Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill?
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 61 of 327 (365139)
11-21-2006 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by purpledawn
11-21-2006 9:12 AM


Re: Vaccination Apologetics
We're all working with second hand information, unless someone here has actually done the tests themselves.
No, I am working with second hand information because I am reading the actual research. You are working with third hand information at best and in the vast majority of cases possibly fourth hand at best, i.e. quotes from doctors about work which may or may not be their own such as that on ovarian cancer.
What I talked about was that you were working from at best a secondary source as opposed to the actual published research which is a primary source.
What you are doing is exactly what the creationists do. Posting multiple 'arguments' by link which may or may not actually have any scientific standing and then when I provide a rebuttal to a point with several references to the primary literature you say that that wasn't the point at all and provide yet another argument by link on a totally different point.
I understand why the mumps strain was withdrawn. I wasn't addressing AM. The fact that a strain caused another medical problem, shows that it is not ridiculous to feel that some element of a vaccine could cause future problems for some children. Doesn't most research start with a question or problem to solve?
How am I supposed to know what you think you are addressing when you argue by link instead of actually making a case? If your links aren't actually what you are addressing but are all you provide then what exactly is there to rebut?
I don't feel that the medical world has given good answers to the concerns or done the research to find an alternative if they even want to.
Your feelings are irrelevant to the scientific evidence. There is a lot of research done on vaccines the fact that you feel that there aren't any good answers counts for nothing if the only place you went looking for them was on anti-vaccination sites on the web. If the points and links at quackwathc did not convinve you then why not? What made you decide they had no more credibility than the anti-vaccination sites?
The fact that a strain caused another medical problem, shows that it is not ridiculous to feel that some element of a vaccine could cause future problems for some children.
It didn't cause another medical problem it caused the same medical problem intrinsically associated with the mumps virus, which is what the attenuated strain used in the vaccination still is. It certainly is a ridiculous example if you want to argue that the future problems for some children are likely to outweigh the future problems associated with actually contracting the disease.
It isn't a question of perfecting vaccination it is a question of the balance of risk and by going for information to sites which blatantly ignore one entire side of that balancing equation you are making yourself incapable of assessing those risks.
Just answer my question, would you prefer a vaccination with a 1:4,000 chance of inducing aseptic meningitis or to contract mumps and have a 1:10 chance of AM?
Doesn't most research start with a question or problem to solve?
That doesn't mean that any question that any layman asks is a reasonable basis for research.
Do you actually want a debate using 'strictly science or tangible evidence' or are you are just going to keep posting propaganda and position statements from anti-vaccine websites?
You asked earlier who should you trust? In fact that was the only question in your OP the rest being links which apparently weren't part of the debate and which you didn't want addressed. Do you really think you should trust people who will shriek about a 1:10,000 incidence of a problem associated with a vaccine while encouraging you to subject your children to a 1:10 risk of the same problem as a result of contracting mumps?
Why not trust the body of work produce by people actually doing research rather than a collection of anecdotal evidence. That body of work shows overwhelmingly that there is no significant link between MMR and autism nor between thimerosal and autism. It may be that there are very rare genetic backgrounds in which thimerosal could induce developmental abnormalities but if they are so rare as to be undectectable statistically then I'm not sure how you propose to identify them in the first place.
You parley a study on a genetic backgorund on susceptibility in mice into 'evidence that some may be genetically susceptible' for humans, which it isn't neccessarily. It shows there is a possibility that genetic backgrounds can make a difference but there is no evidence that there are human genetic backgrounds that do so. You then demand research be done to spot that 'susceptibility'. What susceptibility? A susceptibility that may or may not exist in humans but is not presented at a significant enough level in the population to actually allow it to be identified?
How exactly do you imagine we can reliably identify such susceptibilities if they did exist other than by subjecting more children to the factors which are putatively damaging? Should we do a full genomic sequence for every child whose parent thinks their autism may be due to vaccination in the hopes that something will jump out at us?
Supposedly there are physical differences in the brain when one is autistic from birth. If the brain stem is shorter in an autistic person, then it should be relatively easy to see if the children that parents claimed were normal before MMR have this characteristic. Even my limited knowledge would not think something introduced after birth would shorten the brain stem.
That is a good suggestion but I'm not sure it would work, I suppose it depends on what resolution of MRI was needed to identify and measure the relevant structures sufficiently accurately. The other problem is that this could only provide proof one way, that there was a specific pre-existing developmental abnormality. A negative result wouldn't implicate vaccination or even rule out a milder neurological effect. The features described in the Sci Am article definitely seem to be at the extreme end of the autistic spectrum.
There should be options for parents concerned about the possiblity of chemically induced diseases, not just a mandate.
I agree but I happen to think that parents would be better served basing their judgements on scientific research rather than emotional anecdotal appeals and lies. I personally think vaccination uptake should be as close to 100% as it can be but I don't think people should be forced to have their children vaccinated. People should however be as aware of the risks inherent in opting out of vaccination as of those of opting in.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by purpledawn, posted 11-21-2006 9:12 AM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 62 of 327 (365166)
11-21-2006 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Buzsaw
11-20-2006 7:36 PM


