vaccines are great - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 47 Old 06-17-2013, 08:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
djrn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I believe that vaccines are generally safe, highly effective and one of the most important tools we have to improve health and well-being. Prove me wrong.

 

For my own curiosity, I'd also like to hear from parents who don't vaccinate or partially vaccinate their children: what convinced you that that is the best course of action? Please be as specific/detailed as you feel comfortable with. If you prefer to just tell me your reasons and not engage in a debate, that's fine.

 

I realize there is another thread with a similar topic, but I don't really like where it was going and I thought I'd start a new conversation.

djrn is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 47 Old 06-17-2013, 09:31 PM - Thread Starter
 
djrn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm addressing this comment from a different thread in order to ensure that I am following forum rules:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

 

I am not aware of any large studies that have compared unvaccinated and fully vaccinated children. Partially vaccinated vs. fully vaccinated doesn't count. Or vaccinated on a slightly different schedule vs. on schedule. Or missing one certain vaccine vs. not missing that once certain vaccine. Etc.

 

If the government and/or pharmaceutical companies wanted to do it, they would find the money, and they would find a way to do a well designed study. They should be completely confident that the results would show that fully vaccinated children are healthier than unvaccinated children. Those results from a large, well designed study would convince many reluctant parents to vaccinate, I'm sure.

 

As I said, a randomized controlled trial is the gold-standard in statistics. It is the only kind of experimental design that, by itself, can reliably demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships. In order to do one directly examining the differences in vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the children would have to be randomly placed into vaccine/no vaccine groups. In other words, the parents could not be the ones to decide whether to vaccinate or not. This is considered highly unethical research, because, while you may disagree, the people conducting the research believe that deliberately not vaccinating children has the potential to be extremely harmful. Other efforts have occasionally been made to compare the two groups, but the studies have been of poor quality and had strange/mixed results.

 

However, numerous high-quality studies have been done by the government, pharmaceutical companies and others examining the safety of vaccines. They have found no evidence of a link between childhood vaccines and autism or other chronic diseases/conditions. If you tend to trust large, well-designed studies, why are those not enough? And, even if you don't trust those studies, given how dangerous some vaccine-preventable diseases can be, shouldn't the default position be to vaccinate until there is real evidence of equivalent or worse danger from vaccines?
 

djrn is offline  
#3 of 47 Old 06-17-2013, 09:37 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

So since they can't do the absolute gold standard of a randomized, double blind placebo controlled study with unvaccinated children, they shouldn't do any studies at all, it seems.

 

But it also seems they have no problem doing other types of studies, as long as they don't include a group of completely unvaccinated children.

 

And at the opposite end, why aren't there studies looking at children who were healthy and developing normally, and then regressed after vaccination? To try to figure out what is different about them, from children who seemed to do well after vaccination? The late Dr. Bernadine Healy said such studies hadn't been done, but should be done. They still haven't been done.

ma2two is offline  
#4 of 47 Old 06-17-2013, 09:49 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,252
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 236 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djrn View Post

I'm addressing this comment from a different thread in order to ensure that I am following forum rules:

 

As I said, a randomized controlled trial is the gold-standard in statistics. It is the only kind of experimental design that, by itself, can reliably demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships. In order to do one directly examining the differences in vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the children would have to be randomly placed into vaccine/no vaccine groups. In other words, the parents could not be the ones to decide whether to vaccinate or not. This is considered highly unethical research, because, while you may disagree, the people conducting the research believe that deliberately not vaccinating children has the potential to be extremely harmful. Other efforts have occasionally been made to compare the two groups, but the studies have been of poor quality and had strange/mixed results.

 


 

It doesn't really matter why they haven't compared vaccinated to unvaccinated in any sort of meaningful way; it just matters that they haven't.  


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  
#5 of 47 Old 06-17-2013, 09:50 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,618
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djrn View Post

I believe that vaccines are generally safe, highly effective and one of the most important tools we have to improve health and well-being. Prove me wrong.

 

For my own curiosity, I'd also like to hear from parents who don't vaccinate or partially vaccinate their children: what convinced you that that is the best course of action? Please be as specific/detailed as you feel comfortable with. If you prefer to just tell me your reasons and not engage in a debate, that's fine.

 

I realize there is another thread with a similar topic, but I don't really like where it was going and I thought I'd start a new conversation.

 

Why on earth, if you are so sure about your belief in vaccines, do you want to be proved wrong? It is very difficult to change a person's mind when a belief is held so strongly. It is like the story that was retold in a blog I read recently, about a man who was seeing a psychiatrist because he was convinced he was a corpse. The doctor wasn't making any progress with the man, but he had an idea to get through to the man. The psychiatrist asked the him if corpses bleed. Of course the man said, "no, they are dead, only living people bleed." So the doctor got a needle and pricked the man's finger, and it bled. The man observed the blood forming on his finger in awe. The psychiatrist thought he had made a breakthrough and asked the man what had he learned. The man looked at him with wide eyes and said, "I guess corpses bleed after all." 

