Immunotoxicity and Vaccines - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-01-2012, 06:48 AM - Thread Starter
 
Suvroc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Has anyone seen this video from research published earlier this year?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5m8qckt4Wo

 

It makes you wonder, if it's true, how long have the PFCs levels been high enough to have an affect?

 

If true, why aren't we seeing increasing incidences or diptheria and tetanus?

 

 

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that this research was done because they saw general immune decline in animals exposed to PFCs so it makes you wonder if this may also be the case with other vaccines? Maybe there's an relationship to autoimmune disorders?

 

Just curious what others thoughts are.

Suvroc is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-01-2012, 11:29 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
IF it's true.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 12-01-2012, 11:31 AM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)

Good find Suvroc! Thanks for sharing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suvroc View Post

Has anyone seen this video from research published earlier this year?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5m8qckt4Wo

 

It makes you wonder, if it's true, how long have the PFCs levels been high enough to have an affect?

 

If true, why aren't we seeing increasing incidences or diptheria and tetanus?

 

 

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that this research was done because they saw general immune decline in animals exposed to PFCs so it makes you wonder if this may also be the case with other vaccines? Maybe there's an relationship to autoimmune disorders?

 

Just curious what others thoughts are.

 

 

Could it be that PFC exposure and accumulation is part of the reason other vaccines seem to not be working very well anymore?

 

What's interesting is that the children and mothers studied live in a remote area; it makes me wonder what the PFC concentration is in people living in urban ones?

 

This is a disturbing problem and one that needs to be looked into more thoroughly.

 

On a related note, perhaps PFC exposure could be one of the reasons why Merck's MMR vaccine isn't as effective as it used to be (assuming that the claimed 95% effectiveness in 1967 was a true number) as claimed by whistleblowers.

 

Merck Overstated Mumps Vaccine Effectiveness? 


Chicharronita is offline  
Old 12-01-2012, 11:41 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I'm interested in documentation that there are pfcs in vaccines and that "other vaccines aren't working as well as they used to." Maybe you could clarify your sources for this information.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 12-01-2012, 12:01 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I'm seeing now that the claim isn't that pfcs are in vaccines, but that exposure in general to pfcs (a known harmful substance that's been on various governmental organizations radar for quite awhile) is causing a problem. Do keep in mind that this is a single research study limited in scope and only involving a single vaccination. It is definitely jumping to conclusions to expand the study to encompass everyone every where and every vaccine, or even to conclude causation which was not determined by this study. It could very well be that pfc exposure is associated with some other characteristic that caused the weakened immune response.

For myself, I'll take it as another reason to avoid pfcs, which I try and do anyway.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 12-01-2012, 12:07 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm seeing now that the claim isn't that pfcs are in vaccines, but that exposure in general to pfcs (a known harmful substance that's been on various governmental organizations radar for quite awhile) is causing a problem. Do keep in mind that this is a single research study limited in scope and only involving a single vaccination. 
 

Actually it was two.


Chicharronita is offline  
Old 12-01-2012, 12:21 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,223
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)

The study:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104903


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  
Old 12-01-2012, 12:40 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,066
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm seeing now that the claim isn't that pfcs are in vaccines, but that exposure in general to pfcs (a known harmful substance that's been on various governmental organizations radar for quite awhile) is causing a problem. Do keep in mind that this is a single research study limited in scope and only involving a single vaccination. It is definitely jumping to conclusions to expand the study to encompass everyone every where and every vaccine, or even to conclude causation which was not determined by this study. It could very well be that pfc exposure is associated with some other characteristic that caused the weakened immune response.
For myself, I'll take it as another reason to avoid pfcs, which I try and do anyway.

Go back and read the posts. Who here has claimed that there were PFCs in vaccines?

I for one think this is fascinating! It's one more argument for the urgency to research these PFCs and possibly remove them from consumer products.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 12-01-2012, 01:53 PM - Thread Starter
 
Suvroc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

.
For myself, I'll take it as another reason to avoid pfcs, which I try and do anyway.

 

How long have you been avoiding fast food, nonstick cookware, paper plates, stain-resistant carpeting and clothing, microwave popcorn, fish? Apparently, also, in the air because particles from these products make it into the air we breath. Also in some skincare products. Who knows where else?

