Customer Discussions > Health forum

Unvaccinated children/adults health history


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 6951-6975 of 7258 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2012 6:10:39 PM PDT
I think it bears also mentioning that your two unvaxed were also the youngest and the most "at risk" of disease complications, according to mainstreamers. ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2012 6:13:16 PM PDT
Tasha David says:
Thanks Amanda :)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2012 6:47:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 15, 2012 7:49:33 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
Annatasha (on the DTP vaccine):

"If this is safety, who needs danger?"

The study you are quoting 1) refers to DTP vaccination in Africa after BCG vaccination (a vaccine for TB not routinely given in Western countries), and 2) is contradicted by the results of multiple other studies, including this one:

"Vaccination of children in Burkina Faso with BCG and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis was associated with improved survival before 24 months. These effects remained unchanged when analyses were controlled for potential confounders, and were similar for both sexes."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534835

The other study that you quote does not conclude that DTP vaccination should not be given to African children, but calls for randomized studies to determine the true effect on survival.
The conflicting evidence illustrates the difficulty in matching up groups of children in doing retrospective studies (of the type that antivaxers demand).

"we subject and coerce generations of children to get these vaccines without even knowing if it will protect them from the diseases"

The massive decline in vaccine-preventable diseases after the introduction of vaccines is ample evidence of their protective effect, no matter how often antivaxers' denial is repeated. To look just at Africa, there's been a 60% drop in measles mortality in recent years after expanded efforts to protect more kids through vaccination.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

"Once again no surprises here on your take (on Tetyana Obukhanych), oops..I mean a skeptic website blogger's take that you use instead of forming your own opinions. I guess it takes a lot of effort to form ones own ideas?"

How exactly is the Immunisation Advisory Centre of the University of Auckland a "skeptic website"? That's the one I quoted on the long-lived nature of immunity to diseases provided by live attenuated viral vaccines (contradicting the claims of Obukhanych). Speaking of other bogus claims by Obukhanych, she argues in one of her interviews (reproduced on whale.to*) that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines work by "killing" cells. This is another idiotic, unsupportable claim. While we still do not know precisely how aluminum adjuvant works to boost immunity, the most likely explanations involve different mechanisms entirely. For example:

"Eighty years after adjuvants were first used to boost the effectiveness of vaccines, researchers at National Jewish Medical and Research Center have finally begun to understand how they work. They report in the June 18 issue of Science that the most common adjuvant, alum, provokes a previously unrecognized group of immune-system cells to secrete the protein interleukin-4, which primes B cells for a better response to the vaccine."

"Adjuvants have been included in vaccines given to hundreds of millions of people for decades," said Michael Jordan, M.D., co-lead author and researcher at National Jewish. "These findings give us new insight into how they boost the immune response to a vaccine."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/9615.php

Hint: Medical News Today is not a "skeptical blog", nor is the research described in it the work of "skeptics".

"Here I was under the impression that you believed that we should listen to people that are qualified to make these statements, but then again even Nobel Peace Prize winners are not worthy in your world, unless they tow the line of course?"

Again we see the fascination amongst antivax and other woo-promoters with titles, instead of paying attention to what is being said and what the scientific backing for the statements is. Regarding victims of the "Nobel disease" (former Prize winners who've disgraced themselves by promoting homeopathy, AIDS denialism, racist sentiments etc.), these are people who've diminished their reputations by promoting useless and/or harmful nonsense that largely or completely falls outside their fields of expertise. Obukanych I described as "supposedly" a trained immunologist, since she apparently failed to absorb critical elements of her training and appears proud of the fact. If one is going to reject evidence and teachings overwhelmingly accepted by others in one's profession, it is essential to present work that backs up that "maverick" status - but I don't see that Obukhanych has done that. Her interviews are laced with claims and vague conspiratorial references, but hard evidence is omitted. And instead of conducting her own research, according to her website** she's holding private classes (reportedly for $30 a head) to promote her views. No affiliation with a research institution, no independent work described.