 

As I mentioned in the other thread, the non vaxing parents on this board have undertaken, many thousands of collective hours of research on the subject, and you expect us to condense all that information and knowledge into some sound bite reply? Please, take the time to read through this forum, and I suggest going way back, and you might learn why we have chosen not to vaccinate our children. 

 

As you saw with the other thread, threads asking this question tend to go south pretty quickly. I can't speak for others, but quite frankly, I don't care what other people do with regard to the health and well being of their children. All I ask is that I am allowed to protect my children's health and well being in the way I see fit. And that includes refusing all vaccines and any other medical treatment I deem unsafe.


t
 
"The opposite of a lie is not necessarily the truth, but another version of the lie." ~ Cameron Day
Mirzam is online now  
#6 of 47 Old 06-17-2013, 09:55 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,252
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 236 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djrn View Post

I believe that vaccines are generally safe, highly effective and one of the most important tools we have to improve health and well-being. Prove me wrong.

 

 

I believe the safety of vaccines is unknown, they vary in effectiveness, and that they are not one of the most important tools I have to improve the health and well being of my family.  In fact, they don't improve health or well being at all.  They might prevent illness - which is different than improving health.

 

I don't have to prove you wrong at all.   If you (or anyone else) is asking me to inject a substance into my child, the burden is on you to prove they are safe.


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  
#7 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 05:11 AM
 
lightbulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I don't really trust vaccines being safe after things like this:

http://www.thelocal.se/46950/20130326/#.UVHtYVdPxX-

 

The government went out and recommended the swine flu shot, claming it to be totally safe. Then later it turns out that so many children (/young people) got narcolepsy from that shot. The huge study in the link clearly shows that the vaccine was to blame and the government also said so.

So why would you trust it then?

I called the swine flu shot an experiment from the start, and I do not experiment with injecting substances into my children, or myself.

 

 

(Disclaimer, my kids are not completely vax free, they have recieved a couple of shots. I don't think vaccines are evil or anything, I think they did lots of good too. But I'm very sceptical, highly selective, and will never be part of an experiment with new shots.)

lightbulb is offline  
#8 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 08:59 AM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)

As I said in the thread I first pointed you to, one of the reasons we don't vax is due to a family history of vaccine injury and reactions. We have also found out since that one of our daughters is allergic to something in several vaccines. I am not interested in defending my decision to you or anyone else. I think if you want to ask sincere questions for your research paper, you should be willing to listen without demanding we "prove" our point and you might want to rethink your title.

 

eta: demand may be too strong of a word, I realize you said you were fine with us saying we did not want to debate, but you seem to be wanting two different things, so maybe two different threads would have been in order.

fruitfulmomma is online now  
#9 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 10:03 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,562
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djrn View Post

I'm addressing this comment from a different thread in order to ensure that I am following forum rules:

 

As I said, a randomized controlled trial is the gold-standard in statistics. It is the only kind of experimental design that, by itself, can reliably demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships. In order to do one directly examining the differences in vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the children would have to be randomly placed into vaccine/no vaccine groups. In other words, the parents could not be the ones to decide whether to vaccinate or not. This is considered highly unethical research, because, while you may disagree, the people conducting the research believe that deliberately not vaccinating children has the potential to be extremely harmful. Other efforts have occasionally been made to compare the two groups, but the studies have been of poor quality and had strange/mixed results.

 

However, numerous high-quality studies have been done by the government, pharmaceutical companies and others examining the safety of vaccines. They have found no evidence of a link between childhood vaccines and autism or other chronic diseases/conditions. If you tend to trust large, well-designed studies, why are those not enough? And, even if you don't trust those studies, given how dangerous some vaccine-preventable diseases can be, shouldn't the default position be to vaccinate until there is real evidence of equivalent or worse danger from vaccines?
 


I consider it unethical to distribute so many vaccines to such a large portion of the population (sometimes using deceit, coercion or force), without first doing the most thorough research possible into the safety.  As for the idea that leaving study participants unvaccinated could be harmful: what about diseases like chickenpox, for which the vaccine is distributed to reduce sick days, not because of the risks of the disease.  Why haven't there been double blind studies for that?  Not all diseases for which there is a vaccine are dangerous enough to justify not doing proper research. 

