Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill? Sequal Thread
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 189 of 308 (428698)
10-17-2007 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Kitsune
10-17-2007 9:45 AM


Re: Scientists are parents too!
Your chicken pox example only applies if the mother has not developed a natural immunity to chicken pox -- which would be the case if she'd been vaccinated, or had never had it.
Vaccinated mothers have an immunity to the virus. That's how vaccination works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Kitsune, posted 10-17-2007 9:45 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Kitsune, posted 10-17-2007 10:59 AM molbiogirl has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 204 of 308 (428799)
10-17-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Kitsune
10-17-2007 12:18 PM


Re: Unnecessary vacinations
I want the choice not to vaccinate myself or my child. I also support the choice of others.
In a democratic society, we give the responsibility for deciding what constitutes "significant harm" to our government.
Unvaccinated children constitute a very real danger of "significant harm".
Therefore, it is well within the government's right to require that children be vaccinated.
You do not have the moral right to put your child or other children in harm's way.
As I said in the earlier version of this thread, I hope that, eventually, Antivax Hysterics are prosecuted much in the same way that HIV+ carriers who are aware of their infection are prosecuted when they pass on the virus to an (unsuspecting) partner.
Much in the way that woomeisters who fail to treat the their child's cancer with recognized treatments and opt instead for BS "alternative treatments" have been successfully prosecuted.
Much in the way that religious fanatics who fail to treat a child's (immanently) fatal disease out of their religious conviction have been successfully prosecuted.
It's called "forseeable harm".
Parents who refuse to vaccinate are failing to take reasonable steps to prevent forseeable harm to their children ... and those of others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Kitsune, posted 10-17-2007 12:18 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Kitsune, posted 10-17-2007 4:57 PM molbiogirl has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 207 of 308 (428805)
10-17-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by macaroniandcheese
10-17-2007 1:58 PM


Re: Important Point Overlooked In This Debate
the amish also have a restricted gene pool, and if autism is genetic, then it might not have been introduced to that gene pool yet.
That's certainly a possibility, Brenna.
Page not found. | MedPage Today
Genetics researchers often find insights into the origins of developmental disorders by studying populations such as the Amish, Mennonites, and Hasidic Jews. Members of these groups tend to have ancestors who came from the same geographic region, live in isolated populations, and intermarry, allowing recessive genetic traits to emerge in their offspring.
Even if the genetic defect were introduced into the population, there's a 50% chance it would disappear.
Rare traits introduced into small populations tend to get "fixed" at 1 or 0. (1 = very common, 0 = absent)
I'd like to add, however, that autism is not unknown in Amish communities.
The following shows that a genetic defect that causes autism has become established in the Amish community.
A study of Old Order Amish children has identified the genetic mutation that causes a previously unknown disorder, with seizures that progress to autism and retardation.
The recessive disorder, dubbed cortical dysplasia-focal epilepsy syndrome, or CDFE, is marked by relatively normal infancy followed by onset at about 14 to 16 months of age of frequent seizures -- 50 to 90 per week.
The seizure onset is followed by language regression and the development of hyperactivity, aggressive and impulsive behaviors, and mental retardation, reported Kevin A. Strauss, M.D., of the Clinic for Special Children here, and colleagues, The Old Order Amish is a close-knit, genetically homogenous population.
The finding points to a genetic variation in the gene encoding for contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CASPR2) as a possible cause of both epilepsy and autism in the affected children, the investigators wrote in the March 30 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
"We were able to unequivocally map the disease gene to chromosome 7 and identify a pathogenic sequence variant in the gene CNTNAP2, which codes for the CASPR2 protein," said co-author Erik G. Puffenberger, Ph.D., laboratory director at the Center for Special Children.
"Although these patients were from an isolated population, we anticipate that CASPR2 mutations will be found in children from other populations with mental retardation, seizures, and autism," he added.
ABE: I'm talking about the same thing as the link Wounded provided in his post.
Recessive symptomatic focal epilepsy and mutant contactin-associated protein-like 2.
N Engl J Med. 2006 Mar 30;354(13):1370-7.
Edited by molbiogirl, : added info

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-17-2007 1:58 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 208 of 308 (428810)
10-17-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Kitsune
10-17-2007 9:32 AM


