What would happen if NO ONE vaxed ever? - Page 7

[wytchywoman]

Originally Posted by serenitii

I started reading and posting in this forum because it is designed to discuss all aspects of vaccinations so that participants can make informed decisions. Or at least that is what the definition, guidelines and even the threads discussing the guidelines say in the stickies. I also came here under the impression that people who question vaccinations by nature would likely appreciate and respect 1) People who ask lots of questions and think for themselves. 2) Other people's opinions and decisions. 3) A good discussion. It is certainly hard to find a place where you feel like it is ok to question things. Just as an anti-vax person might wish pro-vax people would question the status quo and not just do what the doctor says -- a pro-vax or selective-vax person might wish that an anti-vax person would also question the information they have been given. Not everyone does the research themselves on any side of the fence. Some people on BOTH sides accept what they are told by others, by friends or what they read from any willy-nilly reference. The point here is that we all need to encourage everyone to think for themselves and reach conclusions based on available information and the best way for participants to do this is to talk about it and get information from a lot of perspectives.

I think this forum would be pretty boring if we all said, 'I hate vaccinations' and everyone else said 'Yeah. Me too!' I know people can get frustrated at times but ultimately this kind of banter is entertaining and interesting - well, most of the time.

OK. I can accept that, but I will also add that having had a child that has been vax injured, it is pretty insulting to me when people insist aluminum and other hoo haw in the shots is not harmful. This is not anything that I would maliciously make up, my son was badly hurt by these vaxes. Scientists can say whatever they wish and do all the research they want, but they weren't there to see my son pre and post vax and they didn't have to live through the hell we went through. Anecdotal evidence has to count for something don't you think?

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by wytchywoman

OK. I can accept that, but I will also add that having had a child that has been vax injured, it is pretty insulting to me when people insist aluminum and other hoo haw in the shots is not harmful. This is not anything that I would maliciously make up, my son was badly hurt by these vaxes. Scientists can say whatever they wish and do all the research they want, but they weren't there to see my son pre and post vax and they didn't have to live through the hell we went through. Anecdotal evidence has to count for something don't you think?

Yes, I think your personal experience, and the personal experience of many other parents who believe that their children were damaged by vaxes counts.

It is a fine line to criticize an argument for inaccuracy, or not matching up with the scientific evidence, without tactlessly calling all of the parents who think their children injured, ignorant, or silly, or confused, or greedy, or any of the other things you all have been called (not usually on this board, elsewhere).

I love the lively discussions. I think we all need to be careful to avoid insulting and hurting each other.

People whose children have healthy problems don't need mockery, too. They've got plenty on to deal with:

[WillyMom]

I did not come here as a "pro-vaxer" trying to convince "anti-vaxers" to vax.
I posted to say what I felt would happen if everyone stopped vaxing, which was the original angle of the thread. If you take the time to read my original post you will see that we are selective/delayed and that I respect all peoples decisions with regard to vax, acknowledge potential dangers and feel that it is awful when a child has a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine. I have friends and family all over the spectrum with regard to vaxing, all to none. We did our research and for us the benefits out weighed the risks, especially the first year of DSs life as my DH is potentially exposed to many VPD every day at work.
My next posts were then to point put how the immune system responded to something in a vaccine versus something in the enviornment, as a rebuttal to the arguement that vaccines weaken a persons immune system. Then things, unfortunately got out of control.
I do find it interesting that many people here choose to believe the science when it fits their notions and disregard it when it supports an opposing view. For what its worth, scientists are very passionate about their work and do all that they can to make medicine safe and effective. Believe me, scientists aren't in their labs saying. "how can I fool the public today?". And doctors truly want to help people. There is no conspiracy against the public. Yes, things dont always work out as planned. Science fails, medicine progresses.
Take care.
WM

[moonfirefaery]

Right, so if we don't agree with what you say about vaccines and the science relating to them, we're picking and choosing what facts to believe based on what we want to believe.



No one here has claimed that doctors don't want to help people. But they are human and are motivated by as many factors as any other human on this planet can be motivated, and they are also fallible and capable of being wrong.

[Science Mom]

Originally Posted by mamakay

So what a "very high dose" by injection? Who's established that?