 

The gross generalisation is not helping your case.  The potential danger from diseases for which there is a vaccine varies greatly, as does the potential risk from the different vaccines.  Just because tetanus is dangerous if you are unlucky enough to get it, doesn't mean that it is automatically a good idea to do mass vaccinations against HPV.  The default position should be to look at the individual and have an honest discussion about the risks/benefits of each vaccine given the individual's particular circumstances.

rachelsmama is offline  
#10 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 05:01 PM
 
manysplinters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightbulb View Post


 

 

(Disclaimer, my kids are not completely vax free, they have recieved a couple of shots. I don't think vaccines are evil or anything, I think they did lots of good too. But I'm very sceptical, highly selective, and will never be part of an experiment with new shots.)


I agree with the above poster with respect to these new "vaccinations" that are now being added to the roster.  Polio was/is a disease that has devastating consequences; smallpox was a similar disease; there are various other diseases for which vaccines are, in my view, very important to minimize the number of people who may contract them, and I choose, for my children, to vaccinate against those types of disease.  I don't think vaccines are necessarily evil; however, chicken pox in small children, annual strains of influenza and HPV are not among those diseases which I consider so critical that I will vaccinate my child against them at this point.  I don't even know if the term vaccination should be used in relation to annual influenza, swine flu, etc, given that the efficacy of these so-called vaccinations is pretty questionable.  I have concerns about pushing vaccines like that on pregnant women and children, where there has been no determination as to their safety, and where there is no long-term history of their usage to look to from which an idea of their safety could be gathered.  Particularly the H1N1 vaccine had such scare tactics involved with it, and most proponents seemed incredibly misinformed in comparison to the actual drug disclosure statements provided by the drug companies.  I think that public health bodies do themselves no favours, and they undermine the importance of some vaccinations, when they use such pressure tactics to get people to obtain shots for things like flu where the efficacy of the shot is so questionable, and where the shot is completely untested in huge parts of their target population at the time when the vaccination program was rolled out (I'm primarily referring to H1N1 in 2009).  

manysplinters is offline  
#11 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 07:39 PM
 
mightymama1976's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djrn View Post

Prove me wrong.

 

 

I am sorry, but there is just no easy way to get the knowledge without spending hundreds if not thousands of hours doing the research (the amount of time most people who chose to not vaccinate spent doing the research). You can start by checking out this website http://www.healthfromscratch.com/vaccines-safety-info.html . Every single link (everything in orange color is clickable) is whether a serious study (from all over the world) or lecture by an MD (including few documentaries interviewing MDs and PhDs) or news stories. Very educational.

mightymama1976 is offline  
#12 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 09:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
djrn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

So since they can't do the absolute gold standard of a randomized, double blind placebo controlled study with unvaccinated children, they shouldn't do any studies at all, it seems.

 

But it also seems they have no problem doing other types of studies, as long as they don't include a group of completely unvaccinated children.

 

And at the opposite end, why aren't there studies looking at children who were healthy and developing normally, and then regressed after vaccination? To try to figure out what is different about them, from children who seemed to do well after vaccination? The late Dr. Bernadine Healy said such studies hadn't been done, but should be done. They still haven't been done.


By "regressed," do you mean that they began to display autistic symptoms? It is known that autism commonly manifests before the age of 2 years.old, regardless of whether the child is fully, partially, or not at all vaccinated. It is apparently a coincidence that this also happens to be around the time at which a number of vaccines are provided. As I said, there is no scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism, despite numerous rigorous studies.

 

I've stated why an experimental study (random controlled trial) is unethical. It sounds like you want an observational study instead, which is generally less useful but can still be interesting. There can be some problems with this. For example, the number of unvaccinated children is relatively small, and within that group, the children tend to have homogenous backgrounds - they tend to be white, have married mothers with college degrees, live in an upper middle class household, etc. One of the keys to an effective study is having a heterogeneous group to study, which would be tough to put together here. But some attempts have been made, in fact one of them was by anti-vaccination group Generation Rescue. The study, which I would call poorly done and unreliable, found that the highest incidence of autism was in partially vaccinated children (with lower incidence in fully vaccinated children) which would actually appear to be evidence against vaccines causing autism. I can't find a direct link to the study any more, but you can read an analysis at http://web.archive.org/web/20080116035729/http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=567.

 

Just to go back to the issue of the small number of unvaccinated children for a second... the estimate in the US is that somewhere around 50,000 3-6 year olds are completely unvaccinated. If you could enroll 1% of them in a study (even 1% could be tough), the study would only be able to reliably detect around a 15-fold difference in autism rates. If it were "only" a difference of five times, you couldn't see it in that study. You could do a study to detect a more reasonable 10%+ increase in autism rates with vaccination - if you had three times as many unvaccinated children in the study as there are in the entire country. This is an inconvenient problem, but it's how statistics works. You might be able to bypass it somewhat by doing several studies around the world, but this would get very complicated, very expensive, and divert money from researching more promising areas related to things like autism. Areas where there is more evidence for a cause. That's why you aren't seeing these studies.

djrn is offline  
#13 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 09:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
djrn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

It doesn't really matter why they haven't compared vaccinated to unvaccinated in any sort of meaningful way; it just matters that they haven't.  


