Evidence of govenrment cover-up re: vaccines and autism - Page 9 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-25-2012, 01:47 PM
 
carolinendacity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I dont think that I could vax my kids seeing everything that they cause. :( THanks for the info ladies!!!
 

carolinendacity is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-25-2012, 04:32 PM
 
WendyAdams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinendacity View Post

I dont think that I could vax my kids seeing everything that they cause. :( THanks for the info ladies!!!
 

 

Why is it that the miniscule risk due to immunisation concerns you so much but the major risk to catching these diseases does not.

 

It's a question that I ask all the time, and I never get an answer.  The closest I can get is that because we live in a world where those before us have made the hard decisions and protected us, people simply have no memory of what these diseases can do and therefore it's irrelevant in the consideration.

WendyAdams is offline  
Old 12-26-2012, 05:37 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

 

Why is it that the miniscule risk due to immunisation concerns you so much but the major risk to catching these diseases does not.

 

It's a question that I ask all the time, and I never get an answer.  The closest I can get is that because we live in a world where those before us have made the hard decisions and protected us, people simply have no memory of what these diseases can do and therefore it's irrelevant in the consideration.

You most likely  get answers to your questions...you just don't like them.   I ask the same question, and i get answers ALL the time...maybe your'e not asking the right people.   

emmy526 is offline  
Old 12-26-2012, 03:50 PM
 
lanamommyphd07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everywhere, USA
Posts: 1,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

 

Why is it that the miniscule risk due to immunisation concerns you so much but the major risk to catching these diseases does not.

 

 

It's not so much this, but my hesitation to mess around with Mother Nature. It seems that tends to backfire. Badly. I'm happy to roll the dice, so to speak, with my family's health. If anything, it's a nod to the medical community that I trust they might be able to save the day if we ever caught such things. I mean, isn't that what medicine is for?

 

FWIW: when DD was a fetus, I compared rates of injury/death from the vax versus from the actual disease. I ended up going with the lower risk. I'm a statistician. I can't help myself.

lanamommyphd07 is offline  
Old 12-26-2012, 04:04 PM
 
japonica's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada-->Australia
Posts: 969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

 

Why is it that the miniscule risk due to immunisation concerns you so much but the major risk to catching these diseases does not.

 

It's a question that I ask all the time, and I never get an answer.  The closest I can get is that because we live in a world where those before us have made the hard decisions and protected us, people simply have no memory of what these diseases can do and therefore it's irrelevant in the consideration.

 

I've had three of the VADs personally, for two of them I had been vaccinated. I remember them well. It's not irrelevant in the consideration in our particular case. Part of my decision re: what vaccines my children receive is based on effectiveness.

 

It's anecdotal though right? Well, at whatever point medical history becomes anecdote. If I bring up, "I had pertussis and I'm okay," it's supposedly different from, "I nearly died from chicken pox." My experiences with VADs, and my husband's, are valid to this family only and something we use as a part of our decision making in consultation with our GP (whose own kids had CP, mumps, and pertussis).


Mother to DD#1  s/b @40w 2003 for unknown reasons; DD#2   nearly 10 years old; DS  6.5 years old 
  Why are daughters protected but not sons?
 
 
 
  
japonica is offline  
Old 12-26-2012, 04:21 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
If the risk is lower its only because the prevalence of various vpd are so low, for which we have vaccines to thank!
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 12-26-2012, 04:26 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

If the risk is lower its only because the prevalence of various vpd are so low, for which we have vaccines to thank!

 

Yeah that.

 

 And of course if too many people start not vaccinating all the science suggests the rates will rise quite a bit (maybe not as high as they have been in the past due to improved hygiene - but certainly higher than they are now). 

 

 Personally I'm all for messing with mother nature where it helps us survive. I like my spectacles so I can actually see stuff, my childbirth with access to medical care where necessary - I'm pretty keen on contraceptives too for that matter, and I like to be protected from getting sick as much as possible (which in my view includes better hygiene, nutrition, and 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 offline  
Old 12-26-2012, 04:50 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 Personally I'm all for messing with mother nature where it helps us survive. 

