8 days until our trip...and I think we have chicken pox

[Jey12]

Is this debate really still going on this thread?

I'm pro vaccine, some of you aren't. You (general "you" for anti vaccine parents, no one in particular) can throw up studies and you tube videos all day long showing studies of the long term and side effects of vaccines. I can toss up studies and you tube videos all day showing studies of the long term and side effects of viruses. You see the small percentage of kids harmed by a vaccine and even a small percent is too high for you to take that chance. I see a high likely hood of serious complications from a preventable virus, and a small percentage of a vaccine side effect is worth taking to avoid the higher chance if exposed to a virus my child could be seriously ill. You see the possibility of lifelong complications due to a vaccine side effect. I see lifelong complications in my older relatives that survived the outbreaks of polio, measles, mumps, etc...

You as a parent have done your research and are deciding not to vaccinate based on what you feel is best for your child. This does not make you a bad parent. I as a parent have done my research and have decided to vaccinate based on what I feel is best for my child. I am not a bad parent. You aren't going to change my mind. I am not going to change your mind. You want your child to be healthy and live a long happy life. I want the same. You feel vaccinating could possibly hinder that from happening, and I feel a serious virus that could have been prevented could hinder my child from achieving this. In the data you see an increase in illnesses, chronic and other childhood issues such as obesity and asthma that could be linked to vaccines. In that same data I see environmental issues, the ability for increased reporting and data collection via computers and the internet, additives and hormones in foods, and lack of exercise for the same issues.

The thing as a pro vaccine parent I would like anti vaccine parents to understand is I feel like I am taking a chance with my child by her being around unvaccinated kids. Although the chances of her catching a mutated form of an illness she's been vaccinated for from an unvaccinated child are very very small. In my mind, and from the data and research I've done the chances of this happening are comparable to the chances I took of a side effect when she was vaccinated. So please understand that when you say a small chance is too much when we're talking about the health of our children, many pro vaccine parents feel the same way about their child being exposed to yours. This is why this discussion has no end and gets so heated.

At the end of the day some things are the same with pro and anti vaccine parents. We both love our kids, we both want what's best for them, we both want to keep them safe and happy, and we both have done our research. Please don't give me the line of the more educated you are the less likely you are to vaccinate. That's a line of you know what from both sides of the debate. I would venture to guess the likelyhood of vaccinating or not is pretty equal no matter your level of education. As you can see both sides can look at the exact same data and come up with very different conclusions. This speaks nothing of the level of education on either side. I will continue to vaccinate my child, you will continue to not vaccinate yours. All we can hope is that we've made the right decision for our children and that they grow up to one day make the best parenting decisions they can based on their ability to research and interpret certain data and life experiences.

 

[princessmom29]

The thing as a pro vaccine parent I would like anti vaccine parents to understand is I feel like I am taking a chance with my child by her being around unvaccinated kids. Although the chances of her catching a mutated form of an illness she's been vaccinated for from an unvaccinated child are very very small. In my mind, and from the data and research I've done the chances of this happening are comparable to the chances I took of a side effect when she was vaccinated. So please understand that when you say a small chance is too much when we're talking about the health of our children, many pro vaccine parents feel the same way about their child being exposed to yours. This is why this discussion has no end and gets so heated.

.

This is a great articulation of why I simply cannot "live and let live" on this issue. The chioces of others directly effect the health of my child. If I can cahange at least one mind, or even make one parent examine thier decision a little moreclosely that is one less potential dead child in my mind, thier ore someone else's as a result of thier choice. THAT is why I feel so passionately about this.

 

[robinb]

This is a great articulation of why I simply cannot "live and let live" on this issue. The choices of others directly effect the health of my child. If I can change at least one mind, or even make one parent examine their decision a little more closely that is one less potential dead child in my mind, their ore someone else's as a result of their choice. THAT is why I feel so passionately about this.

