Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Ethics regarding entire vaccination system 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)
09-01-2013 08:32 AM
prosciencemum

Somewhere in this thread I think, I poster wondered how anyone could trust vaccines given the clear proof that pharmaceutical companies have been unethical in the past and are motivated primarily by profit......

 

I think I've posted before that I recently read "Bad Science", by Ben Goldacre. It's not only about vaccinations, or pharmaceutical companies, but it does have big sections on those (Ben Goldacre is a medical Dr in the UK - link to book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X). There are some passages in the book in which Dr. Goldacre says more eloquently than I can why I can still think vaccines are worthwhile (in fact a force for good in the many many lives they save - even accepting some risk) while I accept the evidence that in many ways big pharma is evil.....

 

I edited out some bits which might be considered making fun of alternative medical choices (also drops the word count!), but the message stays... (edited out bit noted by the []). 

 

Dr. Goldacre says: 

"Big pharma is evil: I would agree with the premise. But because people don't understand exactly how big pharma is evil, their anger and indignation get diverted away from valid criticisms [into other things]. 'Big pharma is evil' goes the line of reasoning, 'therefore [] the MMR vaccines causes autism.' This is probably not helpful. "

 

and 

 

"Witnessing the blind, seething, thoughtless campaigns against MMR [and some other things] - it's easy to experience a pervasive sense of lost political opportunities, that somehow all of our big valuable indignation about development issues, the role of big money in our society, and frank corporate malpractice, is being diverted away from anywhere it could be valid and useful []"
 
He talks in other places about 'opportunity costs' - that we as a society should be indignant about stuff to do with big pharma - but not about stuff which isn't true.... or is based on extremely weak evidence.
08-30-2013 05:04 AM
emmy526
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post
 


By now, I shouldn't be surprised by some of the statements I see here. Yet sometimes, I still am. It takes courage to change ones mind on something and for that I commend the 'spiritual leader'. Now, keep in mind that over 20 cases of the diseases have so far (more are expected) occurred in the leader's community, one of them a 4 month old baby (who is too young to receive the measles vaccine). Are you saying that if you were in the 'leader's' shoes you would stand your ground in this situation no matter what? What would it take for you to change your mind in the leader's position: 100 cases of the disease, one death, two deaths, ten deaths?

i am a strong advocate for my friends who come to me with their concerns over the flu vaccine....my beliefs are strong that these people need to weigh the options for themselves to make an informed decision.  When an outbreak is around, my advice isn't to immediately tell them, 'you better run out and get the shot right now, just to be safe'..   my advice to them is to take into consideration their lifestyle, and offer advice to stay healthy despite an illness going around.   Just because my elderly neighbor might have caught the flu, ended up in the hospital and died, is no reason for my friend 60miles away to get the vaccine.  I, for one, havent had a flu shot in 30yrs, and have had the flu very badly notably, once...yes, i've had mild versions of the flu that lasted two days...should my experience with having the type A 25yrs ago influence my words with people who seek advice? Absolutely not.  Does my experience with pneumocccocal pneumonia have me shouting from the rooftops to get the pneumonia vaccine? no....and i still say that that so called 'leader' isn't much of a leader.  

08-29-2013 10:01 PM
ssun5

Control groups are used to determine the effectiveness of vaccines

 

It is all about how you word control group. I still say that checking one vax or vax like product against another (in the time of it trying to get licensed, not afterward) doesn't count. That is not a real placebo or control group.

 

Such as: this is a new Vaccine, but it clearly shows that it is just one type of vax against another. (Just one example)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19819004

"were cluster-randomized by dwelling to receive two doses of either modified killed-whole-cell cholera vaccine (n=52 212; 1966 clusters) or heat-killed Escherichia coli K12 placebo (n=55 562; 1967 clusters), both delivered orally.

 

Go find this:

Prevnar's only "control" group was handled by Kaiser, and it was against another experimental vaccine (understand, it means it wasn't approved for license either). Next they gave everyone a DPT shot at the same time as either experimental VAX A (Prevnar) or Experimental VAX B(even though the DTaP was all-ready out). Then they counted ALL seizures as a reaction DTP-(How could one possibly know that-2 Vaxes were given at the same time?) STILL:the groups of children who got Prevnar suffered more seizures, higher fevers, more irritability and other reactions than did the children who got the other experimental vaccine. How did this PROVE that Prevnar was safe?

