BNM
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
Svhadden and mommybell, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. *Nothing I or others post is going to affect your views at this point. *No amount of quotes taken out of context or statements make by someone like Dr Blalock or his ilk are going to change my mind either. *I did look him up. *He was a neurosurgeon, who is no longer practicing, and who has published articles on the dangers of (among other things): dental fillings, sucralose, aspartame, and mammograms. *Believe me, the motivation to promote anti-vax hysteria is certainly there. *He gets WAY more media attention, speaking engagements, and publications from giving his opinion than he ever got from figuring out a new way to remove brain tumors. *All of those opportunities equal MONEY. *And the hours are better, too.
For those who ARE willing to consider actual data I suggest the following:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_timeline.html
This is an unbiased review of the work done on thimerosol and vaccine safety. *The children's vaccines containing thimerosol were discontinued at LEAST four years before my oldest was born. *If you are still not convinced read the package insert. *
A few points:
1. *Regarding influenza: *the package insert says what it says. *If you don't understand the biology of the virus or the epidemiology of influenza, you may draw false conclusions or extrapolate that other vaccines have similar properties. **No individual flu vaccine can claim to prevent all influenza. **There are millions of possible flu viruses, only a few of which are contained in vaccines. *The merits of vaccinating against influenza are another debate. *My point is, the vaccines are different because the disease agents are different. *You can't make blanket statements about all vaccines being ineffective because H1N1 flu vaccine, for example, doesn't confer immunity to every flu virus out there.
2. *The statement from Dr. Sabin has been widely quoted, and re-quoted, and re-re-quoted on the Internet. *Interestingly, the context of this statement is not to be found. *The statement is just bizarre. *It is awkwardly worded (what does that mean, "significant improvement of the diseases"?) and inconsistent with his life's work. *It is also from 1985, which should tell you a lot. *This tendency to quote the same source over and over again is something you will run into *FREQUENTLY with even a cursory glance at some of these websites.
3. *You obviously feel passionately about this issue, and have put a lot of thought into it, and there is nothing wrong with that. *But you lost quite a bit of credibility with me when you ask for scientific evidence that ANY vaccination program, at ANY time, has resulted in a reduction in disease. *I mean, get real! *Looking for evidence of such a thing is like looking for evidence that viruses even exist. *You can't see them, and all of the research out there could have been fabricated to make scientists rich and famous, right? *
Vaccines prevent disease. *Smallpox no longer exists. *Polio is gone from this country. *Where people are vaccinated for tetanus, the disease is almost unknown. *I could go on, but what's the point? *Maybe we shouldn't vaccinate dogs for rabies, either. *If you truly believe vaccines don't prevent disease, you should stop reading now, because there is nothing out there that will change your mind....your distrust of the scientific community is so firmly entrenched that no amount of reading will make a difference.
4. ***I would argue that, if you look into ANY drug, medical procedure, or diagnostic test you will find LOTS of information. *You always need to consider the source and context. **Many people will claim to have been harmed by ANY aspect of modern medicine. *Many will promote their point of view through creative interpretation of the literature. *Many will have received settlements from drug companies or similar. *For any drug you take, there is a list of possible side effects as long as my arm. *Unless you're going to swear off modern medicine entirely, you will have to accept that there are certain risks and that many, many, interventions that are routinely performed whose use ISN'T supported by years of research and millions of successful outcomes. *No amount of research can anticipate every possible adverse event that might occur. *We are talking about biological systems here. *There will always be way more chatter about the negative effects of an intervention, than the positive. *Newspaper and magazine articles' purpose is to sell newspapers and magazines. *These articles and opinions should not determine policy.
5. *A simple literature search will yield dozens of actual retrospective case studies proving the safety and efficacy of vaccines. **This in itself is somewhat surprising, since findings supporting vaccine safety aren't new and exciting, and won't get nearly the same attention as some single statements of opinion have. Most doctors, seeing an article that finds 1800 doses of flu vaccine *were given without significant problems, will think: "so what? *Tell me something I don't know.". There is a difference between a case study and viewpoints published in the "Letters" sections of journals. *The latter do not merit the same consideration as the former. *Articles in USA Today, natural health magazines, and similar can be thought provoking, and some are doubtless well written, but most of those quoted have ZERO scientific evidence to back them up.
6. *I have my children's best interests at heart. *But honestly, there is only so much research one can do. *Vaccines are a rare event in their lives. **There are millions of factors that influence their well being, that affect them daily. *The chance that they might be affected by a vaccine that has been given tens of millions of times without incident is just not worth worrying that much about, IMO. *My time is better spent researching snow tires, to increase their chances of surviving the drive home, or car seats, or pesticide residues in food, or the best way to monitor my home for radon and carbon monoxide, or millions of other exposures and risks that affect them daily. *I commend you for doing everything you can to minimize your family's exposure to toxins, and *I strive to do the same....but I still have a long way to go. *We eat as much local, organic food as we can, but I'm sure I could do better. *I got rid of all the plastic dishes containing BPA that we had. *We live in the country, in a safe area. *We test our well water regularly, etc, etc. *But, there are so many things I could still do to increase the heath of my kids. *Why focus on eliminating a theoretical risk, when doing so will risk *contracting a fatal or debilitating infectious disease? *Why not focus my efforts on all the other risks they face that are so much more significant?
I'm going to have to sign off on this discussion, as it has become a huge time suck. *But thank you, sincerely, for the reasoned and thought provoking discussion.
It's Christmas, and it's a time for enjoying being with family and friends, not hunkering over one's iPad for hours. *I'm thankful for everything I have, and realize that there are millions of moms in this world who would give anything to trade places with me. *I don't have to wonder where my kids' next meals are coming from. *My family has access to appropriate health care that we can afford. *My kids are healthy and I don't have to live in fear that they will wake up one morning paralyzed due to polio, or die from a puncture wound. *I hope I never take that for granted.
