Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: vaccines are great Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-21-2013 09:28 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

It's not even bogus data - the data is not even collected.
Exactly.
06-21-2013 08:38 AM
MamaMunchkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Parents report these symptoms to their doctors--who have been trained to believe that vaccines cannot cause them. Therefore, they are rarely if ever officially recognized/reported/investigated.

 

It's not even bogus data - the data is not even collected.

06-21-2013 04:07 AM
emmy526
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

 

Other countries do not always act like the US does! We even have requirements for visas as well, so we do require non-US citizens to be vaccinated.

 

As far as thinking things are being done without "public impute", that is not technically the case, when you vote (and those who don't- tuff-tuff!) you give those in office the right to vote how and when they choose and under the guise that they are doing so on your behalf - public impute (as you mean it) is not required, you gave that up when you voted the voters in!!

 

IMO- and this does go for vaccines too, freedoms are not really being taken away, too many simply have no clue how the "system" works and they don't do there share to change it.........VOTE and know who you are voting for and do ALL you can to change laws (those who were voted in created them and new ones too) and make your voice heard.

 

these might also be on interest to you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_Act

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/9241580364_country_list.pdf

http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_4965.html

http://france.angloinfo.com/family/schooling-education/vaccinations/

http://www.vaccineethics.org/issue_briefs/requirements.php

i think too  many people have allowed the gov to take over their wellbeing, (the masses)and then there's those who manipulate the gov for their own well being (politicians, corporations)..

06-21-2013 04:06 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

Bolded in djrn mine.

The relevant questions are:
a. What is the probability that the symptoms occur due to random chance? 
b. What is the probability that the symptoms occur due to vax? 

'apparent', 'as far as we know' ... are - not - enough.
It's - crucial - to quantify these statements.  Numbers are needed, not verbal qualifiers.

Then, how are these numbers computed?  2 possibilities:
- if the computation is kosher, then how do they compare?   Is a = b roughly, a = 0.1xb, a=0.01xb, a=10xb, a=100xb?
- if bogus computation, ignore.

So far, I've not found what these numbers are for autism-vax ... pls if someone has any link or resource, pls do share.

Parents report these symptoms to their doctors--who have been trained to believe that vaccines cannot cause them. Therefore, they are rarely if ever officially recognized/reported/investigated.
06-21-2013 12:45 AM
MamaMunchkin
Quote:

Originally Posted by djrn View Post
 


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.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Quote:


It is not at all a coincidence that autism symptoms manifest shortly after vaccination. (Funny, nobody claims that their child's autism manifested "around " the time of vaccination, and certainly never right BEFORE a vaccine visit. They either notice an immediate reaction, or one that starts 10-21 days post-vaccination--which fits perfectly with vaccine0induced seizures described by Merck concerning the MMR.) Many parents have before-and-after video footage, showing a healthy, normal, and engaged toddler talking and laughing with his parents the day before a vaccine visit, and the same child flapping, spinning, screaming,and utterly unable to communicate the day after. And some vaccine-induced autism cases have been admitted and compensate just this year.

 

 

Bolded in djrn mine.

 

The relevant questions are:

a. What is the probability that the symptoms occur due to random chance? 

b. What is the probability that the symptoms occur due to vax? 

 

'apparent', 'as far as we know' ... are - not - enough.

It's - crucial - to quantify these statements.  Numbers are needed, not verbal qualifiers.

 

Then, how are these numbers computed?  2 possibilities:

- if the computation is kosher, then how do they compare?   Is a = b roughly, a = 0.1xb, a=0.01xb, a=10xb, a=100xb?

- if bogus computation, ignore.

 

So far, I've not found what these numbers are for autism-vax ... pls if someone has any link or resource, pls do share.

06-21-2013 12:21 AM
tillymonster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Actually, the problem with the flu vaccine is that it doesn't work.  Please read what the Cochrane Review has to say about the flu shot--they are widely ocnsidered the gold standard of medical review.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4/full
"The results of this review seem to discourage the utilisation of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure. As healthy adults have a low risk of complications due to respiratory disease, the use of the vaccine may be only advised as an individual protection measure against symptoms in specific cases."


