what are the cons of vaccinating? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 93 Old 05-29-2012, 08:03 PM - Thread Starter
 
kfillmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

 

I posted elsewhere but now thought I'd try here. Not much response.

 

I wondering if we could compile a concise list of cons of vaccines. I am particularly interested in cons related to specific vaccines.

kfillmore is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 93 Old 05-30-2012, 12:37 AM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

You can start with the vaccine package inserts, paying particular attention to the "Description" section (which shows the ingredients) and the "Adverse Reactions" section.

 

When reading the package inserts, keep in mind that vaccines are never safety tested against real placebos. In safety studies, they are tested against other vaccines, an injection of aluminum, or everything in the vaccine except the antigen. So the package inserts will often show that the adverse reactions found in the safety studies weren't much higher compared to the "placebo."

 

Here are all the package inserts.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm093833.htm

ma2two is offline  
#3 of 93 Old 05-30-2012, 04:29 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Also keep in mind that to be included on the package insert the effect just had to show up often enough, there's no attempt at determining causality from the vaccine. It's a pretty low bar to be included on there in the interest of warning you about as much as possible.

Some vaccines were tested against true placebos, like polio, but whenever a research study is done they don't test against a placebo if there is an already established treatment, they don't want to know if the new treatment is better than nothing, they want to know if it's better than what is already being used.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#4 of 93 Old 05-30-2012, 06:45 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I think vaccines and diseases have to be looked at individually to weigh the issues.

 

There is some evidence that as we vaccinate children against CP, the rate of people who had chicken pox (many teens and adults) getting shingles is growing and getting younger.  

 

Here is an article that explains the phenomenon:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1158655/Why-giving-children-chicken-pox-jab-YOU-shingles.html

 

For the vast majority of children, CP is a mild short-lived disease.  Shingles is not.  If I were queen,  I would take CP off the recommended schedule.   

 

There also seems to be a rise in mumps in college age students.  A google search will confirm this easily.  Perhaps the mumps portion of MMR wears off somewhat as time goes on?  In any event, mumps is almost completely benign in pre-pubescent males.  It has the possibility of affecting fertility in post pubescent males.  IMHO,  children should be allowed to catch mumps in childhood when the risks are really low, and acquire greater immunity than is offered by vaccines.  

 

This one is anecdotal (but only because google is failing me)  but it seems many vaccinated pregnant women get tested for rubella immunity, and their immunity is low.  Once again, if the woman had acquired rubella in childhood, she may not be as susceptible to rubella in adulthood as someone who had the vaccine.  

 

Mumps and rubella should be allowed to be childhood diseases - adults should vaccinate themselves if they were not lucky enough to get them in childhood.  Susceptible populations could also be vaccinated.

purslaine is offline  
#5 of 93 Old 05-30-2012, 08:45 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

My opinion: most likely no major cons (except dealing with the crying children, and possibly some soreness at the site of vaccination).

 

In rare cases serious reactions occur - the statistics on how rare are debatable, and there may be some people who are more likely to be susceptible to them (allergic reactions etc). There are people who post on here with upsetting stories about the vaccine injuries their children have suffered from.

 

 Some people claim vaccines might be increasing other chronic diseases (like autism, excema, allergies etc.). In my opinion, most studies of the long terms effect of vaccinations do not seem to see any major correlations between the incidence of these and whether or not a child was vaccinated, but most samples are small, and of course not everything has been tested for yet.  

 

 Hope my opinion on the cons was helpful. 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#6 of 93 Old 05-30-2012, 08:57 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

For a handy chart of common side effects of vaccines (from the Australian Government) see: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/Handbook-quickguides-sideeffects


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#7 of 93 Old 05-30-2012, 05:36 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

I don't know how "handy" that chart is. It doesn't even mention the "DTaP scream" caused by brain swelling, which I've read about tons of individual experiences online. It only says that serious reactions are "rare."

