Formal Debate Thread: Unvaccinated children are healthier than fully vaccinated children - READ ALL RULES BEFORE PARTICIPATING - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 11:53 AM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,809
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)

Hello and Welcome to our first (but hopefully not last) debate thread!  First off, READ ALL THE RULES.  This is not a normal thread. Failure to follow the rules will result in you being locked out of the thread until the debate's conclusion.

 

 

In participating in this thread, you get one shot.  First time you break the rules, you are out of the debate.  We will start on an honor system that you cease posting once you are notified you have broken the rules, if you continue to post despite that, I (AdinaL) will lock you out of the thread and you will not regain access until the conclusion of the debate. (This means you won't be able to read the discussion until it's closed and over.)

 

The Rules:

 

*No insults or name calling.  This includes commenting on the person's level of education/informedness/knowledge.  

*You are expected to provide links to things that back up your argument.  We're not going on gut feelings here, but on actual research. Likewise, you must provide commentary with any links you post, not just the link itself.

*People are free to question your resources. 

*You may question a resource, but you may not dismiss it. i.e. "I would like to see if anyone else has reached that same conclusion, do you have any other sources, or a direct link to the study?" is fine.  "That doctor is a quack.  Give me something else." is not.  Our purpose is to encourage people to look critically at things.

*The discussion is on the argument being put forth, or on the resources people link to - not about the person presenting it. In other words, you are free to question why someone believes that, what the study points to that tells them that, but you cannot say it is because someone lives someplace specific, or is a certain religion, or because that person is too young/old/strange, etc.

*Generalizing about populations of people is discouraged. Keep the arguments specific - no "everyone knows that x group does this" or "well those people do this because of that"

*You may not post links to whale.to, you may also not post links to your own website. 

*You may not requote yourself to make a point.  If someone asks for more information, they want more information, not the same information in bigger font.

*Participate in the conversation, don't post drown out everyone who disagrees with you. (i.e. no repeated posting or overwhelming the thread with information)

*Do not report posts in this thread!  We don't want to kill the mod. This is AdinaL's thing, and she will be monitoring the thread for infractions. If you see something you want reviewed, PM her. 

*Posts that break the rules will be deleted from the thread and a post will be made notifying you of your infraction and to stop posting. 

*Overall, think carefully about what you post. This is not an off the cuff posting spree, but a carefully thought out debate.

 
 
This debate's assertion: 
Unvaccinated children are healthier than fully vaccinated children

winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
#2 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 03:13 PM
 
Imakcerka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

bump.gif

 

Edited to say I'm coming back in a bit after I do some more research. 

Imakcerka is online now  
#3 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 03:14 PM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I suspect that, if you control for exposure to VPDs and underlying health conditions, vaccinated and unvaccinated children are about equally healthy.  I don't have sources to back that up right now - I need to find some, but I thought I would throw that out there to get things started.
 

stik is offline  
#4 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 03:26 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

We need to define health.

 

Does health include such things as ADHD?  Allergies?  Mental well-being?  Is it a straight forward "incident of illness" thing?

 

Here is how WHO defines it:

 

Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

 

and Merriam Webster:

 

 

a : the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit; especially : freedom from physical disease or pain
b : the general condition of the body <in poor health> <enjoys good health>
purslaine is offline  
#5 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 03:37 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

I agree... who's going to define it for everyone so all drs are on the same page when talking about 'health'?   What is healthy for one dr, may be the opposite for another...an example is the dr who smokes cigarettes and doesn't consider it a bad enough health risk to quit-not for him anyway.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

We need to define health.

 

Does health include such things as ADHD?  Allergies?  Mental well-being?  Is it a straight forward "incident of illness" thing?

 

Here is how WHO defines it:

 

Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

 

and Merriam Webster:

 

 

a : the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit; especially : freedom from physical disease or pain
b : the general condition of the body <in poor health> <enjoys good health>
emmy526 is offline  
#6 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 03:37 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I have heard the argument that vaccines overwhelm and therefore impair the immune system.  This is not the case. Children and even infants are equipped to handle the pathogens in vaccines.  They are exposed to thousands of pathogens a day, the number in vaccines, even when several vaccines are given at once, pale in comparison.  Further more, while children receive more vaccinations than decades ago, those vaccinations contain fewer pathogens. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full)

 

Several studies show that there is not a higher incidence of various infections in recently vaccinated children (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=294&issue=6&page=699) (http://www.aerzteblatt.de/pdf/DI/108/7/m99.pdf).  One study in Germany even showed the incidence of various non-vaccine related infections were LOWER in vaccinated children.  (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11023764)  

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#7 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 03:54 PM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,809
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)

For the sake of this debate, let's define health in a general way, the way most parents would: less colds, less flu, less contagious illnesses.  

