What are the biggest more impressive arguments for Pro vaxers? - Page 2

[13Sandals]

kd - I though vaxes were optional in Canada?

just a thought - I tried the same schedule with my younger son. didn't vax until he got close to K and then only the absolutely necessary ones. He had a speech regression at 4 1/2 after the cp shot and we are still trying to get him back to where he was. i'd homeschool, move out of this state - do anything rather than let him receive another vax. used to be you were born autistic...now it can happen anytime..just a coincidence that my son regressed 'later than usual' right after vaxing. was going to happen anyway. delaying doesn't necessarily get rid of the risks of vaccinating - just delays them. Not saying you were assuming that - you can understand I just feel the need to bring it up as I had no idea kids could regress that late.:

[Proverbs31]

In Canada you can legally exempt your children from vaccines and still send them to public school:

http://www.vran.org/legal/forms.htm

[alegna]

Originally Posted by huggerwocky

My child is more likely to be be harmed by the disease than by the vaccination. Easy decision. That's the main reason. Is it so mind boggling someone might have a different opinion?

Could you share the numbers or statistics that you used to reach this conclusion? When I researched raw numbers that's not what I found, so I'd be very interested if you have some hard numbers to show that.

thanks!

-Angela

[AikeaGuinea]

Originally Posted by 13Sandals

kd - I though vaxes were optional in Canada?

just a thought - I tried the same schedule with my younger son. didn't vax until he got close to K and then only the absolutely necessary ones. He had a speech regression at 4 1/2 after the cp shot and we are still trying to get him back to where he was. i'd homeschool, move out of this state - do anything rather than let him receive another vax. used to be you were born autistic...now it can happen anytime..just a coincidence that my son regressed 'later than usual' right after vaxing. was going to happen anyway. delaying doesn't necessarily get rid of the risks of vaccinating - just delays them. Not saying you were assuming that - you can understand I just feel the need to bring it up as I had no idea kids could regress that late.:

How do you know it was the vaccines that caused the regression?

[AikeaGuinea]

Originally Posted by alegna

Could you share the numbers or statistics that you used to reach this conclusion? When I researched raw numbers that's not what I found, so I'd be very interested if you have some hard numbers to show that.

thanks!

-Angela

What do you mean by "raw numbers"...what was your source for these numbers?

If you click here and scroll down to #4 there is a chart which explains "risk from disease vs. risk from vaccines"

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/...inepreventable

[Scattershoot]

For many, it's just the fact that there is research that "proves" vaxes are safe. I know this is generalized and could go a million directions, but here is more proof that something has been "researched" and proven to be safe. It's about the safety of cloned meat.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/co...lone_1223.html

From the article:

Two of the largest studies were provided by commercial clone producers Cyagra Inc. and ViaGen Inc. They tracked the growth of cloned and conventional animals and found no problems in clones that were not also present in other animals.

But skeptics remain unconvinced.

Kimbrell, of the Center for Food Safety, said too few animals have been cloned to conclude that they are safe to eat. He also said more independent research — provided by companies that are not in the cloning business - is needed.

Those who produce cloned meat and have billions at stake did research to prove that cloned meat was safe so therefore it MUST be safe. You see how simple that is.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by AikeaGuinea

What do you mean by "raw numbers"...what was your source for these numbers?

If you click here and scroll down to #4 there is a chart which explains "risk from disease vs. risk from vaccines"

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/...inepreventable

That link has no statistics. What I'm looking for is :
there are x number of cases of A disease in a given area in a year. With a population of Y, my child would have x/y chance of contracting said disease. Z% of cases of that disease require hospitalization. The normal treatment of that disease is qrs. QRS has these side effects. The vaccine for that disease is lmno. LMNO has these recorded reactions at hjk rate.

When I compared actual numbers like that (from the CDC fwiw), statistically none of the vaccines were worth the risk for my children. If there are numbers showing otherwise, I would like to see them.

-Angela

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by AikeaGuinea

What do you mean by "raw numbers"...what was your source for these numbers?

