Evolution, Adaptation, and Vaccines - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 84 Old 02-05-2014, 04:46 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)

NVICP reports are not proof, nor are VAERS reports.  Neither requires actual proof that vaccines caused damage.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is offline  
#62 of 84 Old 02-05-2014, 04:52 PM
 
Rexeldexel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 



Are you an attorney?  You seem to have an attorney's knack for twisting words. You're certainly either twisting mine, or else putting words and, indeed entire sentences in my mouth that I never said.


I have never said that "vaccines are intrinsically dangerous," nor have I said that that "because vaccines are intrinsically dangerous  I will not vaccinate despite the disease risk."
 

So it seems like you're playing a little game here, trying to blame me for a definition YOU came up with.

 

Sorry, that's not going to fly here.   You made a statement about your own beliefs; you were neither trapped nor goaded into doing so.  Please take responsibility for your own words, and either explain them or apologize for them, without trying to blame others.


 

For goodness sake Taximom5 I have not provided a direct quote from your previous posts but given a summary. Go back and read your own posts if you were unsure of what you meant earlier. 

Rexeldexel is offline  
#63 of 84 Old 02-05-2014, 04:54 PM
 
Rexeldexel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thank you emmy 526, I will have a read through tomorrow. Must be time for bed now! Night all.

Rexeldexel is offline  
#64 of 84 Old 02-05-2014, 05:18 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,111
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

NVICP reports are not proof, nor are VAERS reports.  Neither requires actual proof that vaccines caused damage.

yes and let's remember - VARES means NOTHING, the governments just gives up!   :wink ………... the government decided it was cheaper to compensate than fight

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1392875/two-sisters-claim-gardasil-caused-their-infertility


 

 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  
#65 of 84 Old 02-05-2014, 05:28 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

For goodness sake Taximom5 I have not provided a direct quote from your previous posts but given a summary. Go back and read your own posts if you were unsure of what you meant earlier. 

 

For goodness' sake, Rexeldexel!  You do need to provide a direct quote, since your words (bolding mine) were

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

I was using Taximom5's definition from a previous post. In it she said that she believed in "first do no harm" by which she meant that as she believes vaccinations are intrinsically dangerous she will not vaccinate despite the disease risk. 

 

 

You may not misquote me, nor tell people what I meant here.  I never said that, nor anything that would make it appropriate for you to pretend to quote me, nor to explain what I meant.  It's also extremely rude of you to imply that I'm unsure of what I meant, rather than admitting that you misunderstood and/or misquoted me.

I would appreciate it if you would edit as soon as possible.

Taximom5 is online now  
#66 of 84 Old 02-05-2014, 07:11 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

 

In comparison around 355,000 deaths occur annually in unvaccinated children in developing countries just from pertussis. 

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/174/Supplement_3/S259.full.pdf  I know there are problems with this vaccine, but aren't we all grateful that we don't have this level of disease in the UK and USA? Vaccination has significantly improved lives for us all. 

 

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that the only reason for health outcome differences between children in developing vs developed countries is vaccination status.
 
Perhaps you've forgotten about things like sanitation, clean water, and adequate nutrition?  
Taximom5 is online now  
#67 of 84 Old 02-05-2014, 07:24 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

but I also think that the risk of vaccine is as close to knowable as possible, which I think is less risky than driving the car or using the stairs which I do with my daughter everyday.

 

 


Citation needed.

 

If it's your personal opinion, please state why you think this is so, because that's a very sweeping statement.

 

How is "the risk of vaccine as close to knowable as possible", when many high-profile, mainstream medical professionals such as the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, or a group of doctors and epidemiologists from the Cochrane Review are critical of the lack of knowledge surrounding vaccines, with safety studies on some vaccines being non-existent or inadequate, when even package inserts for some vaccines say things like "safety and efficacy not determined" on pregnant women, on pediatric populations, on the elderly?

​How are the risks of vaccines known when there is no tracking system in place for adverse reactions, only a voluntary reporting system, where people with severe adverse reactions are neither tracked nor studied?

How 
are the risks of vaccines known when vaccine manufacturers deliberately split up vaccine lots in order to hide adverse effects due to "hot lots?"