I want more from medicine.  Of course I want to survive, but I also want to thrive.

 

Do childhood vaccines at this exact moment cause more of us in developed nations to survive?  Maybe.  Do they prevent diseases from coming back that could risk survival?  Perhaps even more so (but that is VAD dependant).

 

Do vaccines help us to thrive?  I truly doubt it.  Off the top of my head, there is data, anecdotes, court settlements to support a link between vaccines and asthma, autism, allergies, auto-immune disorders, other neurological issues…..I am sure you will deny there is any link, and I am sure I can shoot studies at you all day long to support this statement (some studies would turn out to be crappy, but some would not).

 

Thriving is linked to surviving.  Asthma can be fatal.  Autism can be as well (they cannot communicate when they are ill, autistic individuals are often flight risks and at danger from being hit from cars, drowning, etc).


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 12-26-2012, 04:54 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Kathy I'm glad that you have so much privilege in your life that you can make that statement.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 12-26-2012, 04:55 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)

Vaccines have risks.  Most children are just fine after vaccinations, but a few are not.

 

Vaccine-avoidable diseases have risks, too.  Most children recover just fine after a VAD, but a few do not.

 

It is naive and romanticized to assume that Mother Nature wants everyone to survive and thrive.  The human race is "designed" to lose a few along the way, and VADs are one of the ways that we've lost babies and children in the past. 


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
Old 12-26-2012, 08:42 PM
 
lanamommyphd07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everywhere, USA
Posts: 1,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

Vaccines have risks.  Most children are just fine after vaccinations, but a few are not.

 

Vaccine-avoidable diseases have risks, too.  Most children recover just fine after a VAD, but a few do not.

 

It is naive and romanticized to assume that Mother Nature wants everyone to survive and thrive.  The human race is "designed" to lose a few along the way, and VADs are one of the ways that we've lost babies and children in the past. 

Mother Nature does not want everyone to survive. She cleans house now and again, but the human race has continued. I just wonder if we've gotten a bit big for our britches and in a few generations they'll still be cleaning up the mess (if the species makes it that far). We've done so much monkeying around with things in the last century--I believe this is why we're all stuck with the questions. Our society is so afraid of death that we're willing to spend decades living in pain to cheat it. I just cannot fathom that the survival of humans is dependent upon pharma. I just can't.

lanamommyphd07 is offline  
Old 12-26-2012, 09:00 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Kathy I'm glad that you have so much privilege in your life that you can make that statement.

I acknowledge the privilege of being in good health and in a wealthy country.  I am quite grateful for it smile.gif


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 12-26-2012, 09:09 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

Vaccines have risks.  Most children are just fine after vaccinations, but a few are not.

 

Vaccine-avoidable diseases have risks, too.  Most children recover just fine after a VAD, but a few do not.

 

It is naive and romanticized to assume that Mother Nature wants everyone to survive and thrive.  The human race is "designed" to lose a few along the way, and VADs are one of the ways that we've lost babies and children in the past.

 

Who said this?  I said I wanted more from medicine - which is to survive and thrive.  

 

Mother nature doesn't "want" anything.  

 

I tend to think following the path of mother nature is usually a good thing for most people; I also think knowing when to intervene and when not to intervene is one of the cruxes of health.  


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 12-26-2012, 09:20 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)

I'd be dead (ruptured appendix) if I followed the path of Mother Nature.  I'm kind of glad I didn't.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
Old 12-26-2012, 09:44 PM
 
MeepyCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,679
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 View Post

Mother Nature does not want everyone to survive. She cleans house now and again, but the human race has continued. I just wonder if we've gotten a bit big for our britches and in a few generations they'll still be cleaning up the mess (if the species makes it that far). We've done so much monkeying around with things in the last century--I believe this is why we're all stuck with the questions. Our society is so afraid of death that we're willing to spend decades living in pain to cheat it. I just cannot fathom that the survival of humans is dependent upon pharma. I just can't.