MK, There is a neat article:
L.S. Keith et al. / Vaccine 20 (2002) S13–S17
Briefly, they have estimated (very conservatively) from numerous studies that the minimal risk level (MRL) or the level at which no toxic effects are observed in humans is about 2mg/Kg/day based upon ingested amounts (the level at which toxic effects are observed is much higher but I like conservative estimates). They graphed the MRL's for 400 days and graphed the body burden/excretion of aluminum from vaccines and it showed a spike above the MRL (2 month vaccinations), then a decline, then spikes again for the 4 and 6 month vaccinations that were at the level of the MRL and then declines; all the while dietary sources rose fairly steadily. Now the differences in excretion: 99% of ingested Al passes through the gut and the majority of that is excreted; the rest goes systemic. Whereas more than 50% of injected Al is excreted within 24 hours and about 85% in 13 days and 96% by 1178 days (Priest et al.) the small portions of either ingested or injected are deposited in brain tissue last and bone is the long-term reservoir of Al.

SM

[Twinklefae]

Haven't read past the first page (sorry) : but just wanted to point out that scarlet fever is undiagnosed strep throat. If you have strept throat and do not treat it, it often turns into scarlet fever, regardless of your vax status.

(we've had it through the daycare a few times)

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Science Mom

MK, There is a neat article:
L.S. Keith et al. / Vaccine 20 (2002) S13–S17
Briefly, they have estimated (very conservatively) from numerous studies that the minimal risk level (MRL) or the level at which no toxic effects are observed in humans is about 2mg/Kg/day based upon ingested amounts (the level at which toxic effects are observed is much higher but I like conservative estimates). They graphed the MRL's for 400 days and graphed the body burden/excretion of aluminum from vaccines and it showed a spike above the MRL (2 month vaccinations), then a decline, then spikes again for the 4 and 6 month vaccinations that were at the level of the MRL and then declines; all the while dietary sources rose fairly steadily. Now the differences in excretion: 99% of ingested Al passes through the gut and the majority of that is excreted; the rest goes systemic. Whereas more than 50% of injected Al is excreted within 24 hours and about 85% in 13 days and 96% by 1178 days (Priest et al.) the small portions of either ingested or injected are deposited in brain tissue last and bone is the long-term reservoir of Al.

SM

Which adjuvanted vaccines were they using to base that off of?
Was it including Prevnar and HepB? Was the MRL that was being exceeded based off the average baby weight at those ages?

Also, were they just looking at the MRL for classic toxic effects? Excluding possible neurotoxic effects like the mouse study found?

Don't you thinik it's kinda wrong that it's now 2007 and they're still making assumptions about injected aluminum based on orally ingested doses?
Since we're talking about millions and millions of human infants, shouldn't there be something a little more solid???


ETA:

Wait...that is the guy that gave that presentation at that Puerto Rico meeting, isn't it?
That's the same thing that was at the bottom of page one?

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by WillyMom

I do find it interesting that many people here choose to believe the science when it fits their notions and disregard it when it supports an opposing view.

That's a curious thing to hear from someone we've never talked to before.
Where are you getting that idea from? Can you provide some examples?

[Science Mom]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Which adjuvanted vaccines were they using to base that off of? Hep
Was it including Prevnar and HepB? Was the MRL that was being exceeded based off the average baby weight at those ages?

Hep B and DTaP following the ACIP schedule and that was based off 5% and 50% female weight averages. My description probably doesn't do the graph justice, if you can't find the article, I will send it to you.

Also, were they just looking at the MRL for classic toxic effects? Excluding possible neurotoxic effects like the mouse study found?

No, looking at neurotoxic effects as well as others.

Don't you thinik it's kinda wrong that it's now 2007 and they're still making assumptions about injected aluminum based on orally ingested doses?
Since we're talking about millions and millions of human infants, shouldn't there be something a little more solid???

Yes and there is no reason not to conduct more animal studies.

ETA:
Wait...that is the guy that gave that presentation at that Puerto Rico meeting, isn't it?
That's the same thing that was at the bottom of page one?

I don't know, to whom are you referring?

SM

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by SM

Hep B and DTaP following the ACIP schedule and that was based off 5% and 50% female weight averages. My description probably doesn't do the graph justice, if you can't find the article, I will send it to you.

Thanks.
I'll PM you.

No, looking at neurotoxic effects as well as others.

I guess I should just read the paper myself, but were they basing it off of stuff like Al psychosis from tapwater used in dialysis?
That kind of thing?