*When a loony conspiracy-laden website like whale.to (which also includes claims that we are being controlled by reptile aliens) promotes a person's theories, it might be a clue that we should take a hard look at those theories, instead of swallowing them whole because they confirm our own prejudices.

**Obukhanych's website is a (gasp) blog. All those here who've expressed contempt for blogs will have to dismiss everything she says on that basis alone. ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2012 10:15:12 AM PDT
Just two quick notes.
1) MMS (miracle mineral solution) is BLEACH. Check the ingredients listed on their website vs the ingredients on the back of clorox (or any other bleach product). Bleach can be used to sterilize water safely but it's definitely not a treatment for anything
2) I would LOVE to see any data showing that nutritional intake can provide immunity to viruses.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2012 10:49:43 AM PDT
I admit there's an issue. However there is no evidence that vaccines are the reason for a rise in autism. What don't you understand about that?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2012 10:50:30 AM PDT
"Yeah? And? Where in that statement did I say not to go to Sloan, not to do do conventional treatments or gave any medical advice?"

So even though you stated that SK is a joke, you'd still recommend it? How does that make sense?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2012 7:46:06 PM PDT
Tasha David says:
Andrew says "The study you are quoting 1) refers to DTP vaccination in Africa after BCG vaccination (a vaccine for TB not routinely given in Western countries), and 2) is contradicted by the results of multiple other studies, including this one:"

The study you link to is done in 2004, Dr Aaby's study was done in 2011 and then followed up by this one in 2012..

"RESULTS:

In the first study, DTP had negative effects on survival in contrast to the beneficial effects of BCG and MV. This pattern was repeated in the six other studies available. Second, the two 'natural experiments' found significantly higher mortality for DTP-vaccinated compared with DTP-unvaccinated children. Third, the female-male mortality ratio was increased after DTP in all nine studies; in contrast, the ratio was decreased after BCG and MV in all studies. Fourth, the increased female mortality associated with high-titre measles vaccine was found only among children who had received DTP after high-titre measles vaccine. Fifth, in six randomised trials of early MV, female but not male mortality was increased if DTP was likely to be given after MV. Sixth, the mortality rate declined markedly for girls but not for boys when DTP-vaccinated children received MV. The authors reduced exposure to DTP as most recent vaccination by administering a live vaccine (MV and BCG) shortly after DTP. Both trials reduced child mortality.

CONCLUSIONS:
These observations are incompatible with DTP merely protecting against the targeted diseases. With herd immunity to whooping cough, DTP is associated with higher mortality for girls. Randomised studies of DTP are warranted to measure the true impact on survival."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22619263

Andrew says "The massive decline in vaccine-preventable diseases after the introduction of vaccines is ample evidence of their protective effect, no matter how often antivaxers' denial is repeated. To look just at Africa, there's been a 60% drop in measles mortality in recent years after expanded efforts to protect more kids through vaccination."

The key to your numbers is estimates, not real numbers, as Dr Shibuya outlines here...

"Unfortunately, the MDG monitoring process relies heavily on predicted statistics.

The same applies to monitoring progress in major disease interventions. For example, the assessment of a recent change in measles mortality from vaccination is mostly based on statistics predicted from a set of covariates such as the number of live births, vaccine coverage, vaccine effectiveness and case-fatality ratios.4 It is understandable that estimating causes of death over time is a difficult task. However, that is no reason for us to avoid measuring it when we can also measure the quantity of interest directly;5 otherwise the global health community would continue to monitor progress on a spreadsheet with limited empirical basis. This is simply not acceptable."

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/6/07-042887/en/index.html

Andrew says "How exactly is the Immunisation Advisory Centre of the University of Auckland a "skeptic website"?"