 

I ask because PFCs are bioaccumulative in humans and persistent in the environment. They also have a long half-life (years) in humans.

 

I believe there's a previous study linking a decrease in vaccine efficacy to PCBs so you'll want to avoid those also.

 

It's a good thing we can count on our government to look out for our, and our children's, safety. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=birnbaum-government-toxicologist-qa

 

 

 

Note: My tone sounds snarky but it's not meant to....well, except for the sarcasm in the last sentence..:-)

Suvroc is offline  
Old 12-01-2012, 02:10 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Chicha it was d and t which are both part of dtap, which I consider one vaccine.

Turquesa, I already corrected that mistake. You quoted me doing it?

Keep in mind the original sorce cited wasn't jama, but YouTube.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 12-01-2012, 02:43 PM - Thread Starter
 
Suvroc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

IF it's true.


Yes, I'm asking...if it's true, what are your thoughts...

Suvroc is offline  
Old 12-01-2012, 03:01 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,223
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)

 

As a spin off….

 

I wonder if PFC decreases the amount of maternal antibodies that transfer to a baby due to nursing?  Or decrease the amount of immunity after an infection (i.e would a child who had chicken pox and who had high exposure to PCF show less immunity than a child who had the chicken pox but did not have a high intake of PCF's?)

 

It will be interesting to see if PFCs impact immune levels with regards to other VADs?

 

It does look like they are looking into it:

 

http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/25/exposure-to-common-chemicals-may-weaken-vaccine-response/

 

"Grandjean and his colleagues are now analyzing children’s responses to other vaccines, to see if PFC exposure affects antibody levels for other childhood immunizations 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  
Old 12-01-2012, 03:33 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,066
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
You Tube is a medium, not a source. The source was an interview of the scholar who conducted the research...who happened to use You Tube as a communication medium. So I think it's only fair to check out links that people post rather than not click on them because they come from You Tube.

The OP raised a legitimate hypothesis from a legitimate source, and the matter has no bearing on whether someone's pro or anti-vax or anywhere in between.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 12-01-2012, 03:41 PM - Thread Starter
 
Suvroc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

As a spin off….

 

I wonder if PFC decrease the amount of maternal antibodies that transfer to a baby due to nursing?  or decrease the amount of immunity after an infection (i.e would a child who had the chicken pox and who had high exposure to PCF show less immunity than a child who had the chicken pox but did not have a high intake of PCF's?)

 

It will be interesting to see if PFCs impact immune levels with regards to other VADs?

 

It does look like they are looking into it:

 

http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/25/exposure-to-common-chemicals-may-weaken-vaccine-response/

 

"Grandjean and his colleagues are now analyzing children’s responses to other vaccines, to see if PFC exposure affects antibody levels for other childhood immunizations as well."


The chickenpox thought is interesting. You would think if a high-PFC child DID have less immunity, you would see an increase in shingles in children as PFCs were more in use and/or accumulating, maybe? I wonder if the CDC tracked Varicella? .

 

PCBs are also associated with immune system dysfunction and vaccine inefficacy. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/vaccines-less-effective-in-kids-exposed-to-pcbs

http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/effects.htm

 

What's a VAD? I don't understand a lot of the acronyms on these forums (DD, DS, DH, etc.)

Suvroc is offline  
Old 12-01-2012, 04:18 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I'm not blowing it off because it came from YouTube. But if people are going to be snarky because the study came from wherever, it's worth pointing out that was NOT the original link. I ABSOLUTELY find things from YouTube suspect and in need of independent verification, which I did.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 08:12 AM
 
Mosaic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: La vida loca
Posts: 3,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Several posts have been removed for violating the UA (or quoting a UAV), specifically, being snarky and cranky with each other. I've left a few up for edit opportunities (hint hint, Rrrrrachel and Turquesa).

Things that are ok:
Questioning studies
Questioning sources

Not OK:
Calling people or even research nutso
Attacking others for not accepting studies with the same weight as you do (accusing them of blowing it off, etc.)
Taking others' comments about studies as a reflection on or judgement of you personally (going easy on another poster or scolding, etc.)

