Found you in quest of an answer to the vaccination question - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 65 Old 09-28-2012, 05:54 PM - Thread Starter
 
shardfilterbox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Hi everyone!  My wife, Lena and I, Shard, are expecting a son in a couple months and I still don't know what to do about vaccinating.  I've been researching vaccines for the last 5 months.  So much good information on here!

 

It all started with a book, "Vaccination is not Immunization" - by Tim O'Shea.  Tim gave Lena a copy of his book and as soon as she finished it she made me read it and we've bee in turmoil ever since.  My problem is that I can't choose a side.  Most of the information against vaccines seem valid and concerning, but then I have doctors, and usually intelligent people, that just react to me like I'm stupid for even questioning it.  Like level headed parents saying their VACCINATED kid most likely caught whooping cough "from an unvaccinated child in a public playground."    

 

It just seems like such an emotionally charged subject because parents on both sides of the debate have had direct traumatic experience from either vaccinating, or deciding not to vaccinate.  I need verifiable peer reviewed studies that shows evidence one way or the other.  So please help me debate about this subject, because debate is the best way for me to learn! :D

shardfilterbox is offline  
#2 of 65 Old 09-29-2012, 04:22 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)

Hi - and welcome to MDC.

 

I will start with one of my favourites, and maybe someone will come on and be "you're wrong!"so you can get both sides.

 

Hep B is associated with a increase in autism if given to newborn infant males. 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170

 

"Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life."

 

The only newborns who need a Hep. B shot are those whose mothers have Hep. B.  In everyone else it is not medically necessary and carries too much of a risk.

 

I would research rota, pertussis and Hep B first as they pertain to newborns.  Your wife might want to research pertussis as she will undoubtably be offered a booster during her pregnancy or upon delivery.  You might be as well.


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  
#3 of 65 Old 09-29-2012, 08:13 PM
 
Adaline'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

We give the dtap to newborns, and that's all. We were super on the fence, but we really want to protect against pertussis and tetanus (when toddler age). We delay everything else until age two and then have decided to get on schedule. Of course, a few vaccinations are skipped because of the delay. 


Holly and David partners.gif

Adaline love.gif (3/20/10), and Charlie brokenheart.gif (1/26/12- 4/10/12) and our identical  rainbow1284.gif  twins Callie and Wendy (01/04/13)

SIDS happens. 

Adaline'sMama is offline  
#4 of 65 Old 09-30-2012, 01:37 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
There's a couple of recent independent literature reviews on vaccine safety and effectiveness. Ones for the Cohcrane group. I'll post the links when I get back to my computer (prob tuesday). But the bottom line of both is that overall the research shows vaccines are safe and effective (even given small number if studies which suggest some correlations). The vast majority of studies are null for correlation between vaccines and anything except a reduction in the chance of catching vaccine preventable diseases.

There's a lot of scary stuff online (and in books). Please read skeptically, and don't be scared by the vaccine ingredient lists. Most of that stuff is there for a reason and in amounts so tiny that it will be dwarfed by your child's environmental exposure (which is perhaps the real scary thing!).

I'll just end by saying that, incase its not obvious to you, choosing to not vaccinate does not need to be considered part of natural parenting. Much of the science comes down in favor of lots of natural parenting issues, like breast feeding, cosleeping, a reduction in medical intervention in birth etc. There are excellent environmental reasons for cloth diapers, eating local organic food etc. Science still comes down in favour of vaccinating. smile.gif

Anyway good luck in your decision. smile.gif
mgrella likes this.

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 online now  
#5 of 65 Old 09-30-2012, 09:55 AM - Thread Starter
 
shardfilterbox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thanks, please do.  I am having the hardest time finding evidence FOR vaccines.  There is another thread here, trying to dig up that side of the discussion too, that I am keeping up on as well.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