More bogus stats and links from Lindalou
This one goes into details about what vaccines to do animals, particularly dogs. They develop autoimmune diseases and cancer.
There is no such paper. Check the link provided at the site you referenced if you don't believe me. Check pubmed. No paper.
A horrendous gap in research in this country -- UK again
There are no cites so that I can check the primary sources of the information. For all I know, Dr. Moxon never said anything of the things this site claims that he said. Google provided no quotes of this sort from Dr. Moxon either.
Compensation for Vaccine Damage -- UK
900 claims were paid between 1979 and 2000. That's 21 years. That's 42/year.
Vaccination rates for the UK during that period were between 89-92%.
The population of the UK during that period was (on average) 56,000,000.
That's .000071%. Well within the expected adverse reaction rate of vaccines.
No, it's not zero.
But you take a bigger chance getting into your car every day and driving to work.
Hell, you have a bigger chance of getting hit by lightning. (1:1000)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Kitsune, posted 10-17-2007 9:32 AM Kitsune has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 210 of 308 (428813)
10-17-2007 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Kitsune
10-16-2007 10:58 AM


Let's see some evidence
Speaking for myself, I see no reason why I should wait for someone to tell me that it actually isn't OK to inject mercury, aluminum, antifreeze, formaldehyde, animal tissues and possible contaminants that go with them (remember SV40)
Please provide evidence of harm done by any of these ingredients.
Remember. There is NO mercury in the vaccinations given to children. So just focus on the rest.
Check your sources before posting them. Don't make me do it for you (again).
Also. It isn't enough to show that formaldehyde (for example) harms people when injected. We know that it does. You need to show that, in the concentrations found in vaccines, formaldehyde presents a demonstrable harmful effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 10:58 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Kitsune, posted 10-17-2007 5:58 PM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 211 of 308 (428815)
10-17-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Percy
10-17-2007 5:33 PM


Re: Unnecessary vacinations
By the way, touching on something MBG said, here in the US a significant proportion of the states have laws protecting parents from prosecution for any harm that might come to their children due to choices of medical care influenced by religion. Some states, such as Oklahoma, have extremely liberal laws and include a wide range of medical care choices having nothing to do with religion, such as healers who claim they draw upon the healing powers inherent in the energy of the universe.
Yeah, I know. But some folks are working hard to get that changed:
http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/
Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD, Inc.) is a non-profit national membership organization established in 1983 to protect children from abusive religious and cultural practices, especially religion-based medical neglect. CHILD opposes religious exemptions from duties of care for children. CHILD is a member of the National Child Abuse Coalition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 10-17-2007 5:33 PM Percy has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 213 of 308 (428822)
10-17-2007 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Kitsune
10-17-2007 5:58 PM


Re: Let's see some evidence
The studies haven't been done. That is the problem. I am not going to accept that these things are safe until proven otherwise.
That was quick.
Did you look thru all 671 studies on pubmed? (Formaldehyde and vaccine retrieves 671 studies.)
Or are you going to make me do the work again?
ABE:
Hypersensitivity reactions to vaccine components.
Dermatitis. 2005 Sep;16(3):115-20.
Why don't you look before you declare a "lack of evidence"?
Edited by molbiogirl, : added cite

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Kitsune, posted 10-17-2007 5:58 PM Kitsune has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 216 of 308 (428832)
10-17-2007 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Kitsune
10-17-2007 5:58 PM