My concern isn't for my own child. I think that she is protected. My concern is for kids who can not be vaccinated ... those who are too young or who have had reactions to vaccinations. People can raise your kids however they wish and if I thought that a parent's "choice" to skip vaccinations only affected them, I wouldn't mind. However, I can't help but worry that their (IMO misguided) decision may lead to some other innocent child getting sick and/or dying.

 

[princessmom29]

My concern isn't for my own child. I think that she is protected. My concern is for kids who can not be vaccinated ... those who are too young or who have had reactions to vaccinations. People can raise your kids however they wish and if I thought that a parent's "choice" to skip vaccinations only affected them, I wouldn't mind. However, I can't help but worry that their (IMO misguided) decision may lead to some other innocent child getting sick and/or dying.

Exactly, and I think having seen this happen first hand and sitting helplessly by while an infant suffered due to someone else's chioces makes me a bit more passionate about it. At least part of the reason this issue is such a hotbed is that others choices have very real and sometimes fatal consequences for our children.

 

[BNM]

Is this debate really still going on this thread?

I'm pro vaccine, some of you aren't. You (general "you" for anti vaccine parents, no one in particular) can throw up studies and you tube videos all day long showing studies of the long term and side effects of vaccines. I can toss up studies and you tube videos all day showing studies of the long term and side effects of viruses. You see the small percentage of kids harmed by a vaccine and even a small percent is too high for you to take that chance. I see a high likely hood of serious complications from a preventable virus, and a small percentage of a vaccine side effect is worth taking to avoid the higher chance if exposed to a virus my child could be seriously ill. You see the possibility of lifelong complications due to a vaccine side effect. I see lifelong complications in my older relatives that survived the outbreaks of polio, measles, mumps, etc...

You as a parent have done your research and are deciding not to vaccinate based on what you feel is best for your child. This does not make you a bad parent. I as a parent have done my research and have decided to vaccinate based on what I feel is best for my child. I am not a bad parent. You aren't going to change my mind. I am not going to change your mind. You want your child to be healthy and live a long happy life. I want the same. You feel vaccinating could possibly hinder that from happening, and I feel a serious virus that could have been prevented could hinder my child from achieving this. In the data you see an increase in illnesses, chronic and other childhood issues such as obesity and asthma that could be linked to vaccines. In that same data I see environmental issues, the ability for increased reporting and data collection via computers and the internet, additives and hormones in foods, and lack of exercise for the same issues.

The thing as a pro vaccine parent I would like anti vaccine parents to understand is I feel like I am taking a chance with my child by her being around unvaccinated kids. Although the chances of her catching a mutated form of an illness she's been vaccinated for from an unvaccinated child are very very small. In my mind, and from the data and research I've done the chances of this happening are comparable to the chances I took of a side effect when she was vaccinated. So please understand that when you say a small chance is too much when we're talking about the health of our children, many pro vaccine parents feel the same way about their child being exposed to yours. This is why this discussion has no end and gets so heated.

At the end of the day some things are the same with pro and anti vaccine parents. We both love our kids, we both want what's best for them, we both want to keep them safe and happy, and we both have done our research. Please don't give me the line of the more educated you are the less likely you are to vaccinate. That's a line of you know what from both sides of the debate. I would venture to guess the likelyhood of vaccinating or not is pretty equal no matter your level of education. As you can see both sides can look at the exact same data and come up with very different conclusions. This speaks nothing of the level of education on either side. I will continue to vaccinate my child, you will continue to not vaccinate yours. All we can hope is that we've made the right decision for our children and that they grow up to one day make the best parenting decisions they can based on their ability to research and interpret certain data and life experiences.

Bravo.
This is a great post and deserves to be read by the thousands who have viewed this thread. We can argue all day about thimerosol. Anti-vax folks always end up bringing up thimerosol because, face it, it's nasty stuff. It is a preservative, which means it will kill bacteria and other cells. But these effects are dose dependent.
And thimerosol IS NO LONGER INCLUDED in vaccines, so the point is moot anyway. And who was EVER vaccinated thrice in 12 weeks with a thimerosol-containing vaccine, other than the monkeys in the study? Go ahead and decline all vax containing thimerosol. I did and guess what? My kids got the appropriate courses of vaccines. The only one my drs office had with thimerosol was a flu vaccine in a multi-dose vial.
Do your research. But keep in mind your choice will affect others.