Natural Path
My husband and I turned away from processed foods about 4 years ago, but only discovered NDs a few years ago when I met Jordan Rubin, NMD, PhD.
I finally found a good ND who helped me figure out what supplements were necessary and in what combination. I feel that a good ND can help avoid the less honest in the natural health realm. We are much healthier now.
quote:
The better alternative which we used to vaccinations with our boys was to keep a healthy immune system built up via the above and see to it that their diet and life habits were so as to prevent disease.
While I understand the national viewpoint, I think parents should be able to make an educated decision. I also think MDs need to inform people of what exactly any medication or vaccination consists of just like our food is supposed to tell us everything that is in it.
Were your kids brought up in a rural area or city?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2006 7:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by nwr, posted 11-21-2006 3:15 PM purpledawn has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 63 of 327 (365181)
11-21-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by purpledawn
11-21-2006 1:55 PM


Re: Natural Path
I'm not sure how you avoid processed foods. Just about everything goes through some sort of processing.
I'll just add a note on personal experience.
Since childhood, it has been my view that nature generally knows what it is doing. So I have tended to minimize medical intervention, except when really needed. I keep antibiotic use to the infrequent occasions when they really are needed (a strep throat, for example).
I have never seen a problem with vaccinations. I don't understand why you would be worried by them. Vaccination is the way we give our immune systems the information they need to protect us from pathogens that are likely to be a problem. It seems to me that vaccination is much closer to a natural method, than is getting the disease and then taking drugs.
Okay so, after all that, I am now a pill popper. I'm currently at 4 pills per day. It turns out that as you get older, what nature wants to do is help you into the grave. I have run-away hypertension that could not be controlled with diet and exercise alone. And I have an overactive digestive system. Without the pills I would probably be deaf (due to tinnitus caused by high blood pressure), I would be under a high risk of stroke and perhaps also be heading toward congestive heart failure. And I would have problems with the corrosive effects of gastro esophagal reflux possibly increasing the risk of throat cancer.

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by purpledawn, posted 11-21-2006 1:55 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by purpledawn, posted 11-22-2006 3:04 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 64 of 327 (365191)
11-21-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by purpledawn
11-19-2006 1:38 PM