There's a couple of recent independent literature reviews on vaccine safety and effectiveness. Ones for the Cohcrane group. I'll post the links when I get back to my computer (prob tuesday). But the bottom line of both is that overall the research shows vaccines are safe and effective (even given small number if studies which suggest some correlations). The vast majority of studies are null for correlation between vaccines and anything except a reduction in the chance of catching vaccine preventable diseases.
There's a lot of scary stuff online (and in books). Please read skeptically, and don't be scared by the vaccine ingredient lists. Most of that stuff is there for a reason and in amounts so tiny that it will be dwarfed by your child's environmental exposure (which is perhaps the real scary thing!).
I'll just end by saying that, incase its not obvious to you, choosing to not vaccinate does not need to be considered part of natural parenting. Much of the science comes down in favor of lots of natural parenting issues, like breast feeding, cosleeping, a reduction in medical intervention in birth etc. There are excellent environmental reasons for cloth diapers, eating local organic food etc. Science still comes down in favour of vaccinating. smile.gif
Anyway good luck in your decision. smile.gif
shardfilterbox is offline  
#6 of 65 Old 09-30-2012, 04:44 PM
 
mgrella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Brookline, MA; USA
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I agree with Prosciencemum in the need for scepticism in looking for credible information. Nothing (including vaccinating as well as not vaccinating) is 100% safe, but the huge majority of science looking at large numbers comes down squarely on the side of vaccinating to prevent illness, disability and death.  Ultimately the decision is yours of course; however be aware that "not deciding" is also deciding. 

Thrilled to answer questions on individual vaccines/illnesses if you like.

Good luck!

prosciencemum likes this.
mgrella is offline  
#7 of 65 Old 09-30-2012, 05:25 PM - Thread Starter
 
shardfilterbox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

Hep B is associated with a increase in autism if given to newborn infant males. 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170

 

"Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life."

 

Thanks for helping me debate :D.  I've actually started index cards with a different vaccine on the back of each one with things that I find out about each, which I will cross out if they are disproved.  So this helps me on my hep b card.  That study if from 2010 I think but it's only done on children born before 1999.

 

Quote:
The rationale for birth year restriction is to control
for variations in exposures to vaccine mercury (Hg) content.

 

In 1999 the FDA called for reductions or removals in mercury content because they found the hep b vaccine to contain 40 TIMES!  the acceptable amount of mercury/body weight.  So I wonder how much current Hep B shots have reduced their mercury content to now, as mercury seems to be the most correlated thing to autism.  This doesn't really have any weight if hep b vaccines no longer use mercury.  

shardfilterbox is offline  
#8 of 65 Old 09-30-2012, 05:55 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)

I am not sure it was the mercury that caused the rise in autism.  Do you have a link?  Where did you get the quote "the rationale for birth year restriction…..".  I took a look over the abstract and it was not there.

 

 

In any event - I have 3 kids.  The oldest is almost 17.  When he was a baby, Hep B was related to an increase in autism (3 fold, it turns out, in newborn males)  He was also one of the last kids given DPT - they switched over to DTaP when he was around 2, turns out DTaP was/is safer.  The point of this story is we learn more about vaccine safety all the time.  Early rotavirus vaccines were abandoned as they caused overly high rates of intussuseption.   http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/rotavirus/vac-rotashield-historical.htm   Science and what is seen as safe is changing all the time.  A vaccine being "safe" isn't good enough, in my opinion, to inject it into a child - it must also serve a need.  I don't give my kids any medicine for kicks - it is to serve a need.  There is no need for newborns to receive the Hep B shot at birth unless their mother has Hep. B

andisunshine likes 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  
#9 of 65 Old 09-30-2012, 06:02 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)

One more - are you American?

 

I put that out there as you expressed concern around thimerosal and vaccines.  

 

If you are Canadian, you might be interested to know that our Hep B  and flu vaccines do contain thimerosal (grrr…..)

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/q_a_thimerosal-eng.php. Newborns here are not routinely given Hep B at birth, though, which is a good thing in my opinion.

 

If you are anything but American, you need to double check the vaccine formulations where you live.  


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 65 Old 10-02-2012, 01:20 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)

shardfilterbox - a good resource for evidence based health care studies is the Cochrane Collaboration (full disclosure a friend of mine works for them - although her research has nothing at all to do with vaccines, but floor choices in health care facilities). They do systematic reviews of literature studies to produce reports giving the best evidence based recommendations they can. You can search all their systematic reviews via their website: http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane-reviews

 

I think this is the one I remember reading - a study of the safety and efficacy of the MMR vaccine: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3/abstract

 

The last line of the summary of this for example says: 

 

 

Quote:

Exposure to the MMR vaccine was unlikely to be associated with autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, bacterial or viral infections.