You must try harder to remember which links you post, I was referring to this one...

http://biologyfiles.fieldofscience.com/2012/01/what-makes-expert-dangerous.html

I have no problems with people reading blogs, but I have a problem with people putting them forward as solid proof of the validity of their statements, or in your case basing your statements on what you read there.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2012 7:51:02 PM PDT
Tasha David says:
Andrew says "Speaking of other bogus claims by Obukhanych, she argues in one of her interviews (reproduced on whale.to*) that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines work by "killing" cells."

I have not seen her say this, she says that aluminum adjuvants can lead to sensitization and even provided studies where animals given alum at the same time as certain foods became allergic to them.

Even in your medical news story it says that after 80 years they still don't understand completely how aluminium adjuvants work, yet you say that all the studies of safety and efficacy have been done, how can they be done if they don't even fully understand how the adjuvants work?

And let's not forget Dr Tomljenovich and Dr Shaw's work on the dangers of aluminum adjuvants

"Abstract

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science's understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 4:24:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012 4:30:48 AM PDT
""Mike Adams "The Health Ranger" takes on Michael Wasson's employer."

A. I do not work for Pfizer.
B. This is the same guy that claimed flesh-eating zombies' were the result of nutritional deficiencies a few weeks ago, wasn't he?
C. Since he starts off his ärticle"with a incorrect DEFINITION of vitamins, I will take his opinions with a grain of salt.
D. Most of that article is not only complete and utter garbage, it also contradicts many alt med arguments.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 5:35:08 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012 5:37:37 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
Annatasha: "I have not seen (Obukhanych say that aluminuum adjuvant in vaccines works by killing cells), she says that aluminum adjuvants can lead to sensitization"

Obukhanych: "It appears that alum's adjuvant effect depends on its ability to kill cells, its "cytotoxic" property."

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/06/20/an-interview-with-
research-immunologist-tetyana-obukhanych-phd-part-2

And as we've seen, proposed mechanisms for how this adjuvant works to improve immune response to vaccines do _not_ rely on "killing cells" - just one example of Obukhanych not comprehending what's going on in the field of immunology.

"I have no problems with people reading blogs, but I have a problem with people putting them forward as solid proof of the validity of their statements, or in your case basing your statements on what you read there."

You got caught (as at least one other antivaxer has) claiming that I rely on blogs for evidence, when the post you were attacking also contained data from the Immunisation Advisory Centre of the University of Auckland, clearly not a blog. And you haven't explained why you put faith in Tetyana Obukhanych, who apparently conducts no research to back up her claims, has no university or other research affiliation and whose web presence consists of a blog.
The blog thing that antivaxers yelp about is a red herring, meant to obscure the glaring lack of evidence for their claims and representing their typical assault on a source instead of paying attention to what it says (antivaxers' mirror-image ploy is to worship a source who speaks to their prejudices because that source has a PhD or won an award, ignoring whether there are grounds for what that source is saying). I again call your attention to the conclusion of the authors of the paper you cite on DTP, who do not call for stopping this valuable vaccine, do not claim their results on a retrospective study are definitive, and say "Randomised studies of DTP are warranted to measure the true impact on survival." (i.e., in this particular population of African children).

Lastly, the chemistry journal article you cite on aluminum adjuvant in vaccines (the abstract of which contains a telling bit of antivax nonsense about overestimating the value of vaccines), contains numerous defects and unjustified assumptions which have been analyzed here:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/08/and-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-decr