 

To try to go back to the very beginning of Vaccine is where we would have to start and then we would have to pull up information on every single vaccine that exists. First Vax licensed.... then from then on ALL other vaxes are tested either against that one, or hey, another un-tested Vax ...

 WHY are they using Escherichia Coli K12 placebo for the Cholera Vaccine? Why did they give kids 2 Experimental Vaxes with DTP for safety testing?

Why not use Saline solution or heck make them drink flavored water. That would be a control group.

 

Once the first vax was deemed SAFE, then all other have failed IMO ethically since then as none has ever been done on a true non-vax, non-reactive substance.  These are called epidemiological studies, (which can be an indicator) but not proof.

 

Have you ever spend time combing through law cases in the National Vax Court? Talked to judges and parents who helped get the Compensation act passed? Talked to some of the lawyers that are representing injured parties? Learned what the judges say on paper? Looked at some of the sealed cases?

It is all there for anyone willing to take a look and way to many links to provide-

 

Did you know:

Parents of a Vax injured child are required to provide proof of vaccine injury to the court. However, proof requires prior safety studies which meet criteria of scientific proof and which show both the incidence and types of adverse reactions resulting from vaccines. Such studies have never been done, thus leaving parents in impossible situations trying to prove it to the courts. Do you know if the courts allow the licensing testing to be shown as proof? That answer might blow your mind.Do you know what NOT being allowed "Discovery" means for the Claimants coming up against the system?

 

FDA virologist Peter Reeve........ acknowledged that the FDA suspended its own independent tests of vaccine purity 15 years ago, leaving it entirely up to the manufacturers to ensure the vaccine is contaminant free."--'The Virus and the Vaccine': Atlantic Monthly

 

"Since the 1920s, virtually all continuing medical and public health education is funded by pharmaceutical companies. In fact, today, the FDA can't even tell health scientists the truth about vaccine contaminants and their likely effects. The agency is bound and gagged by proprietary laws and non-disclosure agreements forced upon them by the pharmaceutical industry."Leonard Horowitz

**Now he said this however, go look up proprietary laws, non-disclosure agreements and again, it might shock you***

 

I guess, all that to say this:

How a country, a government, a person treats its individuals that have been harmed by something purported to protect them IS something we all should be looking at. No matter how small they claim that number is.... they still count.

You claim they are almost, always safe... ok, then take a look at the other side of the coin. What happens to those that it isn't?  How does the country, & people handle them? This is my way of trying to see the entire picture and both sides help me to see if the incoming side is as clean as they claim.

This is ethics 101 to me.

 

S

DS-13

DD-8

DD-2

"Those who are afraid retreat.
Those who are brave grow greater.
Never fear, always grow."

Sun Tzu

08-29-2013 09:44 AM
serenbat

parents common sense over their children's vaccine statics will always trump a green~washed disguised agenda 

 

From each according to his faculties; to each according to his needs.
 

08-29-2013 08:41 AM
bakunin

common sense is always a good motive, and I've never hidden that :) No one should be afraid of common sense.

08-29-2013 08:30 AM
serenbat

it't NOT surprising when an ulterior kid.gif agenda is really behind the questioning whistling.gif

08-29-2013 08:25 AM
bakunin
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

I truly question a spiritual 'leader' who has to abandon her/his principles/values/morals in time of illness to succomb to the 'white coat/pharma'...how true are the values of this leader to begin with if they're abandoned in time of crisis?  The fact the 'leader' of a flock can lean one way and then the other in opposite direction, reeks of dishonesty and self doubt.   


By now, I shouldn't be surprised by some of the statements I see here. Yet sometimes, I still am. It takes courage to change ones mind on something and for that I commend the 'spiritual leader'. Now, keep in mind that over 20 cases of the diseases have so far (more are expected) occurred in the leader's community, one of them a 4 month old baby (who is too young to receive the measles vaccine). Are you saying that if you were in the 'leader's' shoes you would stand your ground in this situation no matter what? What would it take for you to change your mind in the leader's position: 100 cases of the disease, one death, two deaths, ten deaths?

