Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill? Sequal Thread

Yeah, I know. But some folks are working hard to get that changed:http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/

The studies haven't been done. That is the problem. I am not going to accept that these things are safe until proven otherwise. If this view seems illogical then why do people complain about herbs and say that they shouldn't be used until they are proven safe? Many people have used them with no ill effects.Common sense says to me that I don't want those things injected into me or a loved one. They don't belong in the body. I need to see proof that they do no harm. The truth is that no one really knows.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

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

quote:

---

Common sense says to me that I don't want those things injected into me or a loved one.

---

Common sense says that you don't want the cancer-causing substance in cruciferous vegetables to go into your body, but I don't see you objecting to eating broccoli and cauliflower.Just as Cruciferous vegetables have a net benefit to health, despite containing a known cancer-causing substance, so do vaccines have a known net benefit to disease prevention, despite possibly containing a substance that you believe is harmful.

Vaccine for infantsSo some here think this should be stopped now?A 26,000 child study is about to start.

quote:

---

Infants in Mozambique who had been injected with the experimental vaccine RTS,S/AS02 were 65 per cent less likely to be infected with Plasmodium falciparum - the mosquito-borne parasite that causes malaria - than infants injected with a control vaccine, according to the first major trial of a malaria vaccine in 210 infants. Recipients were also 35 per cent less likely than controls to develop malaria itself.

---

Edited by NosyNed, : fix the url

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. Addressing parents' concerns: do vaccines contain harmful preservatives, adjuvants, additives, or residuals?
Pediatrics. 2003 Dec;112(6 Pt 1):1394-7. Betcha didn't know you produce formaldehyde, huh, Lindalou?

What common sense, your common sense? That doesnt mean the communal common sense then?Heres one. People made vaccines for the purpose of being injected into other people? Vegtables, on the other hand, were not "made" to go in your bloodstream.And adress nator's issue about the carcinogens in broccoli, im interested in your response.ABE: The truth is (straight from PubMed a la molbiogirl), there is proof. But will you back down now that you have been proven wrong, or debate with an agenda; to be right no matter the truth?Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

---

This statement is false.Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.

LindaLou writes:

quote:

---

Speaking for myself, I have said that in populations where poverty, unsanitary living conditions and malnutrition are the norm, vaccines are needed.

---

Well, that means everywhere, even here in the "Western" countries.A girl whose parents decided not to have her vaccinated, picked up measles in Europe and brought it back to the US with her.Hundreds of people got sick and 8 people died.When you don't vaccinate your child, you affect more than just your child. You affect all those around you.

quote:

---

Diet and nutrition will go a long way toward preventing the ill effects of the diseases you listed

---

How very Scientologist of you.LindaLou, you do realize that there hasn't been a case of smallpox in the entire world since the 70s, yes? It isn't because the world suddenly figured out how to eat right and exercise. It's because the World Health Organization carried out a global vaccination program.Diet and nutrition will not prevent smallpox no matter how much you wish it to be so. You seem to think that the germ theory of disease is in question.

quote:

---

The problem here is that most people think that science=vaccines

---

It's more the other way around: Vaccines = science. Because the germ theory of disease has been established, we are capable of introducing vaccinating agents that result in an immune response that protect the person from getting the disease being vaccinated against.

quote:

---

everything else is discounted as nonsense.

---

Not out of hand. They are discounted as nonsense because they have been investigated and found to be nonsense.Eating your Wheaties will not prevent smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, chickenpox, HPV, tuberculosis, influenza, or any of the other myriad diseases for which we have solid proof that vaccines work.Once again, you're stuck in a conspiracy mode. Despite the fact that we have no evidence of detriment and nothing but evidence of benefit, you're absolutely certain that something has been overlooked. You can't actually provide any evidence of it, but you're sure it's there.This must be one of those "life is more fun" moments.

quote:

---

That does not mean that a child in our modern society is going to be better off for getting over 30 jabs containing a variety of substances whose cumulative effect in the body is unknown.

