Utter madness: UK to give pregnant women whooping cough vaccine - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 55 Old 09-28-2012, 07:02 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
The Department of Health announced a new £10m vaccination programme for 650,000 pregnant women to protect their infants once they are born, while they are too young to be immunised themselves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9570457/Pregnant-women-to-be-given-whooping-cough-vaccine-to-protect-unborn-child.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  
#2 of 55 Old 09-28-2012, 07:34 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
I don't agree. The vaccination while not as good as we might like, demonstrably reduces the odds of a person having a serious bout of whooping cough. The most at risk people are new borns, so making sure they and there mothers have a booster in immunity during that at risk stage makes sense.

In any case it'll be a voluntary programme, with leaflets and if information which will be made available to help mothers make an educated decision about if to get it or not. Sounds good to me.

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  
#3 of 55 Old 09-28-2012, 07:57 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

The vaccine is pretty much useless because it does not create the correct immune response. The vaccine is also not without risks.

 

So, the UK will have health visitor drones handing out leaflets with fear-based propaganda without the full facts so that pregnant women cannot possible make a true informed choice.

 

Doesn't sound good to me at all.

 

 

Quote:
Professor David Salisbury, Director of Immunisation said: “Over the last year we have seen a large rise in the number of whooping cough cases with the most serious cases being in children too young to be protected by routine vaccinations.

 

- because the vaccine is fatally flawed and efficacy reduces by 42% per year after three years which puts these infants at risk.

 

This says it all, 

 

 

Quote:

No safety concerns have been raised about he vaccine in pregnancy although the information leaflet contained with the jab says it is not recommended for pregnant women.

 

 

 

- because it has never been tested on pregnant women. 

 
Bokonon likes this.

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  
#4 of 55 Old 09-28-2012, 06:59 PM
 
Magali's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Molten Core
Posts: 2,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

But this vaccine hasn't been tested on pregnant women, so it is safe because there is no evidence to suggest it isn't safe...because no one has tested it.   I highly doubt the medical practitioners who will be administering the vaccine will tell the women that though.  All we need to know is, "it's safe" .  Do it.

 

Also, they give the vax to pregnant women in the US right?  Has that been tested?  Or is it just that they haven't noticed anything.


 caffix.gif

Magali is offline  
#5 of 55 Old 09-29-2012, 04:53 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

THat's what i thought too...in the USA they already give this one to pregnant women..i know of women who had it while preggo..it was purported to deliver antibodies across the placenta to give the baby some protection after birth. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magali View Post

But this vaccine hasn't been tested on pregnant women, so it is safe because there is no evidence to suggest it isn't safe...because no one has tested it.   I highly doubt the medical practitioners who will be administering the vaccine will tell the women that though.  All we need to know is, "it's safe" .  Do it.

 

Also, they give the vax to pregnant women in the US right?  Has that been tested?  Or is it just that they haven't noticed anything.

emmy526 is offline  
#6 of 55 Old 11-11-2012, 04:15 PM
 
Pertussis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This is a massive "clinical trial" to see if this will be safe and effective for the developing fetus and the results won't become known for years.  It can therefore be construed as utter madness.  It is a study of the elements of the vaccine in the fetus.  Dead germs, mercury and aluminum in the mother causing whatever immune and inflammatory response.  Keep in mind the mother is in a state of low immunity during pregnancy.  What are the effects of that?

 

Keep in mind that in the USA we cannot sue the Pharmaceutical companies for this brazen act nor the doctors.   Armed with no liability, does it not make sense that  the marketers are running wild creating fear?

 

Your Professor Salisbury, what are his conflicts of interest I ask?  I see his quote:

Professor David Salisbury, Director of Immunisation said: “Over the last year we have seen a large rise in the number of whooping cough cases with the most serious cases being in children too young to be protected by routine vaccinations.

The perfect expert to opine and sway public opinion.  Let's never forget that top Harvard psychiatrists promoted anti-psychotics for children and received 2M dollars for it.  

 

And, what about Australia and cocooning.  The big idea was that vaccinating all people who come into contact with a newborn MUST get inoculated to "protect" the newborn because pertussis is a problem in Australia.  The same is being promoted in the USA.  Well guess what, the Australians looked at this, having done inoculations of adults since 2009 and they found it did NOTHING, so they stopped it. 