How are the risks of vaccines known when virologists and other professionals working for vaccine manufacturers report that safety of the product is compromised, and that the industry engages in cover-ups of evidence of poor efficacy?

How
are the risks of vaccines known when there are so many studies that do indicate harm, but neither the vaccine industry nor the government follows up on them?

The answer is obvious: they are not known, and there is much, much more to be learned.  And THAT is possible.
 

Taximom5 is online now  
#68 of 84 Old 02-05-2014, 08:51 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Oh goodness. I can't leave you girls alone for one day, can I? lol.gif I don't even know where to jump into my own thread.

Let's start here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post

I think that the co-evolutionary race discussed in these articles encourages parents to support vaccination. The vaccination makes life harder for the known strain, so a new strain evolves. This challenges epidemiologists to keep up the good work, continue fighting this ongoing "arms race". Without the vaccines strain mutations would occur at a slower rate because more people would be successfully infected by the current strain. If the strain is able to thrive it is not under adaptive pressure.

 



What evidence can you provide that we are preventing disease cases and saving on health care spending by simply creating more replacement serotypes? In the case of pneumococcal meningitis, we first had a Prevnar 7 vaccine until Prevnar 13 was developed to go after new serotypes. Do you have evidence that playing this cat-and-mouse game with evolutionary biology is a sound public health practice? I, for one, am skeptical.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#69 of 84 Old 02-05-2014, 11:44 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,707
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
See next comment.

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  
#70 of 84 Old 02-05-2014, 11:48 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,707
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Decided the above was a new topic, so: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1397117/first-do-no-harm

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  
#71 of 84 Old 02-06-2014, 10:25 AM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 401
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)

I read through the whole thread and could not find anywhere that Taximom5 used the words "first do no harm".  She said this:

Quote:

post #6 of 71

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

Are you suggesting that people who have severe reactions to the vaccines are acceptable collateral damage for making it more difficult for known strains of disease to survive, while new, more virulent strains emerge?

 

 

And Rexeldexel replied with this:

Quote:

post #17 of 71

Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post

 

I'm not convinced of the evidence for these severe reactions and I also believe in acting for the greater good rather than a rule of "first do no harm". 

 

The rest you can read in the post just above this one.  I included the post #s so you can read them in full.

 

Rexeldexel, are you saying that you believe there are no severe reactions to any vaccine?  Do you believe Taximom5's pediatrician is lying?  Severe reactions to vaccines are in her children's medical records.  There have been a lot of posts lately. . . maybe you missed that information?

OrmEmbar is online now  
#72 of 84 Old 02-06-2014, 03:43 PM
 
Rexeldexel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrmEmbar View Post
 

 

And Rexeldexel replied with this:

 

The rest you can read in the post just above this one.  I included the post #s so you can read them in full.

 

Rexeldexel, are you saying that you believe there are no severe reactions to any vaccine?  Do you believe Taximom5's pediatrician is lying?  Severe reactions to vaccines are in her children's medical records.  There have been a lot of posts lately. . . maybe you missed that information?

Maybe I did and if so I apologise. Right now it's bed time though so have a great night the rest of you Zzzzz

Rexeldexel is offline  
#73 of 84 Old 02-06-2014, 03:51 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post

Maybe I did and if so I apologise. Right now it's bed time though so have a great night the rest of you Zzzzz

Rexeldexel, I see you're still on-line. Would you mind editing your misquote of me before you hit the sack? Thanks so much.
Mirzam and applejuice like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#74 of 84 Old 02-06-2014, 04:07 PM
 
Rexeldexel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Rexeldexel, I see you're still on-line. Would you mind editing your misquote of me before you hit the sack? Thanks so much.

From the thread "I'm a biologist"

 

Taximom5: "You have a major logic fallacy here.  Or maybe it's an ethical fallacy.You are assuming that vaccination is warranted as long as more people die from the disease than from the vaccination.That's still not ethical.  It's not ethical to mandate or even strongly recommend something that is known to cause harm, even if it ends up being fewer deaths than the disease caused, because vaccination is an invasive procedure done on a healthy individual.It violates "first do no harm"..."

 

 

I'm definitely going to bed now...