This sounds very illogical to me. It would be like saying, "unless and until a large study is done to see whether children exposed to organic food develop autism, I am going to rigorously avoid exposing him to organic food." Insert any common item for organic food, if you wish, but I chose organic food for a reason: the increase in autism rates actually correlates more closely to the rise in sales of organic food than it does to vaccination rates or number of vaccines. I'm not suggesting that organic food causes autism. I like organic food. My point is that I have no good reason to think either organic food or vaccines cause autism. Since it's impossible to prove a negative (that x doesn't cause y), I'll assume there is no link until there is solid evidence of the positive claim that x causes y. Do you look for a study on any new/slightly unusual item before your child is exposed to it?

djrn is offline  
#14 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 09:35 PM - Thread Starter
 
djrn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

Why on earth, if you are so sure about your belief in vaccines, do you want to be proved wrong? It is very difficult to change a person's mind when a belief is held so strongly. It is like the story that was retold in a blog I read recently, about a man who was seeing a psychiatrist because he was convinced he was a corpse. The doctor wasn't making any progress with the man, but he had an idea to get through to the man. The psychiatrist asked the him if corpses bleed. Of course the man said, "no, they are dead, only living people bleed." So the doctor got a needle and pricked the man's finger, and it bled. The man observed the blood forming on his finger in awe. The psychiatrist thought he had made a breakthrough and asked the man what had he learned. The man looked at him with wide eyes and said, "I guess corpses bleed after all." 

 

As I mentioned in the other thread, the non vaxing parents on this board have undertaken, many thousands of collective hours of research on the subject, and you expect us to condense all that information and knowledge into some sound bite reply? Please, take the time to read through this forum, and I suggest going way back, and you might learn why we have chosen not to vaccinate our children. 

 

As you saw with the other thread, threads asking this question tend to go south pretty quickly. I can't speak for others, but quite frankly, I don't care what other people do with regard to the health and well being of their children. All I ask is that I am allowed to protect my children's health and well being in the way I see fit. And that includes refusing all vaccines and any other medical treatment I deem unsafe.


I believe what I believe based on scientific evidence. Show me some rigorous scientific evidence demonstrating the opposite, that vaccines are linked to a chronic condition like autism, diabetes, or whatever, and I'll change my beliefs. Can you say the same about your beliefs? I don't question that you are trying to do what is best for your children, and that you've done a lot of research. I suppose, above all, that I question the sources where you have gotten your information. If you'd like to tell me about some of the sources or claims you found most convincing, I'd be interested in looking at them.

djrn is offline  
#15 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 09:40 PM - Thread Starter
 
djrn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I believe the safety of vaccines is unknown, they vary in effectiveness, and that they are not one of the most important tools I have to improve the health and well being of my family.  In fact, they don't improve health or well being at all.  They might prevent illness - which is different than improving health.

 

I don't have to prove you wrong at all.   If you (or anyone else) is asking me to inject a substance into my child, the burden is on you to prove they are safe.


When vaccines are developed and produced, they are rigorously tested. In fact, it is tougher to bring a vaccine or other medication to market in the USA than in many other places because we have such high standards. Common childhood vaccines have been tested for side effects and have been used for years or even decades with no evidence of widespread danger. In recent years, numerous additional studies have been done demonstrating no link between vaccines and specific problems like autism. Why does this not satisfy the burden?

 

I would argue that preventing illness and improving health are largely synonymous, but I guess that's semantics and it's not really important.

djrn is offline  
#16 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 09:52 PM - Thread Starter
 
djrn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightbulb View Post

I don't really trust vaccines being safe after things like this:

http://www.thelocal.se/46950/20130326/#.UVHtYVdPxX-

 

The government went out and recommended the swine flu shot, claming it to be totally safe. Then later it turns out that so many children (/young people) got narcolepsy from that shot. The huge study in the link clearly shows that the vaccine was to blame and the government also said so.

So why would you trust it then?

I called the swine flu shot an experiment from the start, and I do not experiment with injecting substances into my children, or myself.

 

 

(Disclaimer, my kids are not completely vax free, they have recieved a couple of shots. I don't think vaccines are evil or anything, I think they did lots of good too. But I'm very sceptical, highly selective, and will never be part of an experiment with new shots.)


