quoted by Klothos
yes they have a lot of nasty ingredients, but in such tiny amounts that there is very little risk associated with them... whereas not vaccinating carries the giant risk that your child might contract a nasty incurable disease.
I'm doing a case at the moment, and in front of me is a letter from an American cardiologist advising that her child, with a heart defect should not be vaccinated, because the aluminium in the vaccines is cardiotoxic, and the mercury in the flu vaccine could present additional problems as well.
When a cardiologist says something like that, then I'm very interested.
There is no disease on the immunisation schedule that is NOT curable. Contrary to conventional medical wisdom. Not vaccinating, does not carry a giant risk of dying from those diseases.
Were that so, you wouldn't have a family tree at all.
In terms of nutrition, this is hugely important Klothos. You need to access microbiology information on this.
Start with two older books. The first is called "Nutrition, Immunity and Infection Mechanisms of Interactions" by R. K. Chandra, and was published in America by Plenum press.
The second is another by the same author, no 12 in current topics of Immunology series, and should be available from your medical library.
its called "Immunology of Nutritional Disorders.
When you have read those two, then read the more recent ones by him, and others in the field. After that, do a pubmed search using critical nutrients and the immunological processes you know.
When you have finished all that you will understand that the key determinant of how a body reacts to any disease in normal day to day life, is nutrition. EXTRA stressors, which can step you outside of nutrition are war, famine and "pestilence".
When you've reaqd all that, go back over the history of USA, and do comparative graphs charting the influence of depressions, war etc, and compare that with death totals for immunable diseases.
Then chart obesity, junk food, sugar, and look at how they are now responsible for the first three of your death totals, because malnutrition doesn't just mean "not getting enough food". I can mean living your life eating garbage.
We can't, of course, blame nutrition of preventable medical error. Well, actually, maybe we could. Because if people ate properly all the time, then apart from accidents, and aberations caused by immunodeficiencies, they might not have been in the system in the first place, and placed themselves at risk of preventable medical error.
I am vaxing partly due to the fact that many of my family members have had to live with the consequences of polio.
Yes, there is a genetic component to Polio. Dr V Wyatt's medical articles prove that. But Dr Sandler's book, also shows that those people who have a genetic susceptibility can avoid polio provided they never eat refined sugar or white flour. Part of that is also explained in Chandra's work, where he explains how sugar completely bombs in the cellular immune system for three hours each time you eat it.
Also when I was doing my research one of the statistics which I found pointed out that 10% of people who contracted tetanus would still die- even with all of the current medical treatment and early diagnoses. The question I ask myself is which is the smaller risk to me- the vaccine or the disease.
The problem with the way you've worded that, is that it reads as if you have assumed that your child WILL get tetanus and therefore have a one in 10 chance of dying. If wounded soldiers, in Flanders (horse country) in the first world war, only had a 2 per 1,000 chance of gettting tetanus, why would you think your child would have much chance of getting it? Yes, its ubiquitous.... but my dad who was brought up in third world countries as a baby and child, and whose father was a horse breeder and racer, is 93. He's never had a tetanus shot in his life. To what should I attribute his old age? Good luck, or good management?
If my child had been damaged or myself by vaccines that would definitely change that balance. Both sides carry risks.
Here is where you are right. Both sides carry risks. But it doesn't change the balance IMO. If your child gets a disease, your child is the 100% risk of getting that disease. the outcome will depend on your child's nutrition, immunological status and how you manage it, not "luck". And if your child is damaged from a vaccine, that risk is also 100%.
All the population based models for risk/benefit equations go right out the window in both scenarios.
Plus i know one person mentioned chicken pox. Chicken pox stays in your body forever and can keep flaring up as shingles throughout your life. My mother gets it frequently. Also my doctor mentioned that the cases of chicken pox that go to the hospital can have the added complication of flesh eating disease. I discuss the vaxes with my doctor before giving them.