A wee linky or two
Here's a link to the original Wakefield paper which started the whole MMR and autism scare.
http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/.../Wakefield%20Feb%201998.pdf
Any practicing scientists out there will, I'm sure, be as horrified as I was that the Lancet published this. The work is of exceptionally poor quality and the Lancet has, in fact, apologised for publishing it in the first place.
To get an overview of the entire fiasco see here
Andrew Wakefield: a cheat exposed
No one has ever denied that vaccines can have side effects, in fact vaccination is intended to give you a mild form of the disease in order to "show" your immune system what the invader looks like. Next time round the immune system can zap it before it can get a grip on you (this applies to live, attenuated vaccines).
What is not in question is that the side effects of any given vaccine have to be milder than the disease itself. So for typhoid it's acceptable to feel pretty rough for a few days, not so for flu vaccination.
Although rubella is a mild disease in itself, we all know what it does in the first trimester of pregnancy. It isn't true that vaccinated children lose their immunity by the time they're adults. In the UK pregnant women are screened for rubella immunity at the start of their pregnancy. The vast majority are immune. The whole point of vaccinating children is to raise the herd immunityto the disease. This means that an unvaccinated pregnant woman has less chance of coming into contact with the disease.
The same herd immunity is used when vaccinating for whooping cough, measles diphtheria etc. There are some children with malfunctioning immune systems and also ALL newborns who cannot be immunised and can't risk being exposed to these diseases since they would probably be killed by them.
I'm all for vaccination if it helps to protect the most vulnerable in the community from dying of some of these diseases and it prevents my child from the horrible effects of whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps etc. The risks from vaccination are very low, the risks from the diseases is very high.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by purpledawn, posted 11-19-2006 1:38 PM purpledawn has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 327 (365241)
11-21-2006 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by purpledawn
11-19-2006 1:38 PM


Great thread, very eloquent
Allopathy (MD): A method of treating disease with remedies that produce effects antagonistic to those caused by the disease itself.
Naturopathy (ND): A system of therapeutics in which surgery and prescription medications are avoided, and preparations such as vitamins, nutritional supplements, and herbs are used to treat and prevent disease.
Naturopathic Doctors
Naturopathic doctors -- who carry an N.D. behind their name -- focus on the whole health of patients and emphasize the use of diet, exercise, nutritional supplements and herbal therapies to help prevent disease and to promote wellness. They attend accredited, four-year graduate level naturopathic medical schools to become primary-care practitioners, but have a more limited scope of practice than do medical doctors. They receive the same basic sciences as an M.D., but also study clinical nutrition, acupuncture, homeopathic and botanical medicine and psychology. They do not go through residency programs, but must pass rigorous national and state boards to practice.
Homeopathy: A system for treating disease based on the administration of minute doses of a drug that in massive amounts produces symptoms in healthy persons similar to those of the disease.
Its very interesting that you bring up naturopathy as legitimate medicine and offer their benefits, because my wife and I are currently seeking one for my daughter. My daughter has some sort of attention deficit. We aren't sure if its attributed to ADHD currently, because we have recieved conflicting diagnoses. We feel that the ADHD phenomenon is something of the latest rage and likely is due to television as the main culprit. Doctors are often times too quick to slap on a faulty diagnosis at the first sign of inattentiveness, when they may misinterpret the child's behavior.
The remedy has been to administer drugs which I scarcely see as an actual remedy. If anything, its like offering a band-aid to an amputee. I think drugs is a last resort. Drugging kids and dulling their wits is the last thing they need, literally. If another avenue, such as redirection techniques can be employed, they should before anyone tries medicine. I have seen the affects of ritalin and other drugs similar to it. I don't think there is a long-term consensus made about them. That's where naturopathy comes in.
Naturopathic physicians are viewed by some as kind of pseudo-scientific. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, most naturopathic physicians are highly trained in both Eastern and Western medicine. Naturopaths, if anything, are often more qualified because they go through additional, specialized training. Its been my experience that they test more thoroughly than your average MD or psychotherapist, to really find the root of the cause. Aside from which, MD's are often supported by the pharmaceutical industry share a reciprocal relationship and are basically instructed to 'push' certain drugs. I don't like that because it has a special interest attached to it, rather than what's in the best interest of the patient. Of course, having said that, this isn't a sweeping indictment to all physicians. But I have personally seen this kind of bias in action and it is not in the best interests of many patients.
Now to discuss childhood vaccinations
Vaccination is the process of administering weakened or dead pathogens to a healthy person or animal, with the intent of conferring immunity against a targeted form of a related disease agent. It succeeded and is distinct from inoculation.
Somebody has already shared that it is incontrovertible that vaccines work. For the most part, I do agree. There is no telling how Polio could have succeeded had not Pasteur came along. I do believe vaccines, by and large, work. However, I think there is an overstatement on their true effectiveness. In order to legitimize this belief, we have to look at other countries that do not focus highly on western medicine and see how the results weigh out.
We have to be mindful, I think, that the pharmaceutical industry needs sick people for their buisness to survive. And I think they offer some solutions, but at the same time, I think they may be too idealized at times. This is not some conspiratorial rant against the pharmaceutical industry. I don't think their representatives are twisting their moustaches, hatching some diabolic scheme to keep people sick. I just think its a false sense of hope in many instances.
We have been lead to believe that vaccinating our children is necessary to protect them and to stop the spread of various diseases.
I believe that geriatric and pediatric vaccinations are the most important. Some of them, I believe, are unnessesary. For instance, the Hep C vaccine is about worthless. Hep A and Hep B vaccines have some legitimacy.
And while I think this website might be a bit over the top, they make a good point.
Its kind of like the Flu vaccine. Its completely unnecessary for the majority of the general public. The reason why, is that influenza has a propensity for mutation. Hell, that's practically its job. And by the time you get vaccinated, there is already a new strain seeking a host. And the old vaccine is already antiquated. A normal persons white blood cell count and their overall antibodies can fight the Flu. But, some people do need it. But if anyone thinks that getting a Flu vaccine is going to save them, that is not necessarily the case.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add and correct typos