I think it's admirable when someone is willing to take a nuanced position, rather than claiming all vaccines are dangerous, but I think some of your skepticism may be misplaced. The study you are linking to about narcolepsy is very recent and I haven't seen the study itself so I can't speak to it. However, I would point out that many studies of the swine flu vaccine show an adverse reaction profile similar to seasonal flu vaccines, which tend to be very rare. In fact, I saw a study showing that incidence of Guillain-Barre syndrome (which was mentioned as a possible side effect) in the vaccinated was lower than in the unvaccinated. It would also be worth noting that GBS can be caused by flu infection, which may be the reason. So I wouldn't necessarily take those claims (particularly from the sensationalist media) at face value.

djrn is offline  
#17 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 09:55 PM - Thread Starter
 
djrn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

As I said in the thread I first pointed you to, one of the reasons we don't vax is due to a family history of vaccine injury and reactions. We have also found out since that one of our daughters is allergic to something in several vaccines. I am not interested in defending my decision to you or anyone else. I think if you want to ask sincere questions for your research paper, you should be willing to listen without demanding we "prove" our point and you might want to rethink your title.

 

eta: demand may be too strong of a word, I realize you said you were fine with us saying we did not want to debate, but you seem to be wanting two different things, so maybe two different threads would have been in order.


Fair enough. Actually, you reasons for not vaccinating are entirely valid medically. I have no quarrel with them, and there is no need for you to defend them. However, I would point out that is to your children's benefit for other children to be vaccinated, since yours are at higher risk from vaccine-preventable infections. I would hope you encourage vaccination in others, assuming they do not have the same issues with allergies/reactions.

 

See? I can listen.

djrn is offline  
#18 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 10:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
djrn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post


I consider it unethical to distribute so many vaccines to such a large portion of the population (sometimes using deceit, coercion or force), without first doing the most thorough research possible into the safety.  As for the idea that leaving study participants unvaccinated could be harmful: what about diseases like chickenpox, for which the vaccine is distributed to reduce sick days, not because of the risks of the disease.  Why haven't there been double blind studies for that?  Not all diseases for which there is a vaccine are dangerous enough to justify not doing proper research. 

 

The gross generalisation is not helping your case.  The potential danger from diseases for which there is a vaccine varies greatly, as does the potential risk from the different vaccines.  Just because tetanus is dangerous if you are unlucky enough to get it, doesn't mean that it is automatically a good idea to do mass vaccinations against HPV.  The default position should be to look at the individual and have an honest discussion about the risks/benefits of each vaccine given the individual's particular circumstances.


Blue: I'm not sure what deceit, coercion or force you are referring to, but informed consent is one of the ethical foundations of modern medical treatment. If you witnessed a vaccine literally forced on a child without parental consent, or if healthcare professionals refused to give you information on the vaccines before administering them, I'd suggest hiring a lawyer and filing a lawsuit, because you would win easily. I would argue that that research has been done, and if there is a specific vaccine or related issue you want to see a study on or trial results for, I might be able to find something for you. The idea that the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine was released to reduce sick days is false as far as I am aware (at most it is a nice ancillary benefit). Chickenpox, while usually no more than an inconvenience if contracted in childhood, can sometimes still be dangerous for them, and if a susceptible adult catches it then you can really be asking for trouble. So there are very good reasons for having a vaccine.

 

Green: I didn't think I was grossly generalizing, I said some diseases are very dangerous, and that the benefits outweigh the risks. I would like to point out that any medical treatment, including vaccines, is provided once the healthcare professionals, researchers, etc. have determined that the benefits of it outweigh the drawbacks. For example, doctors will willingly administer chemotherapy which can do great damage to the human body. Why? Because it does even greater damage to the cancer. Any medical treatment can have bad side effects, but vaccines have among the fewest, while also providing some of the greatest benefits. It is estimated that vaccines have saved literally tens or hundreds of millions of lives.

djrn is offline  
#19 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 10:16 PM - Thread Starter
 
djrn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by manysplinters View Post


I agree with the above poster with respect to these new "vaccinations" that are now being added to the roster.  Polio was/is a disease that has devastating consequences; smallpox was a similar disease; there are various other diseases for which vaccines are, in my view, very important to minimize the number of people who may contract them, and I choose, for my children, to vaccinate against those types of disease.  I don't think vaccines are necessarily evil; however, chicken pox in small children, annual strains of influenza and HPV are not among those diseases which I consider so critical that I will vaccinate my child against them at this point.  I don't even know if the term vaccination should be used in relation to annual influenza, swine flu, etc, given that the efficacy of these so-called vaccinations is pretty questionable.  I have concerns about pushing vaccines like that on pregnant women and children, where there has been no determination as to their safety, and where there is no long-term history of their usage to look to from which an idea of their safety could be gathered.  Particularly the H1N1 vaccine had such scare tactics involved with it, and most proponents seemed incredibly misinformed in comparison to the actual drug disclosure statements provided by the drug companies.  I think that public health bodies do themselves no favours, and they undermine the importance of some vaccinations, when they use such pressure tactics to get people to obtain shots for things like flu where the efficacy of the shot is so questionable, and where the shot is completely untested in huge parts of their target population at the time when the vaccination program was rolled out (I'm primarily referring to H1N1 in 2009).  