---

Except that it isn't unknown. It's quite known: The kids become immune to the life-threatening diseases that resulted in huge mortality rates that used to devastate the world.The problem isn't the cumulative effect. It's that you don't like the cumulative effect.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

purpledawn writes:

quote:

---

While vaccines are deemed "safe" (which doesn't mean harmless) from a national perspective, I would assume that there is a percentage of possible harm large or small. Even if there is only a 1% chance, when your child falls in that 1% the family wants accountability.

---

Would you rather have your child have a less than 1% chance of having a reaction to the vaccine (with the worst reaction being death), or would you rather have a 25% chance that your child is going to have a debilitating illness that could have been prevented had you had your child vaccinated? Do you seriously not know about the infant mortality rate and the causes? It wasn't simply malnutrition. It was disease. Disease which vaccinations have managed to keep at bay.Smallpox once nearly wiped out the Western Hemisphere. There hasn't been a case of smallpox since the 70s. Not because of any nonsense about diet but because the world got together and said, "We're sick and tired of people dying from smallpox," and vaccinated the entire world.Yes, you say you're not "promoting the wholesale trashing of all vaccines." But then you come out with nonsensical hysteria that a risk of 1% is justification for non-vaccination.I remember in the mid-90s when CNN had its Talkback Live program. The subject was airbags and there were people saying that the forced requirement of airbags was a horrible thing because a couple hundred deaths from the airbag deployment.As I pointed out to the people in the debate, those deaths were tragic but more than two thousand lives had been saved because of those very same airbags.If you're truly talking about a numerical risk, are you really insisting that a thousand people must die to save a hundred?I sympathize with the parent who is worried about bad reactions to the vaccine. But what sort of fantasy world does said parent live in when he or she thinks that he can prevent his child from coming into contact with the disease they decided not to vaccinate their child against?My best friend came out to visit and before she went home, she came down with a fever and rash. She went to the hospital and it turns out she had measles. Measles! In her 20s! Every member of the hospital staff was coming in the room to look at her because they had never seen an actual case of measles (which eventually ticked her off as she started to feel like a lab rat.)Who knows where she got it from. Who knows if she passed it on to anybody else.To use your own argument, "even if there is only a 1% chance, when your child falls in that 1%...."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

nator responds to Buzsaw:

quote:

---

Then why, in Denmark, did the diagnosis of Autism continue to slowly rise in the 10 years after thimerasol was removed from vaccines?

---

Because Buzsaw's argument is that it's the vaccine, itself, that is causing the problem: He's wrong, of course. We know what the effect of all these shots is:People live longer, healthier lives.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I was referring to the idea that autism (or largely in 60s talk mental retardation) is cause by vaccinations. Are you saying that the incidence of {autism/mental retardation/developmental disability in the mental sphere} prior to vaccination is greater now than in the past? Do you have any numbers to back this up? Perhaps I should have worded this a bit differently. You seem to me to claim that proper nutrition, whatever that is, prevents all communicable disease. Now logically according to your thesis, if you have perfect nutrition, then you can't get any of this type of disease. Since all people today in the US are written as having died of this or that disease, are you essentially claiming that your diet will allow you not only to never contract the flu but also to live forever, provided you don't die of a non-communicable disease? Like as in evolution or the germ theory of disease? Sorry, I have seen no evidence you ascribe to either. Well, I must agree it is important for claims of science to be vetted through legitimate criticism. However, as a bit of a pragmatist, to me if ten people suffer complications up to and including death, in order to save a million, the trade off seems more moral than the idea of saving the ten and letting the million die just because such math fits a preconceived and unalterable agenda. Well, it is possible we may have different definitions of science. To me 'creation science,' 'Ron Wyatt,' or 'granola prevents ebola' are not science, while to you they seem to be worthy of defending. Since judging by other threads you are against all of geology, nearly all of biology, gravity and the strong and weak force in physics (except when it is used to kill instead of learn), and any understanding of chemistry based upon the strong and weak forces, to me you are against most of the findings of the natural sciences.I suppose to be fair and more exact, I should say it appears to me you are against most the findings of natural science as currently understood using the definition of science used by scientists.After all, you are apparently now engaged in an argument against the germ theory of disease. In order to 'weigh and consider' one must first read and understand the evidence.The reason I am harder on you than others is because they claim perfect and infallible wisdom while still in high school. You are in your 70s, so IMHO you should be held to a higher standard. Edited by anglagard, : bit of physics clarity