Quote:
I don't even know where to start here.  You state things as though you are absolutely correct, and you're...well, absolutely wrong.  

Just because autism commonly manifests at around a certain age doesn't mean that it always manifests at that age, and just because some children develop autism as a result of vaccination does not mean that all cases are caused by vaccination. Nobody is saying that all cases are caused by vaccination, but you are apparently trying to say, "Look!  There are cases weren't caused by vaccination, therefore NONE OF THEM ARE!!"  And that's just ridiculous. And very unscientific.

It is not at all a coincidence that autism symptoms manifest shortly after vaccination. (Funny, nobody claims that their child's autism manifested "around " the time of vaccination, and certainly never right BEFORE a vaccine visit. They either notice an immediate reaction, or one that starts 10-21 days post-vaccination--which fits perfectly with vaccine0induced seizures described by Merck concerning the MMR.) Many parents have before-and-after video footage, showing a healthy, normal, and engaged toddler talking and laughing with his parents the day before a vaccine visit, and the same child flapping, spinning, screaming,and utterly unable to communicate the day after. And some vaccine-induced autism cases have been admitted and compensate just this year.

Perhaps you aren't aware that the US Department of Health and Human Services has also admitted and compensated a couple of thousand cases of vaccine-induced brain damage (including many cases of autism)?  Kind of silly for anyone to think that yes, vaccines can cause brain damage, but no, not the brain damage known as autism.

There are also a few documented cases of slightly older children being given vaccines and regressing into autism.

The "numerous rigorous studies" you mention are not rigorous.  They are seriously flawed in many ways. Read how here: http://www.fourteenstudies.org/studies.html, and please don't give us rants about how you don't like anti-vaccine sites.  Their criticisms of the studies are valid, whether or not we like the site.

Perhaps the most serious flaw in those studies is the way that they are interpreted.  Those studies are not designed to catch subgroups who might be affected by vaccines.  They are designed to show no link, and that's exactly what they do.  Children who might be predisposed to have vaccine reactions at all--children with family histories of autoimmune disorders, learning disabilities, seizures, food allergies, intestinal disorders, eczema, and, of course, vaccine reactions, are excluded from the studies.

 The official conclusion by the epidemiologists is "Based on the current research, we can neither confirm nor deny a causal link between vaccines and autism."

In fact, that's exactly the position of the CDC:  "WE CAN NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY A CAUSAL LINK."  


That is not the same thing as saying, "There is no link."  Not by a long shot.

So it seems like a good idea to take a closer look at the people who are saying "OMG!!  Science!  There is no link!"  Are they saying this because they are parroting what they've read elsewhere? Or are they saying this because they believe it to be the case, in spite of the fact that "science" has NOT concluded that there is no link, "science" can neither confirm nor deny a link, because they have not investigated the link

Sorry, taking two groups of vaccinated children with similar rates of autistic symptoms and comparing....(drum roll, please)....ONLY the number of antigens used int he vaccines received?  No, that is NOT investigating the link.   You don't investigate a link by examining a tiny, unimportant fraction of an environmental exposure (without a true control group, too), and then say "ha-ha!  Absolutely no link whatsoever!"

And while we look at this, we need to remember that we are dealing with one of the most powerful and corrupt lobbies EVER.  You think the banking industry was unethical?  NOTHING compared to what Big Pharma has done, over and over and over again, and continues to do.

And those of us who actually think for ourselves, rather than relying on the media to tell us what to think, realize that we can't trust the studies designed and executed by such an industry, any more than we can trust cigarette/cancer studies designed by the tobacco industry.

Awesomely put! I had to say I thoroughly enjoyed your use of caps as well. Your reasons above are exactly the reason I won't and never will vaccinate my kids. I'm going to tell them that if they want to risk a vaccination in their adult life-- so be it, I won't stop them. But right now, I will not inject something like that in their bodies. No way.

I also think it's funny you say "flu vaccine doesn't work" because DH comes home from work every "flu season" to tell me that the office is having some drug pusher come in to poke everyone and he loves to debate the coworkers that get the shot. He doesn't get one. He doesn't get the flu. Coincidentally, the coworkers who GET the shot GET the flu. Strange isn't? My conspiracy theory is Big Pharma companies dumbing down our immune systems to make more money on us later when we need things like a thyroid pill to take everyday or metformin. But this isn't just vaccines-- our food system is to blame as well (antibiotics in the food supply for starters...). But it's not a very scientific theory. Just an observation.
06-20-2013 09:08 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by djrn View Post


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.