 

I have been working on this response for twenty minutes.

 

It comes down to "I cannot believe you just spouted that ridiculous, anti-humanist, eugenicist thing that you just spouted.  Holy shit."  There is a coda about all the dead people that I know, and that I suspect you know.

 

Nature does not have a plan, and nature is a lousy enforcer.  The people with the least access to modern medicine and pharmaceuticals are not doing better then the rest of us, they are not evolving to some more perfect species, and they get to deal with a lot more grief then we do.  if Nature was going to winnow us to that perfect species, Nature wasted its chances over the course of many thousand years.

MeepyCat is online now  
Old 12-26-2012, 10:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

I have been working on this response for twenty minutes.

It comes down to "I cannot believe you just spouted that ridiculous, anti-humanist, eugenicist thing that you just spouted.  Holy shit." 

One can just as easily say that sacrificing the subgroup who have terrible reactions to vaccines in order to protect the "herd" against "vaccine-preventable diseases" is ridiculous, anti-humanist, eugenicist rhetoric.

And that's not even considering the fact that increasing evidence is being uncovered that some of the most heavily marketed vaccines are not effective, and that some are not even necessary in countries with adequate sanitation and health care.

With flu being marketed as a "vaccine-preventable disease," in spite of the poor effectiveness and high risks of the flu shot, and with health care companies FIRING workers--even pregnant women--for refusing the flu shot, the ol' eugenicist argument against those who question and criticize vaccine safety just doesn't carry any water.

It's also now recognized as one of many industry strategic ploys: "let's demonize vaccine questioners as eugenicists as a way of getting the focus away from the many problems with today's vaccinations. And while we're at it, let's deny that vaccines are a multimillion dollar business, and pretend that pharmaceutical companies don't make money from them. And let's pretend vaccine reactions are vanishingly rare. If we say it enough, people will believe it."
Taximom5 is online now  
Old 12-26-2012, 11:10 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 View Post

Mother Nature does not want everyone to survive. She cleans house now and again, but the human race has continued. I just wonder if we've gotten a bit big for our britches and in a few generations they'll still be cleaning up the mess (if the species makes it that far). We've done so much monkeying around with things in the last century--I believe this is why we're all stuck with the questions. Our society is so afraid of death that we're willing to spend decades living in pain to cheat it. I just cannot fathom that the survival of humans is dependent upon pharma. I just can't.

 

 

So afraid of death that we are willing to spend decades living in pain to cheat it?  Really?

 

Or rather, perhaps, so in love with life that many find it is worth dealing with the pain so that they may continue to enjoy the beauty of a sunset or the thrill of a good book or the joy of the company of a good friend.  It is possible to be in considerable pain and yet still want to live not because of fear of death but because they find life is still worth living.

 

The human race as a whole is not in danger of extinction.  It would continue on just fine, if in lower numbers, if pharma disappeared overnight. Would we be happier though with more of our children or nieces or nephews or friends children dying?  With more people living crippled from polio, having children with terrible birth defects from congenital rubella, brain damaged from measles, deaf from untreated ear infections, dead from asthma attacks (or is urban pollution going to magically disappear with pharma?  that would probably help some), brain damaged from PKU.  With leprosy and tuberculosis making a comeback? Both are still diagnosed in the US occasionally, but rare because they are not very contagious so usually don't spread to too many people (sometimes not anyone else at all)  before antibiotics kick in and make them no longer contagious.  But if they were left untreated? 

 

The survival of the human race is not dependant on pharma.  The survival of many individuals in it, however, is.  

pers is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 05:16 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
So can I assume these people who are all "quit fooling around with nature" live in caves wth no artificial lights to mess with their natural sleep/wake cycles or electricity or wireless routers to produce harmful emf?

