, the logarithmic scale is more enlightening, because it shows what's happening at all scales. Whoever made that graph needed to use a logarithmic scale, because they were showing there was a linear trend on that scale. A straight line on a log scale means exponential decay.

 

@applejuice Thanks for the information. Again, as a scientist and engineer, maybe I'm cynical, but the CDC's overestimation of what the measles vaccine was supposed to do doesn't surprise me at all. Sadly, in my profession, being honest about benefits and cost is pretty much unheard of. Just look at the space station's original projected budget. Obviously, that doesn't mean I think no science should be done. I just wish people could tell the truth and still get research funding.

 

Also, I'm not really sure how negatively I view the fact that these diseases are so uncommon now that young doctor's don't recognize them. Of course, I think doctor's should be educated well enough to at least know what to look for, but the fact that they don't have a lot of personal experience with this disease seems like a good thing to me. What I really need to look into are the risks of the side effects you mentioned. "~pan encephalitis, deafness, blindness, and pneumonia". If these are more likely with the vaccine than with the illness itself, then that would definitely be something to think about.

post #11 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by researchparent View Post
 

 

As an engineer, I'm familiar with the logarithmic scale. Since I see it and use it frequently, I personally don't consider it misleading. In fact, when people want to hide something in my field, they use a linear (evenly-spaced) scale. For this type of data, the logarithmic scale is more enlightening, because it shows what's happening at all scales. Whoever made that graph needed to use a logarithmic scale, because they were showing there was a linear trend on that scale. A straight line on a log scale means exponential decay.

 

 

 

 

Most people reading that graph are not engineers, and know nothing about logarithmic scales.  Seeing the straight line dip at a significantly steeper angle from .1 to .01, than it did from 2 to .1 can be misleading, because it looks like the death rate fell by a much greater percentage than it really did.


Edited by Taximom5 - 1/26/14 at 8:36pm
post #12 of 27

:lurk

post #13 of 27
Thread Starter 

anyone know when the measles boosters were introduced? year?

post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBHenry View Post
 

anyone know when the measles boosters were introduced? year?

 

In the United States, the second MMR at age 4-6 years was added to the schedule in 1994.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/images/schedule1994s.jpg

post #15 of 27

I recall reading something about 15yrs ago, which stated also, the new young drs of today, were not savvy with childhood disease, and therefore, could easily miss a diagnosis, being unfamiliar with ever seeing them appear anymore.   It seems the newest wave of drs to hit the offices really do have no clue, since vaccines are now the save all, end - all of disease - -or so it seems in the USA, not sure about other countries.  I have been watching this 'spectacle' in vaccines unfold for 20yrs now, and it seems as tho this year could be the worst for 'persecution' of nonvaxxers.  

post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by researchparent View Post


Also, I'm not really sure how negatively I view the fact that these diseases are so uncommon now that young doctor's don't recognize them. Of course, I think doctor's should be educated well enough to at least know what to look for, but the fact that they don't have a lot of personal experience with this disease seems like a good thing to me. What I really need to look into are the risks of the side effects you mentioned. "~pan encephalitis, deafness, blindness, and pneumonia". If these are more likely with the vaccine than with the illness itself, then that would definitely be something to think about.

I think one of the big problems here is that doctors are incorrectly taught that if a person is vaccinated for something like mumps or measles, their chances of contracting the disease is next to impossible. THAT'S why they're so often unable to correctly diagnose.

How many US doctors would suspect or even test for a case of polio? What symptoms would they look for, when 95% of polio infections are NON-paralytic?

And they're taught exactly the same thing about severe adverse effects from vaccines, with the same result: they're unable to recognize the connection when they see it, because they're taught that it doesn't exist.

How should they monitor for vaccine-induced autoimmune reactions, when autoimmune SYMPTOMS don't become evident for weeks or even months after the disease is actually triggered?

Merck says that MMR-induced seizures can happen 2-3 weeks post-vaccination. How many doctors even ask if a child was recently vaccinated before their first-ever seizure?
post #17 of 27

@emmy526 I hope you don't think I'm trying to persecute anybody. I fully support a parent's right to choose not to vaccinate their kids. Having young children, I just haven't found the time to sufficiently educate myself on the topic and, without knowing the specifics, personally couldn't justify NOT vaccinating when it came time to vaccinate them. I've read articles saying that there may be a connection with autism, and I cried the first time my newborn son was vaccinated, because it felt like I was taking this huge risk with this precious life I'd just been given. However, until I can fully convince myself the risks are not worth the benefit, I'll continue to vaccinate, which is why I appreciate what @MBHenry is trying to do and why I clicked on this thread to begin with.

