Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill? Sequal Thread

You might find these articles interesting PD: This one goes into details about what vaccines to do animals, particularly dogs. They develop autoimmune diseases and cancer. Compensation for Vaccine Damage -- UK A horrendous gap in research in this country -- UK again Did you know this? From Wikipedia: I'm glad they discovered the danger, but it was 4 more years until the UK stopped giving it to children. How can we be sure that damage is not also occurring from other vaccines? Mumps encephalitis is pretty high-profile. Asthma, allergies, and constant colds, for example, are not.This same article says that the JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) endorses recommendations to ban thimerosal "even though there is no evidence of toxicity, as a precautionary measure, thiomersal should be phased out over time..." Why would they take this step if they were so certain about the safety of thimerosal? Currently heB and influenza vaccines contain it in the UK; it was phased out of DTaP in 2005. (Great, too late for my litte girl.)

Try reading my posts from earlier today Nator. I do not say "Ban all vaccines, everywhere." Sometimes they are necessary. Same with pharmaceuticals.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. Leave people alone, stop vaccinating them unnecessarily, and you'll find that sometimes nature takes care of things on her own.From Women's Health UK: This site recommends vaccine only if the mother is at risk, and this can be checked with a blood test. Sounds sensible to me.From the NHS Direct site (I've looked this up now): Again, it sounds to me like it's best to leave well enough alone, and save the vaccine for exceptional circumstances.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Call it what you wish, but the stats remain with the same scientific implications. Perhaps you should reread. Where am am I claiming cures for the above. The science of my statement is regarding the effective prevention of disease, the maintenance of the imune system and the science of what is natural to the body's ecosystem relative to disease. We're not talking past centuries. We're talking the technological problems relative to the modern age of technology. The science and knowledge relative both methodologies have increased immensely since the 14th century. One reason I like medical Dr Julian Whitaker and Deborah Ray as well as others who I read, hear and study is that they do work very closely with science. They also expose the non-science of some of the methodology of mainline science as well as the role profit motive plays relative with that methodology.Anglagard, you cannot substantiate your claim that I hate science. It is blatantly false.Perhaps a review of your signature relative to the above would be in order here. From Anglagard's signature.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

I'm not necessarily advocating total abstinance from all vaccinations. My points are relative to the profit incentive to invention and administration of an ever increasing number of shots when other safer methodologies are being undermined and neglected by conventional medical science. We are also addressing the phenomenon of the increase of healh concerns coincidental to these practices relative to the statistics, etc.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

Sound like a word salad with a few bare assertions thrown in like croutons.If you accept that there is a necessary balance of risks concerning vaccination then why do you refuse to accept that the balance of risks favours vaccination in the vast majority of cases, is it due to anything other than your own convictions and anecdotal evidence? One problem is that the concerns aren't necessarily based on any actual effect and are exacerbated by sensational stories in the media.TTFN,WK

Poverty, poor sanitation, and malnutrition were not the conditions of the Native American population.Yet, smallpox wiped out 80% of these folks. What you don't know about anthropology is matched only what you don't know about biology.Take the time to do some reading on pubmed re: indigenous populations aka hunter-gatherers.You will find, as did I when I worked on my Anthro degree, that hunter-gatherers are well fed folks.As for "hand to mouth". Hunter gatherers work but a few hours a day and find plenty to eat. And they have egalitarian, non-hierarchical societies (for the most part, tho there are exceptions) to boot.

Again, I'll ask you to notice your cohort in this thread; buzsaw.Buzsaw arrives at many of his views on health in the same way that he arrives at his views on evolution. He and you seem to be using similar methodologies for the former.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

See my earlier post. Message 116

Vaccinated mothers have an immunity to the virus. That's how vaccination works.

The people killed by the plague in the 1300s were not hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherers are indeed well-fed folks, which is why I eat the Paleolithic Diet.Also, as I'm sure we're both aware, a population needs previous exposure to a pathogen in order to develop immunity. Native Americans had never encountered the smallpox virus, it was completely new to their population. If this were the case anywhere today then I would advocate the use of a vaccine.

I meant she would not have developed a natural immunity if she'd been vaccinated. But yes, she would still be immune from chicken pox during pregnancy if she'd been vaccinated.I still stand by the original point, however, that the vaccine is simply not necessary in most circumstances.

I've learned something interesting about creationists on this forum. They are open-minded. They do not take the point of view that something has to be empirically proved before they consider that it might be valid. Most others here seem to think this is a stupid, fatally flawed way of viewing the world. I say that it's arrogant to think that we can reduce the universe to neat little boxes which can be studied on our terms with no bias whatsoever. That's why copious quotations of studies from prestigious journals don't always convince me the way you think they ought to.BTW let's not use ad hominems about other members to try to convince people that their ideas are flawed. Whatever Buzsaw says about other things here, I agree with him about holistic medicine, nutrition, and vaccines. I'm quite willing to let him know if I read something he writes elsewhere that I disagree with.

PD bought up this same example previously in the original version of this thread and it is predicated on some specious thinking.The most important problem is that the incidence of Mumps encephalitis associated with the urabe strain in vaccines is massively lower than the incidence associated with infection by Mumps.While the urabe strain has a higher incidence of encephalitis/meningitis than other strains it is about 1% of the chance associated with contracting mumps. There are also positive benefits to the urabe strain such that some governments still preferred to use it even when alternatives were available. For more details see my posts Message 33 and Message 61.The damage is phenomenally less than that of contracting mumps. Did you not realise that mumps encephalitis was principally associated with mumps? One obvious reason would be to encourage uptake amongst the rabidly anti-thimerosal segments of the population?TTFN,WK

In a natural conditions most vaccines would not be necessary so I'd agree I guess.Diamond makes the point in "Guns, Germs and Steel" that really virulant diseases don't exist in hunter-gatherer populations because when one arises it wipes out the village where it appears and they population is so sparse it hasn't a chance to get to another village and so goes extinct.In unnatural populations (agriculture, denser populations) the disease can move to another group before it obliterates where it arose. In the larger population there are a small number of survivors so immunity and an evolved resistance arises. So the disease can maintain itself indefinitely.Since we seem to want to exist in larger more dense populations there are a long list of diseases for which vaccination is necessary. They've been listed before and the only reason that everyone isn't vaccinated is the previous vaccination work has reduced them to a vaccinate as needed (try traveling to South America or Africa without them) situation.You may hold on to your views but I think it would prove to be enormously dangerous to put them into practice. I'll trust those who actually know something on this to make the public health choices.If you really want something to fight against and worry about (my bro the doc's biggest worry) try fighting the ridiculous over use of antibiotics. Animal feed, household cleansers, nose wipes -- utterly stupid! And the science is on your side with this one.

quote:

---

Autism is largely, but not entirely, just a modern and more politically correct way to say 'mentally retarded,' the term they used to use when I was young. There is no such thing as more cases of autism, just more diagnoses of autism. I am sure I am not the first to point out this fact, but hey, who cares about facts when lives are at stake?

---

Autistic children do not have to be mentally retarded..some are prettying intelligent actually.Just curious, how do you account for the anomoly that among the amish ,who have a religious bias against vaccines, there is virtually no Autism. The few rare cases are children that WERE vaccinated.