 

[BNM]

Ok I just went back and read those abstracts again. For those who may have been taken aback, and thought that there was some valid point being made there, the first discusses half life of mercury after FOUR injections in THREE WEEKS. Totally irrelevant, especially considering the absence of mercury in vaccines.
The second abstract was amusing to DH and I, as we used to work in a lab studying apoptosis in tissue culture. There are all kinds of ways to induce apoptosis, including raising the temp and viral infection, so it's not exactly mind blowing, to me, that apoptosis results when you add a preservative.

 

[Svhadden]

For those who want more info (and the PMs tell me that there are )

The title speaks for itself:
http://www.preventdisease.com/news/...dren-In-The-Future-Will-Be-Unvaccinated.shtml

Did you know that the Merck Manual describes vaccines as "unavoidably unsafe?"
_________________________________________________________________
"I find it interesting that there exists an incredible double standard when it comes to 'our' evidence versus 'theirs'. The proponents of vaccination safety can just say they are safe, without any supporting evidence what-so-ever, and it will be accepted without question. They can announce that mercury is not only safe, but that it seems to actually increase the IQ and we are to accept it."

Russell Blaylock MD, Neurosurgeon, 'Vaccines, Neurodevelopmental and Autism Spectrum Disorders'

I've found that to be overwhelmingly true in this thread...lots of denial and argument but no science to back it up.
_________________________________________________________________

The truth is that vaccines have not saved us from infectious disease.

Graphs showing that the incident rates of many of the infectious diseases we vax against were ALREADY in sharp decline before the widespread use of the vax:

http://preventdisease.com/images/usmrp1000.jpg

http://preventdisease.com/news/10/102510_vaccines_did_not_save_us.shtml

These infectious disease rates are easily available on the CDC website.

Ever wonder why scarlet fever is so rarely heard of these days, despite having been much more common years ago? We don't vax against it. So what happened? Natural disease cycles, better access to clean water, better nutrition, and a greater understanding of epidemiology have all contributed. Not a vaccine.
_________________________________________________________________

Just how often to vaccinated people get sick with the diseases they've been vaccinated against?
http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Diseases-In-The-Vaccinated


So I would ask, could anyone please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

Consider this:
"Official data have shown that the large-scale vaccinations undertaken in the US have failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection." Dr A. Sabin, developer of the Oral Polio vaccine (lecture to Italian doctors in Piacenza, Italy, December 7th 1985)

The following quote is taken directly from the package insert in the flu vax FLULAVAL:
"This indication is based on immune response elicited by FLULAVAL, and there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FLULAVAL."

In other words, the vaccine is effective in causing an immune response in the body, but not preventing you from getting the flu strain it's vaccinating you against.
_________________________________________________________________

Many of you may be unaware that our government has established a compensation system for those PROVEN to have been injured by a vaccine. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over $2.5 billion dollars so far. It's an incredibly adversarial program, not even subject to a jury system, with a statute of limitations of only three years for claims of injury. If vaccines are safe, why is the government paying compensation to families who've proven their childs' injury was directly caused by vax?

Wanna know how the NVIC pays that compensation? A tax is levied on every vax sold, so that the taxpaying parents of children who are vaxxed are paying into the compensation fund to pay for the care of those children who've been injured.

Many doctors believe that less than 10% of vaccine injuries are actually reported because many pediatricians and ER personnel are NOT TRAINED to identify vaccine injury.
_________________________________________________________________

Ever heard of Hannah Polling?
http://vran.org/autism/the-hannah-poling-case-the-us-government-concedes-vaccine-autism-link/
_________________________________________________________________

Did you know that of over 30 vaccines, only one ingredient (thimerosol) in one shot (MMR) has been researched for links to autism? Those vaccines contain scores of other ingredients, and the studies NEVER examined the CUMULATIVE ingredients.