(try not to shriek "it's a blog!" and instead see if you can refute the points made in this researcher's article) or otherwise defend what the original report claims.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 8:47:08 AM PDT
Debbie says:
I have 3 kids and decided late in the game not to vaccinate. So, my 23 year old daughter had all vaccinations up to the ones they get just before entering first grade (didn't receive those), my 16 year son had one vaccination they twisted my arm to give him in the hospital (for the disease that mainly drug users get), and my 13 year old daughter has not had any vaccinations. My older daughter has mild asthma symptoms and severe allergies requiring daily zyrtecD. My son has occasional mild allergy symptoms, and has been extremely healthy all his life (few dr. visits, rarely gets colds or viruses, no cavities etc. His friends tease him that he's "superman".). My younger daughter has mild occasional allergies, but does catch colds/viruses more often than my son. My son tends to prefer a higher protein diet and low-sugar, on his own, while my daughters both prefer higher carbs and higher sugar diets. All three have a familial tendency towards dyslexia. We homeschool and never used daycare or childcare other than grandparents and church, so the kids haven't been in large groups on a daily basis. If they got sick, it was usually after being at church on Sunday or Wed. night! We give them vitamins, garlic capsules for occasional earaches, and mostly healthy food, but we're not extremists about any of it, just try to do our best. My concerns were mainly about the mercury in the vaccines, a known brain toxin, as well as live cell versions that sometimes cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. You can supposedly now get mercury free (no thymerisol) vaccines and dead cell only vaccines, but I have some trust issues with companies who seem to do bad things until enough people are hurt that an uproar occurs. My kids have not had any childhood diseases, except for mild cases of roseola (2/3) and chicken pox (1/3). That's not to say it can't/won't happen, or that I won't feel guilty if it does, but just saying that so far, I haven't had a reason to regret our decision. It does seem odd to me that as we increase the number of diseases we vaccinate for, the rates of autism have increased as well, though that may be coincidental. I worked with autistic kids before having a child, and that scared me. The parents of those children told me their child seemed perfectly normal until they were over 18 months old, the age when they receive several vaccinations, and that's when their child seemed to change dramatically. A nurse in my pediatrician's office tried to pressure me to "catch up" on all my son's vaccinations, all on the same day, when he was 18 months old, but I refused. We have known for many years that mercury is a brain toxin, so why we would give vaccinations containing a mercury based preservative to babies, on the pretext of helping them, is incredible to me. I used to get allergy shots, and after moving and having to see a different dr., discovered that the new dr. kept his immunizations in the frig and asked why - he said he ordered them without thymerisol (mercury), so had to refrigerate to keep them fresh. That's when I started thinking about the issue.

Posted on Jul 16, 2012 9:37:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012 9:41:36 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
There are frequent postings here from parents who declare that their kids never or hardly ever get sick and think this outcome must be because they didn't get vaccinations. Genetics, socioeconomic factors, lifestyle, stress exposure, schooling, day care, access to medical treatment, various environmental factors (air and water quality etc.), sheer chance - none of these seem to matter. For an antivaxer, it's all about the vaccines.

These posts sound a lot like the arguments made by people who smoked and drank heavily all their lives (or had a grandpa that did) and supposedly lived to a ripe and healthy age - as though their experiences validated the risks they took. Even if these stories are true (and we have no way to know if they're exaggerated or completely false), the odds do not favor you if you take risks with your or your childrens' health.

And there remains no good evidence that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated ones - the only difference seen to date is that unvaccinated kids are far more prone to contract serious, potentially disabling or even lethal vaccine-preventable diseases.

You and your kids do not have "super" immune systems through avoidance of vaccines, and likely do not have anything special about your immune response (if if was so super-reactive you'd likely be at higher risk of autoimmune diseases, where revved-up immunity turns against the body's own tissues). Your kids, if they're not contracting vaccine-preventable diseases, owe that outcome to the smart, socially conscious parents who recognize the value of protecting their and other children through her immunity.

As to finding out that one's physician stores vaccines under refrigeration to protect quality - that's something he/she might do with a variety of other drugs and medical products. You find this disturbing? Why on earth would you think so?
I'll bet you have milk, meat and vegetables _in your own refrigerator_. Obviously, that ominous fact makes it time to seriously consider not eating any spoilable foods, and converting to breatharianism. :)