 

ps. I'm not sure how to delete posts. If someone could let me know I'll fix the one you want me to in the morning.

Rexeldexel is offline  
#75 of 84 Old 02-06-2014, 06:09 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post

From the thread "I'm a biologist"

Taximom5: "You have a major logic fallacy here.  Or maybe it's an ethical fallacy.You are assuming that vaccination is warranted as long as more people die from the disease than from the vaccination.That's still not ethical.  It's not ethical to mandate or even strongly recommend something that is known to cause harm, even if it ends up being fewer deaths than the disease caused, because vaccination is an invasive procedure done on a healthy individual.It violates "first do no harm"..."


I'm definitely going to bed now...

ps. I'm not sure how to delete posts. If someone could let me know I'll fix the one you want me to in the morning.

Yes, you definitely misunderstood and misquoted me, so you still need to edit your misquote, which might sound similar to what I wrote, above, but carries a very different meaning.

To clarify, in case you are still confused, it is indeed unethical to mandate or strongly recommend something that is known to cause harm to, say, 45%, even if it has a chance to benefit 55%. Yes, that certainly violates "first do no harm."

To edit/delete your post, look at the icons on the bottom left of your post. Click on the pencil icon, and the editor screen will come up.

Thanks in advance for editing.
applejuice and sassyfirechick like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#76 of 84 Old 02-06-2014, 08:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Oh goodness. I can't leave you girls alone for one day, can I? lol.gif I don't even know where to jump into my own thread.



Let's start here:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post

I think that the co-evolutionary race discussed in these articles encourages parents to support vaccination. The vaccination makes life harder for the known strain, so a new strain evolves. This challenges epidemiologists to keep up the good work, continue fighting this ongoing "arms race". Without the vaccines strain mutations would occur at a slower rate because more people would be successfully infected by the current strain. If the strain is able to thrive it is not under adaptive pressure.

 





What evidence can you provide that we are preventing disease cases and saving on health care spending by simply creating more replacement serotypes? In the case of pneumococcal meningitis, we first had a Prevnar 7 vaccine until Prevnar 13 was developed to go after new serotypes. Do you have evidence that playing this cat-and-mouse game with evolutionary biology is a sound public health practice? I, for one, am skeptical.

 



Rexeldexel, when you get a chance, would you mind replying? Thanks!

(That cost me few more keystrokes than the popcorn dude, but I agree on the need for more courtesy around here . . . thumb.gif )
chickabiddy likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#77 of 84 Old 02-06-2014, 11:03 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,707
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Turquesa - I'm not rexeldexel, but this isn't about debating single members, more the topic.

I presume the pneumococcal strains which are now becoming more do infant were around before, just much rarer than the main kind. So then the vaccine reduces the amount of cases of the main strain, and then proportionally we see many more of the rare types, but in number they are the same. Is that how it works, or is the actually number of rare strain cases increased?

Ps. I never read the popcorn dude as " I'm waiting for a response" - I read it as "I'm waiting for this thread to get nasty as someone just brought up a tricky topic". This kind of misunderstanding is why words work much better for me.

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  
#78 of 84 Old 02-07-2014, 05:55 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Turquesa - I'm not rexeldexel, but this isn't about debating single members, more the topic.

I presume the pneumococcal strains which are now becoming more do infant were around before, just much rarer than the main kind. So then the vaccine reduces the amount of cases of the main strain, and then proportionally we see many more of the rare types, but in number they are the same. Is that how it works, or is the actually number of rare strain cases increased?

Ps. I never read the popcorn dude as " I'm waiting for a response" - I read it as "I'm waiting for this thread to get nasty as someone just brought up a tricky topic". This kind of misunderstanding is why words work much better for me.

Oh, that's fine. Whenever I post, anyone can jump in with answers.

I guess that's what I'm after, actually--namely, the data. I'm sure it's really tricky to gather because most providers probably aren't taking the time for laboratory confirmation. My *guess* is that they probably saw enough cases of vaccinated people getting bacterial meningitis, (just as Frits Mooi saw enough cases of the vaccinated getting whooping cough), that researchers decided to start testing for strains.