 

Medicine is full of faulty logic.  Let's not forget that the OBGYN doctors, supported by Pharma, were the same group that brought us hormone replacement therapy which, thanks to Progestin, caused breast cancer and stroke.  The French showed that was also madness when natural progesterone was available and lowered the risk of breast cancer.  As a result 80 million baby boomer lost the great value of progesterone and estrogens.   

 

Please be careful being a subject in this massive clinical trial to "protect" your baby.  I prey the mercury, dead bacteria and aluminum do not damage your fetus.  

Where is that discussion?  

Where is discussion regarding mercury in the fetus?

Where are the animal studies?    

How much mercury is in the vaccine?  

http://www.otispregnancy.org/files/methylmercury.pdf shows that the fetus brain is sensitive to mercury. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21195143  

What about aluminum in the fetus brain?  

Go to PubMed and do your homework people before you buy into something that 'sounds good'.

More Opinions:

http://www.naturalnews.com/035624_Russell_Blaylock_interview_vaccines.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/should-parents-be-concerned-about-the-whooping-cough-vaccine

http://www.safbaby.com/an-alternative-vaccination-schedule-from-dr-donald-******

Why do I care? Because I am a future grandparent and it angers me off that my future grandchild is part of this experiment.

Show me COPIOUS science that screams safety Dr Salisbury.

Chicharronita likes this.
Pertussis is offline  
#7 of 55 Old 11-11-2012, 04:30 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

People who have been vaccinated against pertussis are 9-23 times less likely to get pertussis. That hardly seems worthless to me.  

 

This is currently the advice in the US, also  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/24/pregnancy-whooping-cough-shot/1654369/

 

I agree that there isn't enough evidence of vaccine safety in pregnancy to make it mandatory.  However, I think there's enough to recommend it to women and let them make their own decision, especially when the risk of pertussis to newborns too young to be vaccinated is very real and not at all theoretical.  Very very few of the medicines that are generally regarded as safe during pregnancy have actually been tested on pregnant women.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#8 of 55 Old 11-11-2012, 04:38 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Here's some more detailed information about what information the US committee considered before making their recommendation.

 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/35546

 

ETA: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/pertussis/tdap-pregnancy-hcp.htm

 

 

Quote:
In 2010, 27,550 cases of pertussis were reported in the United States; 3,350 of those cases were in infants younger than 6 months of age — 25 of those infants died. Studies have shown that when the source of pertussis was identified, mothers were responsible for 30–40% of infant infections.

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6041a4.htm?s_cid=mm6041a4_e%0d%0a

 

 

Quote:
ACIP reviewed published and unpublished data from VAERS, Sanofi Pasteur (Adacel) and GlaxoSmithKline (Boostrix) pregnancy registries, and small studies (7,8). ACIP concluded that available data from these studies did not suggest any elevated frequency or unusual patterns of adverse events in pregnant women who received Tdap and that the few serious adverse events reported were unlikely to have been caused by the vaccine. 
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#9 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 11:21 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)

It look like it only takes about 1-2 weeks for tdap to work.http://www.shotsforschool.org/parent-faq/#requirements-and-documentation-11    To me, it makes more sense for a woman to get it (should she so choose) after delivery.  Then there is  no need  to worry about using a drug that is untested on pregnant women and their fetuses.

 

I  agree with Mizram that this is madness.

 

ETA:  I looked up the stats on pertussis.  According to the CDC pink book, there were about 15 216 cases of pertussis in the USA in 2011…which is about 1/20 000.  An adult would only be susceptible to pertussis for 1-2 weeks, post tdap shot. All things being equal, the chances of acquiring  pertussis in any give week is 1/52 of 1/20 000…or 1/ 1 040 000.  To me this seems like a much more acceptable risk than giving an untested drug to a pregnant women and her fetus.  

nia82, BeckyBird, Bokonon and 1 others like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#10 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 11:27 AM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

People who have been vaccinated against pertussis are 9-23 times less likely to get pertussis. That hardly seems worthless to me.  

 

 

You keep stating this range, but what year is it from?  With evidence that the bacterium has mutated, it doesn't seem to be accurate.

 

Edited to change from virus to bacterium.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#11 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 11:49 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

As recent as 2009.