 

Let's leave ADHD. ASD and other neurological ones out of this round.


winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
#8 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 04:19 PM
 
MichelleZB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)

I can't imagine it makes much difference, normally, as long as the unvaccinated child doesn't get one of the diseases (which are somewhat rare).

MichelleZB is offline  
#9 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 05:16 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdinaL View Post

For the sake of this debate, let's define health in a general way, the way most parents would: less colds, less flu, less contagious illnesses.  

 

Let's leave ADHD. ASD and other neurological ones out of this round.

So autoimmunity doesn't count as poor health? Allergies, asthma, eczema, etc? I think there's a problem if a parent considers a child with those conditions to be healthy.

ma2two is offline  
#10 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 05:26 PM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,809
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)

I didn't say anything about autoimmune conditions.  I said let's use the definition that a parent would use - leaving neurological conditions out of this round.  I gave three examples, but those are not the only examples.  I think autoimmune conditions would fall under things that would cause a parent to define health as good or poor.  

 

So, further clarification then to the assertion: Unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children.  For purposes of this debate health meaning: less cold/flu, less contagious diseases, less autoimmune conditions - anything that would be considered by a parent/layperson to be "unhealthy".  This debate will leave neurological conditions out, as that is a much broader debate.

 

Acceptable? Or is there something else that we wish to debate about the assertion? lol.gif


winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
#11 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 05:45 PM
 
Just1More's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,932
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Well, even that definition of health is difficult to determine.

 

For example, my non-vaxed kids are very healthy, rarely "sick".  Another family we spend time with has kids the same age as mine.  Their kids are fully vaxed and ALWAYS sick.  Always going to the doctor, always on meds, always having tests for stuff.  But the true difference is our perception.  Her kids get a sniffle, and off they go to the doctor.  My kids get a sniffle, and on we go with life unless it gets bad.  Our kids probably had the same thing, but her kids are labeled sick because of her actions.  Mine aren't because, frankly, I ignored it. 

 

And, perhaps more important to this thread...her vaxed children are also reportably sick, while my non-vaxed are not.  What are the studies going to prove then?  I imagine anything more than antedoctal would be very hard to prove.

 

I'm interested to see what everyone finds.


"If you keep doing the same things you've always done, you'll keep getting the same results you've always gotten."

Just1More is offline  
#12 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 05:53 PM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

So autoimmunity doesn't count as poor health? Allergies, asthma, eczema, etc? I think there's a problem if a parent considers a child with those conditions to be healthy.


Well, to be honest, my kids have all three of those conditions (respiratory allergies, not anything that involves anaphylaxis - we are concerned about bees because of some serious hives in response to ant bites, but neither kid has ever been stung) and I consider my children healthy 99.5% of the time.  For us, eczema, allergies, and asthma are very manageable.  I've had kids with serious allergies in my classes, and without the paperwork and the mandatory epi-pen training at the beginning of the year, you would never know.  Those kids' parents described them as healthy.  And while some asthma is a daily struggle to manage, other kids' asthma is controlled really well and has little/no impact on the child's daily life.  Based on my own experiences, I don't think there is a problem if a parent considers a child with these conditions healthy.  I think we may need to do more work to describe health for the purposes of this discussion.

stik is offline  
#13 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 06:00 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post


Well, to be honest, my kids have all three of those conditions (respiratory allergies, not anything that involves anaphylaxis - we are concerned about bees because of some serious hives in response to ant bites, but neither kid has ever been stung) and I consider my children healthy 99.5% of the time.  For us, eczema, allergies, and asthma are very manageable.  I've had kids with serious allergies in my classes, and without the paperwork and the mandatory epi-pen training at the beginning of the year, you would never know.  Those kids' parents described them as healthy.  And while some asthma is a daily struggle to manage, other kids' asthma is controlled really well and has little/no impact on the child's daily life.  Based on my own experiences, I don't think there is a problem if a parent considers a child with these conditions healthy.  I think we may need to do more work to describe health for the purposes of this discussion.

I think health should be defined in a biological sense, not how much a condition bothers someone or affects their day to day lives. I really don't understand how anyone could consider someone with asthma to be healthy, but I realize a lot of people do.

