Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Encouraging Posts Please, No Debates, Is this happening in ur area
New Posts  All Forums:
 

Encouraging Posts Please, No Debates, Is this happening in ur area - Page 5

post #81 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
In an actual peer reviewed journal? Or anecdotally?
Anecdotally, I have used homeopathy for my children and one of my pets, with varying degrees of success. I cured my cat with a UTI within a couple hours (she has a history of UTIs, and was previously treated several times with antibiotics, though she had not had one for several years now).

I have also treated both children, usually with the guidance of a professional, and usually with much success. When we first started, I didn't "believe" in homeopathy, and would venture to guess neither did my girls or my cat.

As to peer reviewed journals:
One study I know of did show homeopathy to be more effective than placebo for otitis media.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...arch&DB=pubmed


There was a meta-analysis that I'm aware of, published in the Lancet that found
Quote:
The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=9310601
The research to date on Homeopathy that is published in medical journals is apparently pretty diverse, testing the treatment of a wide variety of conditions, so they were unable to determine whether homeopathy proved effective against specific conditions. And in homeopathy there is not one single remedy matched to one specific condition since the patient must be treated wholly and not based merely on a clinical diagnosis.
post #82 of 160
Quote:
As to peer reviewed journals:
One study I know of did show homeopathy to be more effective than placebo for otitis media.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...arch&DB=pubmed
annalily, your pubmed link didn't hold for some reason.
post #83 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
annalily, your pubmed link didn't hold for some reason.
oops... let me try again
link
post #84 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by annalily View Post
Still isn't happening.
Look for it to have "abstract" or "adopt" somewhere in the address...those are the ones that hold. None of the ones that say "query" ever do.
post #85 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
Still isn't happening.
Look for it to have "abstract" or "adopt" somewhere in the address...those are the ones that hold. None of the ones that say "query" ever do.

That is so weird. Not to mention frustrating. how do I get it to not say 'query'? lol


ok, try this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

Sorry!
post #86 of 160
woo hoo!


duh
post #87 of 160
:
post #88 of 160
Quote:
RESULTS: There were fewer treatment failures in the group receiving homeopathy after 5 days, 2 weeks and 6 weeks, with differences of 11.4, 18.4 and 19.9%, respectively, but these differences were not statistically significant. Diary scores showed a significant decrease in symptoms at 24 and 64 h after treatment in favor of homeopathy (P < 0.05). Sample size calculations indicate that 243 children in each of 2 groups would be needed for significant results, based on 5-day failure rates. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a positive treatment effect of homeopathy when compared with placebo in acute otitis media cannot be excluded and that a larger study is justified.
I'm still not sold (surprise surprise, huh?).
All I'm seeing is that they found that it might have worked a little, but the difference was so small it could have been coincidence.
Then again, I've been accused of being skeptical to a fault before, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
post #89 of 160
Oh, and sorry ICU812 for debating in your thread that you specifically requested no debates in.:
post #90 of 160
:
post #91 of 160
Hey there! I know its hard to make decisions that go against what most people percieve as "correct". We just make general statements - someone asks:
how did her shots go? we answer: "oh she did fine".

Research, research, research, go with your heart and your mothering insticts as well, ignore the rest and be very non-chalant. You can do it!

You can always vaccinate later, but you can't undo the shots and the damage they cause in such young children.
post #92 of 160
I am copying an old post of mine about the dilemma of choice.

Quote:
You aren't going to find THE "Right" answer. There is only what you feel is right for you and your family. People believe in different things in which to trust, or to keep them from fear. The journey to discovering what motivates you and upon what premises you make your decisions is an arduous one in parenting. Personally, I have 17 years of critical care experience, and I understand how *unscientific* medical practice and medical science is. True medical care is an Art, as much, if not more than a Science. I have seen so, so many "best practice protocals" subsequently disavowed as having some (previously unknown) danger, AFTER patients have utilized (and suffered from) them. We, the medical people, did *to* people, with all good intentions and full faith in the system of Science. However, science really is quite blind in its research; you can only learn what you are seeking to find. The myopia of separating the mind/body/spirit is a huge aspect of the limitations of medicine.

And we have the System of Medicine, embodied by the (fiscal) monopoly of the AMA. I can only say that if you go to a surgeon, he will use the tools available to him: surgery. If you go to a internist, he will use the tools available to him: pills. If you go to a psychologist: a DSM-whatever diagnosis is utilized. They can only utilize what they know and what they are taught. Unfortunately, what is *taught* isn't necessarily current with what is known outside of their speciality. There is such a specialiation in *parts* of the body that there is no *whole* patient. This isn't a system of *health*, but of illness, disease and deficit focused care.

So, we, medical people, have developed means of dealing with discrete illness and disease, rather than focusing on maximizing the *health* of the whole person. Because we can, because there is a market for 'fixing' a problem, because it is quicker, easier, because if it doesn't work the patient just comes back, and comes back, and comes back. A system that self-perpetuates is not working to eliminate the need for itself.

