Customer Discussions > Health forum

Unvaccinated children/adults health history

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 6076-6100 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 3:26:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012 9:24:38 PM PDT
apriljeff says:
Then go have a nice big bowl of bone broth. Maybe you can't afford meat...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 3:37:44 PM PDT
apriljeff says:
It's common sense they point that out since breastmilk is the original babies' milk...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 3:40:17 PM PDT
apriljeff says:
That has nothing to do with my reply to duhdonna.. You should not have to give your young children supplements...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 3:53:17 PM PDT
apriljeff says:
Just bring the good stuff!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 5:03:18 PM PDT
Prescribes you "HAPPY O's"
for breakfast.

If you are grumpy, you lower
your immune system's ability
to ward off the meanie's.

Posted on Jun 23, 2012 6:51:46 PM PDT
Amy Larsen says:
I'm 55 years old and wasn't vaccinated due to my parents are Christian Scientists. I've always been very healthy. The only problem has been my gall bladder and it had to be removed. As a child I had chicken pox and whooping cough but lived through it. I don't even think about my unvaccinated status. It's just the way our family is.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 7:35:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012 7:37:26 PM PDT
Amanda said: "Many, many women get the rubella vaccine during pregnancy (and, ironically, in some cases their babies are affected same as they would with have been had the mother gotten rubella) and have for many years."

No, the MMR vaccine (which includes rubella vaccine) is not given to women known to be pregnant, and it is also untrue that "their babies are affected".

"Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and its component vaccines should not be administered to women known to be pregnant. Because a risk to the fetus from administration of these live virus vaccines cannot be excluded for theoretical reasons, women should be counseled to avoid becoming pregnant for 28 days after vaccination with measles or mumps vaccines or MMR or other rubella-containing vaccines.
Because of the importance of protecting women of childbearing age against rubella and varicella, reasonable practices in any vaccination program include asking women if they are pregnant or might become pregnant in the next 4 weeks; not vaccinating women who state that they are or plan to become pregnant; explaining the theoretical risk for the fetus of MMR, varicella, or MMRV vaccine were administered to a woman who is pregnant; and counseling women who are vaccinated not to become pregnant during the 4 weeks after MMR, varicella, or MMRV vaccination. . . .
A registry of susceptible women vaccinated with rubella vaccine between 3 months before and 3 months after conception - the "Vaccine in Pregnancy (VIP) Registry" - was kept between 1971 and 1989. No evidence of (congenital rubella syndrome) occurred in the offspring of the 226 women who received the current RA 27/3 rubella vaccine and continued their pregnancy to term."

Thanks to rubella vaccination, there no longer is substantial risk of pregnant women contracting the disease from sick children and suffering miscarriages or having their babies born with severe birth defects.

"During the 1962--1965 worldwide rubella epidemic, an estimated 12.5 million cases of rubella occurred in the United States, resulting in 2,000 cases of encephalitis, 11,250 fetal deaths, 2,100 neonatal deaths, and 20,000 infants born with (congenital rubella syndrome (CRS)), a constellation of birth defects that often includes blindness, deafness, and congenital heart defects. The economic impact of this epidemic in the United States was estimated at $1.5 billion. The global epidemic spurred development of rubella vaccines and emphasized the need to develop and implement strategies for using these vaccines to prevent this devastating health burden..."

"In 1969, live, attenuated rubella vaccines were first licensed in the United States...
By 1979, rubella vaccination had eliminated the characteristic 6--9 year epidemic cycle of rubella in the United States...During the 1980s, the number of reported rubella cases continued to decline steadily, and overall incidence continued to decrease in all age groups. By 1983, the 1990 objectives already had been achieved, with 970 rubella cases and four CRS cases reported...
In 1989, a goal was established to eliminate indigenous rubella transmission and CRS in the United States by 2000 (21). In 1990, recommendations included a new 2-dose schedule...
Since 2001, the annual numbers of rubella cases have been the lowest ever recorded in the United States: 23 in 2001, 18 in 2002, seven in 2003, and nine in 2004. Approximately half of these cases have occurred among persons born outside the United States, of whom most were born outside the Western Hemisphere. During 2001--2004, four CRS cases were reported to CDC; the mothers of three of the children were born outside the United States...Low numbers of cases and geographic and temporal distribution of cases support the conclusion that rubella is no longer endemic in the United States."

This is another tremendous achievement of mass immunization.

Amanda: "They also heavily pushed the H1N1 vaccine on pregnant women, and thousands of women reported losing their babies within days. Coincidence? we'll never know."

Complete bull? That we _do_ know.

"During the 2009 and 2010 flu seasons, millions of pregnant women received the vaccine against swine flu, or H1N1 influenza, yet but less than 300 possible complications were reported to a national database."

"...Compared with women of the same age who aren't pregnant, expecting mothers are more likely to become seriously ill from a flu infection and need hospitalization."

"According to the CDC, pregnant women accounted for one in 20 deaths from H1N1 influenza in 2009. By comparison, only one in 100 was pregnant in the population."

"The latest findings stem from data submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a vaccine-safety surveillance system run by the federal government. It allows anyone -- including doctors, vaccine makers and patients -- to report health problems that arise after a vaccination."

"The system helps health officials spot new, unusual side effects, although with the caveat that the reported problems are not necessarily caused by vaccination."

"Last year, a survey of reports to the VAERS found no unusual complications among pregnant women who've received the vaccine in the past 20 years."

"In the latest report, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, researchers at the CDC and Food and Drug Administration reviewed health problems reported following the swine flu vaccine. Again, they found nothing unusual."