 

And because I know there are parents who consider their children with autoimmune conditions to be healthy, I don't think this debate will work with the word "healthy" in the premise. I think there should be a list of health conditions, and an effort to see if never vaccinated children have fewer of them, the same, or more than fully vaccinated children.

ma2two is offline  
#14 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 06:10 PM
 
Just1More's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,932
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

 I think there should be a list of health conditions, and an effort to see if never vaccinated children have fewer of them, the same, or more than fully vaccinated children.

I agree with this.  I think we need to take them one at a time. 


"If you keep doing the same things you've always done, you'll keep getting the same results you've always gotten."

Just1More is offline  
#15 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 06:20 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

I think health should be defined in a biological sense, not how much a condition bothers someone or affects their day to day lives. I really don't understand how anyone could consider someone with asthma to be healthy, but I realize a lot of people do.

 

And because I know there are parents who consider their children with autoimmune conditions to be healthy, I don't think this debate will work with the word "healthy" in the premise. I think there should be a list of health conditions, and an effort to see if never vaccinated children have fewer of them, the same, or more than fully vaccinated children.

I would agree: asthma is asthma - even if it is a spectrum and many people roam around feeling fine much of the time.

 

Medication is prescribed for it, activities are sometimes curtailed because of it, asthmatics probably have more doctor and hospital visits for respiratory issues, etc 

 

Health is not simply not sickly.   

 

I agree with ma2two - health should be defined in a biological sense (for me that means - do they have xyz).  Getting a handle on who reports as sickly could be really difficult and subjective.

purslaine is offline  
#16 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 06:39 PM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I really don't understand how anyone could consider someone with asthma to be healthy, but I realize a lot of people do.

My asthmatic 5yo had a playdate with a friend in the morning and spent the afternoon charging around the backyard and riding her scooter in the driveway.  She showed the 2.5 yo from next door how to climb a rope ladder.  We had a chat about not standing in the front yard and screaming for the kids from down the street.  And now she's had a puff on her inhaler for prophylaxis and gone to bed.  She's REALLY physically active.  She can climb the rock wall at REI, swim across an Olympic-sized pool by herself in any direction you like, and hike for hours.  She glows.  If she's not healthy, none of us are.  I don't think you can generalize from her and say that actually all asthmatic kids are fine, but nor can you generalize against her and say that all asthmatic kids are unhealthy. 

 

If our list of conditions is too specific, we're going to have a lot of difficulty finding sources.  As many threads have pointed out before, there are few studies comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated children.  There are more studies on partially vs. fully vaccinated children. 

 

Could we start with frequency of contagious illnesses?  There might be some studies on that we could track down.  I don't know of any for asthma.  Rrrrachel cited a German study in another thread earlier today.  Rrrrachel, would you be willing to link that study to this thread so we could see what specific conditions we could constructively bring into the conversation?
 

stik is offline  
#17 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 06:40 PM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,809
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
You guys are killing me. LOL

So, if you have to have evidence (that is not "my neighbor's kids always have colds and mine don't") chances are that evidence is going to be based on reported illness that required treatment, right? So, illness requiring treatment would be considered unhealthy by most. So start digging.

The common argument that you hear thrown around is that unvaxed kids are more healthy than their vaxed counterparts. So if you go to research tha what do you find? Vaxed kids have more allergies, but less flu? Unvaxed kids have less flu, but more athlete's foot?

Run with it folks. Newbies to this research are going to start with a premise such as this one and start googling...where does that get you?

winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
#18 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 06:41 PM
 
Just1More's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,932
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

http://www.vaccineinjury.info/home.html

 

I don't know if this is the same study or not, and I don't know if this is a reputable site (anyone know?), but this appears to be a huge study in-process debating this very question.


"If you keep doing the same things you've always done, you'll keep getting the same results you've always gotten."

Just1More is offline  
#19 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 06:47 PM
 
Imakcerka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

Can I just start by saying I'm at a loss on this one.  I have looked everywhere and what I have found is evenly split.  This is going to be a tough one.  I'm looking for all illnesses.  All things you may go to the Dr. for.  And I know you said non neuro Adina but everything I've looked at so far throws it all in together and it's very hard to ignore parts of it.  Ya know?  I'll be back.  Either way this is a very good start in my opinion.

Imakcerka is online now  
#20 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 06:50 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1More View Post

http://www.vaccineinjury.info/home.html

 

I don't know if this is the same study or not, and I don't know if this is a reputable site (anyone know?), but this appears to be a huge study in-process debating this very question.