In regards to vaccines, we, medical people, knew that people were *getting* polio FROM the vaccine for 40 some years, before we changed to an injectable form which cost a slight bit more. For how many years have we, the medical system, injected a known toxin, mercury, into young children in ever increasing frequency and amounts? Oh, they did just remove thimerosal after the incidence of autism has increased from 1:10,000 to 1:500 in just 10 years, highly correllated with vaccine compliance by state. (Oh, but there is no proof that these issues are causitive). And giving hepatitis vaccine to newborns! Who can't get hepatitis unless they share blood with another infected person? These types of practices, mandated by the CDC are not building credibility that the interest of the *whole* INDIVIDUAL matters. Perhaps there is some "herd immunity" benefit that the CDC is championing. But at the expense of *individuals* with polio, deaths due to hepatitis vaccine, and high mercury contamination, etc.?

So, I have a problem with the System of Vaccinations. Additionally, I am anal; and we actually did the calculations for each disease against which there is a vaccine. We calculated the risks, taking into consideration the risk of contracting the disease within the US population of 300 million, and the occurance in our young son's age range, and then extrapolating the liklihood, by percentage, of developing the most severe complications (encephalitis, meningitis and death). And the risks were so, so minimal that the uncertain, but untrusted risk of the vaccines was outweighed by the facts of the disease's relative "danger". Basically, it was a crap shoot for the odds of vaccination vs. living with an occasional disease exposure.

But, we maximize our health by many means. And we avoid compromising our health within the health care system. And we are knowledgable about homeopathic, natural and alternative health care and we trust our bodies to be better able to handle the assault of naturally occuring disease, more than we trust our bodies to handle the assault on the immune system of injecting multiple diseases at one time, repeatedly, prior to the full development of the immune system. A whole 'nuther variable is the assault and unknown damage on the developing immune system by the vaccination program before age 2. Unfortunately, Science doesn't quite understand all this grey matter (brain and immune system) yet.

The most damning source of information was the CDC's own site. (And their "Pink Book") Their documentation of the actual incidence of disease and the incidence of complications is miniscule for many of the diseases, despite the proclamations of all the dangers of the disease. And the product insert for each vaccine which lists the ingredients, contraindications, warnings, side effects, etc. was informative (and disconcerting). And for those diseases with the most dangerous incidence, the vaccines are very *NEW* and undertested; and the system has failed too many individuals to place our son's life in the manufacture's 'post marketing research' trial. (The actual number of children upon whom they test the vaccines prior to mass vaccination is very small, obviously.) But the manufacturer extrapolates "safety" based upon a short duration of follow up, of only healthy children in the trial. And complications are notoriously under/unreported. And, and, and....

There are risks to not vaccinating. There are risks to vaccinating. There are no sure bets in life. But, you make your best guess based upon what you choose to believe in.
But we don't vaccinate for "religious" reasons.



Best wishes, Pat
post #93 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I am having difficulty believing that you have never heard this before, but considering the staggering levels of self-induced ignorance around here, I may be under-estimating you. I am not sure if that is a good thing, or not.
You're right. I have never before heard of the idea of ear infections being the same thing as deafness. As soon as you show me where in the butthole of medical knowledge that you found that little gem, that'd be great. Thanks!

I do not know where your hositlity stems from. But it's pro-vaxers with attitudes like yours who send people running away screaming towards anti-vax research. Thanks for that and keep up the good work, chief! Oh, and as soon as you find that whole ear-infections-are-the-same-thing-as-deafness info hit me up with it. Maybe you can try looking it up on Wikipedia since that seems to be your favorite source - and why not, it's just so very authoritative. Seriously, Shodan, is it really so hard to say that you mis-spoke, or, well, mis-typed? If you can't even admit that you're wrong about something as ridiculous as ear infections being the exact. same. thing. as deafness, then maybe you should look in the mirror before flinging around insults like "staggering, self-induced ignorance." Just a thought...

And to the OP - sorry I did not address your original questions. My take is that you do not need to be sharing medical info about your child with anyone. And you don't need to further discuss the issue with people who already know you don't vaccinate. This is your kid and you get to call the shots - no one else. Look in the archives here for good places to start your research - don't rely on anyone else to regurgitate it for you. I personally began with Romm's book "Vaccinations: A Thoughtful Parent's Guide." Very well-balanced.
post #94 of 160
I love it. Thanks for that, Sirte! :
post #95 of 160
Ah, c'mon, I think it's essentally nitpicking. We all know ear infections CAN lead to partial deafness if eardrums rupture, etc. The points about secondary bacterial infections etc were excellent, but they were already made, & I'd like to see him respond.

If Shodan genuinely connects his partial deafness to aquiring childhood measles, I'd like to explore why he thinks so without running him off. We are not allowed to ignore the UA just because someone else has first, & impugning or voicing suspicion about a poster's motives is no more allowable than calling someone names.

