How Rare is Rare? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 84 Old 07-18-2013, 11:23 AM - Thread Starter
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)

In regards to vaccination injury, we are told they exist but are rare? So, how rare is rare? How often do you believe they happen?

applejuice likes this.
fruitfulmomma is online now  
#2 of 84 Old 07-18-2013, 11:30 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Doctor Sears is the only one I am aware of that has tried to actually quantify this. It is in the Vaccine Book . . . I know that 1 in a million is thrown around a lot, but that can't possibly be @ all accurate, it is just somone's numerical sounding guess.

applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#3 of 84 Old 07-18-2013, 11:47 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

I would think it would be impossible to accurately calculate true injuries, since drs refuse to report them, and parents are left on their own to persue the NVICP, and on their own to retain legal counsel as well.  If we're going to go with  injuries the cdc keeps records of, then again, those records are not entirely accurate, as again, not all drs report anything.  Even reactions during the trials are dismissed, and not counted.  

 

So, if some kind of questionairre were to come out every time, following vaccines being given no matter where they were given, and that questionairre was sent to an independent source for analysis, we might be able to assess what kind of injuries are occurring, and to what degree they occurr with each vaccine, and then begin to learn how the vaccine correlates to the injury.   Which ingredient could be responsible, which combo of ingredients are responsible, and so on, and so forth. 

 

Until injury stops being denied by all media, gov entities, and the medical association as normal in kids, society will continue to accept this as the norm for children.  I believe it is much more common that parents think, and since more parents are questioning the aggressive vax schedule, efforts have been ramped up to denounce exemptions, delaying, and generally questioning vaccines on the forefront.  Denial again.

emmy526 is offline  
#4 of 84 Old 07-18-2013, 12:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
I know that 1 in a million is thrown around a lot

 

I've heard that before too. I find it hard to believe that they are actually that rare, but assuming that they are, what are the chances of a population of about 100,000 having 3 vaxx injured people in it (30x their claim!) and my husband being one of them, just happens to meet the other two?

 

ETA: I know, denial. That is the only way to explain it.

applejuice, BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.
fruitfulmomma is online now  
#5 of 84 Old 07-18-2013, 12:33 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I think it is very easy to claim something is rare when you categorically deny that the thing that is "rare" exists except to say that it is rare. 

applejuice, dinahx and Taximom5 like this.

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  
#6 of 84 Old 07-18-2013, 12:39 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)

We do not know how rare is rare.  It is a huge reason I do not vaccinate.  How can you do a risk assessment if you do not know how common vaccine reactions (both short and long term) are?  

 

As per 1/1 million, I think it refers almost exclusively to anaphylactic reactions.

 

People have what - 50 vaccines by age 6?

 

50/1000000 = 1/ 20 000.  Is that what the risk is?   

fruitfulmomma and applejuice 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 online now  
#7 of 84 Old 07-18-2013, 01:19 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)

How rare would it have to be for you to accept it as a reasonable risk? 

 

What do you count as a reaction and what not? Clearly what the medical profession counts many of you think is not enough.... but what is a reasonable time period to count for reactions? How do you account for coincidental occurrences. You cannot possibly deny that they would never occur in a large population. 

 

kathymuggle - I don't think each of the vaccines is independent event so you cannot combine the probabilities in that way - 1/1 million would include risk factors, so if you're good the first time it'll be a lot less than 1/1 million in future events, and a lot higher in the case that you have a reaction first time. 

 

Nice philosophical debate though. I like this question. :) 


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  
#8 of 84 Old 07-18-2013, 01:52 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

For me, it doesn't matter how rare the reactions are, I would have to be satisfied that EVERY effort was being made to avoid reactions and make the vaccines absolutely as safe as possible, putting children and not profits first. 

 

I don't find that to be the case @ all, with the persistence of aluminum, with the AAP recently deciding to support Thimerisol and come out against a ban, etc.

 

I think the rate of reactions has to be calculated by BRAND and dosage and age of recipient. For example, the rate of reaction to Daptacel would be different in a 2 month old than a 6 year old . . . 

 

Then it would have to be calculated for the entire schedule. And also for the potential combinations.

 

I just don't see this work being done or thought about. For example there IS published research that Pentacel is more reactive than the vaccines it combines given individually, even in the same visit, but parents are still not informed of this fact and given a choice, typically.