08-29-2013 08:01 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

I truly question a spiritual 'leader' who has to abandon her/his principles/values/morals in time of illness to succomb to the 'white coat/pharma'...how true are the values of this leader to begin with if they're abandoned in time of crisis?  The fact the 'leader' of a flock can lean one way and then the other in opposite direction, reeks of dishonesty and self doubt.   

and your core belief is centered on how great it is in the end to go someplace else, yet you fight hard to prevent that from occurring  dizzy.gif will seems only to apply as needed-IMO

08-29-2013 07:42 AM
dinahx

It is really complex in Tx. The 'leader' who is asking people to Vax also believes that MMR *no longer* contains Thimerosal. Which means she understands basically nothing around this issue & probably never has . . . 

 

Her retired FATHER is the one who supposedly harbors the problem 'views' and he has not made a public statement that I am aware of.

08-29-2013 05:57 AM
emmy526
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

Taximom5- New outbreak of measles in Texas linked to unvaccinated cluster of people. That makes the number of cases this year about 3 times higher than last year. News about it here http://www.nbcnews.com/health/measles-outbreak-tied-texas-megachurch-sickens-21-8C11009315

 

One of the leaders of the cluster, who was against vaccines, has changed their mind and has asked people to vaccinate. Measles is one serious disease, spreads very easily, and it kills 1 in 1000 people. Food for thought I guess

I truly question a spiritual 'leader' who has to abandon her/his principles/values/morals in time of illness to succomb to the 'white coat/pharma'...how true are the values of this leader to begin with if they're abandoned in time of crisis?  The fact the 'leader' of a flock can lean one way and then the other in opposite direction, reeks of dishonesty and self doubt.   

08-28-2013 06:23 PM
bakunin

Taximom5- New outbreak of measles in Texas linked to unvaccinated cluster of people. That makes the number of cases this year about 3 times higher than last year. News about it here http://www.nbcnews.com/health/measles-outbreak-tied-texas-megachurch-sickens-21-8C11009315

 

One of the leaders of the cluster, who was against vaccines, has changed their mind and has asked people to vaccinate. Measles is one serious disease, spreads very easily, and it kills 1 in 1000 people. Food for thought I guess

08-28-2013 05:31 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

So, if a doctor doesn't provide VIS ... and a vaxed kid gets some adverse side effect ... is the doctor liable?  Should they be?

first, you will be told there is no reaction!

 

NO, the dr is not liable nor is the manufacture and according to some - they are just perfect so that is why there is no need to hold anyone liable! 

08-28-2013 03:10 PM
MamaMunchkin

So, if a doctor doesn't provide VIS ... and a vaxed kid gets some adverse side effect ... is the doctor liable?  Should they be?

08-28-2013 02:45 PM
bakunin
Quote:

And severe allergic reaction is listed as the worst possible vaccine-induced side effect, even though seizure-induced brain damage and death, as well as Guillaine-Barre syndrome and lupus (both of which can be fatal) have been known to be caused by vaccines--and those are not considered to be an allergic reaction.

Wow.
 

I am not aware of any scientific evidence showing that vaccines cause lupus. I'm pretty sure you will not be able to provide the scientific evidence? Or would you?

Parents can judge for themselves the accuracy of the provided green website post and poll results. I like the last page of the post when it asks "whether vaccines should be considered green?"

 

As far as the procedure of vaccine approval, starting from the discovery change, the vaccine ethics website is quite accurate in its description. These first few stages are especially brutal. I've provided several references on the topic, can you please to the same with your claims. That would greatly enhance the benefit of the debate.

08-28-2013 02:05 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


What an interesting link, bakunin.


Wow.

I guess we can cross "Living Green With Baby" off the list of websites that look at tough issues with honesty and objectivity.

yeahthat.gif

 

 

I like REAL green (natural- REAL natural), not the "TRUE" green(washed) crap too! Greenwashing is not from the real!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and so many are catching on to this fakeness! 

08-28-2013 02:00 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


Here's an example of the use of control groups for a diphtheria vaccine http://www.livinggreenwithbaby.com/parents-guide-to-children-vaccinations/
(mind you, this is a website about green living).

What an interesting link, bakunin.

It's part of an article that implies that Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield are among the strongest reasons why parents question the safety of vaccines, and it implies that current CDC-reported autism rates are for children never received thimerosal-preserved vaccines.