Can you explanin your reasoning please? The chickpox virus from the vaccine also stays in your body forever, and does exactly the same thing as chickenpox caught naturally. In fact, it's worse, because now there is a lot more shingles in children now, as a result of the vaccine.
So the argument could be made that had the child caught chickenpox naturally, then the immune system might have impounded the virus more effectively leading to fewer rebound outbreaks. Given by an "abnormal" route, the chickenpox vaccine doesn't alert the immune system the way it does when it has to come through the cellular immune system first.
As to the necrotising fasciitis with chickenpox, that's only a risk as I understand it, in a person who uses anti-pyretics to keep the fever down. Every single case that I've seen documented properly, where the person has had NF, the person used substantial quantities of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories or something like paracetamol, to keep the fever down. In which case, the NF is self-inflicted.
NF is also caused by normal skin bacteria (usually staph aureus) gone berserk. You also have to ask what the person has "done" to their skin and their immune system to have bacteria which is sitting on the ends of your fingers, right now, go berserk and try to kill them.
Okay, just so I am clear:
Do you folks not... see,/believe in/recognise the efficacy of vaccines? The very science of it I mean?
Okay, sorry if I'm thick.
Could you explain the science of it please? But before you do, please elaborate on what these scientists mean when they now admit that they don't know the "science" behind vaccines:http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...al-2305100.php >>>>Vaccines work simply by producing antibodies, right? Well, probably not. And this misconception coupled with basic ignorance of how they do work is stalling the urgent quest for an AIDS vaccine, claim leading HIV researchers. They say no one has bothered to find out how highly successful vaccines like polio, measles and hepatitis B actually protect people from disease.<<<
I notice they assume the highly successful nature of vaccines, without justifying the historical decline graphs, but that's another issue. I would just like to understand the "very science" of vaccines if possible.
Another quote from the above URL: >>>The assumption that successful vaccines work by simply producing antibodies is almost certainly wrong, Neal Nathanson, director of the US Office of AIDS Research, warns.
.....Even if researchers can plug these huge gaps in their basic understanding, they may face another obstacle in their pursuit of an AIDS vaccine. Inducing antibodies against HIV might, in the initial stages of infection, do more harm than good, claims Ron Montelaro of the University of Pittsburgh. <<<<
And this one on 11 February 2005 here: http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...0825201.htm?1c <<<<Even for diseases that have vaccines, scientists don't understand completely how the vaccines work or how they might be improved. Scientists at the institute seek answers.>>>>
If they don't understand how vaccines work, how can they make "safer" vaccines? Seems an oxymoron to me. Also, when I read paediatric immunology text books, I notice that they don't really understand how a baby's immune system works either.
So I wonder what the science is, of a vaccine that they don't know how it works, being put into a baby's immune system about which they are also unclear?
And when you've done explaining that, I'd be interested if you can suggest an explaination as to why it was that in spite of lovely high rubella titres from a vaccine, 12 weeks before my first pregnancy, I got rubella when I was 8 weeks pregnant?
Or the many other cases like me, in the medical literature.
Trinitty, why do you think you might not have immunity to chickenpox? I mean, you could be right, but research done in your own country shows this:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
Most ten-year-old children with negative or unknown histories of chickenpox are immune.
Boulianne N, Duval B, De Serres G, Deceuninck G, Masse R, Couillard M.
Institut National de Sante Publique du Quebec, Quebec, Canada. firstname.lastname@example.org
To evaluate the proportion of children to vaccinate against varicella in a catch-up program targeting 9- to 10-year-old children, a study was conducted among children age 10 years to assess the age-specific incidence of varicella and document the immunity against varicella in those with negative or unknown chickenpox history. Of the latter 62% were seropositive for varicella.
PMID: 11734718 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
But given that the medical literature ALSO now says that "repeated chickenpox is more common than previously thought" your sister might also get it again. You never know.
As to the rest of your arguments, I could expand, but feel this is tome enough for this time.