There are ZERO risks for Not Vaccinating - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 103 Old 05-01-2013, 09:09 PM - Thread Starter
 
MyLilPwny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Zero. The PR industry has mass persuaded people to believe that the natural, balanced, innate immune system is defective and that you must "fix" it with vaccines. They created the illusion that vaccines are your one and only option for fighting diseases. They manipulated the herd by leading them to believe there are zero other options for fighting diseases.

 

The illusions that were created by and programmed by the PR Industry have successfully hidden many effective methods of fighting diseases that cause no harm and that cause no side effects. Of course those effective methods have zero $commercial$ value.

 

There are no risks whatsoever for not vaccinating.


Traditional & nutrient-dense foods/Weston A. Price Foundation advocate, Reiki II practitioner, EFT practitioner, past life & life between lives Hypnotherapist practitioner. Home birth with DD 2007 = never vaccinated, breastfed 3 years

MyLilPwny is offline  
#2 of 103 Old 05-01-2013, 09:45 PM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Um. Where to even begin.
ShyingViolet likes this.

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#3 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 03:35 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post

Zero. The PR industry has mass persuaded people to believe that the natural, balanced, innate immune system is defective and that you must "fix" it with vaccines. They created the illusion that vaccines are your one and only option for fighting diseases. They manipulated the herd by leading them to believe there are zero other options for fighting diseases.

 

The illusions that were created by and programmed by the PR Industry have successfully hidden many effective methods of fighting diseases that cause no harm and that cause no side effects. Of course those effective methods have zero $commercial$ value.

 

There are no risks whatsoever for not vaccinating.

what about the risk of catching one of the diseases out there and giving to an immunocompromised person?   like measles, flu, whooping cough, chicken pox, pneumoccocal pneumonia, for example......

emmy526 is online now  
#4 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 04:23 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

what about the risk of catching one of the diseases out there and giving to an immunocompromised person?   like measles, flu, whooping cough, chicken pox, pneumoccocal pneumonia, for example......

it use to be if you were compromised you attempted to protect yourself, I no longer see this (IRL) I know those who are doing chemo, going to Wal-mart from their session - just to "get out"!

 

this goes back to the same old argument, is the compromised more important vs forcing others to have to risk their child and themselves for the sake compromised person?

 

 you need to factor in cost to those you are asking to be vaccinated (and elderly don't have all their vaccines covered- have to think about that too), you have to have a govt. policy that covers ALL to have paid sick days and you have to take care of those who vaccinate and have a reaction for the sake of taking one for the herd and right now in the US we don't have those things- to me it's a weak argument that is always throw out and the practical issues with it are not addressed - to just say it's all about the compromised is missing the ones you are expecting to toe the line-no one seems to care about others just as long as their agenda is put first

 

 

I have notices a real push to now represent all babies (regardless of premature or not) that their immune systems is born compromised - they are ALL born compromised and must be vaccinated ASAP and ALL around them must be too and the mother prior to giving birth. If you plant the seed and repeat it, many do buy it.

 

I personally feel money is a factor in the majority of medical decisions/lack their of as well and that money drives policy good or bad, if you can't make money off it, it's simply not pushed.

BeckyBird likes this.

 

 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  
#5 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 04:46 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

it use to be if you were compromised you attempted to protect yourself, I no longer see this (IRL) I know those who are doing chemo, going to Wal-mart from their session - just to "get out"!

 

this goes back to the same old argument, is the compromised more important vs forcing others to have to risk their child and themselves for the sake compromised person?

 

 you need to factor in cost to those you are asking to be vaccinated (and elderly don't have all their vaccines covered- have to think about that too), you have to have a govt. policy that covers ALL to have paid sick days and you have to take care of those who vaccinate and have a reaction for the sake of taking one for the herd and right now in the US we don't have those things- to me it's a weak argument that is always throw out and the practical issues with it are not addressed - to just say it's all about the compromised is missing the ones you are expecting to toe the line-no one seems to care about others just as long as their agenda is put first

 

 

I have notices a real push to now represent all babies (regardless of premature or not) that their immune systems is born compromised - they are ALL born compromised and must be vaccinated ASAP and ALL around them must be too and the mother prior to giving birth. If you plant the seed and repeat it, many do buy it.

