Top 5 compelling reasons NOT to vaccinate? - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 60 Old 04-04-2009, 01:27 AM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookietooth View Post
Was there no vax for mumps until recently? I thought that had been around for years. I got the mumps in second grade, it was not fun (and my tonsils were never the same again).
I was born in 1975 and had the MMR as a toddler- so it's been around at least that long.

-Angela
alegna is offline  
#32 of 60 Old 04-04-2009, 01:53 AM
 
Barbee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilbsmama View Post
Can't remember if this link has been posted already or not, and I'm too riled up to look. When you looks at this, how could you let someone stab your babies with $h*t like this?

http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/ingredie.html
Thank you for this link. Great information
Barbee is offline  
#33 of 60 Old 04-04-2009, 02:29 AM
 
lilbsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: in the beautiful foothills of NC
Posts: 596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
sure!

None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.shine.gif

lilbsmama is offline  
#34 of 60 Old 04-04-2009, 10:18 AM
 
ann_of_loxley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gloucestershire, UK
Posts: 5,454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ill copy Caros list hehe (it would have also been mine! hehe)

Mummy me : > Thats Ann! and my beautiful SONS Duncanand Hamish 19/09/05 & 22/04/10!
ann_of_loxley is offline  
#35 of 60 Old 04-04-2009, 11:12 AM
 
Pandme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna View Post
I was born in 1975 and had the MMR as a toddler- so it's been around at least that long.

-Angela
I was born in 1973 and had M, M and R separately.

eta: also wanted to say, I spent a lot of time poking around these forums, as well as reading books, talking to pediatricians (yes, mine is ultimately provax, but supported my delaying) and other doctors, all kinds, MDs, chiropractors, and naturopaths. For you to come on this one thread and say that no one has told you in a clear concise manner with a doctor to back them up why vaxxing is bad, is really short-sighted. Between the books and the poking around (there is a lot of stuff on the internet and some of it IS propaganda, like you said, so I tried to stick with things like the CDC Pink Book which outlined each disease separately) this stuff has taken me about....three years and going on. And I still think and read all the time. I read every single thread in the Vaccination section (there is a thread for every disease there) and some of the discussions went very interesting places.

Bottom line is, it takes a long time. And no one person or post is going to provide the answer.
Pandme is offline  
#36 of 60 Old 04-04-2009, 01:25 PM
 
Jugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
1. I have a vaccine-injured child, so the "rare" risks are all too real from my perspective. I may not be able to control which pathogens they are exposed to, but I can control whether or not they are injected with them.

2. I don't believe vaccine safety is held to a high enough standard (trial phases on last a matter of weeks; manufacturers oversee their own own safety trials; no true placebo is used; the vaccination schedule hasn't been been safety tested in the manner it is carried out).

3. Vaccines haven't been evaluated for their potential to cause long term damage (like, as stated in each package insert, cancer, genetic mutations or impaired fertility). Until we know what the long term risks are, I don't believe they can honestly be outweighed by the short term benefits.

4. As history has taught us, we can prevent most infectious diseases and/complications through sanitation, proper nutrition, and proper management of infection. Vaccines can serve to fill in the gaps when those resources are lacking, such as in the developing world.

5. I cannot trust a system that encourages blind trust and chastizes those who expect more information before they make such a major healthcare decision.


 

 

Jugs is offline  
#37 of 60 Old 04-06-2009, 01:54 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I truly think the reason cancer and other diseases have risen is because we have actually diagnosed them. Take 20 years ago...did we know what autism even WAS? Now that we do, it's easier to diagnose.
Believe this if you want, but it is patently, demonstrably untrue. We didn't just invent doctors, yk. There is plenty of medical literature dating back at least 300 years, we would have plenty of evidence if autism rates were not rising but instead diagnosis was. This may be a comforting thought, but if you have ever spent meaningful time around autistic kids, you wouldn't say 'oh they were just considered quirky back in the day'. I actually want to scream and hit the wall when someone advances that simplistic idea.