 

 

But if you search their database on vaccines you can find a bunch of systematic reviews on different vaccines. 


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 online now  
#11 of 65 Old 10-02-2012, 01:24 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)

You might also be interested in the free online course Paul Offit gives - at least to hear his point of view. He discusses the alternate schedules for vaccination in one of the videos, which would probably be of the most interest to you. There's another thread here with some summaries of the videos from this course I watched over the summer, but they're starting to run it again soon too. 


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 online now  
#12 of 65 Old 10-02-2012, 01:41 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)

And here's the other link I mentioned: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13164

 

From this thread: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1363710/adverse-effects-of-vaccines-evidence-and-causality

 

The main summary of this one: 

 

 

 

Quote:
while no vaccine is 100 percent safe, very few adverse events are shown to be caused by vaccines. In addition, the evidence shows that vaccines do not cause several conditions. For example, the MMR vaccine is not associated with autism or childhood diabetes. Also, the DTaP vaccine is not associated with diabetes and the influenza vaccine given as a shot does not exacerbate asthma.

 

Hope it helps. The other trick is to google "something that worries your about vaccines" + skeptical (e.g. "hep b vaccine causes autism skeptical) to get the other side of the argument - often a blog post with a critical review of the study being discussed by anti-vaccination groups.  

 

In the example I gave I found this blog article: http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2012/07/1-hepatitis-b-vaccination-of-male-neonates-and-autism-diagnosis-nhis-1997-2002-2010.html which discusses the small sample size (only 9/33 of the autistic children in the sample had been given the Hep B vaccine, and many were born well before it was introduced as a newborn vaccines for example) and other problems with the study kathymuggle links. 

 

They also make a good point about looking for replication. This paper was published in 2010, and if it was a major effect you'd expect someone to have repeated it by now.... (the blog article I linked was dated July 2012). 


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 online now  
#13 of 65 Old 10-02-2012, 05:50 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

They also make a good point about looking for replication. This paper was published in 2010, and if it was a major effect you'd expect someone to have repeated it by now.... (the blog article I linked was dated July 2012). 

Not necessarily.  It takes a while (years) to do a study…I would not expect a new study out this early after 2010.  We also have not seen any studies that refute the study I quoted.  (Perhaps due to it being early days - or perhaps because the study is correct - we simply do not know yet). 


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  
#14 of 65 Old 10-02-2012, 06:04 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Not necessarily.  It takes a while (years) to do a study…I would not expect a new study out this early after 2010.  We also have not seen any studies that refute the study I quoted.  (Perhaps due to it being early days - or perhaps because the study is correct - we simply do not know yet). 

 

The blog article I posted raises several good questions about the methodology and statistical significance of the study.


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 online now  
#15 of 65 Old 10-02-2012, 06:42 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

The blog article I posted raises several good questions about the methodology and statistical significance of the study.

I read the blog.

 

I thought the sample size point was legit.

 

I thought the fact that some kids were vaccinated before Hep B was a standard  newborn vaccine was moot.  Who cares unless the formula had changed while the study was being done?    

 

Yes, I would like to see more and bigger studies on the issue. The study points more to a possibility or suspicion.  The question then becomes - what does one do without a huge body of solid evidence?  I think looking at the VPD and risk factors for the VPD are a good place to start.  Newborns have no or almost no risk factors for Hep B unless their mother is Hep. B positive. It is reasonably easy to figure out if your newborn is at risk of Hep. B.   Why take a possible risk for no gain?


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  
#16 of 65 Old 10-02-2012, 07:44 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

You might also be interested in the free online course Paul Offit gives - at least to hear his point of view. He discusses the alternate schedules for vaccination in one of the videos, which would probably be of the most interest to you. There's another thread here with some summaries of the videos from this course I watched over the summer, but they're starting to run it again soon too. 

Just be aware that Dr Offit appears not to have a basic grasp of the vaccine issue, and you will be subjecting yourself to vaccine propaganda. Here is a rebuttal of one of his articles on thimerosal in vaccines and autism by Dr Paul King, PhD, MS,BA:

 

Rebuttal to: "Conventional wisdom must conquer medical sensationalism", the article was written in 2005, so some information maybe outdated.