If you click here and scroll down to #4 there is a chart which explains "risk from disease vs. risk from vaccines"

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/...inepreventable

Aikea,
Pick one of those diseases, and one of those vaccines, and dig beyond the "parent pages" like this one, and the numbers are totally different.

Take pertussis the disease...
They say one in 8 cases of pertussis results in pneumonia.
Where did they get that from? Is that actually true?

Honestly, I'm not sure the risks outweigh the benefits all the time, but the numbers the CDC uses on these "communication" pages that are written for parents are totally a lie.

When we talk about "raw numbers", we mean "What research was the CDC using to make this statement?

The CDC cherry picks data that makes diseases look more scary than they are, and ignores research that shows that...say...most cases of pertussis are subclinical.
And they do the same thing to make vaccines look safer than they are.
And they do the same thing to make the vaccines look more effective than they are.

Pick one disease and one vaccine and we can show you exactly what we're talking about.

ETA:
Like this:

Finally, we can look at the experiences of several developed countries after they let their immunization levels drop. Three countries - Great Britain, Sweden, and Japan - cut back the use of pertussis vaccine because of fear about the vaccine. The effect was dramatic and immediate. In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985. It seems clear from these experiences that not only would diseases not be disappearing without vaccines, but if we were to stop vaccinating, they would come back.

Is that really and truly what public health authorities believe?
Or is that a load of crap?

[wallacesmum]

OP- I think a big factor is who you trust when it comes to adverse effects numbers. The CDC and the docs say there pretty much aren't any; other quarters disagree. No one has convincingly argued in anything I have read that there are good reasons not to do straight up comparative studies of vaxed vs. non-vaxed kids, so it is a bit of an art to glean the truth here.

[mamakay]

Ok Aikea...now read this.
THIS is raw data on the epidemiology of pertussis.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...act/115/5/1422

In the prevaccine era pertussis epidemics followed a cyclic pattern, with peaks every 2 to 5 years. With the marked reduction of pertussis by vaccination, the same cyclic pattern still occurs. Studies relating to reported pertussis and Bordetella pertussis infection have been reviewed and analyzed. The increase in reported pertussis over the last 2 decades is mainly due to a greater awareness of pertussis and perhaps to the use of several less efficacious vaccines.

Studies of prolonged cough illnesses in adolescents and adults reveal that 13% to 20% are a result of B pertussis infection. Serologic studies suggest that the rate of B pertussis infection in adolescents and adults is 2.0% per year. The rate of cough illnesses (pertussis) caused by B pertussis infection in adolescents and adults is between 370 and 1500 per 100 000 population. These data suggest that there are between 800 000 and 3.3 million cases per year in the United States.

So how can the CDC's

It seems clear from these experiences that not only would diseases not be disappearing without vaccines, but if we were to stop vaccinating, they would come back.

and "one in 8 cases of pertussis result in pneumonia" stuff be true?
It can't!
They are just cherry picking data to scare you into vaccinating your kid!

[ndunn]

Originally Posted by kdtmom2be

So why will I ultimately vax my own children? Because the system here forces you to vaccinate for certain things or they won't let you put your kids in the public school system!

I live in Canada too. You can get an exemption. Its VERY easy.

Originally Posted by kdtmom2be

SOME vaccines do SOME good.... the polio vaccine nearly erradicated a deadly and harmful disease.

I think saying the polio vaccine eradicated a deadly and harmful disease is
somewhat untrue. Maybe someone else can add to that as I don't have links on the computer that we are on right now (we are away for xmas).

[LongIsland]

Originally Posted by AikeaGuinea

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/...inepreventable

.