If you want evidence for the rising rates of childhood and adult cancer in this century, read 'Living Downstream' by ecologist Sandra Steingraber. It could not be more false to say that cancer is just 'diagnosed more'. That is horribly untrue and is a real injustice to the millions of children and adults suffering from environmentally caused cancer right now. A lot of Biologists think that 80% of cancer is environmentally caused.

However, in a stunning example of injustice and human manipulation, we (the public) are told that cancer is primarily due to lifestyle choices. Scientists don't believe this.
dinahx is offline  
#38 of 60 Old 04-06-2009, 02:05 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Anony-mouse: Some of us don't believe that new medical techologies are 'innocent until proven guilty'. That ethos is for PEOPLE not chemicals. The precautionary principle is 'dangerous until proven safe', and you will find that is a much safer way to interact with the chemical world, IMO.

Additionally, the risk benefit ratio means NOTHING if your child is the 'risk' so everyone else gets the 'benefit'. If your child is vaccine injured, it means nothing to say 'well the risk benefit ratio stacked up, so sorry LO'. Can you imagine saying that to your child? This is not a society that demands child sacrifice for the greater good. Or is it? If any child is maimed or killed by a vaccine, that is one too many. (And if you look at the package insert and/or VAERS, you will see that children ARE maimed or killed by every vax on the market.)

I can control whether my child is in public school, whether they swim in public pools (look into it, implicated in Polio epidemic), whether they attend stadium type events or play on indoor playgrounds. I can't control whether or not they react negatively to mercury, aluminum, or the vaccine itself. Since no vaccine is 100% effective, please tell me why you wouldn't attempt to control your child's exposures? Since no vaccine is 100% safe (or even close) please tell me why it is a better move to NOT control their exposures and roll the dice at the doctor's office???
dinahx is offline  
#39 of 60 Old 04-06-2009, 02:39 PM
 
Scattershoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post
Believe this if you want, but it is patently, demonstrably untrue. We didn't just invent doctors, yk. There is plenty of medical literature dating back at least 300 years, we would have plenty of evidence if autism rates were not rising but instead diagnosis was. This may be a comforting thought, but if you have ever spent meaningful time around autistic kids, you wouldn't say 'oh they were just considered quirky back in the day'. I actually want to scream and hit the wall when someone advances that simplistic idea.
Exactly. If autism existed in huge numbers way back when like it does today, not only would it have been recognized, but it would have had a name and we'd be calling it that name today. Doctors aren't so completely oblivious that they would not have noticed 1 in 60 children coming into their practice with these painfully obvious symptoms. It's also interesting that those who defend the vaccinations and doctors' ability to know what is best (ex. vaccination) will say doctors didn't have a clue to the point of not being able to diagnose something so obvious. So doctors are simultaneouosly clueless and someone to be trusted wholeheartedly. Autism diagnosis is made strictly by observation.

Only in the Bizarro World of vaccination do we get these arguments. Vaccines work and will protect you from diseases, but not really, so we need to fear the unvaccinated. Vaccines are completely safe, but we have this compensation program for vaccine injury that has paid out over $1,000,000,000. Vaccines are the reason we are living longer, but the rate of lifespan growth is the same now as it was over 100 years ago when almost no vaccines were around, and the growth rate is 50% less than it was in the first half of the last century. Vaccines are the reason this disease has decreased so much, but the disease wasn't actually reported back then so it is just an "estimate." Vaccines are making us healthier, but we are spending more per capita on healthcare than ever before.

Quote:
If you want evidence for the rising rates of childhood and adult cancer in this century, read 'Living Downstream' by ecologist Sandra Steingraber. It could not be more false to say that cancer is just 'diagnosed more'. That is horribly untrue and is a real injustice to the millions of children and adults suffering from environmentally caused cancer right now.
Children's hospitals are big business for a reason.

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde
Scattershoot is offline  
#40 of 60 Old 04-06-2009, 10:38 PM
 
Lauren710's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post
A lot of Biologists think that 80% of cancer is environmentally caused.
I actually learned this specific number in a cancer bio class.. I do think that improved diagnostic techniques have led to more cases of cancer, autism, what have you being diagnosed EARLIER, or more accurately, but I doubt there's been any real increase in incidence that can be attributed to diagnosis. There are a ton of environmental risk factors that just weren't present 100, 200, 300 years ago.