 

It doesn't seem so rare when you can go to any parenting site, and read questions from multiple distraught mothers who can't get their babies to stop screaming after hours and hours. Crying for more than 3 hours is listed in the package insert as a contraindication to further pertussis containing vaccines, but apparently that didn't warrant a mention in their chart.

 

I stopped reading there.

ma2two is offline  
#8 of 93 Old 05-30-2012, 05:40 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Dtap screaming allegedly caused by brain swelling.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#9 of 93 Old 05-30-2012, 06:57 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Looking just at vaccines, not diseases, here are a list of common cons:

 

- vaccine reactions.  We absolutely do not have a handle on how common or rare severe vaccine reactions are.  We have baseline numbers through VAERS, CDC, vaccine inserts…but these numbers are baseline.  We know vaccine reactions are under-reported…we do not know by how much.  If you cannot get a handle on how rare vaccine reactions are, it becomes very difficult to compare risks of vaccinating versus not vaccinating.

 

-vaccine ingredients.  There is a laundry list of ingredients people find objectionable.  Questions often come down to "is this a safe ingredient and is it a safe amount to inject in a newborn/baby?"

 

-vaccine safety.  The testing of vaccines is questionable.  It is not held to the gold standard of double blind random studies (as that would be unethical).  There is a lot of conflict of interest in the testing and approval process for vaccines.  Pharmaceutical companies sit on vaccine approval boards.  

 

-concerns about the amount of vaccines a child receives today in the USA versus amounts used in the past, and amounts used in other countries.  

 

-for some people, there is an ethical concern to vaxxing.  Here is a link from NVIC (largely non-vax or sel/delayed site)  http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/human.html   that shows which vaccines have what in them, in terms of cells and DNA… http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/human.html.  I am not going to get into whether or not this is a valid concern, but I do think it squiggs some people out.  

purslaine is offline  
#10 of 93 Old 05-30-2012, 08:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
kfillmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I guess a big part of what I am wondering is things that I hear whispers about like increase in food allergies etc

kfillmore is offline  
#11 of 93 Old 05-30-2012, 09:00 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfillmore View Post

I guess a big part of what I am wondering is things that I hear whispers about like increase in food allergies etc

 

Someone in a completely separate forum the other day mentioned peanut oil may be used in vaccines.

 

A google search seemed to confirm it might be used as an adjuvant in some vaccines.  I am not finding reliable links, so I am leaving this as "I don't know" for know.  I hope someone comes along with more reliable links.

 

 

It seems odd to me - people are supposed to keep their babies from ingesting peanut butter lest they develop allergies, and prone pregnant women are supposed to avoid peanut butter as well…but it is in vaccines?  

 

I know very little about this issue and would love to hear more. 

purslaine is offline  
#12 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 06:50 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Peanut is not used as an adjuvant. That doesnt pass the sniff test.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#13 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 07:03 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
You can see a list of all vaccine ingredients here.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

Did a quick page search for "peanut" and didn't find anything.

There is no research to support the idea that vaccines cause food allergies. I don't know that there's a to of research to rule it out, tether, our understanding of what causes food allergies is developing, but right now that only rises to the level of "Internet rumor."
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#14 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 07:04 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I could only find the "peanut oil is in vaccines and is causing an increase in allergies" theory on biased anti-vax websites with nothing to support the idea. The theory is pharmaceutical companies are using it as an adjuvant and don't have to disclose it. This seems pretty far-fetched to me.

AbbyGrant is offline  
#15 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 08:05 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)

My understanding is that since vaccines are not a food, an adjuvant derived from peanut oil would not have to declare peanuts as an ingredient.

 

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC2130368/

"A comparison was made of the antibody response and subjective reactions to zonally-purified influenza vaccine in aqueous suspension and in peanut oil adjuvant 65-4. "  [So any vaccine listing adjuvant 65-4 would mean that specific (peanut oil) adjuvant? Is adjuvant 65-4 currently used in vaccines?]