Posted on Jul 16, 2012 10:33:09 AM PDT
jgcrackerass says:
You know there's a pretty good book simply titled "The Vaccine Book" by Dr. Sears that explains in great detail all of the pro's and con's of the majority of Vaccines currently on the market. If you're thinking about not vaccinating your children you should really read this book so you understand the risks. There are ways to limit the risks that can be pretty effective. My wife's son from her previous marriage had a severe reaction to the MMR vaccine back when it had mercury in it and he's 11 now and can barely write his own name. My cousin's son had a reaction to a chicken pox vaccine that put him in a coma for almost a week, but he has since made a full recovery. Vaccines are there to protect the masses from potentially fatal outbreaks. There is a very small percentage of kids that have reactions to vaccines, we're talking .000etc% chance, at least that can be documented. Having said that the pediatricians office fought very hard to avoid documenting my step-son's reaction, even though it was immediate, and blatantly obvious. They flat out refused to state it was because of the injection they gave him, so I'm wary of statistics based on doctors that won't document the facts due to pharmaceutical co. pressure. Bottom line is if you don't vaccinate your kids, keep them the hell away from day care centers and schools until they're at least 2 years old. After a child reaches two the chances of most of the diseases vaccines protect against becoming fatal is extremely low. Anyone arguing that someone choosing not to vaccinate their children is endangering everyone else is just plain dumb, and has absolutely no understanding of how vaccines work. I never understood why so many people act like they're so smart, and insist that anyone doing anything different than how they "know" is best is a horrible person and deserves to be denigrated. Unless anyone on here is a lab tech that creates vaccines, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Most of you arguing on here haven't even read "The Vaccine Book" which should be a minimum requirement before trying to have any kind of intellectual argument about the subject. Anyone coming on here with questions about vaccines should never, ever, ever ask such important things of morons on the internet. Nobody on here knows more than a doctor. If you want answers that aren't being sponsored by the vaccine companies, ask a wholistic pediatrician and/or do research like I did and read a book or two about the subject, then ask a doctor after you're informed. We're talking about the health and well-being of our children here, don't be lazy about this. It's an individual choice, and what frustrates most people is the fact that they don't think it is a choice, they think it's mandatory because that's what they've been raised to believe. It's much like religion. Telling someone they didn't have to vaccinate their children is much akin to telling someone their god isn't real. Tradition can create very strong responses from people, hence the oft-heated arguments regarding this subject matter. The truth is, if everyone would just educate themselves about the subject before speaking about it, they would all be much less offended, or upset by anyone arguing against them. Vaccines affect different people differently, and it's totally an individual choice whether or not you want to inject your child with something that may seriously disable him/her, or save their life. It is not a choice to be made lightly and anyone stating that it has to be one way or the other is insane or just completely misinformed and running their mouths without ever having actually used their brains...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 10:43:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012 10:44:45 AM PDT
The MMR never contained mercury.

Otherwise, for the most part, I agree with you. One thing I utterly disagree with is that no one knows more than doctors.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 5:32:30 PM PDT
Samarami says:
I believe vaccinations are dangerous. My perusal of evidence substantiating that conclusion may be biased. Maybe it's because I want to so believe. I can fall into that trap. Believing a falsehood because of refusal to acknowledge obvious disproofs can be a heavy load to bear. I feel pretty light today, but I might be fooling myself. Let's hope not.

I'm aware those here who are "pro" vaccines (aka "pro" medical/pharmaceutical complex -- which I believe is incestuous) are not going to back away from the idea there is "risk" involved by NOT vaccinating. My observations contradict that notion, but for the same reason I can "want" to believe a thing that may not prove out, they can also.

So be it.

Now. If you are confident vaccinations really, really "work", then you have nothing to fear from my children and grandchildren and children in my area of influence who are NOT vaccinated. You're "protected".

So please -- go ahead and vaccinate your kids and leave me alone.

Thanks. Sam.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 6:31:07 PM PDT
Tasha David says:
Andrew says "And as we've seen, proposed mechanisms for how this adjuvant works to improve immune response to vaccines do _not_ rely on "killing cells" - just one example of Obukhanych not comprehending what's going on in the field of immunology."

