Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill? Sequal Thread

From your first link:

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.

SOME flu vaccines contain thimerosal.Antivax Hysterics wouldn't be getting a flu shot, tho. So it's a moot point.

I don't think the 1% was intended as a measure of associated risk but rather as an illustrative, not necessarily accurate, estimate of how many people believe that vaccines cause these effects.Personally I would be afraid to live in a society utilising faith based health policies.TTFN,WK

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. 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. 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. 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? Maybe I need to say this louder.IT'S THE CONCENTRATION THAT MATTERS. 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? 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.

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.

Yes, they interviewed several people. This one obviously toes the establishment line.

LindaLou, you seem to be missing an understanding of what a rational discussion is. We already know you believe the other side is biased and just blindly backs the mainstream view. Just repeating your position does nothing to advance the discussion. In essence you keep trying to start an "Is not", "Is too" form of discussion, which would be pointless.So could you please stop issuing unsupported accusations of bias so that we could have a rational discussion focused on the evidence?--Percy

quote:

---

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.

---

No and your comparisons are irrelevant. Try reading what I'm saying and not what you think I'm saying.Which one of these is not like the other.As WK pointed out the 1% is just an arbitrary number. It doesn't matter what the odds are whith regards to what I stated.

Well most of the population gets vaccinated, and the average life span just keeps getting better. Like I said IF there are any ill effects then they must by definition be very small indeed, since they have not shown themselves in any clear way.We can both agree that there is no link what so ever between autism and childhood vaccination, a link that has been examined and found wanting in many studies now.You are quite right that we cannot know there is no effect, but like you said as much as 1 in 1000 who get polio contract paralysis. An ill effect as large as that with childhood vaccination would have been caught decades ago, so just for this one patogen we are forced to conclude that the ill effects of not vaccinating are vastly more dangerous and widespread than any imagined or real ill effects from vaccination!An effect as large as paralysis from polio would have been discovered!

I would call death irreparable harm.Aspirin kills. How would you suggest that one "provide for" the aspirin deaths?

What is the difference between childhood vaccinations and aspirin?

quote:

---

Yes, they interviewed several people. This one obviously toes the establishment line.

---

The same evil, corrupt establishment that eliminated smallpox from the wild, you mean?

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.

Bear in mind that even the majority of people who experience paralytic polio do recover without ill effects. Paralysis is rarely permanent or crippling.You're looking for the obvious and the immediate. If people were getting paralysis from vaccines, I can't imagine there would be any problem with identifying this. However, it is more likely that the contents of vaccines have an effect on the immune and nervous system. 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. An article titled Do Vaccines Disable the Immune System? elaborates: This article also cites the findings of this study: Jaber, L., Shohat, M., Mimouni, M. Infectious episodes following diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccination: a preliminary observation in infants. Clinical Pediatrics 1988; 27:491-494. 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. I would like to share your positive outlook on improving lifespans but I find it difficult. Cancer and heart disease, which were once rare, are now endemic. There has been an explosion of asthma and allergies in children. The allergy to nuts, something unheard of when I was in school, is now so widespread and severe that nuts are totally banned in my daughter's school. It was also only in 1983, after my own time as a little person, that the number of vaccine shots was still relatively low, at 10. In 2007 the number stands at 36 in the US, and will no doubt continue to rise. Those who are living to a ripe old age now have not been exposed to anything like the number of vaccines that today's children have had.