Given these guidelines, please review your posts and edit accordingly, so that I don't have to delete more from this thread or kick people out!

Mi vida loca: full-time WOHM, frugalista, foodie wannabe, 10+ years of TCOYF 

 

R-E-S-P-E-C-T spells BRAND NEW User Agreement!!

Mosaic is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 08:16 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,609
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suvroc View Post

 

What's a VAD? 

 

Vaccine Available Disease


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 12-02-2012, 08:35 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I'm kind of annoyed my post asking someone why they were being rude was removed, but not the post where they were being rude.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 08:45 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suvroc View Post

How long have you been avoiding fast food, nonstick cookware, paper plates, stain-resistant carpeting and clothing, microwave popcorn, fish? Apparently, also, in the air because particles from these products make it into the air we breath. Also in some skincare products. Who knows where else?

I ask because PFCs are bioaccumulative in humans and persistent in the environment. They also have a long half-life (years) in humans.

I believe there's a previous study linking a decrease in vaccine efficacy to PCBs so you'll want to avoid those also.

It's a good thing we can count on our government to look out for our, and our children's, safety. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=birnbaum-government-toxicologist-qa



Note: My tone sounds snarky but it's not meant to....well, except for the sarcasm in the last sentence..:-)

I'm not really sure what the point of these questions is. I obviously avoid things when I can, hopefully keeping my toxic load low enough it's ok when I can't. I think that's the only sane approach.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 08:45 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,223
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Never mind - OT -but suvroc, glad you read it before I edited it for being OT (off topic smile.gif).  
 
Some common acronyms on MDC (although some vax related ones did not make the list):
Kathy

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  
Old 12-02-2012, 09:20 AM - Thread Starter
 
Suvroc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


I'm not really sure what the point of these questions is. I obviously avoid things when I can, hopefully keeping my toxic load low enough it's ok when I can't. I think that's the only sane approach.

 

I think I'm going for a few points here. One is that often toxins are in unexpected places and they last much longer in us and the environment than we often think. For example, just because you avoid teflon at home doesn't mean that any of the restaurants you eat at do. Also, just because you stopped using teflon in the last few years, if you used it or your parents used it prior, then you were accumulating it over the years and it takes a long time to break down in your body. (Note: teflon is an example of the millions of toxins we're exposed to on a daily basis)There seem to be many other studies that link various toxins and pollutants to decreased immune response. If we are experiencing natural decreased immune response then it's probably safe to assume that we're not responding as well to vaccines either, as was shown in the study.

 

If you vaccinate your child, how do you know that he/she developed an appropriate immune response? You probably don't because we don't check. Maybe this is why we're seeing outbreaks in highly vaccinated communities? Maybe this is why we keep having to add boosters to vaccines that supposedly years ago provided lifetime immunity? Maybe parents should start requesting antibody tests? Would you still vaccinate if they were only 25-50% effective? Would the risk be the same? Would you still vaccinate if we now needed to get boosters every two years for all shots? Do you vaccinate with all that are recommended? If not, why?

 

The other point I think I was trying to make (probably not effectively) is that I feel like the general population assumes that if it's legal, then it is safe, and we're finding out more and more that it's so much more complicated than that. And I think that's why many of us have a hard time believing things when big business is involved. If history can teach us about the present, it often takes a LONG time for the government to declare that something is unsafe. These conversations about vaccines are the same types of conversations that happened about trans fats. Years ago when I was first learning about the controversy, most people said it was "nutso" thinking that they weren't safe/good for us but the paradigm is shifting, and I think that's happening with vaccines.

 

Do you believe the government's recommendations over the manufacturers? For example, the manufacturer acknowledges that studies haven't been done in pregnant women so it should only be used if there is a clear need. The CDC recommends all pregnant women get the shot. Would you? What if the manufacturer says that nursing women should avoid it because it hasn't been studied yet your doctor highly recommends that you get it? Who do you believe? What decisions do you make? Why?

 

By the way, all of these questions are open to all to answer.

Suvroc is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 11:16 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
In your first paragraph: I agree with you that toxins are pernicious and persistent in our environment. That's actually the main reason I don't think vaccines are the cause of the increase in various chronic health conditions. The amountoftoxins in vaccines is literally a drop in the bucket to exposure from other sources. I will point out, though, that you're making a lot of assumptions about my lifestyle and my history. I'm not pointing that out to cause a stink or attack you, but just to make you aware.