What part of they still don't know how the aluminum adjuvant works after 80 years, do you not understand? But, no, it's just that dang nasty anti vax PhD immunologist who doesn't know her stuff, right? I guess these scientists mustn't know what they are talking about as well?

"Aluminum-based adjuvants (aluminum salts or alum) are widely used in human vaccination, although their mechanisms of action are poorly understood. Here we report that, in mice, alum causes cell death and the subsequent release of host cell DNA, which acts as a potent endogenous immunostimulatory signal mediating alum adjuvant activity."

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v17/n8/pdf/nm.2403.pdf?WT.ec_id=NM-201108

"These results suggest that aluminum has cytotoxic effects on cells of the immune system."

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2011/796719/

Once again I put it to you, if they do not even know how the adjuvant affects the immune system, how can they know it's safe?

Andrew says "You got caught (as at least one other antivaxer has) claiming that I rely on blogs for evidence,"

You say this and then ask me to refute another blog? Lol!

Andrew says "I again call your attention to the conclusion of the authors of the paper you cite on DTP, who do not call for stopping this valuable vaccine, do not claim their results on a retrospective study are definitive, and say "Randomised studies of DTP are warranted to measure the true impact on survival." (i.e., in this particular population of African children)."

But Andrew, according to you all the safety and efficacy studies are done, aren't they? The fact that 6 other studies had the same results and were done in Asia and Africa this time, seems a bit of worry don't you think?

Andrew says "Lastly, the chemistry journal article you cite on aluminum adjuvant in vaccines (the abstract of which contains a telling bit of antivax nonsense about overestimating the value of vaccines), contains numerous defects and unjustified assumptions which have been analyzed here:"

Andrew, this skeptic blog is critiquing a totally different article, good try though. Would you like me to post the name of the article next time to prevent any further confusion?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 9:33:51 PM PDT
J. Kincaid says:
it seems to me you're trying to hard... I'm a vegan. I had my vaccines when I was too young to contest what the doctors had to say. When I trusted in western pharma-culture to provide health for me I found that I was suffering from more ailments than I am now. My immune system is incredibly strong because I don't introduce foreign contaminates into my blood stream. just get your vegetable proteins and don't eat processed foods or take pharmaceuticals.

One thing I find interesting is that citizens aren't allowed to know the ingredients of the vaccines.

Posted on Jul 17, 2012 4:00:31 AM PDT
"One thing I find interesting is that citizens aren't allowed to know the ingredients of the vaccines."

Untrue. The ingredients for all vaccines can be found online and has been linked in this discussion multilple times.

Posted on Jul 17, 2012 4:59:30 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
Gee, we don't know for sure the exact mechanism by which aluminum adjuvants work to make vaccines more effective, therefore they MUST be dangerous!

By this logic, aspirin must have been a horribly dangerous drug for the many decades it was in use before its precism mechanism of action was described. Except that wasn't the case, as many clinical studies and practice experience showed us.

You're right, I was linking to a critique of a different paper by those two antivax chemists, although involving similar bad logic and false assumptions.

And speaking of false assumptions, there's the one that says aluminum in vaccines introduces a scary chemical into our environment. Oh noooo!

"Human ingestion of aluminum from food and beverages represents the major source of intake."

That's from your second mouse paper. Aluminum is commonly found in the environment. If you're exposed to large amounts of it (as with many other environmental agents) it can cause problems. There's no good evidence that the tiny amounts found in vaccines do so.

"But Andrew, according to you all the safety and efficacy studies are done, aren't they?"

And where have I said such a thing? It's as big a strawman as claiming that pro-immunization advocates don't recognize any risk associated with vaccines.

Sam: "Now. If you are confident vaccinations really, really "work", then you have nothing to fear from my children and grandchildren and children in my area of influence who are NOT vaccinated. You're "protected"."