Lindalou, debate requries some effort...
In order to debate the evidence, you need to put in some time and effort, Lindalou.
Making sweeping generalizations about the "lack of evidence" without even trying to look for it is bad form.
The studies haven't been done.
Addressing parents' concerns: do vaccines contain harmful preservatives, adjuvants, additives, or residuals?
Pediatrics. 2003 Dec;112(6 Pt 1):1394-7.
Vaccines often contain preservatives, adjuvants, additives, or manufacturing residuals in addition to pathogen-specific immunogens. Some parents, alerted by stories in the news media or information contained on the World Wide Web, are concerned that some of the substances contained in vaccines might harm their children. We reviewed data on thimerosal, aluminum, gelatin, human serum albumin, formaldehyde, antibiotics, egg proteins, and yeast proteins. Both gelatin and egg proteins are contained in vaccines in quantities sufficient to induce rare instances of severe, immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions. However, quantities of mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, human serum albumin, antibiotics, and yeast proteins in vaccines have not been found to be harmful in humans or experimental animals.
Aluminum salts are the only adjuvants currently licensed for use in the United States (Table 3). Aluminum salts include aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and potassium aluminum sulfate (alum). Aluminum-containing vaccines are prepared by adsorption of antigens onto aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate gels or by precipitation of antigens in a solution of alum.
Aluminum-containing vaccines are not the only source of aluminum exposure for infants. Because aluminum is 1 of the most abundant elements in the earth’s crust and is present in air, food, and water, all infants are exposed to aluminum in the environment. For example, breast milk contains approximately 40 g of aluminum per liter, and infant formulas contain an average of approximately 225 g of aluminum per liter.
Adverse reactions including subcutaneous nodules, contact hypersensitivity, and granulomatous inflammation have been observed rarely.
Additives are used to stabilize vaccines from adverse conditions such as freeze-drying or heat. In addition, additives are added to vaccines to prevent immunogens from adhering to the side of the vial. The types of stabilizers used in vaccines include sugars (eg, sucrose, lactose), amino acids (eg, glycine, monosodium salt of glutamic acid), and proteins (eg, gelatin or human serum albumin).
Three issues surround the use of protein additives in vaccines: 1) the observation that immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions are a rare consequence of receiving gelatin-containing vaccines, 2) the theoretical concern that human serum albumin might contain infectious agents, and 3) the theoretical concern that bovine-derived materials used in vaccines might contain the agent associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("mad-cow" disease).
Although the incidence of anaphylaxis to gelatin is currently very low (approximately 1 case per 2 million doses), gelatin is the most common identifiable cause of immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions to gelatin-containing vaccines.
However, the FDA requires that human serum albumin be derived from blood of screened donors and be manufactured in a manner that would eliminate the risk of transmission of all known viruses. The result is that no viral diseases have ever been associated with the use of human serum albumin.
Vaccines contain several reagents that are derived from cows (eg, gelatin, glycerol, enzymes, serum, amino acids). This raised the question of whether children who were inoculated with vaccines were at risk for vCJD. Newspapers reported this possibility in the late 1990s,66 and some parents were concerned about bovine-derived products contained in vaccines. However, several epidemiologic observations and features of the manufacturing process should reassure parents that vaccines could not cause vCJD.
First, prions are detected in the brain, spinal cord, and retina of cows with BSE and not in blood or other organs.55 Therefore, serum (present in media that support the growth of microorganisms or cells used to make vaccines) is not likely to contain prions. Consistent with these observations, no cases of CJD have been transmitted by blood or blood products, and a history of blood transfusion does not increase the risk for CJD.67-69
Second, prions are not detected in connective tissue of cows with BSE.55 Therefore, gelatin (made by boiling the hooves and skin of pigs or cows) is unlikely to contain prions.
Third, epidemiologic evidence does not support vaccines as a cause of vCJD in England.
Residual quantities of reagents that are used to make vaccines are clearly defined and well regulated by the FDA. Inactivating agents (eg, formaldehyde), antibiotics, and cellular residuals (eg, egg and yeast proteins) may be contained in the final product.
Residual quantities of reagents that are used to make vaccines are clearly defined and well regulated by the FDA. Inactivating agents (eg, formaldehyde), antibiotics, and cellular residuals (eg, egg and yeast proteins) may be contained in the final product.
Inactivating agents separate a pathogen’s immunogenicity from its virulence by eliminating the harmful effects of bacterial toxins or ablating the capacity of infectious viruses to replicate. Examples of inactivating agents include formaldehyde, which is used to inactivate influenza virus, poliovirus, and diphtheria and tetanus toxins; -propiolactone, which is used to inactivate rabies virus; and glutaraldehyde, which is used to inactivate toxins contained in acellular pertussis vaccines. Formaldehyde deserves special consideration.
Concerns about the safety of formaldehyde have centered on the observation that high concentrations of formaldehyde can damage DNA and cause cancerous changes in cells in vitro.71,72
Although formaldehyde is diluted during the manufacturing process, residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in several current vaccines (Table 5).
Fortunately, formaldehyde does not seem to be a cause of cancer in humans,73 and animals that are exposed to large quantities of formaldehyde (a single dose of 25 mg/kg or chronic exposure at doses of 80-100 mg/kg/day) do not develop malignancies.74,75
The quantity of formaldehyde contained in individual vaccines does not exceed 0.1 mg (Table 5). This quantity of formaldehyde is considered to be safe for 2 reasons.
irst, formaldehyde is an essential intermediate in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of thymidine, purines, and amino acids.76 Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of formaldehyde in their circulation (approximately 2.5 g of formaldehyde/mL of blood).77
Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 mL/kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found naturally in an infant’s circulation would be approximately 1.1 mg”a value at least 10-fold greater than that contained in any individual vaccine. Second, quantities of formaldehyde at least 600-fold greater than that contained in vaccines have been given safely to animals.74,75
Betcha didn't know you produce formaldehyde, huh, Lindalou?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Kitsune, posted 10-17-2007 5:58 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Kitsune, posted 10-18-2007 5:25 AM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 242 of 308 (429014)
10-18-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by purpledawn
10-18-2007 6:36 AM