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by purpledawn, posted 11-19-2006 1:38 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nwr, posted 11-21-2006 8:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 68 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 8:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 69 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 8:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 70 by anglagard, posted 11-21-2006 9:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 74 by purpledawn, posted 11-22-2006 7:26 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 66 of 327 (365245)
11-21-2006 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 7:51 PM


Re: Great thread, very eloquent
In order to legitimize this belief, we have to look at other countries that do not focus highly on western medicine and see how the results weigh out.
Wow!
That link shows graphs, purportedly from Australia. What is it about Australia that you think fits with "do not focus highly on western medicine?" Moreover, that web page is clearly designed to push an agenda (and anti-vaccine agenda). It does not mention the effects of antibiotics, which became available at the time deaths were decreasing. The antibiotics are likely the major factor in the decline of scarlet fever. As I recall, there was a brief increase in typhoid during the 50s, due to contaminated copra, but I can't see any sign of that in the graph. Mixing typhoid and scarlet fever with polio and diphtheria on the same graph would only be done if it is intended to mislead. And that web page is from the same web site as another page that you admit "might be a bit over the top."
Just because you are an evangelical Christian, it doesn't follow that you have to be foolishly gullible and fall for all of the bogus medical advice that is being peddled on Christian radio.
Sigh!

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 7:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 9:10 PM nwr has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 67 of 327 (365246)
11-21-2006 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Jazzns
11-21-2006 11:29 AM


Re: autism-sorry, long
quote:
All this is very anecdotal of course but I think that SOMETIMES we can be too critical of those kinds of things.
Please do not misunderstand.
I do not suggest that people reject herbal or "natural" remedies just because they are not conventional.
I am fully aware that some of them have been demonstrated to have very real and effective and safe effects.
The point is, though, that the only way to learn which "natural" substances or treatments actually work for what conditions, what dose is effective and not toxic, if they have any side effects in the short or long term, etc., is to require them to be regulated and tested just like any other drug.
The extremely lucrative "nutritional supplement" industry will fight any regulation tooth and nail, and it will take a bunch of people being severely injured or dying before legislation will be supported.
Of course, people do die and are injured by such products, but there is no accountability to the companies who make them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Jazzns, posted 11-21-2006 11:29 AM Jazzns has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 68 of 327 (365249)
11-21-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 7:51 PM


Re: Great thread, very eloquent
quote:
In fact, most naturopathic physicians are highly trained in both Eastern and Western medicine.
Do you have any information to back that up, because that's very different from the information I have.
According to my sources, most naturopaths, if they have any training, are chiropractors, which means that they don't have any medical training at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 7:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 69 of 327 (365252)
11-21-2006 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 7:51 PM