What about other vaccines? The September 2009 edition of the Annals of Epidemiology included a study conducted by Carolyn Gallagher and Melody Goodman of the Graduate Program in Public Health at Stony Brook University Medical Center, NY. They concluded: "“Boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 2.94 greater odds for ASD compared to later- or unvaccinated boys. Non-Hispanic white boys were 61% less likely to have ASD.” Basically, "“Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys.”
_________________________________________________________________

I'd like to say that I never, ever saw myself as someone who wouldn't vax her own kids. I spent 10 years as an LCSW before having children and took scores of my foster kids for their physicals, where they received vax. I never questioned it. But when I was expecting my first child, I had no peace about the shots (it just seemed like way too many shots to give a newborn) and started digging for more info. I didn't WANT to find reasons NOT to vax my baby. I just wanted the truth. And the more I read and researched, the more entrenched I became...until I couldn't ignore what I'd learned.

I was exhibiting what's known as the Semmelweiss Reflex:

"The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.

The term originated from Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered that childbed fever mortality rates could be reduced ten-fold if doctors would wash their hands (we would now say disinfect) with a chlorine solution between having contact with infected patients and non-infected patients. His hand-washing suggestions were rejected by his contemporaries ."


Obviously, I'm over it.

 

[Svhadden]

Ok I just went back and read those abstracts again. For those who may have been taken aback, and thought that there was some valid point being made there, the first discusses half life of mercury after FOUR injections in THREE WEEKS. Totally irrelevant, especially considering the absence of mercury in vaccines.
The second abstract was amusing to DH and I, as we used to work in a lab studying apoptosis in tissue culture. There are all kinds of ways to induce apoptosis, including raising the temp and viral infection, so it's not exactly mind blowing, to me, that apoptosis results when you add a preservative.

To answer your question, BNM, about who gets four injections in three weeks?

The CDC recommends that infants receive SIX SHOTS at their 2 month check up. Six. Each containing trace amounts of thimerosol. Please refer back to my post on p20 showing how the US EPA defines "trace" amounts of mercury. This does not include the HepB shot given at birth.

You're incorrect in asserting that vax don't contain mercury anymore. Thimerosol is 50% mercury by weight.

 

[MommyBell08]

For those who want more info (and the PMs tell me that there are )

The title speaks for itself:
http://www.preventdisease.com/news/...dren-In-The-Future-Will-Be-Unvaccinated.shtml

Did you know that the Merck Manual describes vaccines as "unavoidably unsafe?"
_________________________________________________________________
"I find it interesting that there exists an incredible double standard when it comes to 'our' evidence versus 'theirs'. The proponents of vaccination safety can just say they are safe, without any supporting evidence what-so-ever, and it will be accepted without question. They can announce that mercury is not only safe, but that it seems to actually increase the IQ and we are to accept it."

Russell Blaylock MD, Neurosurgeon, 'Vaccines, Neurodevelopmental and Autism Spectrum Disorders'

I've found that to be overwhelmingly true in this thread...lots of denial and argument but no science to back it up.
_________________________________________________________________

The truth is that vaccines have not saved us from infectious disease.

Graphs showing that the incident rates of many of the infectious diseases we vax against were ALREADY in sharp decline before the widespread use of the vax:

http://preventdisease.com/images/usmrp1000.jpg

http://preventdisease.com/news/10/102510_vaccines_did_not_save_us.shtml

These infectious disease rates are easily available on the CDC website.