 

There is evidence that the virus may have mutated, there also may be some vaccine drift with different strains now occurring in different parts of the world.  It is far from the most effective vaccine available, but it still drastically lowers your chances of contracting whooping cough, and makes you less infections (generally speaking) if you contract it.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#12 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 11:50 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

It look like it only takes about 1-2 weeks for tdap to work.http://www.shotsforschool.org/parent-faq/#requirements-and-documentation-11    To me, it makes more sense for a woman to get it (should she so choose) after delivery.  Then there is  no need  to worry about using a drug that is untested on pregnant women and their fetuses.

 

I  agree with Mizram that this is madness.

 

ETA:  I looked up the stats on pertussis.  According to the CDC pink book, there were about 15 216 cases of pertussis in the USA in 2011…which is about 1/20 000.  An adult would only be susceptible to pertussis for 1-2 weeks, post tdap shot. All things being equal, the chances of acquiring  pertussis in any give week is 1/52 of 1/20 000…or 1/ 1 040 000.  To me this seems like a much more acceptable risk than giving an untested drug to a pregnant women and her fetus.  

 

The idea is by giving it in utero the fetus benefits from the antibodies as well.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#13 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 12:15 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

As recent as 2009.

 

There is evidence that the virus may have mutated, there also may be some vaccine drift with different strains now occurring in different parts of the world.  It is far from the most effective vaccine available, but it still drastically lowers your chances of contracting whooping cough, and makes you less infections (generally speaking) if you contract it.

 

It can't lower your chances of contracting the illness if the strains differ.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#14 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 12:30 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

it's not a all or nothing proposition, though.  At any given time there's more than one strain circulating.  A vaccine may protect you from one and not another, kind of like the flu shot.  

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#15 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 05:07 PM
 
boomer78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Doesn't the vax lessen symptoms of pertussis rather than preventing it? Even the leaflet says it is not known whether it prevents transmission.


Mom to dd born Dec 2009 hearts.gif, our little troublemaker hide.gif . cd.gif hang.gif fly-by-nursing1.giffamilybed1.gif

boomer78 is offline  
#16 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 05:18 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It does both. It lowers your odds of contracting it and if you get it you typically get a milder case. I say it prevents transmission because milder case = less coughing and less coughing = less transmission.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#17 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 05:28 PM
 
WildKingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

You keep stating this range, but what year is it from?  With evidence that the virus has mutated, it doesn't seem to be accurate.
Pertussis is a bacterium, not a virus.
WildKingdom is offline  
#18 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 05:39 PM
 
WildKingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Please be careful being a subject in this massive clinical trial to "protect" your baby. I prey the mercury, dead bacteria and aluminum do not damage your fetus.
Where is that discussion?
Where is discussion regarding mercury in the fetus?
Where are the animal studies?
How much mercury is in the vaccine?
http://www.otispregnancy.org/files/methylmercury.pdf shows that the fetus brain is sensitive to mercury.

The TDaP vaccine does not contain mercury or thimerosol. It also does not contain "dead bacteria". It contains diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis components.
WildKingdom is offline  
#19 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 05:54 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

Pertussis is a bacterium, not a virus.

D'oh! And I just repeated it. I knew that, too. Must learn to proofread better.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#20 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 06:41 PM
 
boomer78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It does both. It lowers your odds of contracting it and if you get it you typically get a milder case. I say it prevents transmission because milder case = less coughing and less coughing = less transmission.

 

I'm quite certain I had read some articles/studies stating that the vaccine seems to shorten the period of sickness and its severity rather than preventing it.  I don't have them on hand right now though, so can't post any. Sorry. Another way to interpret 'less caughing' = 'I'm not that sick, must be a cold' while around newborn babies and other susceptible individuals.


Mom to dd born Dec 2009 hearts.gif, our little troublemaker hide.gif . cd.gif hang.gif fly-by-nursing1.giffamilybed1.gif

boomer78 is offline  
#21 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 06:56 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post


Pertussis is a bacterium, not a virus.

 

Sorry, my bad.  Temporarily forgot.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#22 of 55 Old 11-12-2012, 07:50 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer78 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It does both. It lowers your odds of contracting it and if you get it you typically get a milder case. I say it prevents transmission because milder case = less coughing and less coughing = less transmission.

 

I'm quite certain I had read some articles/studies stating that the vaccine seems to shorten the period of sickness and its severity rather than preventing it.  I don't have them on hand right now though, so can't post any. Sorry. Another way to interpret 'less caughing' = 'I'm not that sick, must be a cold' while around newborn babies and other susceptible individuals.