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  
#17 of 65 Old 10-02-2012, 08:29 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Just be aware that Dr Offit appears not to have a basic grasp of the vaccine issue, and you will be subjecting yourself to vaccine propaganda. Here is a rebuttal of one of his articles on thimerosal in vaccines and autism by Dr Paul King, PhD, MS,BA:

 

Rebuttal to: "Conventional wisdom must conquer medical sensationalism", the article was written in 2005, so some information maybe outdated.

 

Mirzam, you keep posting great stuff!  notes.gif  This is another one that deserves its own thread.

Taximom5 is offline  
#18 of 65 Old 10-02-2012, 08:33 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Just be aware that Dr Offit appears not to have a basic grasp of the vaccine issue, and you will be subjecting yourself to vaccine propaganda. Here is a rebuttal of one of his articles on thimerosal in vaccines and autism by Dr Paul King, PhD, MS,BA:

 

Rebuttal to: "Conventional wisdom must conquer medical sensationalism", the article was written in 2005, so some information maybe outdated.

 

Mirzam, you keep posting great stuff!  notes.gif  This is another one that deserves its own thread.

I obviously have too much time on my hands now the kids are back at school! whistling.gif


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  
#19 of 65 Old 10-02-2012, 08:49 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Just be aware that Dr Offit appears not to have a basic grasp of the vaccine issue

 

?

 

He's an experienced researcher who has worked on developing vaccines. I think he understands vaccines. 

 

Wikipedia bio of Paul Offit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit


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 online now  
#20 of 65 Old 10-02-2012, 09:31 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

?

 

He's an experienced researcher who has worked on developing vaccines. I think he understands vaccines. 

 

Wikipedia bio of Paul Offit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit

 

Age of Autism Awards 2010: Dr Paul Offit, Denialist of the Decade

 

Paul Offit and the Original Sin

 

Paul Offit autism denier:

 

 

 

Quote:
“It's not an actual epidemic. In the mid-1990s, the definition of autism was broadened to what is now called autism spectrum disorder. Much milder parts of the spectrum -- problems with speech, social interaction -- were brought into the spectrum. We also have more awareness, so we see it more often. And there is a financial impetus to include children in the wider definition so that their treatment will be covered by insurance. People say if you took the current criteria and went back 50 years, you'd see about as many children with autism then.”(my emphasis)

 

 

 

Quote:

AOL Health: Do you believe that there is a cure for autism?

Offit: No. Children who show signs of autism sometimes can get better between 2 and 5, but it probably has nothing to do with the biomedical treatments -- they simply improve with time.

 

Move along, everyone, nothing to see here, Offit the Prophet has spoken. Interestingly, the question didn’t mention biomedical treatments, but Offit slammed the door on them anyway? No, no chance for recovery. And, oh, by the way, everything that can be invented already has, and every innovation in medicine to help people get better is already here.

I could go on and on and on.....

 

ETA: here is an interesting comment from the second article about Dr Offit's wiki bio you posted a link to:

 

 

 

 

Quote:

The "sceptics" try to hide the truth about Offit on Wikipedia. See how they removed important facts. How will it end?


(cur | prev) 11:34, 16 December 2011‎ 213.112.195.185 (talk)‎ (20,212 bytes) (ACSH is a very successfull lobby-organizastion and it is important for the public to know. Why do you want to hide that??) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:05, 15 December 2011‎ MastCell (talk | contribs)‎ (20,059 bytes) (agree with GrahamColm; while this may be notable, it's not notable enough for the lead) (undo)
(cur | prev) 21:24, 15 December 2011‎ 213.112.193.210 (talk)‎ (20,211 bytes) (Undid revision 466057011 by GrahamColm (talk)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 21:12, 15 December 2011‎ GrahamColm (talk | contribs)‎ (20,059 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by 213.112.193.210 (talk): See WP:MOS and not sure of WP:WEIGHT. (TW)) (undo)

 

 


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  
#21 of 65 Old 10-02-2012, 11:11 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)

Wow, that article was harsh.

 

I loved it! love.gif You find the best stuff!