The irony of the argument is astounding.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 08:12 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

I'd be dead (ruptured appendix) if I followed the path of Mother Nature.  I'm kind of glad I didn't.

There is so much black and white thinking in this thread it makes my head spin. When did everybody get so concrete? 

 

 

Lets recap. I'm pretty sure NOBODY on this thread has said they would never ever ever ever use allopathic medicine if the need arose. Many people have said that they prefer to follow mother nature for many things. Kathy has summed it up nicely. It is figuring out when to use what that is they key. I have said this myself in another thread. I prefer to use alternative medicine most of the time. In fact I used to be an allopathic medicine junky. On lots of rx meds for all kinds of things, had asthma, allergies, chronic pain you name it and I'm young (or was when I had all these things going on). It was when I decided allopathic medicine wasn't helping me, it had nothing to offer me and I decided to start researching and trying alternative medicine that I began to regain my health. My asthma "disappeared" I haven't used an inhaler in 8 years. My allergies barely bother me - no meds here. I get sick a hell of alot less and have no more chronic pain - go figure. Does that mean when I had an atypical presentation for appendicitis that I didn't go to the doctor and have my appendix out? No. Does that mean when I had an ear infection that didn't respond to all of my natural things that I use which usually help, I didn't go to the doctor and get abx? No. Why is is such a problem for allopathic worshipers to let those of us who choose to follow mother nature when appropriate for ourselves and our family? We are not sitting around putting ourselves or our kids in danger and not seeking medical attention when it is warranted.


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 08:30 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

 

I have been working on this response for twenty minutes.

 

It comes down to "I cannot believe you just spouted that ridiculous, anti-humanist, eugenicist thing that you just spouted.  Holy shit."  There is a coda about all the dead people that I know, and that I suspect you know.

 

Nature does not have a plan, and nature is a lousy enforcer.  The people with the least access to modern medicine and pharmaceuticals are not doing better then the rest of us, they are not evolving to some more perfect species, and they get to deal with a lot more grief then we do.  if Nature was going to winnow us to that perfect species, Nature wasted its chances over the course of many thousand years.

…and a merry festivus to you too!!!!!  

 

 

lanamommyphd07 sorry you were called a eugenicist, anti-humanist, etc for voicing your opinion.  I was called it once for suggesting mumps did not need to be on the vaccine schedule.  Yeah.  It is not about you or your post -  it is about demonizing non-vaxxers. I read your post and I agree with a lot of it.  I do not think there is going to be a "cleaning house" so to speak, but I do think as we get rid or lessen one disease, another one pops up or increases. We are not meant to live forever.  I also do not  think the survival of the species relies on pharmaceuticals, but they can be very useful in certain circumstances.  I think pharmaceuticals can promote health (defined broadly) when used appropriately, and do not promote health when used inappropriately. 


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 12-27-2012, 08:34 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

I'd be dead (ruptured appendix) if I followed the path of Mother Nature.  I'm kind of glad I didn't.

and that was the right path in that instance. 

 

Sometimes the path of mother nature makes more sense (say, most but not all, childbirth scenarios).

 

It does not have to be always mother nature or never mother nature.


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 12-27-2012, 10:23 AM
 
lanamommyphd07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everywhere, USA
Posts: 1,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

mmmm. Using chem to f with Mother Nature. That is the thing that gives me pause. These are the messes we are already dealing with. How messy will it be in 500 years? Are we doing damage to the very DNA of humans? This is what I am referring to, not some crazy eugenics plan. I am not some Nazi. And my concerns go far beyond vaccines and into agriculture and the like. The cover-upping concerns are valid, I think, because of the other chem-related disasters. We are just a blip in human history, but what kind of heinous things could we be doing in our short time here?

 

When folks have asked why I didn't vax dd for chicken pox, my reply has been that I am not afraid of that one. Their response has been "BUT SHE COULD DIE!!" Yes, that is feasible. Not probable, but I think a general fear of death, especially of children, is why things like vaccines hit the market before we really know what else they are doing. 