 

Actually, the problem with the flu vaccine is that it doesn't work.  Please read what the Cochrane Review has to say about the flu shot--they are widely considered the gold standard of medical review.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4/full

"The results of this review seem to discourage the utilisation of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure. As healthy adults have a low risk of complications due to respiratory disease, the use of the vaccine may be only advised as an individual protection measure against symptoms in specific cases."

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by djrn View Post


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 don't even know where to start here.  You state things as though you are absolutely correct, and you're...well, absolutely wrong.  

 

Just because autism commonly manifests at around a certain age doesn't mean that it always manifests at that age, and just because some children develop autism as a result of vaccination does not mean that all cases are caused by vaccination. Nobody is saying that all cases are caused by vaccination, but you are apparently trying to say, "Look!  There are cases weren't caused by vaccination, therefore NONE OF THEM ARE!!"  And that's just ridiculous. And very unscientific.

 

It is not at all a coincidence that autism symptoms manifest shortly after vaccination. (Funny, nobody claims that their child's autism manifested "around " the time of vaccination, and certainly never right BEFORE a vaccine visit. They either notice an immediate reaction, or one that starts 10-21 days post-vaccination--which fits perfectly with vaccine0induced seizures described by Merck concerning the MMR.) Many parents have before-and-after video footage, showing a healthy, normal, and engaged toddler talking and laughing with his parents the day before a vaccine visit, and the same child flapping, spinning, screaming,and utterly unable to communicate the day after. And some vaccine-induced autism cases have been admitted and compensate just this year.

 

Perhaps you aren't aware that the US Department of Health and Human Services has also admitted and compensated a couple of thousand cases of vaccine-induced brain damage (including many cases of autism)?  Kind of silly for anyone to think that yes, vaccines can cause brain damage, but no, not the brain damage known as autism.

 

There are also a few documented cases of slightly older children being given vaccines and regressing into autism.

 

The "numerous rigorous studies" you mention are not rigorous.  They are seriously flawed in many ways. Read how here: http://www.fourteenstudies.org/studies.html, and please don't give us rants about how you don't like anti-vaccine sites.  Their criticisms of the studies are valid, whether or not we like the site.

 

Perhaps the most serious flaw in those studies is the way that they are interpreted.  Those studies are not designed to catch subgroups who might be affected by vaccines.  They are designed to show no link, and that's exactly what they do.  Children who might be predisposed to have vaccine reactions at all--children with family histories of autoimmune disorders, learning disabilities, seizures, food allergies, intestinal disorders, eczema, and, of course, vaccine reactions, are excluded from the studies.

 

 The official conclusion by the epidemiologists is "Based on the current research, we can neither confirm nor deny a causal link between vaccines and autism."

 

In fact, that's exactly the position of the CDC:  "WE CAN NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY A CAUSAL LINK."  

That is not the same thing as saying, "There is no link."  Not by a long shot.

 

So it seems like a good idea to take a closer look at the people who are saying "OMG!!  Science!  There is no link!"  Are they saying this because they are parroting what they've read elsewhere? Or are they saying this because they believe it to be the case, in spite of the fact that "science" has NOT concluded that there is no link, "science" can neither confirm nor deny a link, because they have not investigated the link?

 

Sorry, taking two groups of vaccinated children with similar rates of autistic symptoms and comparing....(drum roll, please)....ONLY the number of antigens used in the vaccines received?  No, that is NOT investigating the link.   You don't investigate a link by examining a tiny, unimportant fraction of an environmental exposure (without a true control group, too), and then say "ha-ha!  Absolutely no link whatsoever!"

 

And while we look at this, we need to remember that we are dealing with one of the most powerful and corrupt lobbies EVER.  You think the banking industry was unethical?  NOTHING compared to what Big Pharma has done, over and over and over again, and continues to do.