 

@Taximom5 What I mostly don't understand about the graph is why it's featured so prominently on an ANTI-vaccinating website. I understand it makes the point that the rate of measles was going down anyway, but no matter the scale, it doesn't change the fact that it shows some event occurred in the 1960's to cause the data to leave the trend line and drop by a factor of 10 (reducing the number of cases/deaths by 90%). I'd believe as you and @applejuice have both implied, that the number of cases are being under-reported post vaccine, but one would think that by the time someone dies, the disease would have been properly diagnosed, so I can't help but trust that half of the data. The graph also implies that 12 people per year would still be dying in the US without the vaccine, which the website doesn't address. Regarding your latter point, I understand the fact that doctors being undereducated and poorly qualified to handle vaccine side effects is bad, I just don't personally see how that makes the vaccine itself bad too.

 

Don't get me wrong. I know there are potentially very serious side-effects. Unfortunately, I don't know what they are and how likely they are, which is necessary information for me to make an educated cost/benefit analysis of the situation. The depressing thing is that, suppose I find the hours in the day to be a good parent and thoroughly research this MMR vaccine. Whatever the outcome, I would then feel the need to do the same thing with every other vaccine available to my child. Given the amount of confusion I've felt after just a few minutes of research on ONE vaccine, you can see why I've put off tackling this problem! Good luck, @MBHenry!

post #18 of 27

@researchparent. I highly recommend reading Dr Suzanne Humphries' book Dissolving Illusions, among other things she discusses the measles question your posed about to taximom5. Unfortunately I have the Kindle version on my phone which is hard to search, or I would have quoted her. I don't want to try and rephrase in case I get it wrong, but t is to do with the administering of the first measles vaccine which was a live vaccine in conjunction with measles immunoglobulin because of the many adverse affects caused by the vaccine. It basically caused suppressed measles infection in recipients. The great number of adverse reactions to the live vaccine was the reason why the attenuated measles vaccine was introduced a few years later.

post #19 of 27

RE: reporting incidents of so-called "vaccine preventable diseases":  (this is the IANV forum)

One should know that reporting is different in different jurisdictions.
Some jurisdictions require extra paper work, which requires time, energy, and money on the part of office staff to perform in addition to other tasks.
Some diseases need to be laboratory verified which insurance may or may not re-imburse, so a lab sample and reading is often not done.

As a scientist, you know there are plenty of variables that can affect the final numbers.

Therefore many authentic cases of pertussis - and parapertussis - become chronic bronchitis in older adolescents or adults,  and are never crunched into the final numbers. This is done out of convenience for time and money, not for public health. The reason many diseases may fall in incidence or morbidity may be for this reason. Just an educated guess.
Does that mean that these cases never happened?

Venereal/STDS numbers were cut down by scrupulous diagnosing, reporting, and follow-up many years ago. This can be done with these "vaccine preventable diseases"


Edited by applejuice - 1/27/14 at 11:07am
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by researchparent View Post
 

 

 

@Taximom5 What I mostly don't understand about the graph is why it's featured so prominently on an ANTI-vaccinating website. I understand it makes the point that the rate of measles was going down anyway, but no matter the scale, it doesn't change the fact that it shows some event occurred in the 1960's to cause the data to leave the trend line and drop by a factor of 10 (reducing the number of cases/deaths by 90%). 

 

 


Researchparent, my point is that the data didn't really leave the trend line, it just LOOKS like it did because of the way the numbers were set up.

 

In the 1930's, the rate went down from 6 per 100,000 to ONE.  A few years later, it spiked up to 2, but then decreased to .6. In the mid-1940's, it went up slightly to 1, but then went down to .2.

All of those are just as significant as going from .1 to .01, perhaps even more so, since significantly higher numbers of people were affected.

I'd like to know what else might have been going on that could affect the numbers.

Could it have been....better diagnosing and reporting?  After all, until the last couple of decades, most average families did not fear measles, and didn't bother with the expense of a doctor, especially if it was a mild case.  Children who had measles were not quarantined.  In Dr. Spock's famous Commen Sense Book of Baby and Child Care even says that one shouldn't need to avoid children with these "less feared" diseases:  "On the other hand, don't hesitate to go if the disease is one of the less feared ones, like measles, chicken pox, and German measles."  If you had measles, or mumps, or chicken pox, you simply stayed in bed until you were well.  All of us who HAD those diseases before fear of them was deliberately marketed, we remember what it was like.  WE WERE THERE.

 

But when a new vaccine comes out, suddenly the medical community is given new instructions on both diagnosing and reporting the disease.

We acknowledge that changes in diagnostic protocol and changes in reporting affected the rates for autism...
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › BEST articles on non-vaccinating info