               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#22 of 65 Old 10-03-2012, 03:21 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

did somebody say Offit?

Photo

317595_10151414335738998_2142287379_n.jpg

Mirzam and BeckyBird like this.
emmy526 is online now  
#23 of 65 Old 10-04-2012, 12:10 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Not necessarily.  It takes a while (years) to do a study…I would not expect a new study out this early after 2010.  We also have not seen any studies that refute the study I quoted.  (Perhaps due to it being early days - or perhaps because the study is correct - we simply do not know yet). 

I absolutely agree. It's too early to use this study to prove anything. It either needs to be repeated or refuted. 


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 online now  
#24 of 65 Old 10-04-2012, 12:14 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)

I think we've gone a bit off topic villifying Paul Offit here. If the OP is interested he can enroll for the course for free. If not that's fine too. 

 

OP - I hope the stuff I posted was helpful. Best of luck. 


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 online now  
#25 of 65 Old 10-04-2012, 07:25 PM
 
emma1325's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shardfilterbox View Post

Hi everyone!  My wife, Lena and I, Shard, are expecting a son in a couple months and I still don't know what to do about vaccinating.  I've been researching vaccines for the last 5 months.  So much good information on here!

 

It all started with a book, "Vaccination is not Immunization" - by Tim O'Shea.  Tim gave Lena a copy of his book and as soon as she finished it she made me read it and we've bee in turmoil ever since.  My problem is that I can't choose a side.  Most of the information against vaccines seem valid and concerning, but then I have doctors, and usually intelligent people, that just react to me like I'm stupid for even questioning it.  Like level headed parents saying their VACCINATED kid most likely caught whooping cough "from an unvaccinated child in a public playground."    

 

It just seems like such an emotionally charged subject because parents on both sides of the debate have had direct traumatic experience from either vaccinating, or deciding not to vaccinate.  I need verifiable peer reviewed studies that shows evidence one way or the other.  So please help me debate about this subject, because debate is the best way for me to learn! :D

 

Shard,

 

My advice is to consider the fact that your child will be born vaccine-free.  There is nothing particularly dangerous about the biological norm, despite what the pharmaceutical lobbyists would like us all to believe. A vaccine is a medical intervention which holds risks, performed on a healthy baby who has no immediate need for the drug.  The risks of the diseases are theoretical; after all, a baby must first be exposed to AND contract a disease before the risks even come into play, whereas the risks of a vaccine are direct and immediate.

 

Decide on each vaccine individually (which you seem to be doing; I noticed you're making index cards which is an awesome way to organize the facts) and let the default be the biologically normal state of non-vaccinated.  Start with vaccine-free; convince yourself why should take the risks involved with each vaccine.


Loving mother, Devoted Wife
emma1325 is offline  
#26 of 65 Old 10-05-2012, 04:25 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

 

Shard,

 

My advice is to consider the fact that your child will be born vaccine-free.  There is nothing particularly dangerous about the biological norm, despite what the pharmaceutical lobbyists would like us all to believe. A vaccine is a medical intervention which holds risks, performed on a healthy baby who has no immediate need for the drug.  The risks of the diseases are theoretical; after all, a baby must first be exposed to AND contract a disease before the risks even come into play, whereas the risks of a vaccine are direct and immediate.

 

The problem with this is that at the point you realise your child has been exposed to and contracted a disease it's too late to get the vaccine (in most cases). Vaccines are a safe and effective way (in most cases) to help your childs immune system develop a response to diseases which in a small fraction of cases can be serious. You baby might be born with an immune system which has never seen a virus or bacteria, but it won't last long, and vaccines are just about showing that immune system weakened (or dead) versions of those things so that when/if they encounter the real thing they are less likely to catch the disease. 

I'mAMama! likes this.

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 online now  
#27 of 65 Old 10-05-2012, 10:31 AM
 
emma1325's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

The problem with this is that at the point you realise your child has been exposed to and contracted a disease it's too late to get the vaccine (in most cases). Vaccines are a safe and effective way (in most cases) to help your childs immune system develop a response to diseases which in a small fraction of cases can be serious. You baby might be born with an immune system which has never seen a virus or bacteria, but it won't last long, and vaccines are just about showing that immune system weakened (or dead) versions of those things so that when/if they encounter the real thing they are less likely to catch the disease. 