Ever wonder why scarlet fever is so rarely heard of these days, despite having been much more common years ago? We don't vax against it. So what happened? Natural disease cycles, better access to clean water, better nutrition, and a greater understanding of epidemiology have all contributed. Not a vaccine.
_________________________________________________________________

Just how often to vaccinated people get sick with the diseases they've been vaccinated against?
http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Diseases-In-The-Vaccinated


So I would ask, could anyone please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

Consider this:
"Official data have shown that the large-scale vaccinations undertaken in the US have failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection." Dr A. Sabin, developer of the Oral Polio vaccine (lecture to Italian doctors in Piacenza, Italy, December 7th 1985)

The following quote is taken directly from the package insert in the flu vax FLULAVAL:
"This indication is based on immune response elicited by FLULAVAL, and there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FLULAVAL."

In other words, the vaccine is effective in causing an immune response in the body, but not preventing you from getting the flu strain it's vaccinating you against.
_________________________________________________________________

Many of you may be unaware that our government has established a compensation system for those PROVEN to have been injured by a vaccine. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over $2.5 billion dollars so far. It's an incredibly adversarial program, not even subject to a jury system, with a statute of limitations of only three years for claims of injury. If vaccines are safe, why is the government paying compensation to families who've proven their childs' injury was directly caused by vax?

Wanna know how the NVIC pays that compensation? A tax is levied on every vax sold, so that the taxpaying parents of children who are vaxxed are paying into the compensation fund to pay for the care of those children who've been injured.

Many doctors believe that less than 10% of vaccine injuries are actually reported because many pediatricians and ER personnel are NOT TRAINED to identify vaccine injury.
_________________________________________________________________

Ever heard of Hannah Polling?
http://vran.org/autism/the-hannah-poling-case-the-us-government-concedes-vaccine-autism-link/
_________________________________________________________________

Did you know that of over 30 vaccines, only one ingredient (thimerosol) in one shot (MMR) has been researched for links to autism? Those vaccines contain scores of other ingredients, and the studies NEVER examined the CUMULATIVE ingredients.

What about other vaccines? The September 2009 edition of the Annals of Epidemiology included a study conducted by Carolyn Gallagher and Melody Goodman of the Graduate Program in Public Health at Stony Brook University Medical Center, NY. They concluded: "“Boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 2.94 greater odds for ASD compared to later- or unvaccinated boys. Non-Hispanic white boys were 61% less likely to have ASD.” Basically, "“Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys.”
_________________________________________________________________

I'd like to say that I never, ever saw myself as someone who wouldn't vax her own kids. I spent 10 years as an LCSW before having children and took scores of my foster kids for their physicals, where they received vax. I never questioned it. But when I was expecting my first child, I had no peace about the shots (it just seemed like way too many shots to give a newborn) and started digging for more info. I didn't WANT to find reasons NOT to vax my baby. I just wanted the truth. And the more I read and researched, the more entrenched I became...until I couldn't ignore what I'd learned.

I was exhibiting what's known as the Semmelweiss Reflex:

"The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.

The term originated from Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered that childbed fever mortality rates could be reduced ten-fold if doctors would wash their hands (we would now say disinfect) with a chlorine solution between having contact with infected patients and non-infected patients. His hand-washing suggestions were rejected by his contemporaries ."


Obviously, I'm over it.

Good for you.

 

[twinboysmom]

Svhadden, I have said my peace on this issue and hesitated to get back in here, but what makes YOU so sure that pediatricians and ER personnel are not trained to identify a vaccine injury?

Perhaps vaccines are not completely responsible for our reduction in vaccine related illnesses. However, please research how these diseases are spread. Clean water and nutrition are not going to stop a measles or polio outbreak. We had both in our country during the 40s and 50s and both were common then. Obviously vaccines have worked. We don't walk around in fear that our children are going to catch polio like my grandparents did.

As for the 2 month check up, my children did not get 6 injections. I am also quite able to read the literature in the vial and despite what you believe, thimersol is no longer in vaccines.

Since you and other anti vax people love to do "research", please explain how in areas such as the UK where vaccination is down, autism rates are on the rise?