---

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 BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I think the problem is not so much the idea that science is perfect but rather you appear to be criticizing what is known with reasonable confidence using what is asserted with much less evidence or confidence.In a debate, if you take one rather strident side without qualifying your statements, the other side will do likewise. When it comes to matters of science, a field that is both immense and ultimately self correcting, it is easy to get in over one's head, particularly considering the number of highly educated members of certain subsets of the scientific endeavor around here.If you have a specific criticism of the findings of science regarding vaccination yet frame that within the understanding that vaccination is not always a bad thing, you may want to make that clear to everyone around her if you seek to avoid some pretty sharp and heated replies.Edited by anglagard, : beter englich

---

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 BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Yes there are idiot savants. Unfortunately as recently as the 1960s in the US, anyone who appeared to lack the mental ability to function normally was labeled 'mentally retarded.' It is a simple fact of recent history, not necessarily a proper diagnosis under current practices in psychology. As others have subsequently pointed out, you make the assertion, now show us the evidence for the claim.

---

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 BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

LindaLou writes:

quote:

---

I meant she would not have developed a natural immunity if she'd been vaccinated.

---

Huh? What's the difference? Do you not know what's in a vaccine? Do you even know how vaccines work?A simplified course in the immune system: Infectious agents such as viruses and bacteria have protein coats on them. Those protein coats have specific patterns on their surfaces. When these infectious agents enter the body, the body essentially reads that pattern and develops antibodies that are specifically tied to the physical shape of the protein coat. The antibodies bind to the those sites on the infectious agent so that other cells can attack and disable the agent. The exposure of your immune system to the infectious agent teaches the body how to recognize that particular protein coat more quickly in the future and respond before the infection has a chance to take hold. Essentially, your immune system as a memory.Vaccination first came about because it was noticed that people who had had cowpox didn't catch smallpox. It turns out that the protein coat of cowpox is similar enough to smallpox that if you have been infected with cowpox, the antibodies you have created will react to smallpox.Now, it so happens that cowpox isn't nearly as virulent as smallpox. It became clear that if we could infect people with cowpox, it would protect them from smallpox. That's where the word "vaccine" comes from: From the Latin "vac" meaning "cow" as in "cowpox." The research was then to see if there were a way to trigger the immune response without causing any disease at all. That is, is there a way to introduce the correct protein coat that triggers the development of antibodies without any virulent agent to cause disease.Now, there are various ways to do this, but one of the common ways is to introduce killed or weakened infectious agents into the body. Because the protein coat is there and in the right shape and of the right chemical composition, the body reads it, creates antibodies, and stores that protein shape for future use. That's why vaccines work: You've tricked the body into thinking it's been infected when it really hasn't.So what on earth is the difference between "natural" immunity and having been vaccinated? The body can't tell the difference. That's the entire point. The body's reaction to infection is by reading the physical and chemical signal put forward by the infectious agent. Vaccination works by introducing that physical and chemical signal without any infection behind it.

quote:

---

I still stand by the original point, however, that the vaccine is simply not necessary in most circumstances.

---

On the contrary. Vaccination is one of the most important reasons that you're alive today. There's a good chance you'd have died in childhood.Diet and exercise will not protect you from infectious agents. Sanitation will help slow down the spread of disease, but it will not protect you from being infected if you are exposed. Do you truly not understand the germ theory of disease?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I'd suggest there can be some difference. Exposure to full live viruses can provoke a stronger immunogenic response than some of the more attenuated forms in vaccines.Of course this is one of the contributing factors to people becoming much sicker when they are exposed to full live viruses and acquiring the immunity requires you to be exposed to the virus with a high likelihood of becoming syptomatic. So one has to wonder why any sane person would wish to develop 'natural' immunities to things like smallpox, mumps, polio and diptheria rather than choosing vaccination.I can understand why the balance of risks still means that vaccination in the UK for chicken pox is rare, but for many of these diseases choosing not to vaccinate just seems insane.TTFN,WK