 

I personally feel money is a factor in the majority of medical decisions/lack their of as well and that money drives policy good or bad, if you can't make money off it, it's simply not pushed.

i have a friend who is on dialysis, and his wife thinks nothing of telling everyone who is sick to stay away, since her dh is so immuno compromised, --yet, they go out to crowded bars on the weekends..??...makes NO sense to me what so ever...if you're going to be vigilant about germs at home, your should also be that way in public too.  She even had him go in the back door of the office for his treatments, to avoid potentially exposing him to stuff, but  then they go around literally  1000 people a day later at a niteclub...smh

emmy526 is online now  
#6 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 06:24 AM
 
MichelleZB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post

Zero. The PR industry has mass persuaded people to believe that the natural, balanced, innate immune system is defective and that you must "fix" it with vaccines. They created the illusion that vaccines are your one and only option for fighting diseases. They manipulated the herd by leading them to believe there are zero other options for fighting diseases.

Many people have great immune systems! I count myself among their number--I rarely get sick. However, diseases vaccines prevent (like polio) are pretty hearty and it is not easy to fight them even for the healthiest person.
MichelleZB is online now  
#7 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 06:55 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 MichelleZB View Post

However, diseases vaccines prevent (like polio) are pretty hearty and it is not easy to fight them even for the healthiest person.

 

That is a myth, in 90 to 95% of healthy people polio infection is sub-clinical. Some people have minor symptoms, like a sore throat, low grade fever, headache, fatigue and nausea. Some may develop meningitis and temporary paralysis of an arm or a leg, but fully recover in a few weeks. In about 1 - 2% of cases, the polio virus infects the central nervous system and paralyzes the muscles of the arms or muscles required for breathing and swallowing, and this can lead to permanent paralysis or even death.

 

Given that the mild symptoms of polio are common  to many other conditions, for example flu, how do we really know that polio no longer exists in the western hemisphere unless people are tested when they display these all too common healing symptoms?

 

 

 

Marnica and BeckyBird like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#8 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 07:47 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)

I found the Op's initial post a little ranty but I do not disagree with the title.

 

At the most basic level there is Zero risk for not vaccinating.  How can a non-activity have a risk?  If I don't go paragliding,  I am not in danger of being in a paragliding incident.  

 

If you are not vaxxed, you will not be vaccine injured (unless it is epigenetically, but that is far too specualtive for this post….)

 

On a less concrete level, not vaccinating could potentially cause some disease to rise in prevalence.  The trick is sorting out which ones, to what degree, if they are dangerous and if a theoretical risk (if enough of us do this, the disease may rise) is enough to justify having children accept vaccine risks.  

rachelsmama 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 offline  
#9 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 08:23 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

what about the risk of catching one of the diseases out there and giving to an immunocompromised person?   like measles, flu, whooping cough, chicken pox, pneumoccocal pneumonia, for example......

I don't find this argument compelling.

 

I do not think it is fair for one child to assume a real risk (vaccine) so another person will avoid a potential risk.

 

My youngest is prone to chest infections.  We are working on it - successfully, I think.  I have never, ever thought other people should get their child vaxxed against pneumococcal or pertusiss because my child should not get those diseases.  This is not something I would put on other parents - have your child put at risk for a vaccine reaction to potentially protect mine.  


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 offline  
#10 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 09:31 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Kathymuggle - by your logic not using seat belts or car seats in the car, not looking both ways when crossing the street, not avoiding cigarette smokers all carry no risk.

Vaccines do help to lower the risk that a person will catch the diseases they are aimed for. This is documented many many times. So not vaccinating does increase the risk of catching diseases. Which maybe is fine if you are healthy, or maybe not, or maybe you won't always be 100% healthy. How can you predict when you might be exposed to these diseases?
pers and Blanca78 like 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  
#11 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 09:48 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I don't find this argument compelling.

 

I do not think it is fair for one child to assume a real risk (vaccine) so another person will avoid a potential risk.