 

And those of us who actually think for ourselves, rather than relying on the media to tell us what to think, realize that we can't trust the studies designed and executed by such an industry, any more than we can trust cigarette/cancer studies designed by the tobacco industry.

06-20-2013 01:45 PM
lightbulb
Quote:
Originally Posted by myra1 View Post

My kids are partially/delayed vax, and although each time I refuse there are scary sounding forms for me to sign, I have NEVER been asked to sign anything for a shot recieved, or gotten any written or verbal info on it other than 'its very important!' when I ask.

When I asked about a particular vaccine I once had a doc put her hand gently on my arm and say 'this is some important medicine that your baby needs, dont worry because its all in one poke and will only sting for a second.' Im not kidding. I couldnt make this stuff up.
The popular (easy to read and handed out in peds offices) magazines all do one-sided, condescending pro-vax articles titled 'vaccine debate' and without internet access and a fairly high level of literacy and intelligence, it would be tough to even be aware that alternative schedules or not vaxxing are an option, let alone be able to adaquately research them and make an educated personal choice for your child. Some government aid programs claim to require full vaxxing for benefits, as well. So yes, I do feel there is coersion, deceit, etc.

 

Quote 1, exactly. I don't need to sign anything here to refuse a vax, but I've never signed anything for the few shots they got either. And I had to do all the research myself. Well, actually, our current GP is fabulous and could have told me a lot about it, but I didn't switch to her until after I already did the research and made the decisions. She did help me narrow it down a little because of some questions I still hadn't gotten an answer to though. She's very supportive.

 

Quote 2, oh my holy hell. That is so rude! I would've been pissed. And never seen that doc again.

 

And the last one (not bold), is just sad, really.

06-20-2013 07:48 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlec View Post

Quote 1: But how did those people come to such a conclusion if there has never been the "gold standard" study done to find out how well they work? 

 

Quote 2: What diseases specifically are so terrible that they default position should be to vaccinate even though they have never truly been proven safe? 

#1 - the exact same way people do on all sorts of things - being force fed FEAR in big heaping gulps, over and over and over and over and over again - we do this with oodles of things, it controls a population if you can make them fearful, history has shown us, repeat and repeat it and they will think it's HAS to be real

 

#2 - again, does it matter to MOST? see answer #1, talk to the general parent who has no clue even what brand of vaccine their child got, have no clue how many different vaccines were in the ONE shot, this goes on and on, uninformed = easy to manipulate personally - they could not answer your question accurately but would most likely say ALL

 

IMO- the answer to #2 is many of the current one - chicken pox, shingles, HVP, etc - we don't know the long term on these, frankly the MMR is not the same a generation ago had, we don't know what a society that is vaced on the numbers given today will be like in 20+ years, so we don't know the full assessment yet, that has not been proven in any study, we simply have not allowed enough time to find it out, we are just starting to see what it does to a generation that had their's in the 80's and 90 and what other issues they now have, they are also not being studied in great numbers to track the long term effects, or lack their of, regarding many newer vaccines that were given out, it was thrown out (in a past thread) about how this is tracked by health insurance (managed care, etc) companies and that the govt MUST know (regarding reactions, etc) , well when you look into what "tracking" is done, the small amounts and the restrictions imposted on these "control groups", you see how skewed those finding really are

06-20-2013 07:00 AM
littlec
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?
 

Quote 1: But how did those people come to such a conclusion if there has never been the "gold standard" study done to find out how well they work? 

 

Quote 2: What diseases specifically are so terrible that they default position should be to vaccinate even though they have never truly been proven safe? 

06-20-2013 06:50 AM
myra1
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightbulb View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post

Yeah, you don't need exemptions or anything here, thankfully.  There's pressure through advertisements, and pushy doctors, and misinformed people though.  You don't have to look very far around here to find somebody who thinks vaccines are mandatory for school attendance.

It's not as bad here, no advertisements or pushy doctors really (because the docs really don't have that much to do with vaccination).