Both points were hotly debated with you here on your survey thread. Remember your survey thread? "Answers will be useful for a forthcoming objective article on the topic."

Whaddya know? The article you linked seems to include a survey exactly like yours!!

What a coincidence.

And look! There is a mention of the results of the survey! "The results imply that although most parents think that, in general, vaccinating children is mostly beneficial; slightly less than half think that vaccinating children is mostly harmful, or they’re not sure."

Wow. 50.57% thought that vaccination does more good than harm. Almost exactly half. And the author tweaked that into "MOST parents" and "MOSTLY beneficial." Way to push a message, there.

The author didn't exactly mention that there were quite a few parents here who refused to participate, as well as some who stated clearly that they didn't participate because it looked like the person collecting the info had already made up his mind about those who question vaccines.

And, gee, I distinctly remember some of us pointing out that severe adverse effects have historically gone unrecognized and unreported, and that therefore we don't have adequate data on the actual rate of those adverse effects. But we are told in this article that falling TV sets are a greater risk! Funny, I don't see any mention that healthy, well-nourished people have a greater chance of being injured from a falling TV set than from dying from the flu.

And severe allergic reaction is listed as the worst possible vaccine-induced side effect, even though seizure-induced brain damage and death, as well as Guillaine-Barre syndrome and lupus (both of which can be fatal) have been known to be caused by vaccines--and those are not considered to be an allergic reaction.

Wow.

I guess we can cross "Living Green With Baby" off the list of websites that look at tough issues with honesty and objectivity.
08-28-2013 01:21 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


I'm afraid you have already convinced yourself that the procedure is totally corrupt. Although I don't conduct research on vaccines (other than online for my kid) I do know through colleagues how the process works. I noticed you haven't done your research. Control groups are used to determine the effectiveness of vaccines. They might do some screening of participants sure. This should come as no shock, scientists can often determine right of the bat some people the vaccine may not be appropriate for (allergic reactions, etc.). Here's an example of the use of control groups for a diphtheria vaccine http://www.livinggreenwithbaby.com/parents-guide-to-children-vaccinations/
(mind you, this is a website about green living). You can find many other examples online. Once the vaccines is proven to be effective through randomized trials and the vaccine is approved for general use, observational studies follow to double check effectiveness and adverse events. Now, after the vaccine is implemented for general use, randomized trials to test the vaccine are not conducted. Why? It would be unethical. The vaccine has already been shown to work before approval!! So, it would be inappropriate to give some children the vaccine and others a placebo to check for adverse events (that would mean intentionally exposing the unvaccinated children to risk). By the way, this is general policy, around the world, not just the U.S. To check for adverse events, the best one can do, is perform observational studies.

The vaccine may have "already been shown to work before approval," (though it's debatable how much has been shown when the test subjects were cherry-picked for positive response and the industry has a strong record of data-tweaking), but it has not been shown to be safe enough.

To test for safety issues against another vaccine that may have safety issues of its own clearly opens the door to fraud. And Merck has been accused of fraud by its own virologists.

It's ridiculous to say that giving test subjects a true placebo intentionally subjects them to risk, when you are intentionally subjecting them to risk anyway, knowing that some children who receive the vaccine may die or be severely injured from the vaccine. But I don't see the vaccine companies admitting this anywhere in that specific argument.

Vaccine company: "Our new vaccine is safe, because we tested it against a placebo, and the number of deaths during the testing phase was actually LOWER than the number of deaths with the placebo! See! We proved it's safe!"

Person with a brain: "Wow, that's a lot of deaths reported with the placebo! What was IN that placebo? Oh, wait...it wasn't a true placebo. There was an adjuvant and preservative in that vaccine. And antigens, too, just different antigens than the new vaccine. Hey, maybe the antigens aren't the problem here? Maybe it's the adjuvants and preservative that are causing the deaths, or at least contributing to scenarios that put the patient at risk for death..."

Vaccine company: "NO. The adjuvants are SAFE. The preservative is SAFE. The reported reactions weren't actually PROVED to be the cause of death, or even necessarily caused by the vaccine, so we will assume that they were just a coincidence. VACCINES ARE SAFE."

Person with a brain: "But how do you know that the adjuvants and preservative are safe?"