The problem with flu vaccines in particular is that the influenza virus mutates rapidly and sometimes unpredictably. The vaccines are produced to battle the strains that scientists expect to become prominent several months later. From what I've seen, the H1N1 vaccine was about as effective as any other similar vaccine. There are conflicting studies about the side effects, but many studies show that it is as safe as similar vaccines. It is credited with preventing around 1 million illnesses and hundreds of deaths in the US. I would also point out that the vaccine was very similar in its production to seasonal flu vaccines, which makes me skeptical of most claims about major risks.

djrn is offline  
#20 of 47 Old 06-18-2013, 10:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
djrn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightymama1976 View Post

 

I am sorry, but there is just no easy way to get the knowledge without spending hundreds if not thousands of hours doing the research (the amount of time most people who chose to not vaccinate spent doing the research). You can start by checking out this website http://www.healthfromscratch.com/vaccines-safety-info.html . Every single link (everything in orange color is clickable) is whether a serious study (from all over the world) or lecture by an MD (including few documentaries interviewing MDs and PhDs) or news stories. Very educational.


It isn't hard to provide convincing evidence, if you have rigorous scientific study to back it up. I took a look at that website, and I saw quite a bit that was misleading just in the first few lines. I'm wondering if you have some issues with vaccines that you consider most pressing (that site mentions aluminum and mercury quite a bit, for example) that you'd like to bring up that I might be able to talk about.

djrn is offline  
#21 of 47 Old 06-19-2013, 12:36 AM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djrn View Post


The study you are linking to about narcolepsy is very recent and I haven't seen the study itself so I can't speak to it.

 

So I wouldn't necessarily take those claims (particularly from the sensationalist media) at face value.

 

"The study, which took place between October 2009 and the December 2011, compared 3.3 million vaccinated Swedes with 2.5 million who were not vaccinated. 

"We can see that over the whole study period we have 126 cases of those vaccinated getting narcolepsy," Ingemar Person, professor behind the study, said in a statement on Tuesday. "There were 20 cases among those not vaccinated. We're talking about a threefold increase in risk."

http://www.thelocal.se/46950/20130326/#.UVHtYVdPxX-

ma2two is offline  
#22 of 47 Old 06-19-2013, 05:17 AM
 
lightbulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djrn View Post

I think it's admirable when someone is willing to take a nuanced position, rather than claiming all vaccines are dangerous, but I think some of your skepticism may be misplaced. The study you are linking to about narcolepsy is very recent and I haven't seen the study itself so I can't speak to it. However, I would point out that many studies of the swine flu vaccine show an adverse reaction profile similar to seasonal flu vaccines, which tend to be very rare. In fact, I saw a study showing that incidence of Guillain-Barre syndrome (which was mentioned as a possible side effect) in the vaccinated was lower than in the unvaccinated. It would also be worth noting that GBS can be caused by flu infection, which may be the reason. So I wouldn't necessarily take those claims (particularly from the sensationalist media) at face value.

 

 

And why would the study being recent be a bad thing? It's new information, it's valuable, and new info is what we want, not 20 year old.

If you clicked the link, it's a huge study, it goes over more than 2 years and compares millions of kids, like pointed out below here really:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post


"The study, which took place between October 2009 and the December 2011, compared 3.3 million vaccinated Swedes with 2.5 million who were not vaccinated. 

"We can see that over the whole study period we have 126 cases of those vaccinated getting narcolepsy," Ingemar Person, professor behind the study, said in a statement on Tuesday. "There were 20 cases among those not vaccinated. We're talking about a threefold increase in risk."

http://www.thelocal.se/46950/20130326/#.UVHtYVdPxX-

 


And, that was just the quickest link I could find in english. But I also know that it wasn't just Sweden who discovered this, Norway did too. I don't know about other places.

The majority of those kids would have been fine, without the vaccine, even if they did get sick. And now they have to live with a disease like Narcolepsy, which is no walk in the park. It's actually a vaccine injury that matters greatly to those affected, it has an impact on every day life, for the rest of their lives.

I'm just saying that I'm incredibly glad my kids didn't get that shot. And I was pregnant one winter when the shot was recommended for pregnant people spesifically, and I refused. And my doctor at the time seemed surprised that I said that there's no way I'd put that risk on my unborn child. While she probably thought the opposite, that not getting the shot was more risky.
Anyway, I've got a GP now that is a big improvement, she supports us in selctive vaxing and delaying.