"We found no patterns suggesting a safety concern for the mother or the baby," (study author Dr. Pedro) Moro said in an e-mail."

Amanda, why do you post antivax misinformation when the true facts are so easy to ascertain?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 9:14:22 PM PDT
apriljeff says:
I'm never grumpy lol

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 9:28:06 PM PDT
apriljeff says:
You really don't appear mature enough to be giving birth

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 9:32:51 PM PDT
cmahoney says:
Hi Lesli

I'm 55, vaccinated (over the years for school and tropical travel, flu, hep B and pneumonia) and am fine. I do work face to face with very ill patients and before my pneumonia vax, I had pneumonia 4 x and I am pretty hardy normally. I finally ditched the theory that I had to wait til I was sixty five or not at all and risk my lungs to chronic pnuemonia scarring. I haven't had a cold since and that was 5 yrs ago. I wouldn't want smallpox or polio to come back (I had to take all those too in the past) and rue the day there are no vax's for our kids.

Posted on Jun 23, 2012 9:48:33 PM PDT
cmahoney says:
A lot depends on genetics. A lot depends on hygiene. A lot depends on old bacteria coming back to life. A lot literally depends on how the wind blows and what the birds flying from here to there drop on our fields, air, in our water then into us. A lot depends on what animals pick up bugs that harbor bacteria that are harmful to life (ie the plague, CJD, hanta virus etc), and for me, not only do I want to be healthy but I don't want to be a Typhoon Mary. Also, a lot depends on personal immunity (what age does that get figured out??), luck, handwashing and staying away from sick people.

Posted on Jun 24, 2012 1:48:15 PM PDT
DeDona says:
Merck is sued by former virologist employees for deliberately falsifying mumps vaccine efficacy studies.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 1:53:10 PM PDT
DeDona says:
Says the mom with the sick kids. Do your kids a favor and educate yourself on proper nutrition. Here's a tip. Research Tenpenny.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 1:58:07 PM PDT
DeDona says:
They point it out because they know breastmilk is far superior then formula. Every person in the world including conventional doctors know that. You're the only one in this planet that doesn't get it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 2:04:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 24, 2012 2:07:51 PM PDT
DeDona says:
Please do try to save your "insults". You don't want to burn out your last remaining brain cell.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 2:52:10 PM PDT
Interesting that those employees haven't worked for Merck in over 10 years. Sounds like someone needs money. Last I heard, lawsuits aren't proof of guilt. People have sued McDonalds because their coffee was hot. We'll see what evidence they had.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 3:42:10 PM PDT
DeDona says:
There could be many reasons for why these employees waited 10 years to come foward. It could be fear, guilt or anger. Many people don't come foward for 10 or 20 years when reporting a crime. Sandusky's victims didn't come foward until over 10 years later. Why? There may even be more unknown victims out there. Maybe they feel ashamed. Who knows? You shouldn't automatically assume that someone is out to make money all the time.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 3:51:40 PM PDT
Sandusky's victims didn't come forward because of embarrassment. One would think scientists would, at the very least, sue right after they stopped working there, if not right after the study itself. Clearly different motives. I've been part of many RCTs and it's virtually impossible to force multiple individuals in control of data with out someone finding out.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 7:07:50 PM PDT
apriljeff says:
Well how mature of you..

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 7:12:40 PM PDT
apriljeff says:
You appear to be the moronic one. Grow up. I can't believe you're a mother.. Minor seasonal allergies does not translate to sick.
Is that your all time fave video game?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 4:29:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 25, 2012 4:36:03 AM PDT
Stuart Boben says:
These guys from Merck are nothing compared to this guy. Check out this video series. It starts in German, but his presentation is in English so hang in there for the first couple of minutes.


In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 7:00:03 AM PDT
DeDona says:
"Sandusky's victims didn't come forward because of embarrassment. "
Noone knows for sure why they didn't come foward sooner. Not you or me.

"One would think scientists would, at the very least, sue right after they stopped working there, if not right after the study itself. "
You're speaking for yourself. Not everyone thinks that way. When I was younger, I used to work at this animal hospital in NY. The vet I worked for was absolutely horrible. He tested new drugs on the animals that were boarded for a long period of time without the owners knowledge, he used to charge the the owners a bio hazard waste fee when there were no needles used, he pretended once that he drew out blood when he had trouble finding a vein(heartworm test) and he kicked a dog in it's caged because it snapped at him. I worked there for almost 2 years and I never told anyone. The only reason I was there for so long was because of the love I had for those animals. I regret not saying anything.

You claim that the only reason why they are suing is for the money. I disagree. These scientists worked for Merck for a short time. You don't know if they quit or were fired. Stephen A Krahling is now a professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Penn State University. He might know Sandusky. Small world.

I don't see how you can accuse someone of trying to make money for trying to sue Merck when they themselves are making a ton of money by lying to the people.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 7:10:04 AM PDT
DeDona says:
No April. You're the only moron here. You come to these forums attacking everyone who has done absolutely nothing to you. I am one of the few who doesn't tolerate your BS. You are an annoying, angry, bitter person who seriously needs to seek help.

FYI. I don't believe in video games. They are one of the many reasons for childhood obesity and ADD.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 7:13:55 AM PDT
DeDona says:
Thank you Stuart. I will definitely look at these links. I probably wouldn't be surprised by what I read in this link. What's sad is when you're as rich and powerful as Merck , you can get away with everything, even murder.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 7:18:29 AM PDT
Stuart Boben says:
Your welcome, enjoy.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Health forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  819
Total posts:  7261
Initial post:  Nov 16, 2008
Latest post:  Dec 6, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 44 customers

Search Customer Discussions