In your second paragraph, you are taking several things that are true about ONE disease, pertussis, and generalizing it to "several" diseases. It is simply not true that we suddenly have all kinds of outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations. The reasons there are outbreaks of pertussis in highly vaccinated population have been discussed her many times, so I won't go into it now, but pfcs are far from the only issue at play.

As I believe vaccines are safe, boosters don't particularly bother me, although again I think you are overstating the issue and generalizing what's true for one or two vaccines to vaccines in general. What boosters have recently been added to the schedule, other than pertussis? You are also jumping to some conclusions about effectiveness. No, I haven't had myself or my child's titers done. There's really no point, because if our vaccines didn't take there's no much I can do about it. Meanwhile, research shows effectiveness levels are far higher than what you're hypothetically proposing. I will reasses my decision to vaccinate as the facts change, of course.

I agree that the government is often slow to act. That's the nature of the beast, I think. Fortunately, we often havea large body of research aside from govern,net recommendations to use to make out decisions. Vaccines have been researched extensively over many years by many many different groups, and they've been shown to be safe.

Manufacturers pretty much have to say those things about pregnant and nursing women. Almost no medications have been studied in nursing and pregnant women because its very difficult to do in an ethical way. If you look, those cautions are even on homeopathic and natural remedies. I make my decisions by consulting with my doctor, who understands my individual situation and health history as well as the risks involved with using a particular medication.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 12:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
Suvroc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Just to be clear, I've never made any mention of toxins in vaccines. The post is about vaccine efficacy as it relates to our toxic burden. I want to clarify because twice now you've argued about the small amount of toxins in vaccines.

 

The 'you' is not specifically aimed at you; however, with the apparent quick access you have to the world wide web, I think it's safe to assume you live in a developed area. ;-) But, again, I was not really meaning you specifically. They are theoretical questions to invoke conversation and for me to learn from other people. I appreciate your responses and wish other people would participate more because I believe a lot can be learned from the community.

 

As far as pertussis being the only outbreak, you may not have seen the news about the mumps outbreaks in 2009 and 2010 among a mostly vaccinated population in which the CDC 'experimented' with giving a third booster shot. It will not surprise me if in the future we will have a third shot of MMR.(http://vaccinenewsdaily.com/medical_countermeasures/320514-third-mmr-dose-likely-stopped-2009-2010-new-york-mumps-outbreak/) There was a study about the booster shot but I can't find it now.

 

Also, you've made it sound like we know why there are pertussis outbreaks but the CDC's statement from the pinkbook is here:

 

Pertussis incidence has been gradually increasing since the early 1980s. A total of 25,827 cases was reported in 2004, the largest number since 1959. The reasons for the increase are not clear.

 

I'm not implying that any of my questions are fact. I'm just curious about the answers to theoretical questions. For example, you mention that as the facts change, you would re-assess. I'm curious about what would change your mind. Would it be related to effectiveness or safety or something else? Or all of the above. In other words, if there were a headline that would cause you to re-assess, what would it be? Who would it be from? What is important to you? [Not necessarily you specifically -- please anyone answer]

 

I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm not trying to change your or anyone's mind. I'm trying to have a heartfelt conversation from one parent to another (I'm assuming you're a parent :-) ) I apologize if the tone of my wording implies otherwise. It is incredibly difficult for me to effectively communicate by typing alone.

Suvroc is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 01:04 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
There is not a headline that would change my mind. My decision making isn't that reactionary. My decision making is based on balancing risk and benefit, so a significant change to either would influence me.

We don't know what's causing the rise in pertussis, but I think it's safe to say there are a lot of factors at play.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 02:16 PM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Bolding mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suvroc View Post

I think I'm going for a few points here. One is that often toxins are in unexpected places and they last much longer in us and the environment than we often think. For example, just because you avoid teflon at home doesn't mean that any of the restaurants you eat at do. Also, just because you stopped using teflon in the last few years, if you used it or your parents used it prior, then you were accumulating it over the years and it takes a long time to break down in your body. (Note: teflon is an example of the millions of toxins we're exposed to on a daily basis)There seem to be many other studies that link various toxins and pollutants to decreased immune response. If we are experiencing natural decreased immune response then it's probably safe to assume that we're not responding as well to vaccines either, as was shown in the study.