How about the children with immune dysfunction or who for whatever reason don't mount an effective immune response to a vaccine (no vaccine offers 100% protection)? Or a cancer patient on chemotherapy that depresses the immune system? Or a person with HIV? They are all protected when immunization levels are high enough to provide herd immunity. But when parents decide not to get their kids vaccinated, that herd immunity can drop low enough so that virulent diseases can spread through the community. If immunization levels are high enough, outbreaks are stopped before they can turn into widespread epidemics.

Our responsibilities to society include protecting our children, but they don't end there. Other people's kids (and vulnerable adults) count too.

Posted on Jul 17, 2012 8:55:35 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
Something else nifty about Tetyana Obukhanych (the woman who promotes herself as an immunologist, but who currently does not appear to be affiliated with any research institution or medical faculty, but instead offers a private class (reportedly at $30 per participant) to promote her antivax views):

Her website says:

"The class is intended as a guidance for understanding major aspects and flaws of vaccination. It is not intended as a medical advice."

www.naturalimmunity.blogspot.com

Yes, it's another variation on the Quack Miranda Warning, beloved of supplement dealers and quackery promoters everywhere.

http://scientopia.org/blogs/whitecoatunderground/quack-miranda-warning/

If Obukhanych is confident that vaccines are all that bad, why is she so fearful that someone will take her views as medical advice?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 9:00:26 AM PDT
All you need today to be an immunologist is a pulse and Internet connection.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 11:04:42 AM PDT
Samarami says:
Andrew King:

"...Our responsibilities to society include protecting our children, but they don't end there. Other people's kids (and vulnerable adults) count too...."

And that's what scares me about the likes of you. My children are now "our" children, and the presumed efficacy of pharmacological concoctions called "vaccines" are going to be forced upon EVERYBODY -- "the whole herd" in your words -- if you have anything to say about it.

Sorry. My children and my grandchildren are healthy, well nourished (dietarily and mentally), and free individuals.

Take your herd elsewhere if you're afraid of contamination from my children.

Sam

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 11:54:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2012 11:58:17 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
"My children and my grandchildren are healthy"

Thanks in part to the responsible behavior of others, including parents who get their children immunized so that they don't spread preventable diseases to your "free" riders.

Webster: "All you need today to be an immunologist is a pulse and Internet connection."

I'm surprised that having a degree in immunology has any cachet at all for antivaxers, especially those who make statements like "One thing I utterly disagree with is that no one knows more than doctors."

Darn tootin! Why listen to doctors, when you can get all the health information you need from Internet message board testimonials?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 1:19:56 PM PDT
tica says:
Just curious if you consider all vaccines the same? The reason I ask is that in my town there was a women who was bitten by a rabid raccoon last summer. The raccoon was caught by animal control and tested and so the woman started the vaccinations and she is still alive because of it. The rabies virus is always fatal and if she had not gotten the shots she would be dead so....There are a few people who were "brushed" by a bat or woke up in the room with one and have died of rabies a month to a year later because they never sought treatment. There is no "strong immunity" to rabies for any mammal.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 2:05:19 PM PDT
Samarami says:
tica:

"just curious if you consider all vaccines the same?'

Emergency antidotes fall into a separate category. Everything or anything taken into the body by injection or po is not harmful -- or at least may be less harmful than that from which you seek antidote. Let that be an individual decision between patient and physician.

My mantra is this: Go about your business and leave my family alone. We are responsible folks and can make decisions regarding health.

The medical/pharmaceutical complex form some of the most egregious lobby efforts and mercantilism in the history of man. Posts on this thread back up the mentality that manifest that declaration.

All government action is undergirded by threat of violence. Don't involve me or my family in your collectivist pursuits. Vaccinate -- be my guest. It might help you prevent some maladies -- you'll get no argument from me.

Just leave predators of state and their mercantilist dependents out of my business.

Sam
[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:  817
Total posts:  7258
Initial post:  Nov 16, 2008
Latest post:  May 9, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 42 customers

Search Customer Discussions