Uh, I got carried away. I think my point is that I find it hard to trust new vaccines to be safe, because how can they *possibly* know that when it is so new. And as it turns out, they don't know that. But they still say so. I have a huge problem with that. I feel lied to then, and it means I can't trust my government for health info. (And honestly, I would actually want to trust them, if they proved to be trustworthy, that would be so easy.)

lightbulb is offline  
#23 of 47 Old 06-19-2013, 05:45 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,562
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djrn View Post


Blue: I'm not sure what deceit, coercion or force you are referring to, but informed consent is one of the ethical foundations of modern medical treatment. If you witnessed a vaccine literally forced on a child without parental consent, or if healthcare professionals refused to give you information on the vaccines before administering them, I'd suggest hiring a lawyer and filing a lawsuit, because you would win easily. I would argue that that research has been done, and if there is a specific vaccine or related issue you want to see a study on or trial results for, I might be able to find something for you. The idea that the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine was released to reduce sick days is false as far as I am aware (at most it is a nice ancillary benefit). Chickenpox, while usually no more than an inconvenience if contracted in childhood, can sometimes still be dangerous for them, and if a susceptible adult catches it then you can really be asking for trouble. So there are very good reasons for having a vaccine.

 

Green: I didn't think I was grossly generalizing, I said some diseases are very dangerous, and that the benefits outweigh the risks. I would like to point out that any medical treatment, including vaccines, is provided once the healthcare professionals, researchers, etc. have determined that the benefits of it outweigh the drawbacks. For example, doctors will willingly administer chemotherapy which can do great damage to the human body. Why? Because it does even greater damage to the cancer. Any medical treatment can have bad side effects, but vaccines have among the fewest, while also providing some of the greatest benefits. It is estimated that vaccines have saved literally tens or hundreds of millions of lives.


Many parents are led to believe that their children will not be admitted to school without being vaccinated, even in locations where exemptions are easy to get, or not even necessary (deceit and coercion).  I've also seen extremely coercive advertisements for HPV vaccine, and for MMR (especially the MMR one).  Force is a little less common, but does happen.  Depending on your definition of force, it's quite a common event in states where exemption are difficult to have honored. 

 

You stated that the default position should be to vaccinate.  That makes it sound like you think the default position should be to use all the vaccines that are offered, and I'm addressing your statement with that interpretation in mind.  I dispute the appropriateness of this one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare.  A vaccine is only beneficial if the patient is at risk of catching the disease that the vaccine addresses.  If the patient is not at risk of that particular disease, then the vaccine only presents a risk.  That's why, for the healthiest possible population, the default should be to actually look at the patient's circumstances, and not just go vaccinating willy-nilly. 

rachelsmama is offline  
#24 of 47 Old 06-19-2013, 06:31 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post


Many parents are led to believe that their children will not be admitted to school without being vaccinated, even in locations where exemptions are easy to get, or not even necessary (deceit and coercion).  I've also seen extremely coercive advertisements for HPV vaccine, and for MMR (especially the MMR one).  Force is a little less common, but does happen.  Depending on your definition of force, it's quite a common event in states where exemption are difficult to have honored. 

 

You stated that the default position should be to vaccinate.  That makes it sound like you think the default position should be to use all the vaccines that are offered, and I'm addressing your statement with that interpretation in mind.  I dispute the appropriateness of this one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare.  A vaccine is only beneficial if the patient is at risk of catching the disease that the vaccine addresses.  If the patient is not at risk of that particular disease, then the vaccine only presents a risk.  That's why, for the healthiest possible population, the default should be to actually look at the patient's circumstances, and not just go vaccinating willy-nilly. 

yes, i have heard many horror stories from parents deliberately being lied to by school personnel, even going so far as to tell them no exemption exists.  That example alone, sets the stage for future parent skepticism/mistrust on school health issues, and health choices available... and it also forces parents to do their own research for public info they had a right to know the whole time..lliterally making the parent jump thru hoops for nothing, as 'they' see it as a game to play with parents. 

emmy526 is online now  
#25 of 47 Old 06-19-2013, 07:16 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,252
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 236 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djrn View Post


This sounds very illogical to me. It would be like saying, "unless and until a large study is done to see whether children exposed to organic food develop autism, I am going to rigorously avoid exposing him to organic food." Insert any common item for organic food, if you wish, but I chose organic food for a reason: the increase in autism rates actually correlates more closely to the rise in sales of organic food than it does to vaccination rates or number of vaccines. I'm not suggesting that organic food causes autism. I like organic food. My point is that I have no good reason to think either organic food or vaccines cause autism. Since it's impossible to prove a negative (that x doesn't cause y), I'll assume there is no link until there is solid evidence of the positive claim that x causes y. Do you look for a study on any new/slightly unusual item before your child is exposed to it?

Do you have children?  