Good questions here, and a great reminder that I need to throw out those last two non stick pans in my pantry.


If you vaccinate your child, how do you know that he/she developed an appropriate immune response? You probably don't because we don't check. Maybe this is why we're seeing outbreaks in highly vaccinated communities? Maybe this is why we keep having to add boosters to vaccines that supposedly years ago provided lifetime immunity? Maybe parents should start requesting antibody tests? Would you still vaccinate if they were only 25-50% effective? Would the risk be the same? Would you still vaccinate if we now needed to get boosters every two years for all shots? Do you vaccinate with all that are recommended? If not, why?

i have not vaccinated my youngest, but if vax effectiveness were that low or if the frequency of boosters were increased, it would make the decision that much easier, sure.
To the last 2 questions here, my short answer is that we don't vaccinate right now because there is a risk to my son of negative side effects/reactions, and the authorities are obviously not completely disclosing or adequately researching the risks associated with vaccines. Instead, they respond to parents' concerns and questions with a paternalistic pat on the head and evasion. I don't have enough information to know how unsafe vaccines are, just that they are unsafe to some degree, and the official response is suspicious. My understanding of the risk posed by most of the VADs (based on their prevalence, treatability, and our risk factors) leads me to choose, at this time, to abstain from vaccination. If reasonable questions about vaccine safety and effectiveness were answered thoroughly and satisfactorily and if there didn't seem to be a nebulous and possibly significant risk of harm associated with vax, I would probably want to vaccinate


The other point I think I was trying to make (probably not effectively) is that I feel like the general population assumes that if it's legal, then it is safe, and we're finding out more and more that it's so much more complicated than that. And I think that's why many of us have a hard time believing things when big business is involved. If history can teach us about the present, it often takes a LONG time for the government to declare that something is unsafe. These conversations about vaccines are the same types of conversations that happened about trans fats. Years ago when I was first learning about the controversy, most people said it was "nutso" thinking that they weren't safe/good for us but the paradigm is shifting, and I think that's happening with vaccines.

yes, I agree. Though as more voices raise more questions, the more aggressive the propaganda becomes. I hope we are finally going to get some questions answered and see real progress made on addressing the safety issues associated with vax

Do you believe the government's recommendations over the manufacturers? For example, the manufacturer acknowledges that studies haven't been done in pregnant women so it should only be used if there is a clear need. The CDC recommends all pregnant women get the shot. Would you? What if the manufacturer says that nursing women should avoid it because it hasn't been studied yet your doctor highly recommends that you get it? Who do you believe? What decisions do you make? Why?
no. I think the government's advice in these cases glosses over information that might be important to an individual's decision making. Mine, anyway.

By the way, all of these questions are open to all to answer.

chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
Old 12-03-2012, 01:04 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suvroc View Post

 

 

I'm not implying that any of my questions are fact. I'm just curious about the answers to theoretical questions. For example, you mention that as the facts change, you would re-assess. I'm curious about what would change your mind. Would it be related to effectiveness or safety or something else? Or all of the above. In other words, if there were a headline that would cause you to re-assess, what would it be? Who would it be from? What is important to you? [Not necessarily you specifically -- please anyone answer]

 

 

 

Somehow I missed this study when it was first published; now that I've read it it has made me more firm in my decision not to vaccinate. 

I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are other environmental toxins besides PFCs that are causing reduced immunity in vaccinated children.


Chicharronita is offline  
Old 12-03-2012, 01:06 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
So part of your decision not to vaccinate is because you don't think it works?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 12-03-2012, 01:13 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)

Yes, but it's a small part.

 

I so wish I could rely on doing something every three years or so to make all the baddies go away, but as they say "Mother Nature bats last."


Chicharronita is offline  
Old 12-03-2012, 01:50 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,223
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

I so wish I could rely on doing something every three years or so to make all the baddies go away, but as they say "Mother Nature bats last."

I have never heard this expression - but what a cool one!!!


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  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

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

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