[13Sandals]

Originally Posted by AikeaGuinea

How do you know it was the vaccines that caused the regression?

i imagine i can never be certain whether it was the vaccine or another environmental, or a genetic factor that triggered the development of definitive symptoms and the loss of communication. for me, the coincidence is too suspicious. i believe my son had a genetic predisposition and the vaccines were a trigger. especially since his symptoms developed on the later side of the normal appearance of autistic type behavior and happened to coincide with vaccination - particularly after the cp vaccine (his last). do I think the cp vaccine is more dangerous than any other of the vaccines he received? No. i believe though that the cp was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was with that dose that his system reached its toxic overload and could no longer cope. even without definitive 'proof' that vaxes were a trigger - i'd much rather take my chances with the vpds than risk that my choice to inject his system with toxins could cause more damage.

[jessicaSAR]

Originally Posted by AikeaGuinea

What do you mean by "raw numbers"...what was your source for these numbers?

If you click here and scroll down to #4 there is a chart which explains "risk from disease vs. risk from vaccines"

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/...inepreventable

Even if we take the cdc statistics as a given, which mamakay has pointed out is hard to do once you look beyond the parent pages, this is still a patently dishonest chart. That chart is presented as if your child will automatically get measles or pertussis or whatever if they are not vaccinated. If you are worried about serious complications from these diseases, you have to first consider the chances of actually getting the disease. Multiply that risk by the risk of complication once you get the disease and you have a much smaller number.

Also, the numbers they are using for risk of vaccine reaction are patently dishonest as well. Perhaps one in a million will have an immediate severe allergic reaction to MMR, but what about all the other longer term reports of reaction, or longer term consequences. I think most families who don't vaccinate are concerned not only with acute reactions but also with chronic problems such as long term alteration to immune function, which will not show up until much later.

[ndunn]

Originally Posted by jessicaSAR

I think most families who don't vaccinate are concerned not only with acute reactions but also with chronic problems such as long term alteration to immune function, which will not show up until much later.

Exactly.

[apelilae]

When I first started on my vax or not to vax research, I was bombarded by both extremes. I don't trust extremes. I had a hard time finding good, sound research that was objective, unbias, and not supported by either extreme.

You read things like:

Two recent studies indicate that religious and philosophical exemptions to immunizations increase cases of disease. Daniel Feikin et al. in “Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization,” JAMA 284 (December 27, 2000):3145-50, studied all reported confirmed measles cases among Colorado children aged 3 to 18 years during 1987-1998 and all reported confirmed and probable pertussis cases among the same population for 1996-98. The authors found that exemptors were 22 times more likely to acquire measles and 6 times more likely to acquire pertussis than vaccinated children. Furthermore, the authors found that at least 11% of vaccinated children who contracted measles acquired the infection through contact with an exemptor. Daniel Salmon, et al., “Health consequences of religious and philosophical exemptions from immunization laws: individual and societal risk of measles,” JAMA 282 (July 7, 1999):47-53, found children with religious or philosophical exemptions from immunizations were 35 times more likely to contract measles than vaccinated children.

And it does kinda scare people into vaxing. Even when they know the potential side effects. This research has been a bit : at times and I see why some people just say forget it and go with what the doctors say.

We're still on the fence about vaxing. IF we do, I won't until he's at least 2 and it will be a select few. I'm hoping there will be some more unbias longitudinal research by then as I know of several valid studies being conducted now. Right now, I say no vax.

[kdtmom2be]

Originally Posted by Proverbs31

In Canada you can legally exempt your children from vaccines and still send them to public school:

http://www.vran.org/legal/forms.htm

well, I'm not in one of the three provinces with legal exemption, but I'll have to look into the "informed consent" part of things. thanks for the info.

[ndunn]

Originally Posted by kdtmom2be

well, I'm not in one of the three provinces with legal exemption, but I'll have to look into the "informed consent" part of things. thanks for the info.

Oh I forgot to add, I have relatives in Ontario with 4 unvax'd kids and they've been able to get an exemption. Hope that helps!

[bri276]

when you hear a good provax reason- meaning, one that hasn't been completely disassembled, shredded up, chewed and spit out by the incredible wealth of knowledge in this forum that the provaxers haven't bothered to read- let me know. I'd like to hear it.

[2kids-mommy]

www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden1/es.php
The vast majority of chemicals people are exposed to come from sources other than vaccines.