So you don't want to vaccinate your children, fine. My children will never play or attend the same schools as yours. I hope your children never get sick. You might be surprised what kind of "killer preservatives" lurk in the IV antibiotics out there. More so, I hope that your children never infect another child with an illness that could have been prevented by a vaccine.

 

[MommyBell08]

Since you and other anti vax people love to do "research", please explain how in areas such as the UK where vaccination is down, autism rates are on the rise?

How did you come to this conclusion? Did you personally do the study? or did YOU research it? Im sure it coudnt be on the internet because that would not be legit. Correct me if im wrong, you are trying to put down the "anti vax people" because they love to research what is recommended we inject into our children's bodies before we agree to it?

 

[princessmom29]

How did you come to this conclusion? Did you personally do the study? or did YOU research it? Im sure it coudnt be on the internet because that would not be legit. Correct me if im wrong, you are trying to put down the "anti vax people" because they love to research what is recommended we inject into our children's bodies before we agree to it?

There is no "research" involved in the question posed. The rate of vacciantion in the UK along with the rate of autism diagnosis are public information. Vaccination rates have declined over the past 5 years, while rates of autism have risen. It stands to reason that the numbers should have trended together if vaccines are the major cause of autism, as many of the more radical anti-vax groups claim. It would be interesting however to see resreach done in an attempt ot discover the real root casuse for the rise in autism rates, and wether it can be attributed to better diagnostics leading to more diagnosed cases or if it is omething else.

 

[princessmom29]

For those who want more info (and the PMs tell me that there are )

The title speaks for itself:
http://www.preventdisease.com/news/...dren-In-The-Future-Will-Be-Unvaccinated.shtml

Did you know that the Merck Manual describes vaccines as "unavoidably unsafe?"
_________________________________________________________________
"I find it interesting that there exists an incredible double standard when it comes to 'our' evidence versus 'theirs'. The proponents of vaccination safety can just say they are safe, without any supporting evidence what-so-ever, and it will be accepted without question. They can announce that mercury is not only safe, but that it seems to actually increase the IQ and we are to accept it."

Russell Blaylock MD, Neurosurgeon, 'Vaccines, Neurodevelopmental and Autism Spectrum Disorders'

I've found that to be overwhelmingly true in this thread...lots of denial and argument but no science to back it up.
_________________________________________________________________

The truth is that vaccines have not saved us from infectious disease.

Graphs showing that the incident rates of many of the infectious diseases we vax against were ALREADY in sharp decline before the widespread use of the vax:

http://preventdisease.com/images/usmrp1000.jpg

http://preventdisease.com/news/10/102510_vaccines_did_not_save_us.shtml

These infectious disease rates are easily available on the CDC website.

Ever wonder why scarlet fever is so rarely heard of these days, despite having been much more common years ago? We don't vax against it. So what happened? Natural disease cycles, better access to clean water, better nutrition, and a greater understanding of epidemiology have all contributed. Not a vaccine.
_________________________________________________________________

Just how often to vaccinated people get sick with the diseases they've been vaccinated against?
http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Diseases-In-The-Vaccinated


So I would ask, could anyone please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

Consider this:
"Official data have shown that the large-scale vaccinations undertaken in the US have failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection." Dr A. Sabin, developer of the Oral Polio vaccine (lecture to Italian doctors in Piacenza, Italy, December 7th 1985)

The following quote is taken directly from the package insert in the flu vax FLULAVAL:
"This indication is based on immune response elicited by FLULAVAL, and there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FLULAVAL."

In other words, the vaccine is effective in causing an immune response in the body, but not preventing you from getting the flu strain it's vaccinating you against.
_________________________________________________________________

Many of you may be unaware that our government has established a compensation system for those PROVEN to have been injured by a vaccine. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over $2.5 billion dollars so far. It's an incredibly adversarial program, not even subject to a jury system, with a statute of limitations of only three years for claims of injury. If vaccines are safe, why is the government paying compensation to families who've proven their childs' injury was directly caused by vax?