I'm really, honestly trying to look at vax/nonvax arguments, too.. my LO is 3 months old and has had all her shots so far, but I'm thinking about delaying and doing them one at a time from now on, in case she has a reaction. (Edit: Or not doing them at all, if I don't find any compelling reasons to continue, period.)

Scientific studies actually do hold water in my house.. DH and I are both scientists. But this still doesn't mean we believe everything we read.

For any study you find published in a peer-reviewed journal, the authors have to declare any financial interests they may have and the institution(s) with which they are affiliated are clearly listed. A lot of us are federally funded, so I'm pretty sure that you as a member of the public can look at the NIH website and see where the money's going. If anyone has any pressing desire I can search around for grant information and see what I can find for you.

Yes, once in a while you will find a paper that has a bias or is misleading, but if that's the case the rest of the literature will not support it, or the paper will be retracted; if it's the only study out there and it's NOT brand-new, then I might be skeptical about its conclusions - it's possible there's a lot more data out there that didn't get published because it didn't support some conclusion or another.

As a caveat, books are NOT. double-blind peer-reviewed.

Just throwing some other things out there to think about. I'm not pro-vax or anti-vax, but I AM pro-reading all the information I can find and separating fact from fiction, which admittedly can be tricky when science comes into the picture

And you know what? If all the information points one way but your gut points another - go with your gut! In the developed world today, honestly, it seems like vaccines may not be harmful for most people - but they may not be beneficial for most people, either. Research the diseases. Research the vaxes. I'm still learning so I can't say for myself yet. I do wish I had delayed DD's first vaxes more than the 2 or 3 weeks she got while I did some reading. It's definitely a very personal decision.
Lauren710 is offline  
#41 of 60 Old 04-06-2009, 10:53 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
[QUOTE=Lauren710;13509134]
if a doctor/scientist has written a book but has not been published extensively in peer-reviewed journals as well, they're most likely a quack. (Not *always*, but this is usually the case in bio/med.) I've yet to find anything really convincing from Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, for example.
QUOTE]

I couldn't disagree more. Just because a doctor that has written on the subject has not been extensively published in a medical journal doesn't mean they do not have something worthwhile to contribute. Dr. Tenpenny's info is easily verifiable. Her material is well documented. If one so chose they could look up/follow up on every single reference she uses.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#42 of 60 Old 04-06-2009, 11:12 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,462
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lauren710 View Post

As a caveat, books are NOT. double-blind peer-reviewed; if a doctor/scientist has written a book but has not been published extensively in peer-reviewed journals as well, they're most likely a quack. (Not *always*, but this is usually the case in bio/med.) I've yet to find anything really convincing from Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, for example.
These are the quacks IMO, not Dr Tenpenny:

http://www.naturalnews.com/025833.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/025744.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/025852.html

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#43 of 60 Old 04-06-2009, 11:14 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Anyway, OP...I say many of the reasons others listed but my "go to" explanation is this (obviously I judge my audience and I tend to hang with "geeky" sci-fi folks since I work for NASA):

Vaccination is based on human arrogance. Arrogance that we can tip the balance of nature without consequences. H.G. Wells said it best in War of the Worlds:

"From the moment the invaders arrived, breathed our air, ate and drank, they were doomed. They were undone, destroyed, after all of man's weapons and devices had failed, by the tiniest creatures that God in his wisdom put upon this earth.

By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms. And that right is ours against all challenges. For neither do men live nor die in vain (emphasis mine)." I collect more scientific and less inspiring reasons on my blog.
PaigeC is offline  
#44 of 60 Old 04-06-2009, 11:37 PM
 
Lauren710's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by uccomama View Post
Oh I agree that these people are atrocious. Especially the third link, thanks for that. I'll be looking at that one further, I'm interested to see what the fabricated studies looked like. Here's another story I read just today actually (not vax-related, but seriously, Big Pharma continues to give science a bad name! The rest of us don't do this. ): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040301877.html

I guess my point was, you have to wade through a LOT of crap to find any valid science on either side of the argument. At which point, your best bet will probably be to follow your gut and do what you think is best for your LO.