 

My youngest is prone to chest infections.  We are working on it - successfully, I think.  I have never, ever thought other people should get their child vaxxed against pneumococcal or pertusiss because my child should not get those diseases.  This is not something I would put on other parents - have your child put at risk for a vaccine reaction to potentially protect mine.  

but there is still a risk...just not a zero risk...if a non vaxed person gets another nonvaxed person sick with a contractable disease, who's to say who is or is not going to have complications from the disease? Living life is a risk.  

emmy526 is online now  
#12 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 09:52 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

well, i guess i ran the risk of being hearing impaired since the mumps damaged my eardrums....and having rubella as an infant gave me more of a risk of arthritis, which is manifesting now as an older adult, and arthritis runs in my family.  None of my sibs have the arthritis problems i'm having but i can't discount rubella exacerbating the inherited condition. 

emmy526 is online now  
#13 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 10:05 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

 Living life is a risk.  

and we also need to remember people catch and die from complications from bronchitis (chronic and unspecified) deaths: 620

Mortality

  • Number of bronchitis (chronic and unspecified) deaths: 620
  • Bronchitis (chronic and unspecified) deaths per 100,000 population: 0.2
  • Number of emphysema deaths: 10,034
  • Emphysema deaths per 100,000 population: 3.2
  • Number of deaths from other chronic lower respiratory diseases (excluding asthma): 124,022
  • Other chronic lower respiratory diseases (excluding asthma) deaths per 100,000 population: 40.2
 

 

 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  
#14 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 10:06 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Kathymuggle - by your logic not using seat belts or car seats in the car, not looking both ways when crossing the street, not avoiding cigarette smokers all carry no risk.
 

Apples and oranges.  If I do not take a pharmaceutical,  I do not risk the possible side effects from said pharmaceutical.  It is pretty simple.


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 offline  
#15 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 10:16 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

but there is still a risk...just not a zero risk...if a non vaxed person gets another nonvaxed person sick with a contractable disease, who's to say who is or is not going to have complications from the disease? Living life is a risk.  

Vaccines carry a certain risk.

 

Diseases are a possible risk - as who knows who is going to get them?

 

I would say in a literal, direct sense the Op is correct - there is zero risk from not vaccinating.  

 

In a less direct, more potential sense, there is risk from not vaccinating.  There is a higher risk a child might catch a VAD.

 

Vaccines carry real risks, whereas not vaccinating carries potential risk.  


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 offline  
#16 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 10:26 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Vaccines carry risk.  Not vaccinating carries risk in that you leave yourself more vulnerable to VPD and their complications.  1 in 1000 people who get measles die.  More than that get serious complications like encephalitis or pneumonia.  

 

I respect peoples choice not to vaccinate if they decide that's whats best for them and their family, but saying there's no risk or consequence of that decision, or even that the risk is just "potential," is lying to yourself.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#17 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 10:37 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

At the most basic level there is Zero risk for not vaccinating.  How can a non-activity have a risk?  If I don't go paragliding,  I am not in danger of being in a paragliding incident.  

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Apples and oranges.  If I do not take a pharmaceutical,  I do not risk the possible side effects from said pharmaceutical.  It is pretty simple.

 

If you don't wear a seatbelt, you do not risk being trapped by your seatbelt in a burning or sinking car.  It is pretty simple. 

 

Would anyone say there is no risk to not wearing a seatbelt? How can a non-activity have a risk?

 

The problem with the paragliding comparison is that paragliding is not intended to be something that keeps people safer than they would be if they did not go paragliding.  Seatbelts and vaccines are not something people wear/get just for fun, they are intended to reduce a risk that already existed.  When people choose to drive in cars, that puts them at risk.  They wear setbelts to reduce that risk.  When people interact with other humans, that puts them at risk for getting a disease such as measles.  They get the measles vaccine to greatly reduce that risk.  Of course, we could deal with the risk of dying in a car accident by not ever travelling in one and the risk of infectious disease by living in a bubble and having no contact with anyone ever, but you know, what's the fun in that?

 

Life has risks.  We have means of preventing or reducing some of them.  Failure to make use of these means leaves a person at increased risk.  

 

In our society, that's how we look at it, anyway.  I do get your point that a failure to prevent something is not quite the same as causing it, but that's just semantics, not substance. 

hushpuppy likes this.
pers is offline  
#18 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 10:38 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

 

I respect peoples choice not to vaccinate if they decide that's whats best for them and their family, but saying there's no risk or consequence of that decision, or even that the risk is just "potential," is lying to yourself.

Please explain to me how the risk is not "potential".

 

Of course it is potential - you have no idea if you will be exposed to a VAD and which one.

 

Some VADs carry a likely risk of exposure and some carry a neglibile (in my estimation) risk of exposure - but they are still potetial, not certain, risks.