Wanna know how the NVIC pays that compensation? A tax is levied on every vax sold, so that the taxpaying parents of children who are vaxxed are paying into the compensation fund to pay for the care of those children who've been injured.

Many doctors believe that less than 10% of vaccine injuries are actually reported because many pediatricians and ER personnel are NOT TRAINED to identify vaccine injury.
_________________________________________________________________

Ever heard of Hannah Polling?
http://vran.org/autism/the-hannah-poling-case-the-us-government-concedes-vaccine-autism-link/
_________________________________________________________________

Did you know that of over 30 vaccines, only one ingredient (thimerosol) in one shot (MMR) has been researched for links to autism? Those vaccines contain scores of other ingredients, and the studies NEVER examined the CUMULATIVE ingredients.

What about other vaccines? The September 2009 edition of the Annals of Epidemiology included a study conducted by Carolyn Gallagher and Melody Goodman of the Graduate Program in Public Health at Stony Brook University Medical Center, NY. They concluded: "“Boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 2.94 greater odds for ASD compared to later- or unvaccinated boys. Non-Hispanic white boys were 61% less likely to have ASD.” Basically, "“Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys.”
_________________________________________________________________

I'd like to say that I never, ever saw myself as someone who wouldn't vax her own kids. I spent 10 years as an LCSW before having children and took scores of my foster kids for their physicals, where they received vax. I never questioned it. But when I was expecting my first child, I had no peace about the shots (it just seemed like way too many shots to give a newborn) and started digging for more info. I didn't WANT to find reasons NOT to vax my baby. I just wanted the truth. And the more I read and researched, the more entrenched I became...until I couldn't ignore what I'd learned.

I was exhibiting what's known as the Semmelweiss Reflex:

"The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.

The term originated from Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered that childbed fever mortality rates could be reduced ten-fold if doctors would wash their hands (we would now say disinfect) with a chlorine solution between having contact with infected patients and non-infected patients. His hand-washing suggestions were rejected by his contemporaries ."


Obviously, I'm over it.

Personally, I am not rejecting infomation just bacuse it is new. I choose to consdier the source, and the sources for much of what you are quoting here are questionable at best. I would caution people to really research the people spouting this stuff before you buy into it, and understand exactly what their postion is. ithink you will be suprised where the money fdor some of these websites is coming form and who is paying many of these "medical professionals" for thier statements. A lot of people are lead astray by those well paid by ati-vaccimne groups, competing pharm companies, ect. These people are often nothing more than paid endorsers for particular viewpoints. You really have to be careful where your information is coming from.

I would still challenge you to show me just one reputible study that can prove pervasive harm done to actual children by a vaccine component. In all the years vaccines have been given, I am not aware of a single study that proves a vaccine component to be pervasively harmful as delivered in a vaccine.

Chicken pox vaccine is actually a great example of a vaccine reducing the incidence of disease. Think back to when we were kids. Everyone got chicken pox, everyone. I don't know of a single child in DD's school who had it last year, and we would know vwcuase trhe school nurse sends home a note anytime there is a case of pox, lice, or strep in the school. Seems pretty clear cut to me. I will look into the national data.

 

[twinboysmom]

How did you come to this conclusion? Did you personally do the study? or did YOU research it? Im sure it coudnt be on the internet because that would not be legit. Correct me if im wrong, you are trying to put down the "anti vax people" because they love to research what is recommended we inject into our children's bodies before we agree to it?

Nope, I sure didn't do the study myself. Where I first heard about it? Not the Internet for sure. I would guess one of my nursing journals although I do read some of the physician journals at work from time time. Honestly, I say with no sarcasm, have you not heard of this? It was a big deal and all over the news for a while.

I will correct you for being wrong as you asked. I take no issue with any parent doing research before putting something into their children's body. I took issue with your sources of information. I take issue with another poster insisting that chemicals are still used in vaccines that are no longer included. I do some research on the Internet. The problem I have with the Internet is that it is very easy to take information off of the Internet that is opinion that really is presented in a way as to make most people view it as factual information. Obviously, you and I will not agree on this.