 

from June, 1980 (before the rate of peanut allergy began to drastically increase):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC551041/

"Studies were conducted in mice, hamsters, sheep, and two species of nonhuman primates which demonstrate the adjuvant activity of a new metabolizable lipid emulsion with marginally immunogenic doses of Formalin-inactivated viral vaccines. The lipid base consists of highly refined peanut oil emulsified in aqueous vaccines with glycerol and lecithin....This lipid formulation has several advantages over other water-in-oil adjuvants for potential use in humans. The components are metabolizable or normal host constituents, it is easily emulsified with aqueous vaccines by gentle agitation, and it is relatively nonreactogenic in recipients."

 

http://www.peanutallergy.com/boards/general-discussion/main-discussion-board/peanut-allergy-and-the-role-of-vaccination

 

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/allergies/vaccines-and-the-peanut-allergy-epidemic/

 

http://vactruth.com/2010/07/15/non-disclosed-hyper-allergenic-vaccine-adjuvant/

 

http://www.vaccinetruth.org/peanut_oil.htm

 

And vaccines in the animals we eat:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8363505 (from 1993)

Efficacy of experimental animal and vegetable oil-emulsion vaccines for Newcastle disease and avian influenza.

"An inactivated avian influenza vaccine formulated from peanut oil induced protection against morbidity and death when vaccinated chickens were challenged with a virulent isolate of avian influenza virus."

Taximom5 is offline  
#16 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 08:36 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

I could only find the "peanut oil is in vaccines and is causing an increase in allergies" theory on biased anti-vax websites with nothing to support the idea. The theory is pharmaceutical companies are using it as an adjuvant and don't have to disclose it. This seems pretty far-fetched to me.

The fact that pharmaceutical companies may be using it and don't have to disclose it does not seem far fetched to me.  I believe items that are GRAS (generally regarded as safe) do not have to be listed as ingredients, but I am not positive.  We have all heard that companies, (Coca Cola) is a good example, have trade secrets.  Cleaning agents and the like do not mention all ingredients.

 

I agree that is hard to come to any conclusion on the vaccine/peanut oil issue when the only sites one can find on the issue are on one side of the debate.   I would like to see a bit more variety in sites before I come to any conclusions.  

purslaine is offline  
#17 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 08:44 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

That is about the loosest use of the word "fact" I've ever heard.  Go look at the ingredients in the vaccines yourself.  They do list things that are "generally regarded as safe," they list things that are barely even in there at all.  If peanut oil was in there, it would be listed.  Also, we already use aluminum as adjuvants there's no need to secretly use peanut oil.

 

Taxi, no offense, but those links are pointless.  Showing that it was once studied in animals is not at all the same as showing it is currently used in people.  

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#18 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 08:46 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

That is about the loosest use of the word "fact" I've ever heard.  Go look at the ingredients in the vaccines yourself.  They do list things that are "generally regarded as safe," they list things that are barely even in there at all.  If peanut oil was in there, it would be listed.  Also, we already use aluminum as adjuvants there's no need to secretly use peanut oil.

 

Taxi, no offense, but those links are pointless.  Showing that it was once studied in animals is not at all the same as showing it is currently used in people.  

Reread, please.  I said "the fact that pharmaceutical companies may be using it…"

 

It is a fact they may be using it.  I said "may" not "are."

 

Let's not nitpick.

purslaine is offline  
#19 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 09:02 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

Like I said, pretty loose use of the word fact.  

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#20 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 09:19 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

In trying to figure out whether peanut oil may be in vaccines (no conclusions yet) I came across this book, which does implicate vaccines in the rise of peanut allergies. It might be worth a read for anyone interested in pursuing the topic.  

 

http://www.amazon.com/History-Peanut-Allergy-Epidemic/dp/1449916651/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272317249&sr=1-1/AllergicChild

purslaine is offline  
#21 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 09:51 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

OP:  here is a link (it is a crunchy blog, but still might have useful information or point you in a research direction) on allergies and vaccines.  Happy reading!  

 

http://journeytocrunchville.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/is-there-a-connection-between-vaccines-and-food-allergies/

purslaine is offline  
#22 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 09:54 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It might be worth reading the one star review before spending money on that book.
 