Vaccine company: "We--the company who profits from them--have set up our own studies, and directed them, and interpreted the results, and come to our own conclusions, and paid people to ghost-write the studies with our own conclusions, and paid other people to market the studies, and write about them in the media."

Person with a brain: "But...that's called "conflict of interest," and isn't even allowed in other businesses."

Vaccine company: "Do you know what we'll do if we are forced to play by the rules? We'll stop making all our products, and THEN YOU'LL BE SORRY! So you'd better let us make up our own rules, or ________ (insert fear-mongering threat here)!!"
08-28-2013 01:15 PM
ParadigmShift Just pointing out the illogics here about "not ethical to have a control group (non vax group bc it would be risking them for infectious diseases)
That means there is already a formed conclusion that vaccines are safe. That is not a valid scientific method.
I was thinking they can recruit non vax control groups by having peds ask non vax parents to participate. However I do realize the probability of that event occurring is at par with pigs flying.
08-28-2013 12:44 PM
bakunin
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Nevermind. Ssun5, thanks for taking the time to point out the flaws in vaccine production and licensing :)


This is an important topic. I think Ssun5 should feel free to continue the discussion (so far this sounds like an acceptable debate to me) Also I would like to know if Ssun5 can provide the sources of her information so I can cross check with my references.  smile.gif

08-28-2013 12:11 PM
pers
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post


Kathy is correct about the quote rule but it isn't really MDC's rule, it's a copyright violation to quote more without permission from the author of the quote. Not really a good point to attack her on - she was potentially preventing you from getting in trouble for violating the UA (which is where the quote limit rule can be found).

 

No, not really.  Yes, MDC has the right to set whatever rules it wants and could make a rule that we could only copy stuff where the original source was in comic sans and we would have to either follow it or go someplace else, and that is not at all a good comparison to blindly following vaccine policy or whatever. 

 

However, in the case of the 100 word thing, it pretty much is just MDC's rule.  The 100 words is completely arbitrary.  It comes from the idea that there is a difference in fair use term between quoting a small bit of something and quoting the entire work or a large portion of it.  There is nothing magical about 100 words though.  Quoting 100 words from a very short 200 word article could be ruled a copyright violation as it is a substantive amount of the original while quoting 3000 word out out of a huge book of over a half million words could be just fine.  Also, length is not the only thing that matters, the context and the purpose in copying it also matter. 

 

I think the MDC 100 word thing is both silly and annoying as there are many case here where it seems just fine to use much larger quotes.  However, it is a complex subject, and it can often be difficult to tell if something is fair use or not, so I can see why they would want to make an arbitrary but very simple yes/no rule on it with a number so low that no sane copyright holder is going to care enough to complain.  

08-28-2013 11:56 AM
kathymuggle

Nevermind. Ssun5, thanks for taking the time to point out the flaws in vaccine production and licensing :)

08-28-2013 11:46 AM
bakunin
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssun5 View Post

Your understanding of how the development of a vaccine is completely misguided.

 

No, It is not my understanding that is misguided. you need to dig further than a ra ra group spreading misinformation about how it works. They leave out KEY facts into how they are developed.

 

1. I don't care if the trial last 10 years plus when their is NEVER EVER a control group. There is never a non vax group being looked at... only VAX A being tested against another vax (or a vax that is empty of the antigens but still has every other component of vax A) This is standard practice and you should understand the reason this is such a big deal. This isn't a true long term study. A control group is always necessary.

 

2. No one who has any issues whatsoever are allowed in the group being tested. Another words, only if you are already one of the healthiest people out there will they allow you to be in a trial. YET, they then will tell every person on the planet (who might not react like the extremely healthy people) to all get the same amount, same size, same timing with no regard to this important issue.

 

Also, it isn't ONLY how vaccine become licensed.

Ethics should be honestly looking at what happens to its people (the consumers) once it is licensed and the rules that follow. Being told Vaccines are the only thing that seem to be keeping us from being wiped off the face of the world :

that government's use their power and force to make them as mandatory as possible by trying to remove everyone's choice,

are not required to give you any information or can lie about all of it

have no real reporting agency (see quote from FDA commissioner) to even have the slightest clue on real reaction rates to help keep plausible deniablity and

then make sure that everyone involved in the entire process are totally not liable/accountable in any way to those same people for any problems that occur, purposeful or by accident.... isn't ethical.