And I will reiterate that I am a scientist, and I *still* haven't been convinced either way... so that should tell you something about the pro-vax side of things. I can't find credible studies that are anti-vax, and I can't find *good* science to support vaxing! Which is why I'm here and not on some mainstream "OMG-vax-your-kids-or-they'll-die!" forum I'm trying to do some honest research into both sides before I decide to continue vaxing, delay, or stop altogether.
Lauren710 is offline  
#45 of 60 Old 04-06-2009, 11:56 PM
 
Mama2Kayla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lauren710 View Post
Oh I agree that these people are atrocious. Especially the third link, thanks for that. I'll be looking at that one further, I'm interested to see what the fabricated studies looked like. Here's another story I read just today actually (not vax-related, but seriously, Big Pharma continues to give science a bad name! The rest of us don't do this. ): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040301877.html

I guess my point was, you have to wade through a LOT of crap to find any valid science on either side of the argument. At which point, your best bet will probably be to follow your gut and do what you think is best for your LO.

And I will reiterate that I am a scientist, and I *still* haven't been convinced either way... so that should tell you something about the pro-vax side of things. I can't find credible studies that are anti-vax, and I can't find *good* science to support vaxing! Which is why I'm here and not on some mainstream "OMG-vax-your-kids-or-they'll-die!" forum I'm trying to do some honest research into both sides before I decide to continue vaxing, delay, or stop altogether.
Have you checked out www.insidevaccines.com yet?

Everything there is very well backed with studies.

Good luck!

Meghan : Kayla~ 10/19/04 Jack~ 5/27/07
Evelyn~ 10/9/10

Mama2Kayla is offline  
#46 of 60 Old 04-07-2009, 12:01 AM
 
Lauren710's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama2Kayla View Post
Have you checked out www.insidevaccines.com yet?

Everything there is very well backed with studies.

Good luck!
I haven't yet, I've seen it mentioned here but I'll give it a serious look tomorrow (my brain's just about to go off-line for the evening). Thanks!
Lauren710 is offline  
#47 of 60 Old 04-07-2009, 12:31 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Scientific studies actually do hold water in my house.. DH and I are both scientists. But this still doesn't mean we believe everything we read
.

Check out the vax lit on PubMed. I went there searching for answers because my son had a severe reaction to DTaP and I wanted info, if there was any, on what component of the shot could have caused his specific reaction (the DTaP scream). It is fairly shocking for anyone who has studied science on any level. It is like the rest of PubMed is college or even grad school and the Vax stuff is Kindergarden. The bar is seriously lower! As in most of the studies have several authors and are very 'scientific seeming'. The vax papers generally have one author and are filled with statements like 'we don't know' and 'multiple variables' 'multitude of possible causes' etc. Basically really vauge and non specific.

Also you can check you faith in the double blind study right here. <3
My BIL partipates in these so called scientific studies as a professional guinea pig. All the other people in the studies are making it a de facto career too. And the companies know about it. It is REALLY lucrative! Like 5000/per? How objective could that possibly be? Ask yourselves! And also, they are not tested on women, or small children, or the immunocomprosied mostly, they are tested on healthy young men. Also, they are double blind for about 2.5 seconds. The participants figure out who got the placebo pretty soon after the first dose. It is real obvious typically. Double blind is really a utopian dream, not a reality!
dinahx is offline  
#48 of 60 Old 04-07-2009, 12:44 AM
 
amnesiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at the end of the longest line
Posts: 4,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have removed many posts from this thread which are in violation of our UA or subforum guidelines or are responses to such posts. Please review the guidelines stickied at the top of this subforum before further participation. Should this thread further deteriorate it will be either removed from the board or closed to discussion.
amnesiac is offline  
#49 of 60 Old 04-07-2009, 12:23 PM
 
larkedyflarp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Many of you are talking about autism and I just thought I would add that I recently read some things that said 20 or so years ago autism was diagnosed with people that couldn't really function, rocking in a corner somewhere.