Yes and there is no reason not to conduct more animal studies.

Agreed.

I don't know, to whom are you referring?

SM

That Puerto Rico meeting...at the bottom of the page, whoever had scanned it underlined the sentence "The aluminum body burden from vaccines in the first year of life exceeds that from dietary sources."
So...whoever it was that gave that presentation.

I looked for the Vaccine paper, and it said it was first presented here:

Aluminium adjuvants in vaccines: workshop summary, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 11-12 May 2000
Workshop on aluminium in vaccines, San Juan , PORTO RICO (11/05/2000)

So that's the same meeting you and I poured over a while back. It has to be that part that was underlined.

[mamakay]

Ok...I've read the fulltext now. (thanks again!)

Originally Posted by SM

Hep B and DTaP following the ACIP schedule and that was based off 5% and 50% female weight averages. My description probably doesn't do the graph justice, if you can't find the article, I will send it to you.

So that's only half of the Al adjuvanted vaxes babies get. According to the graph, just the DTaP and HepB make it walk up to the line for the MRL.
In reality, babies are getting double that. (when you include Hib and Prevnar).

The MRL was set with a "three times safety rating". And just two vaxes out of the four make it exceed that ever so slightly. All four will bring it way over.

This is not good, isn't it?

ETA..

What would this graph look like with all four Al adjuvanted vaccines being taken into consideration?
http://s88.photobucket.com/albums/k1...rent=graph.gif

[silly_scout]

OP here... thanks for all the replies. I think this thread got a little over my head though... can anyone suggest a fairly balanced book I can read?

[Science Mom]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Ok...I've read the fulltext now. (thanks again!)



So that's only half of the Al adjuvanted vaxes babies get. According to the graph, just the DTaP and HepB make it walk up to the line for the MRL.
In reality, babies are getting double that. (when you include Hib and Prevnar).

The MRL was set with a "three times safety rating". And just two vaxes out of the four make it exceed that ever so slightly. All four will bring it way over.

This is not good, isn't it?

ETA..

What would this graph look like with all four Al adjuvanted vaccines being taken into consideration?
http://s88.photobucket.com/albums/k1...rent=graph.gif

I thought about that myself (disappointed that the maximum amount that could be received was not used) but they included the equation for how they derived the Al body burdens so you could calculate the additional Al amounts and sum them and if I could figure out how to do that for the entire 400 days with my software I will, otherwise you could just use various points (such as 2, 4, and 6 months and some points in between) and extrapolate the curve. It makes a good case for spacing out vaccines in terms of acute Al exposure.

SM

[silly_scout]

This thread is starting to make me feel like Ralph Wiggum.
"My cat's breath smells like cat food!"

[applejuice]

"What would happen If NO ONE vaxed ever?"

The title of this thread reminds me of the quote from Thomas Alva Edison, the homeschooled inventor who died from complications of diabetes.

"If all of the medicine was thrown into the sea, it would be wonderful for mankind and terrible for the fishes."

~Applejuice, who is unvaxed and glad of it~.

[luminesce]

Originally Posted by wytchywoman;

OK. I can accept that, but I will also add that having had a child that has been vax injured, it is pretty insulting to me when people insist aluminum and other hoo haw in the shots is not harmful. This is not anything that I would maliciously make up, my son was badly hurt by these vaxes. Scientists can say whatever they wish and do all the research they want, but they weren't there to see my son pre and post vax and they didn't have to live through the hell we went through. Anecdotal evidence has to count for something don't you think?

It does. And so does intuition which is mostly why my babe has not had any shots yet.

But consider that some people have had babies die from pertussis -- or had friends who had babies who died from pertussis. Those people might have their own emotional reasons for vaccinating, even if others disagree. It is those kinds of perspectives that I think are useful to someone "on the fence." Science and reason are a key part of the decision making but when it comes to mothering there is a whole lot of emotion tangled in. In the end you have to weigh the risks and benefits and find a place you feel comfortable with. But to get there, you have to hear both sides, otherwise, if something unwanted happens that you could attribute to your decision (e.g. unvaxed child gets pertussis OR vaxed child has a reaction), you may feel you never considered all the possibilities.

[hellyaellen]

Originally Posted by silly_scout

OP here... thanks for all the replies. I think this thread got a little over my head though... can anyone suggest a fairly balanced book I can read?

Its a bit over my head too but informative none the less.