 

[MommyBell08]

Nope, I sure didn't do the study myself. Where I first heard about it? Not the Internet for sure. I would guess one of my nursing journals although I do read some of the physician journals at work from time time. Honestly, I say with no sarcasm, have you not heard of this? It was a big deal and all over the news for a while.

I will correct you for being wrong as you asked. I take no issue with any parent doing research before putting something into their children's body. I took issue with your sources of information. I take issue with another poster insisting that chemicals are still used in vaccines that are no longer included. I do some research on the Internet. The problem I have with the Internet is that it is very easy to take information off of the Internet that is opinion that really is presented in a way as to make most people view it as factual information. Obviously, you and I will not agree on this.

Well its clear that only people that vaccinate on schedule, have the ability to distinguish fact from opinion on the internet.

 

[twinboysmom]

Well its clear that only people that vaccinate on schedule, have the ability to distinguish fact from opinion on the internet.

Nope, not what I said but if you feel the need to draw that conclusion, go for it. The research I do on the Internet is not vaccine related, maybe I should make that clear. As princessmom pointed out, you have to do your research to be clear on what people's motives, background, etc is. I don't usually like to take the time to do that. For vaccine info, I research via medical journals and books (but I do research the authors before reading). Honestly, I cringe when I vaccinate my boys but do so because the risk for disease is by far greater and by far a much bigger risk.

 

[MommyBell08]

Nope, not what I said but if you feel the need to draw that conclusion, go for it. The research I do on the Internet is not vaccine related, maybe I should make that clear. As princessmom pointed out, you have to do your research to be clear on what people's motives, background, etc is. I don't usually like to take the time to do that. For vaccine info, I research via medical journals and books (but I do research the authors before reading). Honestly, I cringe when I vaccinate my boys but do so because the risk for disease is by far greater and by far a much bigger risk.

I am sorry. I dont mean to be rude to you. I just dont like when people act like information on the internet is all a joke. In some cases it is the exact information you will find in another source, just more readily available. Links that some people find to be creditable sources, like the CDC, are on the internet posting information that people refer too. I think we are all in agreement that we have to consider the source of our information, no matter where we get it. I would like to just note, that goes for everyone we get any information from.

 

[twinboysmom]

I am sorry. I dont mean to be rude to you. I just dont like when people act like information on the internet is all a joke. In some cases it is the exact information you will find in another source, just more readily available. Links that some people find to be creditable sources, like the CDC, are on the internet posting information that people refer too. I think we are all in agreement that we have to consider the source of our information, no matter where we get it. I would like to just note, that goes for everyone we get any information from.

I agree. And you weren't rude. Just trying to get your point across.

 

[MommyBell08]

I agree. And you weren't rude. Just trying to get your point across.

Thanks

 

[Bonnie151]

The truth is that vaccines have not saved us from infectious disease.

Graphs showing that the incident rates of many of the infectious diseases we vax against were ALREADY in sharp decline before the widespread use of the vax...


...Ever wonder why scarlet fever is so rarely heard of these days, despite having been much more common years ago? We don't vax against it. So what happened? Natural disease cycles, better access to clean water, better nutrition, and a greater understanding of epidemiology have all contributed. Not a vaccine....

...So I would ask, could anyone please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

I've edited out part of your post for brevity...

If you believe that vaccinations don't reduce the incidence of diseases, then how do you explain the fact that where MMR uptake has declined, the incidence of diseases has been on the rise? Reported just today is the fact that UK measles rates have nearly tripled over the past year and I think it's been fairly well established that our MMR rates have been dropping since the (now discredited) Wakefield claims: http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/warning_as_measles_cases_surge_1_1990879

Or compare chicken pox rates in the US (vax routinely offered) to the UK (vax not routinely offered)? Rates in the US have seen a sharp decline whereas it is still a fairly-certain-to-be-guaranteed-for-your-child illness here?