Now it's a "spectrum" and also there are people that seek the diagnosis of autism so they can get speech therapy etc. covered with insurance because their child needs it but doesn't have autism but insurance won't cover it with any other diagnosis. Also I believe that some people look for the diagnosis of Asperger's because they are thought to be misunderstood geniuses.

I did a search of symptoms of Aspergers and a gifted child and the list is almost IDENTICLE. Are there gifted children being labeled as Aspergers or vice versa?

I do believe that autism is linked to vaccines but autism is not in my top 5 reasons for avoiding vaccines. I think vaccines are bad on many level, see my previous post on page one of the thread.
larkedyflarp is offline  
#50 of 60 Old 04-07-2009, 01:05 PM
 
caro113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reinholds, PA
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Someone said something about (I assume) my daughter not being vaccinated and what happens when she's pregnant and never contracted chicken pox and now may pass it to her child .. Well see, she will get chicken pox as a child. I don't really see how she won't. I don't keep her away from other children and I don't plan to. I'd rather she'd get chicken pox now, before she can remember it, rather than later when she will. Besides, she will have a stronger immune system if she contracts it naturally.

Anyhow, I have to agree with what has happened to this post. It was supposed to be about why not to vaccinate, not a debate, but I can see how that happened. Reasonably so, when someone said "this is why I don't" someone else challenged it. That's how we learn, but it has gotten out of hand.

Humans have been around for tens of thousands of years. We earned our immunity by catching the diseases and fighting them off naturally. That's not going to change just because time has progressed.

Also, in the US, we tend to allow any drug to make it to the shelf. We have a "we'll just wait to see if it's harmful" policy, while in Europe (and the rest of the first world) they have a "prove it's not harmful or you aren't selling" policy. Amazingly enough, the rest of the first world live longer, healthier lives. They have fewer infant deaths. They don't routinely vaccinate. (They also have better health care, practice full term breastfeeding, believe in cosleeping)

Me with my baby girl Maeleigh (Oct 08) and My (step) baby girl Whren (May 05) in Heaven with her mommy .. And introducing our little JuneBug (June 10) We heard the !!!
caro113 is offline  
#51 of 60 Old 04-07-2009, 01:53 PM
 
Jugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Exactly. If autism existed in huge numbers way back when like it does today, not only would it have been recognized, but it would have had a name and we'd be calling it that name today. Doctors aren't so completely oblivious that they would not have noticed 1 in 60 children coming into their practice with these painfully obvious symptoms. It's also interesting that those who defend the vaccinations and doctors' ability to know what is best (ex. vaccination) will say doctors didn't have a clue to the point of not being able to diagnose something so obvious. So doctors are simultaneouosly clueless and someone to be trusted wholeheartedly. Autism diagnosis is made strictly by observation.
I agree with the bolded. However, one of the most common experiencess in autism circles is just how clueless about autism the average pediatrician is; many still cling to the stereotypical signs the same way they cling to infant formula propaganda, and are the last to pick up a child's autism. Not that I have ever been dependant on doctors, but my experience has taught me that pediatricians have become not much more than pharmaceutical distributors.


 

 

Jugs is offline  
#52 of 60 Old 04-07-2009, 01:59 PM
 
Jugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by larkedyflarp View Post
Many of you are talking about autism and I just thought I would add that I recently read some things that said 20 or so years ago autism was diagnosed with people that couldn't really function, rocking in a corner somewhere.

Now it's a "spectrum" and also there are people that seek the diagnosis of autism so they can get speech therapy etc. covered with insurance because their child needs it but doesn't have autism but insurance won't cover it with any other diagnosis. Also I believe that some people look for the diagnosis of Asperger's because they are thought to be misunderstood geniuses.

I did a search of symptoms of Aspergers and a gifted child and the list is almost IDENTICLE. Are there gifted children being labeled as Aspergers or vice versa?