Marnica 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 offline  
#19 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 11:06 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 


 

If you don't wear a seatbelt, you do not risk being trapped by your seatbelt in a burning or sinking car.  It is pretty simple. 

 

Would anyone say there is no risk to not wearing a seatbelt? How can a non-activity have a risk?

 

 

Some of this is semantics…but still...

 

Let's break this down for kicks.

 

Seatbelt:

 

-The act of putting on or leaving it off carries no immediate risk.  

-People put on a seatbelt because they believe it will ultimately help them in case they are in an accident.  Accidents are a potential risk.

 

Vaccines

-the act of vaccinating carries an immediate risk, not vaccinating does not.  You cannot have a vaccine reaction if you did not vaccinate.

-the act of not vaccinating carries a potential risk - you might be exposed to a VAD and as an unvaxxed person, might be more likely to get it.  

 

Both carry no immediate risk -both putting on a seatbelt and vaccinating are only useful if you are exposed to a certain type of situation (accident or VAD).

 

I do not vax, but do use a seatbelt.  Using a seatbelt causes no harm if I am not in an accident (unlike vaccines which can harm even if there is no VAD around) and I am more concerned with the potential risks of car accidents than the potential risks of VADs.  To each there own, obviously.

Marnica, BeckyBird and MichelleZB like this.

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

 

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

kathymuggle is offline  
#20 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 11:28 AM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

I am going to leave the assertion that "there is no risk to not vaccinating" alone. There's nothing I can say that wouldn't result in a padlock.

 

 

 

Quote:
They created the illusion that vaccines are your one and only option for fighting diseases.

I don't understand how anyone could be under this impression. Handwashing? Condom use? Avoiding crowded public spaces while symptomatic? Staying home if immunosuppressed? Safety guidelines for food preparation? Universal precautions in the hospital? Public sanitation? Public health as a field is a lot bigger than just vaccination. 

Emaye and Blanca78 like this.

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#21 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 12:12 PM
 
mamabear0314's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,260
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

Eh never mind.


Single, student mama slingboy.gif to 3 boys jumpers.gif 

 

homeschool.gif saynovax.gif signcirc1.gif bfinfant.gif femalesling.GIF familybed2.gif h20homebirth.gif 

mamabear0314 is offline  
#22 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 03:24 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
All risk is "potential," Kathy. That's what makes it risk and not causation.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#23 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 04:08 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

what about the potential risk of an unvaxed child catching a VAD from a freshly vaxed child who is shedding a live virus?  There is a risk either child could get sick.  For a short time, my child was at potential risk while in daycare, and other children were receiving live virus vaccines in his room.  Did i weigh the risk of not vaccinating with the potential risk he could become ill?  Yes, i did.  For us as a family, yes, it was worth the risk of not vaccinating.  For all i know, he may have picked up passive immunity due to being ebf, and having an intact immune system.  

emmy526 is online now  
#24 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 05:22 PM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
What's an intact immune system?

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#25 of 103 Old 05-02-2013, 06:26 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

All risk is "potential," Kathy. That's what makes it risk and not causation.

I think we are just focusing on different things.

 

If you are not vaxxed you have zero risk of a vaccine reaction.  I doubt anyone denies this. Anytime someone is vaccinated there is a chance they will have a vaccine reaction. 

 

If you are not vaxxed, your risk of getting a VAD might be higher than a vaxxed person (how much higher depends on the disease and the vaccine).  

applejuice 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 offline  
#26 of 103 Old 05-03-2013, 08:08 PM - Thread Starter
 
MyLilPwny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The natural, innate immune system is perfectly designed. The perfectly designed body produces autoimmune diseases when foreign junk (i.e. vaccines) enters the body. Thats what happens when you upset nature's already perfect balance. After being vaccinated, you may not see an adverse reaction right away, but the vaccine is likely to be the culprit of that autoimmune disease that you now have. Or that cancer that you now have, a decade or two later down the line.

Quote:

In a less direct, more potential sense, there is risk from not vaccinating.  There is a higher risk a child might catch a VAD.

 

The assumption of the "higher" risk goes along with the illusion/advertising that vaccines are your one and only option for fighting diseases and that there are absolutely zero other effective methods of fighting diseases.

 
People are talking about how diseases can kill you and that vaccines might be able to "lower the risk". Well, its a good thing that there are many other methods that are way more effective than vaccines at fighting diseases. And unlike vaccines, these other methods are not harmful. Instead, these other methods create a robust, balanced, natural immune system, or you can call it an intact immune system as someone else said.
 