Re: Choices Within the System
If the 1% feel that any vaccine(s) or a specific ingredient of any vaccine(s) causes or contributes to a lifelong disability or death, then vaccines and protocols need to be developed to accommodate that 1% if we don't want people to abstain from vaccines.
First. The chances are far less than 1%. Move that decimal point a few places.
Second. As I pointed out earlier, your chances of being dying in a car accident are 1:84. That's 10 times the risk of a vaccine.
You have a better chance of being hit by lightning (1:1000) than having an adverse reaction to a vaccine.
Any medication, and when I say any I mean any, has a risk. Aspirin kills. Sometimes. 10.4 deaths per 100,000.
Are you suggesting the government compensate folks for aspirin death? After all, according to you, this is an unacceptable loss and BigPharma is pushing dangerous a nostrum like aspirin on the gullible public.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2007 6:36 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Wounded King, posted 10-18-2007 12:07 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 249 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2007 2:24 PM molbiogirl has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 243 of 308 (429017)
10-18-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Kitsune
10-18-2007 9:34 AM


Re: a vaccine anecdote
Remember, also, that flu vaccines contain thimerosal.
SOME flu vaccines contain thimerosal.
Antivax Hysterics wouldn't be getting a flu shot, tho. So it's a moot point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Kitsune, posted 10-18-2007 9:34 AM Kitsune has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 245 of 308 (429034)
10-18-2007 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Kitsune
10-18-2007 5:25 AM


Re: Lindalou, debate requries some effort...
You seem to be focusing here on immediate reactions to vaccines. I've been saying here that I want to see long-term studies. The assumption seems to be that if the reaction is not immediate, then it is not a vaccine-induced reaction.
That isn't the case, Lindalou. Each of the points (re: formaldehyde, aluminum, etc.) made in the article I cited was supported by several papers (some of which conducted long term studies).
I know how you hate lists of cites since you can't go to the library and look them up, so it is going to take me a while to go thru the relevant literature and produce the evidence.
Yet you dismissed it without a glance because it came from the Whale site.
Lindalou, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, I want you to pull your tracking software off my machine! Snitching on my website reading behavior to all these good folks here at EvC. You ought to be ashamed.
...many of its references are from studies in mainstream journals.
Two things about that "article".
One. The cites are at the bottom of the page. The majority of them are not cited in the body of the text. How am I supposed to know which paper belongs to which absurd claim? Furthermore, how do I know that these papers have anything at all to do with her claims?
The few times a cite is in the body of a text, it is from 1960, 1962, 1948, 1932, 1928!
Damn good reason for that.
Because subsequent research has shown the additives in vaccines are harmless.
You've cited some information here about vaccine additives. Formaldehyde is produced in small amounts in the body as a metabolic byproduct. I'd like someone to explain to me that the process of injecting it into a person is exactly the same as the natural metabolic process, with the chemical being assimilated and eliminated in the same way.
Formaldehyde isn't "eliminated". It's being produced and used by the body to manufacture purines, etc.
Naturally produced formaldehyde is in the blood. Formaldehyde from a vaccine is in the blood. How would the body know the difference between the two?
For example, aluminum -- another substance you cited. It's known to be carcinogenic...
Maybe I need to say this louder.
IT'S THE CONCENTRATION THAT MATTERS.
... and a potential contributor to Alzheimer's disease.
Aluminum and Alzheimer's disease: a Vexata Questio between uncertain data and a lot of imagination.
J Alzheimers Dis. 2006 Sep;10(1):33-7.
Need I say more?
This website discusses possible mechanisms of vaccine induced type I diabetes and autoimmunity.
Not so much:
Immune modulation induced by tuberculosis DNA vaccine protects non-obese diabetic mice from diabetes progression.
Clin Exp Immunol. 2007 Sep;149(3):570-8.
The website you linked to is horrific. This loon abuses the scientific literature in a most unseemly fashion.
I suggest you look up the references in that article and provide evidence that the papers she's citing have anything at all to do with her ridiculous claims.
Produce the primary evidence, Lindalou.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Kitsune, posted 10-18-2007 5:25 AM Kitsune has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 246 of 308 (429036)
10-18-2007 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Wounded King
10-18-2007 12:07 PM