AbbyGrant is offline  
#23 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 10:17 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

It might be worth reading the one star review before spending money on that book.
 

Yes, there is one 1 star review and there are five 5 star reviews.  

 

In any event, I would not spend or advocate spending money on a book suggested on the internet.  It might be a great book or it might be garbage.  Library all the way.  

purslaine is offline  
#24 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 10:26 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The OP asked for information on vaccines and allergies.  If anyone has anything to offer her, other than just pick apart things non-vaxxers said, that would cool.  

purslaine is offline  
#25 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 10:27 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Yes, there is one 1 star review and there are five 5 star reviews.  

 

In any event, I would not spend or advocate spending money on a book suggested on the internet.  It might be a great book or it might be garbage.  Library all the way.  

 

I doubt the library would have it.  And a whole five reviews from people who have a bias to believe the info is not really convincing me. Anyway, my point was the one star review had some interesting info.

 

And I'll take this moment to say that I've flagged this thread as I think it is misplaced and goes against this subforum's guidelines as does some of the discussion and links on it.  Mosaic hasn't been online for a couple of days though, so who knows when she'll see it or what she will decide.

 

There is a duplicate thread on the main vaccination forum which I think is a more appropriate place (notice the pros thread was started there and not in the I'm Not Vaccinating subforum).  There is also one about peanuts.  I think in the interest of keeping this place civil and respectful the discussion of the cons of vaccines and the alleged peanut oil cover up should be kept there.

AbbyGrant is offline  
#26 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 10:38 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

      Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

The OP asked for information on vaccines and allergies.  If anyone has anything to offer her, other than just pick apart things non-vaxxers said, that would cool.  

 

I think it's fair to pick apart what non-vaxxers say considering where we are.

AbbyGrant is offline  
#27 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 10:43 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

And I'll take this moment to say that I've flagged this thread as I think it is misplaced and goes against this subforum's guidelines as does some of the discussion and links on it.  Mosaic hasn't been online for a couple of days though, so who knows when she'll see it or what she will decide.

 

There is a duplicate thread on the main vaccination forum which I think is a more appropriate place (notice the pros thread was started there and not in the I'm Not Vaccinating subforum).  There is also one about peanuts.  I think in the interest of keeping this place civil and respectful the discussion of the cons of vaccines and the alleged peanut oil cover up should be kept there.

 

That is ok that it is flagged.  Maybe a mod should look at it.   I agree a thread on cons to vaxxing should be on the vaccine forum or on the non-vax board.  

 

Totally off topic, but the sel/delayed board confuses me a bit.  I would expect a pro-vax or mainstream vaccine board to have only links such as CDC, but sel/del might be more open to different links?  I just do not know.

 

This is nit-picking, but I have not alleged there is a cover-up.  I think I have been pretty clear I have just started looking into the issue and have come to no conclusion.  At this point in time I am leaning towards there is little or no proof there is peanut oil in current day vaccines - but that is it.  

purslaine is offline  
#28 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 10:54 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
It's not on the list of ingredients. So if you're saying that's not case closed you're implying they left it off on purpose. Hence a cover up.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#29 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 11:00 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's not on the list of ingredients. So if you're saying that's not case closed you're implying they left it off on purpose. Hence a cover up.

Not having come to a conclusion because I have not had a chance to look at all the information = cover up???  If you say so, rachel.

 

Spending time looking at an issue before coming to a conclusion is good science.  

 

Companies leave out ingredients all.the.time.  Foods which list "food starch" without saying which starch, cleaning supplies, etc, etc.  

 

I think there is a good possibility that if I called Merck and asked if there was Adjuvant 65-4 in their products, they would tell me.  I would probably believe them, unless I found solid evidence otherwise.  

 

Not listing an ingredient is not the same as a cover up.

purslaine is offline  
#30 of 93 Old 05-31-2012, 11:26 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Vaccines are different than food or cleaning products. All the ingredients are listed, even ones that aren't really ingredients just potential leftovers from the manufacturing process.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Reply

Tags
Delayed Vaccination , Selective Vaccination

User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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