 

Well, vaccinated children can still catch disease. That is known.  What isn't known is how much a child will be protected from a particular vaccine, and how a child might be negatively affected.  There are other lifestyle factors which can contribute to low disease risk, including breastfeeding, adequate sunshine for vitamin D, exercise, etc. which do not include the kinds of risks vaccines hold.  Also, just because an immune system has not directly seen a virus or bacteria does not mean the child's immune system (via maternal antibody response and breastfeeding benefits) cannot effectively deal with those things. 

 

In addition, in the instances in which a child does catch a disease (vaccinated or not) there are very effective treatment options available (in many cases).  All I'm getting as is that vaccines are not necessarily the best choice for each child, when there are so many different factors to consider.


Loving mother, Devoted Wife
emma1325 is offline  
#28 of 65 Old 10-05-2012, 12:29 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

The problem with this is that at the point you realise your child has been exposed to and contracted a disease it's too late to get the vaccine (in most cases). Vaccines are a safe and effective way (in most cases) to help your childs immune system develop a response to diseases which in a small fraction of cases can be serious. You baby might be born with an immune system which has never seen a virus or bacteria, but it won't last long, and vaccines are just about showing that immune system weakened (or dead) versions of those things so that when/if they encounter the real thing they are less likely to catch the disease. 

 

This is an excellent example of the kind of fear-mongering and half-truths that seem to be the mantra of the pharmaceutical industry's marketing tactics. 

 

Let's take it sentence by sentence.

 

"The problem with this is that at the point you realise your child has been exposed to and contracted a disease it's too late to get the vaccine (in most cases). "

 

They start out saying that there is a problem with YOUR child (great way to make you fear for YOUR child) being exposed to and contracting a disease.  That's fear-mongering, folks.  Most diseases--even diseases for which a vaccine exists, such as influenza--are NOT a problem for most healthy children.  And most disease to which a child is exposed--like the common cold, cough, stomach flu, pinkeye, and other common viral illnesses--are NOT prevented by vaccines anyway!

 

It's also fear-mongering to say things like "the problem is...it's too late to get the vaccine," because those ominous words "it's too late" imply that something terrible is likely to happen without that vaccine.  Most of us who are parents today received only 5-7 vaccines TOTAL during our childhood. We didn't need vaccines to stay healthy.  When we were exposed to diseases like mumps and measles and flu, our immune systems functioned the way they were designed to.  Complications were rare, and we know now that in many cases, complications were not due to a lack of vaccination, but to things like vitamin A deficiency, vitamin D deficiency, poor nutrition, poor sanitation, poor hygiene, etc. and occasionally, because of an underlying health condition.

 

"Vaccines are a safe and effective way (in most cases) to help your childs immune system develop a response to diseases which in a small fraction of cases can be serious."

 

Ah--we are finally seeing a change.  They used to say, "vaccines are safe and effective," period.  Now they're qualifying it with "(in most cases)".  Well, how many is "most cases?"  What, exactly, is safe and effective ENOUGH? Are we going with a simple majority?  

 

How effective do vaccines need to be? We are learning that vaccines aren't NEARLY as effective as we've been led to believe all these years.  The flu shot and the pertussis shot, for example, are certainly not effective enough for herd immunity.  A whistle-blower lawsuit has been launched against Merck by their own virologists, because Merck lied about the poor efficacy of the mumps portion of the MMR, and then engaged in a massive cover-up.  Gardasil's effectiveness only lasts 4-6 years, but that has been kind of hushed up.  And vaccines that (we were told) supposedly conferred lifelong immunity--don't.  The answer--boosters (as in, "an opportunity to sell even MORE vaccines!")!

 

How safe do vaccines need to be?  Good question.  They are tested on healthy individuals, who are not likely to react, and the "placebo" used in vaccine trials is actually a real vaccine, with all the ingredients that can cause reactions: antigens, adjuvants, preservatives, etc., so the reported reaction rate is skewed right there.

 

And the pharmaceutical industry has a long track record about lying about safety/efficacy of their products.  Proven fact, that.