 

I think ALL reactions must be tracked and then compared to a group who did not receive the intervention (At ALL), and then compared, statistically. I think the time period for observing reactions varies by formulation, brand, reaction, etc. But it would never just be a few days, @ minimum I would accept a month.

applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#9 of 84 Old 07-18-2013, 01:59 PM - Thread Starter
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
How rare would it have to be for you to accept it as a reasonable risk?

 

For us personally, my husband has reacted to several vaxxes. For me to accept vaxx as a reasonable risk for *my* children, the actual death rate of the diseases would have to be a whole lot higher than they currently are right now in *our* area.

applejuice and Marnica like this.
fruitfulmomma is online now  
#10 of 84 Old 07-18-2013, 05:44 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 

kathymuggle - I don't think each of the vaccines is independent event so you cannot combine the probabilities in that way - 1/1 million would include risk factors, so if you're good the first time it'll be a lot less than 1/1 million in future events, and a lot higher in the case that you have a reaction first time. 

 

 

I am not sure.  I know that people are more likely to have reactions (including severe) to DTaP as time goes along, and that anybody can develop an allergic reaction anytime. I am not disagreeing with you, just adding this caveat.  


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  
#11 of 84 Old 07-18-2013, 06:29 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

How rare would it have to be for you to accept it as a reasonable risk?

 

This depends on the disease, our individual risk factors and its prevalence.  For example: 

 

If I lived in an area where diphtheria was rampant, given the fact it is fairly contagious and has a high mortality rate (about 10%)  I would be willing to accept a high vaccine severe reaction rate, even an unknown reaction rate.  Diphtheria would trump my concerns.  

 

There are certain disease where it almost doesn't matter how low the risk is  (even the mythical zero), I am not going to vaccinate.  Rota in a breastfed, not in daycare baby in a wealthy country is one.  Hep. B in an infant when the mother has tested Hep. B negative is another.  There are other risks to vaccination besides the vaccine - like the drive there and back and sitting in doctors waiting room with a newborn.  

 

What do you count as a reaction and what not? Clearly what the medical profession counts many of you think is not enough.... but what is a reasonable time period to count for reactions? Forever?  Really, if it turns out  people vaxxed with MMR as children are more likely to develop autoimmune disorders as adults, I want to know.   How do you account for coincidental occurrences. You cannot possibly deny that they would never occur in a large population. Of course coincidences occurs.  Let's say we are looking at febrile seizures.  I would like to know the rate of febrile seizure in people vaccinated recently for xyz compared to people who may have had other vaccines but not xyz and people who have never been vaccinated at all.  Until such time as we actually look at the rate of things in an unvaxxed population and everyone reports reactions (whether they think they are a coincidence or not - perhaps doctors being mandatory reporters will help) we will not get a good enough handle on vaccine reaction rates.  For tracking of short term reaction, I would expect about a month to 6 weeks.   

 

This may come as a surprise to you, but I only firmly count reaction rates as listed by the CDC and vaccine inserts.  Everything else is an unknown or maybe.  But you know what?  When the tetanus rate in Canada is so very low, I have no desire to take a chance with unknowns.  

 

BeckyBird likes this.

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

 

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

kathymuggle is online now  
#12 of 84 Old 07-18-2013, 09:16 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

How rare would it have to be for you to accept it as a reasonable risk? 

 

 

How common would it have to be for you to call it an unacceptable risk?

 

What's an acceptable number of vaccine-induced seizure reactions causing permanent brain damage to you?  How about vaccine-induced lupus? Rheumatoid arthritis? 

 

What if vaccines are a factor--not the single cause, but part of a multifactorial reaction that triggers autism in a subset of children.  Is that acceptable to you?  Does it depend on how big the subset is?  If so, how many would you think are acceptable?

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#13 of 84 Old 07-19-2013, 05:47 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

How common would it have to be for you to call it an unacceptable risk?

 

What's an acceptable number of vaccine-induced seizure reactions causing permanent brain damage to you?  How about vaccine-induced lupus? Rheumatoid arthritis? 

 

What if vaccines are a factor--not the single cause, but part of a multifactorial reaction that triggers autism in a subset of children.  Is that acceptable to you?  Does it depend on how big the subset is?  If so, how many would you think are acceptable?

heres an article asking that very question--are vaccine injured children expendable?