Vaccines create imbalance and alter and damage the natural immune system. When you mess with nature, it tends to fight back (i.e. autoimmune diseases).
Mirzam likes this.

Traditional & nutrient-dense foods/Weston A. Price Foundation advocate, Reiki II practitioner, EFT practitioner, past life & life between lives Hypnotherapist practitioner. Home birth with DD 2007 = never vaccinated, breastfed 3 years

MyLilPwny is offline  
#27 of 103 Old 05-03-2013, 08:44 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)

I said this

 

Quote:

In a less direct, more potential sense, there is risk from not vaccinating.  There is a higher risk a child might catch a VAD.

 

Then you quoted me and said this:

 

The assumption of the "higher" risk goes along with the illusion/advertising that vaccines are your one and only option for fighting diseases and that there are absolutely zero other effective methods of fighting diseases.

 

_______________________

 

Here we go:

 

I do not think I am under any illusion from advertising on this issue.  You do not know me; it is pretty presumptuous of you to assume that.

 

I believe some VADs experienced some decline due to vaccines.  Not all diseases, and not all of the decline within a VAD is due to a vaccine- but some, yes.  Ergo the "there is a higher risk a child might catch a VAD"

 

What do you mean fighting disease?  - Do you mean fighting off a disease  so you do not catch it?  Or do you mean fighting a disease if you do catch it?  (which I did not talk about at all).

 

Either way you seem to be assuming things - I am very firmly aware that there are multiple ways to support health so you do not catch a disease in the first place, and multiple ways to keep yourself healthy so you can fight off diseases if you do get them.   Under no circumstances do I think there are "absolutely zero other effective methods of fighting off disease."  

 

I did not dislike the rest of your post, btw.  I do think jumping from someone (me) seeing things differently that you to "you are under the illusion of advertising" without any evidence is pretty whack, though.  

 

 

 

 


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 offline  
#28 of 103 Old 05-03-2013, 09:20 PM
 
erigeron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

^^^I'm just entertained that someone is apparently criticizing you (Kathy) for not being non-vax enough. wink1.gif

ShyingViolet and kathymuggle like this.

WOHM to a girl jog.gif (6-11) and a new baby boy stork-boy.gif (2-14) and adjusting to the full-time life and husband being a SAHD. 
erigeron is offline  
#29 of 103 Old 05-03-2013, 10:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
MyLilPwny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

By not vaccinating, there is no "higher" risk whatsoever, including no "potential" higher risk for developing a disease that has vaccines available. Correlation does not equal causation. Most diseases were already significantly in decline, well before the vaccine for it was ever invented. There are zero risks for not vaccinating, and that includes zero "potential" risks.

 

Fighting a disease = not developing the full disease (mild symptoms may show up during the fight). The word "catching" is not applicable. Diseases aren't "caught" (the "germ theory" has more holes than swiss cheese). Diseases are only developed, depending on the conditions inside the body. This further supports that there are zero "potential" risks for not vaccinating.

 

Furthermore, why even bring up there "might" be a "potential" higher risk of "catching" a disease because of not vaccinating? If you truly believed there are "more effective & non-harmful" methods of avoiding & fighting diseases instead of vaccines, then there would be "less" risk of "catching" a disease. Bringing up the "potential" makes as much sense as "I have the "potential" to win the lottery tomorrow" or "there is a "potential" chance it might rain tomorrow".

 

(I'm not and I haven't been aiming my posts at anyone in particular. I'm questioning statements for discussion purposes, aimed at the general population and not to anyone in particular.)

Mirzam likes this.

Traditional & nutrient-dense foods/Weston A. Price Foundation advocate, Reiki II practitioner, EFT practitioner, past life & life between lives Hypnotherapist practitioner. Home birth with DD 2007 = never vaccinated, breastfed 3 years

MyLilPwny is offline  
#30 of 103 Old 05-03-2013, 10:50 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
If you don't believe diseases are caused by "germs" (viruses and bacteria) then there's not a lot of point discussing the benefit if vaccines with you.

All I can say is there is a lot of evidence supporting that diseases are caused by germs and while vaccines aren't the only thing which can help reduce the risk of catching and/or having serious complications from a VPD they demonstrably do help lower (significantly in many cases) those risks.

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  
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