Re: Choices Within the System
I know, Wounded.
I wasn't jumping on you.
I just need to dot the i's and cross the t's for people who don't understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Wounded King, posted 10-18-2007 12:07 PM Wounded King has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 251 of 308 (429111)
10-18-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by purpledawn
10-18-2007 6:36 AM


Re: Choices Within the System
IOW, their concerns need to be addressed and not pushed aside as acceptable "losses". Even if the studies aren't conclusive either way, the issue is still there and something is needed to meet the needs of the 1%. When those voices are pushed aside, especially in this day and age, they will go to the public since the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
For the average individual safe and effective means it is harmless and it will always work. So when something seems to cause irreparable harm, there is outrage.
I would call death irreparable harm.
Aspirin kills.
So if it is dangerous for even one child to abstain from vaccines, then the anomalies need to be provided for.
How would you suggest that one "provide for" the aspirin deaths?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2007 6:36 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2007 3:57 PM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 254 of 308 (429121)
10-18-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by purpledawn
10-18-2007 3:57 PM


Re: Choices Within the System
What is the difference between childhood vaccinations and aspirin?
I am assuming you're implying that vaccines are mandatory, aspirin isn't.
But that is beside the point.
Both are products on the market.
Both cause harm.
If one is going to consider vaccines a threat, then one must consider aspirin a threat.
ABE:
If one child is harmed by aspirin...
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2007 3:57 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2007 4:49 PM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 259 of 308 (429138)
10-18-2007 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Kitsune
10-18-2007 4:20 PM


Re: Important Point Overlooked In This Debate
Lindalou. Will you PLEASE read at least the abstracts?
If vaccines cause a weakened immune system, then we would expect to see a higher incidence of illness following vaccination.
Jaber, L., Shohat, M., Mimouni, M.
Infectious episodes following diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccination: a preliminary observation in infants.
Clinical Pediatrics 1988; 27:491-494.
Eighty two infants, aged 2-12 months, were prospectively studied for infectious episodes following diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization. The occurrence of infectious episodes during the month following vaccination was compared to that during the month prior to its administration. The 3 days following vaccination were not included. In comparison to the month prior to immunization, during the month following there were significantly more infants with fever (6.1% vs. 24.4%, p less than 0.001), with diarrhea (7.3% vs. 23.1%, p less than 0.005), and with cough (37.7% vs. 52.4% p N.S.). After the first month of the study, there was an increase in morbidity in the region, so we reevaluated those cases who had been seen during the latter 3 months. The same trend was found: in the month following immunization there were significantly more infants with fever (5.3% vs. 25%, p less than 0.005), with diarrhea (10.5% vs. 28%, p less than 0.02), and with cough (26% vs. 54%, p less than 0.01). There was no correlation between the incidence of these episodes and the age at vaccination. In addition to reactive fever during the first 3 days following DPT immunization, an increase in infectious episodes seems to occur in infants during the month following administration of this vaccine.
Where in the abstract do you see anything about a weakened immune system?
Not to mention they had "an increase in morbidity in the region" during the study, but they went ahead and drew conclusions anyway.
Guillan-Barre syndrome has been documented to occur following tetanus and polio vaccines, and more recently from the new Gardasil vaccine, and chronic arthritis following the rubella vaccine.
Lindalou. Provide support for your bare assertions.
The cite this woman is using is from 1986! (Quote: Federal legislation of 1986 commissioned the Institute of Medicine to establish a Vaccine Safety Committee).
Furthermore, that document is not available online.
A recent vaccine overview is available online, however.
There is also a 2007 WHO study available online.
Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS)
404
Please provide support from the primary literature, Lindalou. Quotes that can't be confirmed from a 20 year old study is not sufficient.
This study is also cited: Nakayama, T., Urano, T., Osano, M., et al. Long-term regulation of interferon production by lymphocytes from children inoculated with live measles virus vaccine. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1988; 158:1386-1390.
This paper is not available online. Not even as an abstract.
Still. How do you get from the title of the paper to ...
The destructive effect of vaccines on the immune system can persist over an extended period of time.
Please provide support, from the paper itself, that vaccinations have a causal relationship with a depressed immune system.
I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.
By the way, Lindalou.
You have yet to provide the evidence I asked for this morning.
You demand that I read the websites that you cite.
Then you ignore my response?
Are you conceding the point?
Are you lazy?
Why no response?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Kitsune, posted 10-18-2007 4:20 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Kitsune, posted 10-18-2007 5:14 PM molbiogirl has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024