Re: Great thread, very eloquent
quote:
Its completely unnecessary for the majority of the general public. The reason why, is that influenza has a propensity for mutation. Hell, that's practically its job. And by the time you get vaccinated, there is already a new strain seeking a host. And the old vaccine is already antiquated. A normal persons white blood cell count and their overall antibodies can fight the Flu. But, some people do need it. But if anyone thinks that getting a Flu vaccine is going to save them, that is not necessarily the case.
You do know that the 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic killed 50-100 million people worldwide in just 12 months, don't you? It is estimated that fully one fifth of the population of the world had the flu that year.
In the U.S., about 28% of the population suffered, and 500,000 to 675,000 died. In Britain 200,000 died; in France more than 400,000. Entire villages perished in Alaska and southern Africa. In Australia an estimated 10,000 people died and in the Fiji Islands, 14% of the population died during only two weeks, and in Western Samoa 22%. An estimated 17 million died in India, about 5% of India's population at the time. In the Indian Army, almost 22% of troops who caught the disease died of it.
The strain was unusual for influenza in that this pandemic killed many young adults and otherwise healthy victims - usual influenzas kill mostly newborns, the old, and the infirm.
People without symptoms could be struck suddenly and within hours be too feeble to walk; many died the next day. Symptoms included a blue tint to the face and coughing up blood caused by severe obstruction of the lungs. In later stages, the virus caused an uncontrollable hemorrhaging that filled the lungs, and patients drowned in their body fluids.
In fast-progressing cases, mortality was primarily from pneumonia, by virus-induced consolidation. Slower-progressing cases featured secondary bacterial pneumonias, and there may have been neural involvement that led to psychiatric disorders in a minority of cases. Some deaths resulted from malnourishment and even animal attacks in overwhelmed communities.
The thing is, getting the flu vaccine is generaly harmless, and could protect millions of people from getting the flu. There is no guarantee that the next strain of Influenza isn't going to be as deadly, or worse, than the one that killed so many in 1918.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 7:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 70 of 327 (365255)
11-21-2006 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 7:51 PM


Off Topic
NJ writes:
The reason why, is that influenza has a propensity for mutation. Hell, that's practically its job. And by the time you get vaccinated, there is already a new strain seeking a host.
I thought you guys didn't believe in beneficial mutations.
Sorry, couldn't resist. Please carry on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 7:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 327 (365256)
11-21-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by nwr
11-21-2006 8:22 PM


Re: Great thread, very eloquent
That link shows graphs, purportedly from Australia. What is it about Australia that you think fits with "do not focus highly on western medicine?"
Yeah, I had a graph with Chinese statistics and now I can't find it.
Moreover, that web page is clearly designed to push an agenda (and anti-vaccine agenda). It does not mention the effects of antibiotics, which became available at the time deaths were decreasing. The antibiotics are likely the major factor in the decline of scarlet fever. As I recall, there was a brief increase in typhoid during the 50s, due to contaminated copra, but I can't see any sign of that in the graph. Mixing typhoid and scarlet fever with polio and diphtheria on the same graph would only be done if it is intended to mislead. And that web page is from the same web site as another page that you admit "might be a bit over the top."
I certainly would grant that the information needs to be corroborated, however, I think they offer the flipside of a coin. It does have an anti-vaccine agenda, and the sheer fact that vaccines are already deomstrably proven to be effective is enough to silence some of their arguments. However, the focus of my post was directed at alternatives. Aside from which, the pharmaceutical companies could be as construed as biased as well. I mean, they have a buisness to run too.
As well, it doesn't take long looking at the huge disclaimer offered for every drug, that while you produce positive effects for one thing, the drug itself can induce something else. We've all heard the commercials about side effects. If the drug claims to prevent or mitigate the effects of a neurological disorder, one may also ecerpience heart palpatations or something more serious as a direct result of taking that drug.
I like naturopathy because it seeks alternative answers before using drugs. I don't think it could hurt. And there definitely seems to be alot of naturopathy 'haters' out there, for whatever reason. Its one thing to say that it foesn't work, but the alternative is dangerous pharameucitcals that people essentially become addicted to. I just believe strongly that alternatives should be sought in every case before going to pharmacology.
Just because you are an evangelical Christian, it doesn't follow that you have to be foolishly gullible and fall for all of the bogus medical advice that is being peddled on Christian radio.
Okay, where did this come from? Why do you think my endorsement of naturopathy comes from Christian radio?