 

S

DS-13

DD-8

DD-2

"Those who are afraid retreat.
Those who are brave grow greater.
Never fear, always grow."

Sun Tzu


I'm afraid you have already convinced yourself that the procedure is totally corrupt. Although I don't conduct research on vaccines (other than online for my kid) I do know through colleagues how the process works. I noticed you haven't done your research. Control groups are used to determine the effectiveness of vaccines. They might do some screening of participants sure. This should come as no shock, scientists can often determine right of the bat some people the vaccine may not be appropriate for (allergic reactions, etc.). Here's an example of the use of control groups for a diphtheria vaccine http://www.livinggreenwithbaby.com/parents-guide-to-children-vaccinations/

(mind you, this is a website about green living). You can find many other examples online. Once the vaccines is proven to be effective through randomized trials and the vaccine is approved for general use, observational studies follow to double check effectiveness and adverse events. Now, after the vaccine is implemented for general use, randomized trials to test the vaccine are not conducted. Why? It would be unethical. The vaccine has already been shown to work before approval!! So, it would be inappropriate to give some children the vaccine and others a placebo to check for adverse events (that would mean intentionally exposing the unvaccinated children to risk). By the way, this is general policy, around the world, not just the U.S. To check for adverse events, the best one can do, is perform observational studies.

08-28-2013 10:31 AM
nia82

KS Laura you are the first person I ever hear from that was given such information. It didn't happen in all three states I have lived in. If it wasn't for my diligent asking I wouldn't even have gotten a VIS in one state (close to you!). And on the Air Force base you get nothing. Nothing. If you ask for the brand name or papers, they yell at you for not being a good lil' mommy who follows orders. How dare you ask! They even told an aquaintance her husband will be discharged from the Air Force dishonorably if she refuses vaccines on schedule. Another thing that happened there was a service member went to Walgreens and paid for the injected flu shot over the military offered Flumist. He didn't want the mist for his newborn at home (shedding risk). So he paid himself, had the correct papers etc (fully legit) - the doctor on the base went ballistic and tried to force him to take Flumist on the same day he had the injected one at the drugstore. Luckily the guy stood up for himself and demanded to speak to the doctor in charge - who rectified the situation and confirmed he had done everything correctly and no double flu shots in one day. One wonders how those people even acquired their medical license - sadly from my experience military docs are from the bottom of the class enjoying the free ride.

 

Mamaofthree, wow that's awful. I'm so glad our new town is "crunchy" and we have a pediatrician who believes belittling parents is not a good idea and that parents are thinking, intelligent and can make a decision of their own.

08-28-2013 10:24 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSLaura View Post

I'm still surprised that health care providers aren't giving information out to parents! Why woudn't they? Maybe Colorado is a little more progressive than other parts of the country. I guess I did know about the lack of liability. I remember being given a 2-page paper on a government immunization injury hotline and all of the steps you could take after adverse reactions from a vaccine. It's been a while since my kids have had any shots. I guess, after having open and frank conversations with my kids' doctors, I've had no problems picking and choosing vaccines and vaccination times that are appropriate for my family. I'm not a fan of the 'all or nothing' attitudes regarding vaccines and health care. I really hope the health care community leans towards helping families make good choices for all medical care available.

I'm certainly NOT in a progressive area! And I can tell you most "professionals" (because MD's do give the vaccines around here) are very clueless - ask a direct question and they blank out, they have no idea what ingredients are even in vaccines and most line up and take what ever they are told to get themselves, so they have no understanding and no mandate thus no info is given - as it's been said time and again, you don't see the packaging,you don't see the inserts and those doing the vaccine can't answer your questions

 

bottom line for me, no mandate to know this information means no mandate for parents to really be informed - since this is a state to state issue, if you live in an area (like mine) where most people have lived in neighboring states and move often, this just adds to it, not to mention what is "required" in each state for school is totally different as well, that means not a good mix all around-IMO

08-28-2013 10:17 AM
Mirzam
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSLaura View Post

I'm still surprised that health care providers aren't giving information out to parents! Why woudn't they? Maybe Colorado is a little more progressive than other parts of the country. I guess I did know about the lack of liability. I remember being given a 2-page paper on a government immunization injury hotline and all of the steps you could take after adverse reactions from a vaccine. It's been a while since my kids have had any shots. I guess, after having open and frank conversations with my kids' doctors, I've had no problems picking and choosing vaccines and vaccination times that are appropriate for my family. I'm not a fan of the 'all or nothing' attitudes regarding vaccines and health care. I really hope the health care community leans towards helping families make good choices for all medical care available.