 

We are NEVER told by health care providers that vaccines are responsible for over 2000 cases of brain damage, admitted and compensated by the US Department of Health and Human Services.  The US media does not report that the Italian government conceded a case of MMR-caused autism, nor that the flu shot in several countries has caused many cases of narcolepsy--a permanent seizure disorder--in children.  The package insert of some vaccines lists autism as a potential side effect, but we're told it's not. In fact, none of the many cases of severe vaccine damage that HAVE been admitted and compensated are even mentioned.  We're just told that that British guy who started it all was a fraud, end of story.  Never mind that vaccine damage has nothing to do with Wakefield, and everything to do with serious reactions to vaccines which have been reported.  But studies that look at vaccine-damaged individuals tend to get buried--because who is funding most of the research out there?  Oh, that's right.  The vaccine manufacturers.  And who seems to be staffing the FDA committees who are supposed to oversee safety of these products?  Oh, yeah, that's right--consultants for the vaccine manufacturers.  Yup, the fox is guarding the henhouse...

 

Diseases can be serious in a small fraction of cases?  Why, yes, that's absolutely true!  But it's only half of the truth, because vaccines can be serious in a small fraction of cases.  But since doctors have been trained for decades to NOT recognize symptoms of vaccine reaction, and therefore, they have not reported them.  There is no mandatory reporting system, anyway--VAERS is voluntary.  So there is no way to compare the two "small fractions."  But since the pharmaceutical marketing tactics don't allow for even admitting that people are having serious reactions to vaccines, they only talk about the fraction of serious cases of diseases, not of vaccine reactions.

 

"You baby might be born with an immune system which has never seen a virus or bacteria, but it won't last long, and vaccines are just about showing that immune system weakened (or dead) versions of those things so that when/if they encounter the real thing they are less likely to catch the disease. "

 

Well, the first part of this sentence implies that your baby's immune system can't handle a virus or bacteria without the help of vaccines, which is not true.  The second part is another half-truth.  Yes, vaccines are about showing the immune system a weakened version of a virus or bacteria so that the actual disease is less likely.  That is half of the truth.  The other half is that vaccines contain chemicals that are linked with neurological damage, with triggering or even causing autoimmune disorders, and with other unplanned, severe reactions.  We don't know who will have these kinds of reactions, and the emphasis is on selling vaccines to everyone, not on pre-screening to find out who might be likely to have such reactions.  There is enough independent research linking vaccines with neurodevelopmental and autoimmune problems (including the aforementioned 2000 cases of brain damage), that it is no longer truthful to insist that vaccines are safe.   And it is a lie of omission to leave out such information.

 

We have to make a choice.  We can go with "don't worry your pretty little head about vaccine safety and efficacy, that's what we proscience people are for;  you don't need to worry about vaccines, they are safe and effective!  You need to worry about the diseases!"  

 

Or we can do our own research, and see the truth for ourselves.

Mirzam, BeckyBird, Bokonon and 1 others like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#29 of 65 Old 10-05-2012, 01:31 PM
 
emma1325's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

"...the pharmaceutical industry has a long track record about lying about safety/efficacy of their products.  Proven fact, that."

 

 

ScienceMom, have you thoroughly investigated this issue, and how do you feel about it?
 

Taximom5 likes this.

Loving mother, Devoted Wife
emma1325 is offline  
#30 of 65 Old 10-05-2012, 03:36 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


 

* They are tested on healthy individuals, who are not likely to react, and the "placebo" used in vaccine trials is actually a real vaccine, with all the ingredients that can cause reactions: antigens, adjuvants, preservatives, etc., so the reported reaction rate is skewed right there.

 

*And the pharmaceutical industry has a long track record about lying about safety/efficacy of their products.  Proven fact, that.

 

* who is funding most of the research out there?  Oh, that's right.  The vaccine manufacturers.  And who seems to be staffing the FDA committees who are supposed to oversee safety of these products?  Oh, yeah, that's right--consultants for the vaccine manufacturers.  Yup, the fox is guarding the henhouse...

 

* there is no way to compare the two "small fractions." (my favorite point of all.)

Exactly. Vaccine "science" is not science, it is more like anti-science. The "studies" do not follow proper scientific method.

Taximom5 likes this.

               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird 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