I do believe that autism is linked to vaccines but autism is not in my top 5 reasons for avoiding vaccines. I think vaccines are bad on many level, see my previous post on page one of the thread.
But the thing is, simply suspecting Aspergers isn't enough. Autism evaluations take place over the course of several sessions, with a full team of specialists. Its not in their best interest to "over-diagnose" the quirky kids because it costs the state a great deal of money to make accomodations for them; my son's tuition is $2500/month!!!


 

 

Jugs is offline  
#53 of 60 Old 04-07-2009, 08:01 PM
 
caro113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reinholds, PA
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I believe, looking back, that I responded to anony-mouse as the OP, when she was not, so I apologize by directed what I said towards the OP. But everything I said still goes .. just wanted to point that out.

Me with my baby girl Maeleigh (Oct 08) and My (step) baby girl Whren (May 05) in Heaven with her mommy .. And introducing our little JuneBug (June 10) We heard the !!!
caro113 is offline  
#54 of 60 Old 04-07-2009, 09:50 PM
 
Barbee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I for one have really appreciated this thread. Periodically I rethink my decision not to vax. The responses and debate (even though it wasn't an intended debate forum) helped to reinforce all of the reasons I originally made my decision. Thank you all.
Barbee is offline  
#55 of 60 Old 04-08-2009, 10:01 AM
 
larkedyflarp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The books listed in the recommended book section are great if you want to know everything and feel that it's valid. Some are at the public library so it's easy.

Dr. Mendelsohn's Confession of a Medical Heretic and Raising a Healthy Child Despite your Doctor.

Raising a Vaccine Free Child

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has a couple DVD's and a book I just started yesterday as well as a website.
larkedyflarp is offline  
#56 of 60 Old 04-08-2009, 10:26 AM
 
larkedyflarp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny's book "Saying No to Vaccines" has a list of Ten Reasons to Say "No Thank You" to Vaccination on pg 5. I liked my 5 on pg one of this thread but here's the good doctor's 10:

1. Vaccinations are promoted through fear, intimidation- and often- coercion.
2. Vaccine manufacturers are protected from liability by the government when their products cause injuries.
3. Those who administer vaccines are protected from liability if an injury or death occurs.
4. Vaccinations can damage the immune system and the nervous system. Vaccine mandates ignore biochemical individuality and family genetics.
5. Vaccinations contain many toxic substances.
6. Vaccinations are aggressively promoted by those who have a financial interest in their us: drug companies and physicians.
7. Vaccinations are misrepresented by government agencies and public health officials as safe and effective when they can cause harm and can fail to protect.
8. Vaccinations are heavily subsidized by tax dollars and injuries are compensated through taxes paid by parents for each vaccine a child receives.
9. Vaccine production is a $12 Billion per year business, and growing.
10. Vaccines are the economic loss-leader of the pharmaceutical industry. Vaccines are relatively inexpensive but the medications necessary to treat injuries generate billions for drug companies.

I also want to add that my daughter had an anaphylactic reaction to her vaccines in the ped. office when she was a baby and the docs swooped in and did Epi-Pen, nebulizer, Benadryl and Steroid shot having an ambulance take us to the hospital for observation to make sure the reaction didn't recur (biphasic reaction).

On the VAERS sheet the pediatrician put that it was NOT a life threatening reaction. I've always known that anaphylaxis IS life-threatening which is why you use and Epi-Pen. Pretty fishy I think.

Also like Dr. Tenpenny is talking about all this money stuff. It sucks that we had to pay all these hospital bills for her vaccine reaction when it was caused by the vaccines. Turns out the Vaccine Reaction people only conpensate if you die.