That is not the same study I was referring to. That is a very unscientific Internet poll.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#21 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 06:52 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

A large scale scientific study would be an excellent way to answer this question. Unfortunately, the government has refused to fund any such study. That's why the National Vaccine Information Center will be doing one, but it will be a long time before the results are in.

 

"We are not going to wait any longer for government or industry to answer the big question of whether the nearly 70 doses of 16 vaccines that doctors now give our children between the day of birth and age 18 is contributing to the unexplained chronic disease and disability epidemic that is harming far too many of our children. With 1 child in 6 now learning disabled; 1 in 9 asthmatic; 1 in 100 developing autism; 1 in 450 diabetic and millions more suffering with seizures, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, bi-polar disorder and other chronic illness, the National Vaccine Information Center is assembling a group of independent experts from multiple scientific disciplines to immediately evaluate and act to protect our children’s health.

 

NVIC’s Children’s Fund for Hope, Health and Healing will raise funds to first create data collection systems and conduct small preliminary studies with a longer term goal of conducting a large 10-year clinical study. The scientific research program will evaluate health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals; identify potential high risk factors for adverse responses to vaccination; and investigate the biological mechanisms for vaccine injury and death."

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/October-2009/NVIC-Launches-Research-Fund-To-Study-Health-Vacc.aspx

ma2two is offline  
#22 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 06:53 PM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The vaccineinjury.info survey has been under discussion in another thread today.  One doesn't get a representative sample of children by asking people to respond to a poll on a website whose name has the words vaccine injury in the URL.  You tend to get a lot of parents who feel their children have suffered from vaccines and virtually no one else.  And indeed, the "results" page for the survey notes:

 

 

Quote:
Most of the participants only received 1-3 vaccinations followed by 4-6 vaccinations. Reason is that most parents stopped vaccinating after side effects occured(see chart above).

 

http://www.vaccineinjury.info/results-vaccinated/results-general.html

 

These are not typical vaccinated children, most of whom receive more than 6 vaccinations as part of the routine childhood series. 

 

Pers did a lovely job examining the issues in this source earlier today.  You can see her discussion here: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1355734/vaccinated-children-have-2-5-times-more-diseases-and-disorders#post_17013776
 

stik is offline  
#23 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 06:55 PM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,809
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imakcerka View Post

Can I just start by saying I'm at a loss on this one.  I have looked everywhere and what I have found is evenly split.  This is going to be a tough one.  I'm looking for all illnesses.  All things you may go to the Dr. for.  And I know you said non neuro Adina but everything I've looked at so far throws it all in together and it's very hard to ignore parts of it.  Ya know?  I'll be back.  Either way this is a very good start in my opinion.

Interesting. If the studies are all thrown together, that is another issue. Let's just not focus on neuro at this point, it may be that we have to take the conversation that way.

winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
#24 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 06:59 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

A large scale scientific study would be an excellent way to answer this question. Unfortunately, the government has refused to fund any such study. That's why the National Vaccine Information Center will be doing one, but it will be a long time before the results are in.

 

"We are not going to wait any longer for government or industry to answer the big question of whether the nearly 70 doses of 16 vaccines that doctors now give our children between the day of birth and age 18 is contributing to the unexplained chronic disease and disability epidemic that is harming far too many of our children. With 1 child in 6 now learning disabled; 1 in 9 asthmatic; 1 in 100 developing autism; 1 in 450 diabetic and millions more suffering with seizures, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, bi-polar disorder and other chronic illness, the National Vaccine Information Center is assembling a group of independent experts from multiple scientific disciplines to immediately evaluate and act to protect our children’s health.

 

NVIC’s Children’s Fund for Hope, Health and Healing will raise funds to first create data collection systems and conduct small preliminary studies with a longer term goal of conducting a large 10-year clinical study. The scientific research program will evaluate health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals; identify potential high risk factors for adverse responses to vaccination; and investigate the biological mechanisms for vaccine injury and death."

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/October-2009/NVIC-Launches-Research-Fund-To-Study-Health-Vacc.aspx


I've already posted three relevant actual real life studies.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#25 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 06:59 PM
 
Just1More's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,932
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

The vaccineinjury.info survey has been under discussion in another thread today.  One doesn't get a representative sample of children by asking people to respond to a poll on a website whose name has the words vaccine injury in the URL.  You tend to get a lot of parents who feel their children have suffered from vaccines and virtually no one else.  And indeed, the "results" page for the survey notes:

 

 

 

http://www.vaccineinjury.info/results-vaccinated/results-general.html

 

These are not typical vaccinated children, most of whom receive more than 6 vaccinations as part of the routine childhood series. 