But, there are absolutely misinformed people (nobody that thinks it's mandatory for daycare/school though). And the general population assumes that every child has been vaxed to the schedule here. Because most are, it's the norm.
And many don't actually know that it is an option, many just assume that "that's how it is" kinda, and never give it a second thought.
And that's my biggest pet peeve here I think, that the health station where you go for well baby visits and actually get the shots are horrible at informing parents that it actually is a *choice*. It's more kind of a "so, you're here for the 3 month check up and shot then?" instead of a "so, do you want to vaccinate your child?".

But they have gotten better, absolutely.
Case in point, my mum couldn't actually tell me if I received the vitamin K shot when I was born or not. But I know that I did, since nobody asked her. They didn't even inform her! They just gave it to the baby. And they still just assume that all babies are having it. As they assume all mothers are having the pitocin shot after birth. The nurse just told me "you'll feel a little sting from this shot now" after my last birth and I yelled out "I'm not having that shot!" even though it was clearly stated in my birth plan (she hadn't read it, and the midwife forgot to tell her). And then I said my baby wasn't having the vitamin K shot either, or I'm sure they would've just prepared that too, and just told me they were giving it, instead of asking. Nuts!
this is so true in the U.S. as well. In my experience informed consent is something that I have to speak up and demand, it is not the default. Even though I manage to get the consent portion, I have yet to actually be informed by a healthcare professional. I let it go because Ive done my own research, but most women rely on the doctor for that.

My kids are partially/delayed vax, and although each time I refuse there are scary sounding forms for me to sign, I have NEVER been asked to sign anything for a shot recieved, or gotten any written or verbal info on it other than 'its very important!' when I ask.

When I asked about a particular vaccine I once had a doc put her hand gently on my arm and say 'this is some important medicine that your baby needs, dont worry because its all in one poke and will only sting for a second.' Im not kidding. I couldnt make this stuff up.

Each well visit is referred to as a shot visit, and when I arrive its 'so you're here for shots'. The loaded syringes are on the counter when we first walk in the exam room, prior to even meeting the doctor.
I do think this treatment is more common among younger/minority/low income/less educated moms, since I know others not treated this way by doctors.
Which is sad because they are often the more vulnerable population.

The popular (easy to read and handed out in peds offices) magazines all do one-sided, condescending pro-vax articles titled 'vaccine debate' and without internet access and a fairly high level of literacy and intelligence, it would be tough to even be aware that alternative schedules or not vaxxing are an option, let alone be able to adaquately research them and make an educated personal choice for your child. Some government aid programs claim to require full vaxxing for benefits, as well. So yes, I do feel there is coersion, deceit, etc.
06-20-2013 04:40 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

Does this happen only in America or do any other countries have the requirements we do here?  If this is only happening in America, to me, it surely is a sign that fear is needed to control/sway  the masses when it comes to public health.  But then and again, does not the American Gov't do that anyways with a lot of laws to enforce them?  Guns, and dogs come to mind...Denver outlawed pitbulls, and gun laws are changing to where public input is nonexistant in making those changes...our gov here in Ct quietly voted in the middle of the night,  without the people knowing, and took away certain gun rights.  Personal freedom isn't so free in this country anymore, and is becoming more a challenge to have to prove to the gov why you need that freedom afforded to you. 

 

Other countries do not always act like the US does! We even have requirements for visas as well, so we do require non-US citizens to be vaccinated.

 

As far as thinking things are being done without "public impute", that is not technically the case, when you vote (and those who don't- tuff-tuff!) you give those in office the right to vote how and when they choose and under the guise that they are doing so on your behalf - public impute (as you mean it) is not required, you gave that up when you voted the voters in!!

 

IMO- and this does go for vaccines too, freedoms are not really being taken away, too many simply have no clue how the "system" works and they don't do there share to change it.........VOTE and know who you are voting for and do ALL you can to change laws (those who were voted in created them and new ones too) and make your voice heard.

 

these might also be on interest to you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_Act

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/9241580364_country_list.pdf

http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_4965.html

http://france.angloinfo.com/family/schooling-education/vaccinations/

http://www.vaccineethics.org/issue_briefs/requirements.php

06-20-2013 03:52 AM
emmy526
Quote:
Originally Posted by nia82 View Post

The whole vaccines for school thing is mind boggling... America is always touted as the land of the free that values personal freedoms yet many states make it virtually impossible to opt out (Mississippi, west Virginia have no exemptions but medical so no opt out, New York holds grilling sessions with lawyers to test parents' religious beliefs and decides randomly who is faithful and who isn't). I grew up in Europe in a country that had no such mandates nor school physicals. Just recommendations. As it should be.