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/07/vaccines-benefits-outweigh-risks-implies-children-injured-by-vaccines-are-expendable.html

applejuice likes this.
emmy526 is offline  
#14 of 84 Old 07-19-2013, 06:15 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)

But the converse of that if you believe that the risks of serious reactions are unacceptable and that all vaccination should be stopped is that you're saying all children who would die of VPDs in an unvaccinated population are expendable.

 

You can't have it both ways.... Either you accept the risks of vaccination reactions, or you accept the risks that vaccine preventable diseases would introduce in an unvaccinated population (or you're a free loader on herd immunity and hoping that enough other people accept the risks of vaccination on your behalf). 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#15 of 84 Old 07-19-2013, 06:34 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

But the converse of that if you believe that the risks of serious reactions are unacceptable and that all vaccination should be stopped is that you're saying all children who would die of VPDs in an unvaccinated population are expendable.

 

You can't have it both ways.... Either you accept the risks of vaccination reactions, or you accept the risks that vaccine preventable diseases would introduce in an unvaccinated population (or you're a free loader on herd immunity and hoping that enough other people accept the risks of vaccination on your behalf). 

That is just RUDE.....nono.gif

applejuice and kathymuggle like this.

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  
#16 of 84 Old 07-19-2013, 06:40 AM - Thread Starter
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)

So, no guesses then Pro on how often reactions occur? 

 

I gotta get ready to head out with my kids but you know some of us actually believe that parents should have choices, that vaxxes should be made safer, that it is not an all or nothing deal, and that there are many options to reducing widespread vpds amongst communities other than vaxx and that those communities deserve more than the band-aid approach we throw at them. 

Marnica likes this.
fruitfulmomma is online now  
#17 of 84 Old 07-19-2013, 06:57 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

But the converse of that if you believe that the risks of serious reactions are unacceptable and that all vaccination should be stopped is that you're saying all children who would die of VPDs in an unvaccinated population are expendable.

 

You can't have it both ways.... Either you accept the risks of vaccination reactions, or you accept the risks that vaccine preventable diseases would introduce in an unvaccinated population (or you're a free loader on herd immunity and hoping that enough other people accept the risks of vaccination on your behalf). 

I also don't think parents that choose not to vaccinate think they can have it both ways. I can only speak for myself, but I have done a thorough risk/benefit analysis for my family and the risks outweigh the benefits. That doesn't mean I don't think there are ANY  risks associated with being unvaccinated and I'm pretty darm sure no other parent here thinks that either. I just choose to accept those risks over the risks I know to be associated with vaccinating.

 

As for herd immunity, it has nothing to do with why the vast majority of parents make this choice. We are not "freeloaders" we are just unwilling to cause harm to our children for the good of "society". I suppose that makes us really good parents, but crappy members of society huh? Whatever..... I've devoted my life to helping others. It's what I do all day long and how I make my living getting really crappy pay I might add. I just choose to give back in other ways that do not involving doing something to my child that I believe would cause them harm. 

applejuice and kathymuggle like this.

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  
#18 of 84 Old 07-19-2013, 07:25 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)

I looked up the term freeloader as it comes up a lot, and posted definitions below.

 

Concerning the first definition:

 

Do I take advantage of the generosity of others?

 

With the vast majority of vaccines, I do not think so.  I really do not care if everyone stopped the routine vaccination of infants for well, almost everything.  Most diseases are benign in childhood or rare and would be rare even if we stopped vaccinating.    I do think offering a vaccine if the person does not get CP, rubella, mumps  in childhood makes sense.  

 

The only 2 diseases that give me pause are Polio and (decreasingly) measles.  I don't think I am taking advantage of others generosity as I do not believe people vaccinate for others.  They do it for their own kid, and if it benefits society, that is what they see as a nice side -effect.  It is about protecting their child - not about generosity.  If it is primarily about generosity - well, that is messed up. No child should be put in the position of possibly taking one for the team, as mommy wants to do her bit for society.  Mommy's job is to protect her children first.

 

Moreover, even if you disagree with me on the bolded (which would be a logic fail duck.gif) generosity is something freely given, is it not? I also think it should be your child's to freely give or not, as it is their body, but whatever…. I don't give food to the foodbank and then whine when people use it.  If you see vaccinating as a generous thing, then stop putting strings on it.