 

Pers did a lovely job examining the issues in this source earlier today.  You can see her discussion here: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1355734/vaccinated-children-have-2-5-times-more-diseases-and-disorders#post_17013776
 

Thanks.  That answered that.  Sorry for not being up on the other threads.  I'll work on it. (No snark intended.  I'm serious.  It's hard to jump in here, but I am totally interested in reviving this part of mothering.  I loved the vax threads that got into the nitty gritty.)


"If you keep doing the same things you've always done, you'll keep getting the same results you've always gotten."

Just1More is offline  
#26 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 07:11 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

  One study in Germany even showed the incidence of various non-vaccine related infections were LOWER in vaccinated children.  (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11023764)  

This is quite unscientific as well.  The abstract says it asked mothers to fill in a diary.

 

 It also says vaxxed were described as infants receiving first vaccines on day 60 , while unvaxxed were those who received first vaccine at 90 days.  Did the mothers just fill in a diary for a month???

purslaine is offline  
#27 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 07:18 PM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


I've already posted three relevant actual real life studies.


I especially like the Danish study you linked in your first post on this thread (it was the JAMA link).  This study compared vaccinated and unvaccinated children to test the hypothesis that vaccines weaken the immune system by over-loading it.  The results suggest that vaccinated children are less vulnerable to non-targeted infectious diseases (things that are not VPDs) than unvaccinated children:

 

 

Quote:
During 2 900 463 person-years of follow-up, 84 317 cases of infectious disease hospitalization were identified. Out of 42 possible associations (6 vaccines and 7 infectious disease categories), the only adverse association was for Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine and acute upper respiratory tract infection (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.08 comparing vaccinated participants with unvaccinated participants). This one adverse association of 42 possible outcomes was within the limits of what would be expected by chance alone and the effect was not temporal or dose-response. When considering aggregated vaccine exposure, we found no adverse associations between an increasing number of vaccinations and infectious diseases.

 

- http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=294&issue=6&page=699

 

This was a substantially-sized observational study on a clearly identifiable population cohort.  This is the kind of work that NVIC is talking about funding in the link a few posts back.  It's neat to see that this has already been done in Denmark. 

stik is offline  
#28 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 07:18 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Aaaand what's unscientific about that?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#29 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 07:48 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

 

Several studies show that there is not a higher incidence of various infections in recently vaccinated children  (http://www.aerzteblatt.de/pdf/DI/108/7/m99.pdf). 

The study only had 92 unvaccinated kids.

 

That being said, I thought some of it was interesting.

 

While, not surprisingly, VPD rates were higher among the unvaxxed (they were high, period, much higher than one would expect in North America) other infections were a little lower.  

 

 

"Relative to the year preceding the KiGGS survey, children aged 1–5 years had the highest numbers of in- fections. The median number in unvaccinated subjects was 3.3 (95% CI 2.1 to 4.6) and in vaccinated ones, 4.2 (95% CI 54.1 to 4.4). For 6–10-year-olds, the numbers were 3.0 (95% CI 0.4 to 5.7) in unvaccinated subjects and 2.9 (95% CI 2.7 to 3.0) in vaccinated subjects. In 11–17-year-olds, the median number of infections was 1.9 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.8) and 2.2 (95% CI 2.1 to 2.3) (Figure 2)."

 

Looking at the averages between the 3 age groups,  allergies seemed to be higher overall in the vaxxed,  excema was a tie, and asthma was definitely higher in the vaxxed,  however the number of unvaxxed individuals  really are so small - I am hesitant to draw any conclusions.  Table 2, page 102.

 

I really do wish we had studies with  larger samples.  

purslaine is offline  
#30 of 147 Old 06-14-2012, 07:52 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post


I especially like the Danish study you linked in your first post on this thread (it was the JAMA link).  This study compared vaccinated and unvaccinated children to test the hypothesis that vaccines weaken the immune system by over-loading it.  The results suggest that vaccinated children are less vulnerable to non-targeted infectious diseases (things that are not VPDs) than unvaccinated children:

 

- http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=294&issue=6&page=699

 

This was a substantially-sized observational study on a clearly identifiable population cohort.  This is the kind of work that NVIC is talking about funding in the link a few posts back.  It's neat to see that this has already been done in Denmark. 

This study the NVIC will do has not already been done. The study linked to above looked only at a specific set of infectious diseases. Not chronic disease and autoimmune disorders.

ma2two is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
Vaccinations

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