That would be a new one on me, but I'm certainly interested in whatever info you have to that end!
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#23 of 55 Old 11-13-2012, 06:40 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

People who have been vaccinated against pertussis are 9-23 times less likely to get pertussis. That hardly seems worthless to me. 

 

Where is this stat from?  Link to source, pls - thanks.


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#24 of 55 Old 11-13-2012, 06:51 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

Bringing over a link I put up in a separate thread on research that shows vaccine immunity and natural immunity from pertussis is not the same, the vaccine immunity being inferior. With that in mind what kind cut rate immunity will be passed on to a fetus, along with the potential for antibodies to the excipients and of course vaccine neurological damage?

 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X12013023 (sorry only a summary is available for free)

 


 

Quote:
"Although immunity after infection seems to persist longer than that after vaccination, the exact mechanism(s) is not known....Our results suggest that there may be difference in quality and quantity of antibodies to after vaccination and after infection."

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  
#25 of 55 Old 11-13-2012, 07:10 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's true that immunity from vaccines is often inferior to natural immunity (and in some cases it's superior to natural immunity), but it comes with the major advantage of not actually having to have the disease.
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

 

Where is this stat from?  Link to source, pls - thanks.

 

 

That stat comes from several different studies, hence the range.  I linked to several of them in the article "a case for vaccination" you can find in the articles section on mothering.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#26 of 55 Old 11-13-2012, 08:07 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's true that immunity from vaccines is often inferior to natural immunity (and in some cases it's superior to natural immunity), but it comes with the major advantage of not actually having to have the disease.
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

 

Where is this stat from?  Link to source, pls - thanks.

 

 

That stat comes from several different studies, hence the range.  I linked to several of them in the article "a case for vaccination" you can find in the articles section on mothering.

 

I am sure it would be helpful to MamaMunchkin if you would be kind enough to take the time to repost them here given the board changes. I am sure you have them easily to hand, as you have already posted them before.


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  
#27 of 55 Old 11-13-2012, 12:06 PM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

Thanks, Mirzam smile.gif


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#28 of 55 Old 11-13-2012, 12:21 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
I'll help you out then Mamamunchin and Mirzam. In a post just over a week ago Rrachel cited this link as showing unvaccinated children are 23 more times likely to catch pertussis than vaccinated children.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=straight-talk-about-vaccination&page=2

Interestingly if I google "pertussis 9-23 times less likely" you find many posts on mothering boards where Rrachel cites that with references. Easy. smile.gif

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  
#29 of 55 Old 11-13-2012, 12:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I'll help you out then Mamamunchin and Mirzam. In a post just over a week ago Rrachel cited this link as showing unvaccinated children are 23 more times likely to catch pertussis than vaccinated children.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=straight-talk-about-vaccination&page=2

Interestingly if I google "pertussis 9-23 times less likely" you find many posts on mothering boards where Rrachel cites that with references. Easy. smile.gif

If it was so easy, then it would have been nice for her to do it herself, rather than refusing.

kathymuggle likes this.

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  
#30 of 55 Old 11-13-2012, 12:31 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I'll help you out then Mamamunchin and Mirzam. In a post just over a week ago Rrachel cited this link as showing unvaccinated children are 23 more times likely to catch pertussis than vaccinated children.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=straight-talk-about-vaccination&page=2

Interestingly if I google "pertussis 9-23 times less likely" you find many posts on mothering boards where Rrachel cites that with references. Easy. smile.gif

Oh, its a blog, there were no actual citations.

 

From the first comment:

 

 

 

Quote:
Thank you Scientific American for yet another block headed article about vaccines. This is the one subject the SA continually reports in an unbalanced manner. Vaccines are one of the greatest tools man has ever invented to combat suffering on this planet but the current US vaccine schedule includes unnecessary vaccines (exactly how will a 6 month old baby contract hep B?) at too early an age of immune system development. Instead of addressing these more subtle issues, SA continues the block head parade of "follow the complete schedule or put your child and everybody else at risk!"

 

The same commentator also blasted the section refering to the research Rrrrrachel alluded to but I can't post because it would make me over the 100 word limit. So, anyone who wants to read this piece be sure to read the comments section.


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  
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