 

By not using chem to screw with nature, we can still have allopathic medicine, we can still fix problems with allopathic medicine. Allopathic med can be more than slinging drugs. I'm not implying that we should all just lay down and accept whatever is dealt us, and let broken bones just be broken, or let appendixes blow. I'm saying that instead of finding a vaccine to prevent a blown appendix, we might hone our skills in other ways that might not leave such a mess for the ones that come after us. I'm saying that sometimes a plague or disease hits the human species, and it sucks, but we have continued. It might be worth looking more at what made some survive and others not. When we monkey around with things and attempt to prevent the disease (with chem) from blowing through as opposed to healing that disease or recovering from it, what are the effects? We don't really know yet, and this concerns me. And it troubles me that people are more afraid of present-day deaths than of what damage we could be doing overall. It troubles me that so much foreign stuff is showing up in our bodies.

 

My apologies to the OP for any unintentional steerage to crazy-talk.

lanamommyphd07 is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 10:46 AM
 
MeepyCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,679
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)

Taximom - I actually think the herd should be vaccinated to protect the people who can't safely receive vaccinations.  I'd like better and safer vaccinations and treatments.  I'd like some kind of testing to judge whether a person is likely to have an adverse reaction to a vaccine.

 

Lanamommyphd07, etc. - You're drawing a distinction between allopathic medicine (which you appear to approve of), and pharmaceuticals that I just don't understand.  You appear to be saying that it was probably okay to remove the tumor in my breast, because that won't mess with nature (and maybe somehow doesn't involve chemicals, although you appear to be discounting the extremely effective anesthesia that made the surgery a whole lot easier to survive and cope with), but it's probably not okay to give me chemotherapy drugs that prevent the cancer from recurring.  And possibly that I should somehow make peace with the notion of dying in my thirties even though alternatives exist for me, because that's better for the species.

 

A lot of modern medicine is founded on the theory that it sucks when people die young, and we should work to prevent it.  Given the choice, I'm throwing my lot in with the people who are in favor of longer life for the greater number.  If there is a massive social collapse sometimes down the road, and people start dying of those preventable causes again, that will be tragic.  I don't think we can prevent that collapse by denying people medical treatment now.

MeepyCat is online now  
Old 12-27-2012, 11:10 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)

just my 2cents- I see how this is going (assume others do) and it's really not worth making much statements only to be attracted for opinion- the pro vac side always seem to throw these threads- for the good of others.

 

I am just one that hates all the nasties that are in my water from those who are taking drugs yet polluting other by doing so. Sure I will get flamed for feel this way but it's the truth- the actions of others do effect the masses. No one seems to care what their drugs are doing to the water supply of young children yet go after the non-vacers! greensad.gif


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 11:19 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)

…and back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

I could not digest the full OP in one go.  There were a lot of links and information.

 

I clicked on  these links this morning.  My comments are in blue afterwards.

 

 

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/rh-4.pdf

I cannot cut and paste. Long story short, vaccines were found to severely aggravate a child's underlying mitochondrial disorder, causing regressive enchalopathy and features of the autism spectrum. The conclusions are worth a read (and worded far better than I did here).  They are in red brackets on page 3.

----------------

This article says about 1/4000 people have mitochondrial disorders.  It looks like mitochondrial disorders are not always easy to diagnose and that diagnosis can be from infancy to adulthood.  http://www.mitoaction.org/mito-faq#how.   Suffice to say, I bet a lot of children with mitochondrial disorder are vaccinated before their parents realize they have a mitochondrial disorder.