 

I am going to ignore everything but the last line as we have been over it so many times on here.   If any lurker or someone who is genuinely interested wants to hear my POV on the subject for reasons other than just online spatting, let me know.  I will dig up links or answer.  smile.gif

 

As per the last line - why yes, I often do research things before letting my child use it.  Example:  a couple of years a go my teenage son decided he liked energy drinks.  I wasn't so sure, I had read a few stories in the news and had concerns.  So - we researched it.  I was not thrilled with what we found, DS still wanted to drink them, so we turned to researching which brands are safer and in what quantities.  Thankfully, it was a short lived phase and he hasn't touched the stuff in over a year.  Another example:  We currently have an issue with ants where I work.  The township provided ant traps.  A patron came in and said ant traps have peanut product in them (!!!) so I did a bit of research and it turns out she is right.  Given that this is a public building and small children use it, I have decided to see if there is a safer way to get rid of ants that an insecticide with peanut products in it.  


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  
#26 of 47 Old 06-19-2013, 08:44 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,618
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djrn View Post

I believe what I believe based on scientific evidence. Show me some rigorous scientific evidence demonstrating the opposite, that vaccines are linked to a chronic condition like autism, diabetes, or whatever, and I'll change my beliefs. Can you say the same about your beliefs? I don't question that you are trying to do what is best for your children, and that you've done a lot of research. I suppose, above all, that I question the sources where you have gotten your information. If you'd like to tell me about some of the sources or claims you found most convincing, I'd be interested in looking at them.

 

I would suggest you talk a look at the Vaccination Research forum, especially the older entries, for posted research. I am not going to spend hours of my time compiling a long list of studies and their links because I am not sure you really have the slightest interest in being proven wrong. However, here is a compilation of under-reported, minimized and otherwise overlooked peer-reviewed data on adverse effects associated with vacination.

 

The Fourteen Studies 

 

Understand there is nothing you can say supporting vaccines that we haven't heard already, many, many times.


t
 
"The opposite of a lie is not necessarily the truth, but another version of the lie." ~ Cameron Day
Mirzam is online now  
#27 of 47 Old 06-19-2013, 09:08 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,618
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)

As you are a medical professional, you might be open to listening to some colleagues:

 

Dr Lawerence Palevsky

 

 

 

 

Dr Suzanne Humphries

 

 

Dr Russell Blaylock

 

ETA: I would be remiss if I left off Hilary Butler, who is not a medical professional, but is (imo) one of the most learned people on the planet on vaccines and their adverse effect. She has been researching vaccines since the early 1980s.


t
 
"The opposite of a lie is not necessarily the truth, but another version of the lie." ~ Cameron Day
Mirzam is online now  
#28 of 47 Old 06-19-2013, 11:19 AM
 
lightbulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post


Many parents are led to believe that their children will not be admitted to school without being vaccinated, even in locations where exemptions are easy to get, or not even necessary (deceit and coercion).  I've also seen extremely coercive advertisements for HPV vaccine, and for MMR (especially the MMR one).  Force is a little less common, but does happen.  Depending on your definition of force, it's quite a common event in states where exemption are difficult to have honored.

 


That has always been so mind-blowing to me, the need for exemptions. I mean, vaccination is a voluntarily option. It's not down in the law that you have to vaccinate your children (as far as I know). So why the heck would you even need an exemption? That's nuts to me.

 

(Yeah, nobody even asks if your kid is vaccinated here. But they include it in the health form you give daycare/school, but it's only the info you *want* to provide. And the info is only asked so they can give it to medical personel if something happens. Nobody cares if the child is vaxed or not.)

lightbulb is offline  
#29 of 47 Old 06-19-2013, 11:50 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,410
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightbulb View Post

 


That has always been so mind-blowing to me, the need for exemptions. I mean, vaccination is a voluntarily option. It's not down in the law that you have to vaccinate your children (as far as I know). So why the heck would you even need an exemption? That's nuts to me.

 

(Yeah, nobody even asks if your kid is vaccinated here. But they include it in the health form you give daycare/school, but it's only the info you *want* to provide. And the info is only asked so they can give it to medical personel if something happens. Nobody cares if the child is vaxed or not.)

 

I don't know where you are but it IS the law in my state and in all others as well - it's required by law (like other things are required by law - say for school a physical is required - in my state, etc) - required does not mean mandatory, you are required unless you meet the requirements for an exemption (and only two states do not allow religious exemptions) 

 

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/immunization-policy/exemptions-immunization-laws


 

 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  
#30 of 47 Old 06-19-2013, 01:21 PM
 
lightbulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by serenbat View Post


I don't know where you are but it IS the law in my state and in all others as well - it's required by law (like other things are required by law - say for school a physical is required - in my state, etc) - required does not mean mandatory, you are required unless you meet the requirements for an exemption (and only two states do not allow religious exemptions) 

 

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/immunization-policy/exemptions-immunization-laws

 

Oh wow! That is even more mindblowing!

But thanks, at least it makes sense.

 

lightbulb is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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