For those who ARE willing to consider actual data I suggest the following:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_timeline.html
This is an unbiased review of the work done on thimerosol and vaccine safety. *The children's vaccines containing thimerosol were discontinued at LEAST four years before my oldest was born. *If you are still not convinced read the package insert. *
A few points:
1. *Regarding influenza: *the package insert says what it says. *If you don't understand the biology of the virus or the epidemiology of influenza, you may draw false conclusions or extrapolate that other vaccines have similar properties. **No individual flu vaccine can claim to prevent all influenza. **There are millions of possible flu viruses, only a few of which are contained in vaccines. *The merits of vaccinating against influenza are another debate. *My point is, the vaccines are different because the disease agents are different. *You can't make blanket statements about all vaccines being ineffective because H1N1 flu vaccine, for example, doesn't confer immunity to every flu virus out there.
2. *The statement from Dr. Sabin has been widely quoted, and re-quoted, and re-re-quoted on the Internet. *Interestingly, the context of this statement is not to be found. *The statement is just bizarre. *It is awkwardly worded (what does that mean, "significant improvement of the diseases"?) and inconsistent with his life's work. *It is also from 1985, which should tell you a lot. *This tendency to quote the same source over and over again is something you will run into *FREQUENTLY with even a cursory glance at some of these websites.
3. *You obviously feel passionately about this issue, and have put a lot of thought into it, and there is nothing wrong with that. *But you lost quite a bit of credibility with me when you ask for scientific evidence that ANY vaccination program, at ANY time, has resulted in a reduction in disease. *I mean, get real! *Looking for evidence of such a thing is like looking for evidence that viruses even exist. *You can't see them, and all of the research out there could have been fabricated to make scientists rich and famous, right? *
Vaccines prevent disease. *Smallpox no longer exists. *Polio is gone from this country. *Where people are vaccinated for tetanus, the disease is almost unknown. *I could go on, but what's the point? *Maybe we shouldn't vaccinate dogs for rabies, either. *If you truly believe vaccines don't prevent disease, you should stop reading now, because there is nothing out there that will change your mind....your distrust of the scientific community is so firmly entrenched that no amount of reading will make a difference.
4. ***I would argue that, if you look into ANY drug, medical procedure, or diagnostic test you will find LOTS of information. *You always need to consider the source and context. **Many people will claim to have been harmed by ANY aspect of modern medicine. *Many will promote their point of view through creative interpretation of the literature. *Many will have received settlements from drug companies or similar. *For any drug you take, there is a list of possible side effects as long as my arm. *Unless you're going to swear off modern medicine entirely, you will have to accept that there are certain risks and that many, many, interventions that are routinely performed whose use ISN'T supported by years of research and millions of successful outcomes. *No amount of research can anticipate every possible adverse event that might occur. *We are talking about biological systems here. *There will always be way more chatter about the negative effects of an intervention, than the positive. *Newspaper and magazine articles' purpose is to sell newspapers and magazines. *These articles and opinions should not determine policy.
5. *A simple literature search will yield dozens of actual retrospective case studies proving the safety and efficacy of vaccines. **This in itself is somewhat surprising, since findings supporting vaccine safety aren't new and exciting, and won't get nearly the same attention as some single statements of opinion have. Most doctors, seeing an article that finds 1800 doses of flu vaccine *were given without significant problems, will think: "so what? *Tell me something I don't know.". There is a difference between a case study and viewpoints published in the "Letters" sections of journals. *The latter do not merit the same consideration as the former. *Articles in USA Today, natural health magazines, and similar can be thought provoking, and some are doubtless well written, but most of those quoted have ZERO scientific evidence to back them up.
6. *I have my children's best interests at heart. *But honestly, there is only so much research one can do. *Vaccines are a rare event in their lives. **There are millions of factors that influence their well being, that affect them daily. *The chance that they might be affected by a vaccine that has been given tens of millions of times without incident is just not worth worrying that much about, IMO. *My time is better spent researching snow tires, to increase their chances of surviving the drive home, or car seats, or pesticide residues in food, or the best way to monitor my home for radon and carbon monoxide, or millions of other exposures and risks that affect them daily. *I commend you for doing everything you can to minimize your family's exposure to toxins, and *I strive to do the same....but I still have a long way to go. *We eat as much local, organic food as we can, but I'm sure I could do better. *I got rid of all the plastic dishes containing BPA that we had. *We live in the country, in a safe area. *We test our well water regularly, etc, etc. *But, there are so many things I could still do to increase the heath of my kids. *Why focus on eliminating a theoretical risk, when doing so will risk *contracting a fatal or debilitating infectious disease? *Why not focus my efforts on all the other risks they face that are so much more significant?
I'm going to have to sign off on this discussion, as it has become a huge time suck. *But thank you, sincerely, for the reasoned and thought provoking discussion.
It's Christmas, and it's a time for enjoying being with family and friends, not hunkering over one's iPad for hours. *I'm thankful for everything I have, and realize that there are millions of moms in this world who would give anything to trade places with me. *I don't have to wonder where my kids' next meals are coming from. *My family has access to appropriate health care that we can afford. *My kids are healthy and I don't have to live in fear that they will wake up one morning paralyzed due to polio, or die from a puncture wound. *I hope I never take that for granted.
. 
. That's great, too. I've heard from more than one parent, in PMs, who are eager for more information, and just want a place to start, or who wouldn't post on this thread for fear of being tarred and feathered. Obviously, that's not a concern of mine 
. I said before, education relieves fear.