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nwr, posted 11-21-2006 8:22 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by nwr, posted 11-21-2006 9:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 73 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 9:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 72 of 327 (365261)
11-21-2006 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 9:10 PM


Slightly off-topic
As well, it doesn't take long looking at the huge disclaimer offered for every drug, that while you produce positive effects for one thing, the drug itself can induce something else.
Just because the "diet supplement" industry doesn't tell you about side effects for the remedies they are pushing, it doesn't follow that there are no side effects.
I like naturopathy because it seeks alternative answers before using drugs.
I'm all for using nature to do the healing where possible. But why would you need to consult a naturopath? And what's natural about taking some obscure herb that is not part of a natural human diet? It seems to me that you are still using a drug. All you have done is chosen to use one drug instead of another. And the chances are that the so-called "natural" remedy is ineffective (apart from the placebo effect).
Just because you are an evangelical Christian, it doesn't follow that you have to be foolishly gullible and fall for all of the bogus medical advice that is being peddled on Christian radio.
Okay, where did this come from? Why do you think my endorsement of naturopathy comes from Christian radio?
I don't know where you get your ideas about alternative medicine. I do know that when I tune into a Christian radio station in this area, the program is as likely to be peddling phony remedies as it is to be giving a religious message. And most of what I hear being peddled is phony.
Now let's return this thread to vaccinations.

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 9:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 73 of 327 (365263)
11-21-2006 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 9:10 PM


Re: Great thread, very eloquent
quote:
I like naturopathy because it seeks alternative answers before using drugs. I don't think it could hurt. And there definitely seems to be alot of naturopathy 'haters' out there, for whatever reason. Its one thing to say that it foesn't work, but the alternative is dangerous pharameucitcals that people essentially become addicted to. I just believe strongly that alternatives should be sought in every case before going to pharmacology.
But Juggs, using herbs IS pharmacology. They are drugs.
If herbs weren't drugs, then taking them wouldn't have any effect. That's WHY people take them, isn't it? That's why they are called "medicinal herbs", right?
It's just pharmacology that is completely unregulated, largely untested, and extremely lucrative for the people who manufacture and sell them by reason of the facts I mentioned.
We literally do not know what chemicals many of these herbs contain, and some of them have hundreds and even thousands of compounds. Some might be useful, some inert, and some toxic.
In addition, there are no standards at all regarding companies to control the potentcy of doses, between brands nor within a brand from lot to lot.
It is far, far riskier to use most herbs, for these reasons.
Why people think that they will be magically protected from harm when using herbs simply because they are "natural" or something, I have no idea.
Curare is natural. Arsenic is natural. Cyanide is natural.
From Home Page | Quackwatch
When potent natural substances are discovered, drug companies try to isolate and synthesize the active chemical in order to provide a reliable supply. They also attempt to make derivatives that are more potent, more predictable, and have fewer side effects. In the case of digitalis, derivatives provide a spectrum of speed and duration of action. Digitalis leaf is almost never used today because its effects are less predictable. Many herbs contain hundreds or even thousands of chemicals that have not been completely cataloged. Some of these chemicals may turn out to be useful as therapeutic agents, but others could well prove toxic.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 9:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 6:02 PM nator has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 74 of 327 (365322)
11-22-2006 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 7:51 PM