 

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/rh-memo-1.pdf

"The filing requirements of The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 are a procedural requirement which kept the vaccine/autism issue out of courts of law for over 25 years. The procedural “catch 22” of vaccine court works as follows. Under the Vaccine Act, before the parents of a vaccine injured child may file a lawsuit in a court of law, they must first timely file a claim in “vaccine court.” However, the Vaccine Act has a 3 year statute of limitations, which begins to run upon the first symptom of injury. Under the CDC vaccine schedule children receive their first vaccinations either at birth or 2 months of age. However, in most cases, children are not diagnosed with autism until they are 3 or 4 years old. Therefore, by the time the child is diagnosed with autism, the statute of limitations has run in “vaccine court” and the parents are forever denied the right to proceed with a lawsuit in a court of law."

Bolding mine.  banghead.gif   I get that courts need a statute of limitations, but the stats I have seen for average age of diagnosis of ASD is 3-6 years old.  

 


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 12-27-2012, 11:35 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
dbl post

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 12-27-2012, 11:58 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

 

 

Lanamommyphd07, etc. - You're drawing a distinction between allopathic medicine (which you appear to approve of), and pharmaceuticals that I just don't understand.  You appear to be saying that it was probably okay to remove the tumor in my breast, because that won't mess with nature (and maybe somehow doesn't involve chemicals, although you appear to be discounting the extremely effective anesthesia that made the surgery a whole lot easier to survive and cope with), but it's probably not okay to give me chemotherapy drugs that prevent the cancer from recurring.  And possibly that I should somehow make peace with the notion of dying in my thirties even though alternatives exist for me, because that's better for the species.

 

 

Yes, she said this.  eyesroll.gif

 

Your anger is clouding your reading comprehension, or you are being deliberately obtuse to further your agenda of saying nasty things to non-vaxxers (including a newbie to this forum- way to welcome and scare one off, btw! Points to you)

 

Flag away.  

 

ETA: a fairly smart non-vaxxer once said that when the other side starts in on such diversion tactics, it is because they do not like how the conversation is going.

 

I sheepishly admit I simply skimmed the Op as long posts get a little hard to read.  I urge anyone genuinely interested in this topic to go over the Op, there are some good reasons the pro-vax side wants to divert the thread wink1.gif

 

ETA part 2:  MeepyCat - I am sorry you have cancer.  I hope you recover.  I do not care if you use allopathic or natural methods to help you.  


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 12-27-2012, 01:27 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

 

Lanamommyphd07, etc. - You're drawing a distinction between allopathic medicine (which you appear to approve of), and pharmaceuticals that I just don't understand.  You appear to be saying that it was probably okay to remove the tumor in my breast, because that won't mess with nature (and maybe somehow doesn't involve chemicals, although you appear to be discounting the extremely effective anesthesia that made the surgery a whole lot easier to survive and cope with), but it's probably not okay to give me chemotherapy drugs that prevent the cancer from recurring.  And possibly that I should somehow make peace with the notion of dying in my thirties even though alternatives exist for me, because that's better for the species.

 

 

dizzy.gif WHAT???????  Even if I made a huge leap here, I cannot see where lanamommy has said or even hinted at the above. The distinction that is being drawn seems to be in your own head because you are totally on the defensive. Again I ask, why is it such a problem for those who choose to use alternatives to use alternatives? If I had cancer and chose to deal with it in some alternative manner, why would that bother you so much? If I choose to avoid pharmaceuticals if possible whats it to you? I really just don't get it


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 01:38 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

So can I assume these people who are all "quit fooling around with nature" live in caves wth no artificial lights to mess with their natural sleep/wake cycles or electricity or wireless routers to produce harmful emf?
The irony of the argument is astounding.

Again with that black and white thinking....why is it soooooooooooooooooooo hard for you and others to understand that there are people out there that prefer to treat their health and any health problems as naturally as possible?? Having a healthy respect for Mother Nature and being of the opinion that man might do well to monkey around with it a bit less doesn't mean that people live in caves etc. There really is no irony. Just your inability to see any grey. 


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 01:55 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Man shouldn't monkey around with Mother Nature . . . Unless its too inconvenient?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
 

Tags
Vaccines , Vaccinations
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