Just following the broader rules evolutionary biology, my impression is that better adaptation leads to better virulence. Isn't the whole point of evolving and adapting to become stronger so as to resist whatever poses a threat to the organism, virus, or bacteria? Be it a predator, changing environment, or even a vaccine? So I would think that the replacement strains would proliferate at least as well as the vaccine-targeted strains once did. But this is just a hypothesis. Again, the data seem to be lacking.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#79 of 84 Old 02-07-2014, 10:21 AM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 401
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Just following the broader rules evolutionary biology, my impression is that better adaptation leads to better virulence. Isn't the whole point of evolving and adapting to become stronger so as to resist whatever poses a threat to the organism, virus, or bacteria? 

Phew!  Finally got a minute with 2 hands, yay!

 

I've been wanting to write about this for a while.  Turquesa, I'm quoting from your post, but you are by no means the only one who holds this misconception.  Thanks for asking the question!

 

ETA:  I am assuming that by virulent you mean more damaging or deadly to hosts.  

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virulentFull Definition of VIRULENT

1
a :  marked by a rapid, severe, and destructive course <avirulent infection>
 
b :  able to overcome bodily defensive mechanisms :  markedly pathogenic <virulent bacteria>
2
:  extremely poisonous or venomous
3
:  full of malice :  malignant <virulent racists>
4
:  objectionably harsh or strong <virulent criticism>

 

The phrase "survival of the fittest" does not translate as "survival of the strongest".  Survival of the fittest means that those organisms with the best "fit"with their environment (like a puzzle piece) have the best chance to survive and reproduce.  Getting to reproduce, and have offspring that can survive well enough to reproduce, is what drives evolution.  It is not the commonly-held anthropomorphic image of a heavily waged war because of competition for resources.  Yes, all living organisms need enough resources to survive and reproduce, but there is no shortage of resources.  Especially when it comes to viruses. 

 

Viruses require a host in order to reproduce.  Killing (or making their host unable to have children) or making their host unable to walk around and interact with other potential hosts is not in the best interest of virus survival.  What we have seen over time is that viral disease becomes more contagious and less debilitating to hosts, NOT more virulent.  

 

My concern is that ill-applied vaccination programs disrupt this evolutionary process and possibly selects for new (more virulent) strains.  In a way, it's like taking thousands of years of careful work and wiping the slate clean.  Meaning, we will have to start all over again with viruses that were very close to being relatively benign - as long as everyone was exposed to them at the proper age range.  Rubella comes to mind.

 

Okay, baby is getting into something and I have to run.  Hope this makes sense.  I'm on the 6th day of severe sleep deprivation.  Yay teething!

OrmEmbar is online now  
#80 of 84 Old 02-08-2014, 05:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
OrmEmbar, if I replace the word "stronger" with "fitter"--and I'm willing to concede to that point--it sounds like you and I have the same concerns about the virulent pathogens. thumb.gif

Thanks for the clarification. Still digging and researching.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#81 of 84 Old 02-08-2014, 09:23 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 401
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)

:thumb

Definitely concerning stuff to contemplate.  Glad to know others are thinking about this as well.  I don't usually talk about vaccines - even with my friends who do not vax or do selected vaxxes.  I don't get to type much . . . I'm one-handed right now. . .  but I appreciate the depth of conversation here.  Especially when we can share different views in a way that expands our understanding of one another's viewpoints.

IdentityCrisisMama likes this.
OrmEmbar is online now  
#82 of 84 Old 03-09-2014, 04:26 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

Wandering the internet will get you into weird unknown interesting places. 

 

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

 

Quote:
 As to evolution being accepted at the macro level by scientists, that's because it has been observed, tested and utilized scientifically. You can and should ask and search for a fuller understanding, but the theory of evolution has stood the test of time because no more well supported or plausible theory has been advanced in a scientific way. You can promote creationism all you want, but the more valid challenge would be to offer scientific evidence and to document the full understanding of it that the author expects for macro evolution.

 

Quote:
The problem with evolution is that Darwin never discussed speciation. What he discussed was an already-existing-species ability to adapt to a niche-habitat that they currently did not occupy. That is a hugely different discussion that is obfuscated by a lot of academic gobbley-gook.  He is correct; it is a form of faith, once one gets to the Macro (as he puts it) level.