So I will ask him genuinely, because I'd like to know- if you feel comfortable sharing more details with us about this bout of measles, Shodan, maybe we can get to the bottom of it. (And feel free to start a new thread; Poor ICU812! I'm sorry )
post #96 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by AikeaGuinea View Post
I have to jump in late in support of Shodan...my uncle also lost part of his hearing to German Measles, which is one of the many reasons I also support vaccination.
I've been through all my old copies of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, and none of them list loss of hearing from either Measles or Rubella, but its listed as very rare for Mumps.

Quote:
I have also heard of blindness being caused by bad cases of measles.
Have you also "heard" from the WHO website that blindness subsequent to measles is caused by Vitamin A deficiency in multiple nutrient deficient people, and can be reversed, even years later, by the administration of Vitamin A in large doses?

In fact, WHO happily warbles about how many "lives" they have saved with Vitamin A in the last few years, even though it took them more than 80 years to "get" ... what the quacks and old wives knew way back in 1920.

Of course, these are the quacks that Shodan's parents probably would never have listened to... Whatever it was that he had, maybe if his parents had listened to quacks instead of the quack doctors of the day he'd be able to hear with both ears now.

Though what difference hearing with both ears would make, is hard to say.
post #97 of 160
Thread Starter 
I wouldn't mind debates at all as long as they don't get nasty, i mean debate is part of life but some like to call names and degrade people and i don't like that, plus i didn't want the thread shut down before i could get the information i needed, but i think all -n- all this thread has been great at informing and aside from one that wanted to call names its been pretty good debates. Thanks for all the information, it helps alot and when i get the opportunity to read all of it i Will do it. I'm already more confident then i was about non-vax
post #98 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerTail View Post
Ah, c'mon, I think it's essentally nitpicking. We all know ear infections CAN lead to partial deafness if eardrums rupture, etc. The points about secondary bacterial infections etc were excellent, but they were already made, & I'd like to see him respond.

If Shodan genuinely connects his partial deafness to aquiring childhood measles, I'd like to explore why he thinks so without running him off. We are not allowed to ignore the UA just because someone else has first, & impugning or voicing suspicion about a poster's motives is no more allowable than calling someone names.

So I will ask him genuinely, because I'd like to know- if you feel comfortable sharing more details with us about this bout of measles, Shodan, maybe we can get to the bottom of it. (And feel free to start a new thread; Poor ICU812! I'm sorry )
You're right. It does qualify as theoretically possible.
I'm not seeing it being terribly likely, though.

http://www.nt.gov.au/health/cdc/fact...40_measles.pdf

Quote:
Measles Infection

• Middle ear infection (2.5 in 100 people infected)
So about one in 50 people who catch measles have a secondary bacterial ear infection.
Ok.
So, what % of people who get ear infections go deaf from them? I wonder, out of, say, 1000 ear infections, how many of them result in deafness that requires surgical correction?

ETA:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...#Complications
Quote:
Generally, an ear infection is a simple, non-serious condition without complications. Most children will have minor, temporary hearing loss during and right after an ear infection. This is due to fluid lingering in the ear.

Although this fluid can go unnoticed, any fluid that lasts longer than 8-12 weeks is cause for concern. In children, hearing problems may cause speech to develop slowly. Permanent hearing loss is extremely rare, but the risk increases if the child has a lot of ear infections.
So, it's "extremely rare".

Shodan, was that the only ear infection you ever had?
post #99 of 160
too funny. I am stuck on pertussis :
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammom View Post

(many people get stuck on polio and tetanus),


Quote:
Originally Posted by mammom View Post
Just know that once the vaxes are in your babe, you can't take them back out.
thats what is keeping me studying right now.

Re: the family/friends issue -I agree with others that said to keep it a non-issue... meaning that it's not open for discussion.. and if they feel it necessary to discuss it with you... tally up your researching hours and tell them when they have put in that much time and can come to you with reputable resources and references, they can then, and only then, engage in conversation with you.

thats what my reply is goping to be the next time someone says something to me. As I inadvertantly said to a family member what my plans were and they about imploded. I was sad that they didn't give me any credit but at the end of the day it's my and DH's decision....

Good Luck to you!!!!!!
post #100 of 160
ICU - Sorry I wasn't any help to you on this thread, I couldn't post until other's had dealt with some trollish behavior I've seen here or risk getting myself in trouble

My oldest 2 are almost fully vaxed, my youngest 2 not at all, and I can already tell they are so much healthier then the older kids. Genetics might play a part in it, as the older 2 also have a different bio dad, but I think it's more to do with vaccines hurting their immune systems.

I'm so glad you've gotten the answers you've needed here and are more confident in your decision not to vax. Don't let anyone sway you in your nature given right to make decisions about your children
New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Encouraging Posts Please, No Debates, Is this happening in ur area