I had a bad feeling about vaccines before that reaction and didn't do all of them, but after that, needless to say we didn't finish and my son has had none and any of our future children will not have any either. I just wish I knew when my daughter was born what I know now.
larkedyflarp is offline  
#57 of 60 Old 04-08-2009, 10:53 AM
 
caro113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reinholds, PA
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by larkedyflarp View Post
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny's book "Saying No to Vaccines" has a list of Ten Reasons to Say "No Thank You" to Vaccination on pg 5. I liked my 5 on pg one of this thread but here's the good doctor's 10:

1. Vaccinations are promoted through fear, intimidation- and often- coercion.
2. Vaccine manufacturers are protected from liability by the government when their products cause injuries.
3. Those who administer vaccines are protected from liability if an injury or death occurs.
4. Vaccinations can damage the immune system and the nervous system. Vaccine mandates ignore biochemical individuality and family genetics.
5. Vaccinations contain many toxic substances.
6. Vaccinations are aggressively promoted by those who have a financial interest in their us: drug companies and physicians.
7. Vaccinations are misrepresented by government agencies and public health officials as safe and effective when they can cause harm and can fail to protect.
8. Vaccinations are heavily subsidized by tax dollars and injuries are compensated through taxes paid by parents for each vaccine a child receives.
9. Vaccine production is a $12 Billion per year business, and growing.
10. Vaccines are the economic loss-leader of the pharmaceutical industry. Vaccines are relatively inexpensive but the medications necessary to treat injuries generate billions for drug companies.
: Thats a great list! I think thats basically what most mommas were saying in their lists, but this is really nice and concise

Quote:
Originally Posted by larkedyflarp View Post
I also want to add that my daughter had an anaphylactic reaction to her vaccines in the ped. office when she was a baby and the docs swooped in and did Epi-Pen, nebulizer, Benadryl and Steroid shot having an ambulance take us to the hospital for observation to make sure the reaction didn't recur (biphasic reaction).

On the VAERS sheet the pediatrician put that it was NOT a life threatening reaction. I've always known that anaphylaxis IS life-threatening which is why you use and Epi-Pen. Pretty fishy I think.
Wow!! That is terrifying. Yet one more reason I don't trust doctors. I'm sorry your daughter went through that, but I'm glad she's doing alright now. Did you question the doctor as to why he called an ambulance if it wasn't life threatening? : Definitely pretty fishy, if not right out fraud.

Me with my baby girl Maeleigh (Oct 08) and My (step) baby girl Whren (May 05) in Heaven with her mommy .. And introducing our little JuneBug (June 10) We heard the !!!
caro113 is offline  
#58 of 60 Old 04-08-2009, 11:00 AM
 
larkedyflarp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I didn't realize the report had no checked under life threatening until about a week or so ago when I had it out after calling some vaccine manufacturers again and finding out there was dairy in the DTaP.

This happened over 2 years ago and it was traumatic for us all.

Next time we're at the pediatricians though I'm bringing my copy of the report in and asking about it. The doc. also put on the form that they used Epi, nebulizer etc.

Why are we told her food allergies are life threatening and given an Epi-Pen, but when the doctors use an Epi-Pen on her for vaccines that's all of a sudden NOT. Hmmmm.....
larkedyflarp is offline  
#59 of 60 Old 04-08-2009, 12:12 PM
 
claddaghmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pin...safety-508.pdf

Quote:
...approximately 15,000 cases of adverse events following vaccination are reported in the United States each year (these include both true adverse reactions and events that occur coincidentally after vaccination). This number exceeds the current reported incidence of vaccine-preventable childhood diseases. As a result, parents and providers in the United States are more likely to know someone who has experienced an adverse event following immunization than they are to know someone who has experienced a reportable vaccine-preventable disease. Thus, the success of vaccination has led to increased public attention on health risks associated with vaccines."

"However, while rates of common vaccine reactions, such as injection-site reactions and fever, can be estimated before licensure, the comparatively small number of patients enrolled in these trials generally limits detection of rare side effects or side effects that may occur many months after the vaccine is given. Even the largest prelicensure trials (more than 10,000 persons) are inadequate to assess the vaccine’s potential to induce possible rare side effects. Therefore, it is essential to monitor reports of vaccine-associated adverse events once the vaccine has been licensed and released for public use."

Mama to expecting Babe 2
claddaghmom is offline  
#60 of 60 Old 04-08-2009, 09:35 PM
 
amnesiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at the end of the longest line
Posts: 4,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This discussion is now closed as per my previous caution.
amnesiac is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off