We have had Drosophyla in a lab for decades, manipulating its DNA at a pace that would vastly exceed natures ability. After all these years, after all these crossings, after all these forced genetic changes, we still have...a fruit fly
 
applejuice is offline  
#83 of 84 Old 03-10-2014, 04:22 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,521
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)

Late to the party!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

 

I'm not convinced of the evidence for these severe reactions and I also believe in acting for the greater good rather than a rule of "first do no harm".

I'll give you first hand evidence - my LO screamed...and I mean screamed (you know, that non-existent encephalitic cry that mysteriously occurs following vaccination) for days following her 2mo vaccines.  A child who was normally consoled immediately by a boob in the mouth was merely reduced to whimpers while nursing and even while sleeping.  You have no idea what that feels like to watch your child suffer and be completely helpless to alleviate the pain, and at the time I had no idea the cries were related to swelling in the brain - that guilt trip was later on after we'd made the decision to stop vaxxing.  There was also the exorcism-like vomiting, explosive diarrhea, and the fantastic mysterious rash that appeared on her face that has NEVER completely gone away in over 2 years.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

If people in the community aren't vaccinated they are acting as a reservoir for mutations to multiply and infect the rest of the population.

WTF....you do understand that vaccinations do not prevent you from being a carrier or host for those same diseases, right?  That you can get a flu shot, a month later come into contact with the flu, have zero symptoms and pass it along to some compromised individual incapable of vaccinating and potentially kill them?  That would be the cochrane review on the flu vaccine.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

I have not seen evidence to show that vaccines are dangerous .....So you've clearly never read a vaccine insert and the potential adverse reactions that are known to occur. 

 

Perhaps I'm just more community spirited than you? I feel a responsibility towards children in the community and not just my own daughter. In making a decision I think of her first and then weight the decision on the wider repercussions too. If I believed her immune system to be second to none and was completely confident that if she caught a childhood disease she would recover well from it, why would I make her cry getting the jab? Because of herd immunity. Science shows that by not vaccinating my own daughter I increase the risk for the rest of the population. False - right back to that Cochrane review!

 

If we take "first do no harm" literally it means that we wouldn't get much done at all.  You've got it all wrong.  The key here being "first" - your FIRST option should be the last invasive, ie preventative measures like hygiene, nutrition, etc. Then for illness we look to things with the LEAST likelihood of adverse reaction and that reaction being minimal - for example treating pertussis with Vitamin C, worst side effect of the Vit C would be diarrhea, as opposed to antibiotics which destroy healthy gut flora making subsequent infections more likely along with candida infestation.  Vaccines carry a very high risk including seizures and death...not many of these childhood diseases can boast that.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

I've not seen the evidence that the vaccinations are dangerous so I don't share your view of the danger.

 

In 2010 655 people died by falling on or from stairs or step in the UK.  http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010#data

In 2009 1 person died struck by lightening in the UK.

 

In comparison around 355,000 deaths occur annually in unvaccinated children in developing countries just from pertussis.

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/174/Supplement_3/S259.full.pdf  I know there are problems with this vaccine, but aren't we all grateful that we don't have this level of disease in the UK and USA? Vaccination has significantly improved lives for us all.

It's been brought up, but hygiene and nutrition....don't shit in the water you drink and it will make a huge difference in overall health :wink You conveniently leave out any number involving vaccine deaths (which emmy was so kind as to give us) and the usual debate ensues about those numbers being invalid, but there are plenty of cases out there being brushed aside as "nothing"...coincidental really - but they are far from that for the parents and families involved.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

but I also think that the risk of vaccine is as close to knowable as possible, which I think is less risky than driving the car or using the stairs which I do with my daughter everyday.

Quite the opposite actually, scientists have zero way of knowing which people will react unfavorably to vaccines or who will have the most severe reactions...it's just one big happy game of Russian roulette with infants on the other side of the trigger!

sassyfirechick is online now  
#84 of 84 Old 03-10-2014, 05:30 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Sassyfirechick, that /\ was BRILLIANT.
Taximom5 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