 

As per the second definition, this one made me laugh.  I do not habitually depend on others for health.  I nursed long term, don't smoke, feed good food, wash my hands, don't go out when sick, etc, etc.  For the most part we make good health choices and that is how we endevour to stay well.  Health or ill health is not only or primarily about vaccines.  

 

ETA:  there was also an interesting thread a few months ago on the ways non-vaccination contributed to community health.  One was chicken pox - anytime a child gets chicken pox, those around him or her who have already had chicken pox get an immune boost that is thought to keep shingles at bay.  

 

 

 

 

free·load  (fremacr.gifprime.giflomacr.gifdlprime.gif)
intr.v. free·load·edfree·load·ingfree·loads Slang
To take advantage of the charity, generosity, or hospitality of others.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


freeloader [ˈfriːˌləʊdə]

n
Slang a person who habitually depends on the charity of others for food, shelter, etc.
freeloading  n
 
 

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  
#19 of 84 Old 07-19-2013, 08:38 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
False dichotomy. I don't think Vax should be halted & I accept that the majority love & want them. However, I think corruption & liability protection should be stopped, I think Thimerisol & Aluminum should be removed globally & I think reactive vaccines like OPV should be replaced. In short I think there should be less collateral damage.

I also think non-Vax does a community service by maintaining a control group. It is not our fault that our health outcomes are not studied & are minimized/dismissed. If every single child got vax'ed with a mushrooming schedule we would have no idea which effects were attributable to Vax. Sorta like M*ns*nto wants GMOs to infect the whole food supply so it is meaningless to say GMO free & pointless to study them.

As PPs point out, I contribute to 'herd immunity' in ways that others choose not to (nursing through childhood, non-use of immunocomprimising foods & pharmies, etc)
BeckyBird likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#20 of 84 Old 07-19-2013, 09:21 AM
 
Kamiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Interesting thread, and good discussion. Definitely something to think on this weekend. :)


sewmachine.gifknit.gifrainbow1284.gifDaughter of Him, Wife and Mother to them partners.gifstillheart.gifstillheart.gifstillheart.gifstillheart.gif,  

heartbeat.gifOne more on the way Fall 2013 pos.gif

 

Kamiro is offline  
#21 of 84 Old 07-19-2013, 06:31 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)

Choice A)  Demand that everyone vaccinate their child in spite of as-yet-unknown risks in order to protect a small minority, which may include your own child.

 

Choice B) Refuse to vaccinate one's child because of as-yet-unknown risks, in order to protect a small minority, which may include your own child.

 

Tell us, prosciencemum -- what right do you have to demand that people vaccinate (WHICH IS AN INVASIVE PROCEDURE) to protect YOUR small minority, when doing so carries certain harm to a different small minority?

 

You see, Choice A and Choice B would be equivalent in terms of risk except for that one pesky detail:  what you are asking people to do is an invasive procedure.

 

And you and I are clearly in different positions.  I'm not expecting anyone to choose to submit to an invasive procedure in order to protect my children. My children cannot safely get vaccines any more--but I don't expect anyone else to inject the same vaccines that harmed my children in order to protect my children.  I don't have that right.  It's my responsibility to do what I can to protect my children--but that responsibility does not extend to demanding that anybody else does ANYTHING invasive.  Because I don't have that right.

 

And neither do you. But you demand it anyway.

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#22 of 84 Old 07-19-2013, 09:19 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Here's another interesting way to look at the issue that I read about in Vaccine Epidemic. (I can't remember which chapter. Maybe the one by Louise Kuo Habakus?)

In the quest to attain herd immunity and eliminate infectious disease, what, to you, would be an acceptable number of children to sacrifice to vaccine injury? At what numeric point would you want to see the plug pulled on a mass vaccination program? How many children reacting severely to a vaccine would be too many?
applejuice likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#23 of 84 Old 07-20-2013, 12:00 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

As a public policy, it seems there's another possible issue in terms of cost-benefit analysis - economic consideration.

 

How much economic burden each of the scenarios and their combinations thereof would cost society as a whole? 

 

If the US were to implement a different health-care model, how would the immunization policy change, if at all?

applejuice likes this.

Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#24 of 84 Old 07-20-2013, 10:57 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Vax politics transcend cost: sometimes policies are economically questionable, but that is where belief systems sometimes override economics.

However in terms of cost cutting on ingredients, etc, I just find that morally reprehensible. There is no cost on my child's safety, it is priceless. If you look @ VICP it is 250G. Cost issues keep BOTH Thimerosal & Aluminum in Vaxes. Aluminum (&adjuvants generally) is added to get more immune response from less antigen.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#25 of 84 Old 07-20-2013, 10:58 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think Corporations operate on the bottom line where w/Governments ideology sometimes over rides the bottom line.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#26 of 84 Old 07-24-2013, 02:07 AM
 
minerva23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: down by the riverside
Posts: 483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)

I believe that every single person should be able to freely choose whether to be vaccinated or not and that no expemtions in whatsoever form would be necessary, docs could not fire you, no restrictions to child care, school etc. if not vaccinated. Period. Just your own choice. I know now that the argument will come up that you need at least 95 % of all people vaccinated for the vaccine program to be effective. But why? What would happen to those that are already vaccinate? Or is it just about that tiny fraction who can't be vaccinated? Normally titers are not drawn to check on each individual if the vaccine worked.

 

As to the vaccine injuries: I know a lot of people around me who had reactions, some mild, some severe including deaths. Smallpocks vaccine was apparently the most damaging one so far. My own family has experienced vaccine injuries in the past so at present I feel more comfortable with not vaxing my kids. There is also a lot of underreporting on the medical side. I read somewhere that only about 5 % of reactions are reported so go figure. And now more and more vaccines are being added to the schedule including substances that have not really been tested over a long period of time in humans like adjuvants. I have been trying to read up on both sides and will continue to do so.
 

applejuice likes this.

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
―Socrates

minerva23 is online now  
#27 of 84 Old 07-24-2013, 08:16 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)

"Smallpocks vaccine was apparently the most damaging one so far." 

 

But smallpox was also one of the most dangerous infectious diseases. Up to 30 percent of people died and there is no cure for it.  Here is a quote from Benjamin Franklin after his son died from smallpox 

 

“In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the small-pox, taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen.”


― Benjamin Franklin

 

The inoculation available during his time was a lot more dangerous than the modern smallpox vaccine. It killed up to 2% of people that got the vaccine but it was still considered the safer alternative because of how often smallpox killed. 1/4 died if they got smallpox. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#28 of 84 Old 07-24-2013, 09:40 AM - Thread Starter
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)

Not really on the topic of how rare vaxx reactions are, but Paul Revere, who was not much younger than Franklin, also had a child with smallpox, whom he refused to send to the sick house, but instead quarantined her and the whole family and they all lived. http://www.paulreverehouse.org/kids/smallpox.html - Anecdotal I know, but as long as we are throwing out stories, I find this one quite fascinating.

fruitfulmomma is online now  
#29 of 84 Old 07-24-2013, 09:57 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

Not really on the topic of how rare vaxx reactions are, but Paul Revere, who was not much younger than Franklin, also had a child with smallpox, whom he refused to send to the sick house, but instead quarantined her and the whole family and they all lived. http://www.paulreverehouse.org/kids/smallpox.html - Anecdotal I know, but as long as we are throwing out stories, I find this one quite fascinating.

 

Thanks for sharing that! I had never heard that story before, very interesting. 

 

Of course, most people that got smallpox survived. Thirty percent is still extremely high for such an infectious disease. After all, you will find more anecdotal stories of people smoking cigarettes and living to old age than you will of people smoking cigarettes and dying of lung cancer  smile.gif

 

 And yes, if smallpox ever came back there would be quarantines, people would have to be locked up, schools would close down at least until everyone could get vaccinated. Thankfully it no longer exists at the present time. 

 

My post above was more to show that even when the vaccine was significantly more dangerous than the current smallpox vaccine (with a death rate of up to 2 percent from the old vaccine) it was still considered the least risky option because of how deadly smallpox was.  And if it ever came back the current vaccine would certainly be better than risking your luck with the disease especially since virtually no one born in the US after the early 1970s is vaccinated for it and therefore has no immunity. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#30 of 84 Old 07-24-2013, 10:21 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Unless your child was in the 2% that died. Then you wouldn't be better off: you would be a bereaved parent.
dinahx is offline  
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