Re: Great thread, very eloquent
Thank you. My family give me flack over looking for natural remedies. My daughter was diagnosed with Clinical Depression (her father was eventually diagnosed as bipolar). ADD and ADHD weren't the thing yet. This was all way before I started naturopathic resources.
Today they probably would have classified her under one of the ADD types. The research I did and what the MD told me in simple terms is that she suffered from a chemical imbalance in the brain. While zoloft in a very low dose removed the glass ceiling and she was able to reason and comprehend better, there were still behavioral problems. Other information I found suggested the ill effects of the chemicals in our foods. Since she was a teenager by the time we got a diagnosis of her condition, it was a bit difficult watching her diet; but we did keep her off sugar as much as possible even when she was younger. If I knew then what I know now, I would have changed our diet sooner.
I use the book "Prescription for Nutritional Healing" by Phyllis A Balch. It gives good explanations of diseases, with known causes and how it affects the body. Then it gives suggested remedies and life style change recommendations. Your area seems to have a larger choice of NDs than mine does. Unfortunately my state doesn't have licensing laws for NDs as yours does. Needless to say I have to be careful of quacks. I had a good one who had medical training, but she relocated. I just started with a new one, so I'll see how she pans out.
Even before I found naturopathy, I always did research on an illness to understand how it works and what conditions allow the illness to occur. Helps me ask better questions at the Doctors office.
So when I'm looking at the diseases that are vaccinated against (which I apparently didn't express myself well in the OP, I look at the disease. What is it, how does it spread, what conditions are needed for it to manifest itself; etc. That is the science I look at.
I think I conceded in one post that vaccines have helped to keep certain diseases in check, but I feel that we are at a point that some methods need to be questioned.
Such as, why is it necessary to give a newborn baby a Hepatitis B vaccination right out of the womb? Supposedly the only means of contracting the disease for an infant is through it's mother who can be tested for the disease. Is it really necessary for all infants to have the vaccine?
Since immunity doesn't seem to last and the medical world is advocating adolescent immunizations, maybe it would be more practical to give some vaccines at an older age.
Rubella as I said in the OP is more of a concern for a pregnant woman than children.
WebMD
Rubella, also called German measles or 3-day measles, is a disease caused by the rubella virus. Rubella is generally a mild illness that does not result in long-term problems. ... Generally rubella causes only mild illness and no long-term problems. However, if you are pregnant and infected with the rubella virus during the first trimester of pregnancy, you can transmit the disease to your fetus.
Wouldn't it be more practical to give the vaccine closer to child bearing years instead of to young children? Do males even need to be vaccinated?
Whooping Cough is another that may be more practical to give the vaccine at an older age. Again, would males need to?
Whooping cough is endemic throughout the world, usually occurring in late winter and early spring. In about 50% of cases, it strikes unimmunized children under age 1, probably because women of childbearing age don't usually have high serum levels of B. pertussis antibodies to transmit to their offspring.
Given our sanitation today in the home and in food production, Diphtheria and tetanus are two more than may be more practical and maybe safer if given at an older age instead of within the first year. They aren't vaccines that can't be given later. Now if the child is going to a sitters or daycare, then the parent might opt for the vaccine at the younger age.
I just see no reason we can't look at options within our own location, lifestyles, and living conditions.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 7:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2006 8:03 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 76 by nator, posted 11-22-2006 8:09 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 77 by nator, posted 11-22-2006 8:22 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 81 by Jazzns, posted 11-22-2006 9:16 AM purpledawn has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 327 (365327)
11-22-2006 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by purpledawn
11-22-2006 7:26 AM


Rubella and whooping cough.
Wouldn't it be more practical to give the vaccine closer to child bearing years instead of to young children? Do males even need to be vaccinated?
As has been explained, mass vaccination gives herd immunity.
Whooping Cough is another that may be more practical to give the vaccine at an older age. Again, would males need to?
As the quote you give shows, 50% of cases are unimmunized children under 1 year old. Raising the age of immunization would increase the number of cases.
Why put it off?
Given our sanitation today in the home and in food production, Diphtheria and tetanus are two more than may be more practical and maybe safer if given at an older age...
Or "maybe" not. Where's the evidence? If there is none, then it's better to have children immunized earlier to prevent them from contracting these rather nasty diseases.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by purpledawn, posted 11-22-2006 7:26 AM purpledawn has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024