I don't know where you are in CO, but I have found them to be more progressive regarding vaccines. My (unvaxed) kids go to school in Boulder, and the school is very open about exemptions. I have never had a problem with drs about not vaxing, although I choose practitioners that will respect my wishes.

08-28-2013 10:05 AM
KSLaura I'm still surprised that health care providers aren't giving information out to parents! Why woudn't they? Maybe Colorado is a little more progressive than other parts of the country. I guess I did know about the lack of liability. I remember being given a 2-page paper on a government immunization injury hotline and all of the steps you could take after adverse reactions from a vaccine. It's been a while since my kids have had any shots. I guess, after having open and frank conversations with my kids' doctors, I've had no problems picking and choosing vaccines and vaccination times that are appropriate for my family. I'm not a fan of the 'all or nothing' attitudes regarding vaccines and health care. I really hope the health care community leans towards helping families make good choices for all medical care available.
08-28-2013 09:43 AM
ssun5

Your understanding of how the development of a vaccine is completely misguided.

 

No, It is not my understanding that is misguided. you need to dig further than a ra ra group spreading misinformation about how it works. They leave out KEY facts into how they are developed.

 

1. I don't care if the trial last 10 years plus when their is NEVER EVER a control group. There is never a non vax group being looked at... only VAX A being tested against another vax (or a vax that is empty of the antigens but still has every other component of vax A) This is standard practice and you should understand the reason this is such a big deal. This isn't a true long term study. A control group is always necessary.

 

2. No one who has any issues whatsoever are allowed in the group being tested. Another words, only if you are already one of the healthiest people out there will they allow you to be in a trial. YET, they then will tell every person on the planet (who might not react like the extremely healthy people) to all get the same amount, same size, same timing with no regard to this important issue.

 

Also, it isn't ONLY how vaccine become licensed.

Ethics should be honestly looking at what happens to its people (the consumers) once it is licensed and the rules that follow. Being told Vaccines are the only thing that seem to be keeping us from being wiped off the face of the world :

that government's use their power and force to make them as mandatory as possible by trying to remove everyone's choice,

are not required to give you any information or can lie about all of it

have no real reporting agency (see quote from FDA commissioner) to even have the slightest clue on real reaction rates to help keep plausible deniablity and

then make sure that everyone involved in the entire process are totally not liable/accountable in any way to those same people for any problems that occur, purposeful or by accident.... isn't ethical.

 

S

DS-13

DD-8

DD-2

"Those who are afraid retreat.
Those who are brave grow greater.
Never fear, always grow."

Sun Tzu

08-28-2013 08:45 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post
kathymuggle - I am failing to understand why you propose parents don't follow blindly vaccination policy (which is certainly good advice by the way), yet propose parents follow blindly MDC post policies. The website quotation addressed the vaccine approval procedure and was crucial for the current discussion. Furthermore it informs parents about vaccine approval procedures. Why would MDC be against that? Nevertheless, do you have a link were the 100 word rule is referenced?
 

Sigh.  Never mind Bakunin. I was trying to be kind in pointing out a minor issue rather than flagging it- but if you are going to make a fuss over things, I will simply flag things in the future and a mod can come along and deal with it.

08-28-2013 07:55 AM
bakunin

updated

08-28-2013 07:21 AM
TCMoulton http://www.mothering.com/community/a/copyright-concerns

A link directing readers to a discussion or article instead of the actual content itself.
100 words or less from an article as long as those 100 words are not a substantial part of the piece. If you are quoting from a short work such as a poem or a short article, 100 words may not be an acceptable fair use allowance. You should restrict yourself to a minimal quote from the piece. Anything more requires permission to print/reproduce in written form by the copyright holder and placed within your post.
Images or content that you have personally created, paid the the rights to publish or have express written permission from the copyright holder.
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