Does this happen only in America or do any other countries have the requirements we do here?  If this is only happening in America, to me, it surely is a sign that fear is needed to control/sway  the masses when it comes to public health.  But then and again, does not the American Gov't do that anyways with a lot of laws to enforce them?  Guns, and dogs come to mind...Denver outlawed pitbulls, and gun laws are changing to where public input is nonexistant in making those changes...our gov here in Ct quietly voted in the middle of the night,  without the people knowing, and took away certain gun rights.  Personal freedom isn't so free in this country anymore, and is becoming more a challenge to have to prove to the gov why you need that freedom afforded to you. 

06-20-2013 02:10 AM
nia82 The whole vaccines for school thing is mind boggling... America is always touted as the land of the free that values personal freedoms yet many states make it virtually impossible to opt out (Mississippi, west Virginia have no exemptions but medical so no opt out, New York holds grilling sessions with lawyers to test parents' religious beliefs and decides randomly who is faithful and who isn't). I grew up in Europe in a country that had no such mandates nor school physicals. Just recommendations. As it should be.
06-19-2013 01:48 PM
dinahx
Quote:

 

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.

 

 

And the belief A PRIORI that vaccines are so benefical that they are above a RCT is exactly what makes them FAITH products and not SCIENCE products. Because in SCIENCE nothing is above a RCT.

06-19-2013 01:19 PM
lightbulb
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post


Yeah, you don't need exemptions or anything here, thankfully.  There's pressure through advertisements, and pushy doctors, and misinformed people though.  You don't have to look very far around here to find somebody who thinks vaccines are mandatory for school attendance.

 

It's not as bad here, no advertisements or pushy doctors really (because the docs really don't have that much to do with vaccination).
But, there are absolutely misinformed people (nobody that thinks it's mandatory for daycare/school though). And the general population assumes that every child has been vaxed to the schedule here. Because most are, it's the norm.

And many don't actually know that it is an option, many just assume that "that's how it is" kinda, and never give it a second thought.

And that's my biggest pet peeve here I think, that the health station where you go for well baby visits and actually get the shots are horrible at informing parents that it actually is a *choice*. It's more kind of a "so, you're here for the 3 month check up and shot then?" instead of a "so, do you want to vaccinate your child?".
But they have gotten better, absolutely.

Case in point, my mum couldn't actually tell me if I received the vitamin K shot when I was born or not. But I know that I did, since nobody asked her. They didn't even inform her! They just gave it to the baby. And they still just assume that all babies are having it. As they assume all mothers are having the pitocin shot after birth. The nurse just told me "you'll feel a little sting from this shot now" after my last birth and I yelled out "I'm not having that shot!" even though it was clearly stated in my birth plan (she hadn't read it, and the midwife forgot to tell her). And then I said my baby wasn't having the vitamin K shot either, or I'm sure they would've just prepared that too, and just told me they were giving it, instead of asking. Nuts!

06-19-2013 01:06 PM
rachelsmama
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.)


Yeah, you don't need exemptions or anything here, thankfully.  There's pressure through advertisements, and pushy doctors, and misinformed people though.  You don't have to look very far around here to find somebody who thinks vaccines are mandatory for school attendance.

06-19-2013 12:21 PM
lightbulb
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.

 

06-19-2013 10:50 AM
serenbat
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

06-19-2013 10:19 AM
lightbulb
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.)

06-19-2013 08:08 AM
Mirzam

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.

06-19-2013 07:44 AM
Mirzam
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.

06-19-2013 06:16 AM
kathymuggle
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.  

06-19-2013 05:31 AM
emmy526
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. 

06-19-2013 04:45 AM
rachelsmama
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. 

06-19-2013 04:17 AM
lightbulb
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.)

06-18-2013 11:36 PM
ma2two
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-

06-18-2013 09:20 PM
djrn
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.

06-18-2013 09:16 PM
djrn
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.

06-18-2013 09:07 PM
djrn
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.

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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