Natural food better than vaccinations?

rml_16

I haven't read through all five pages -- a few on page one and a few on page two. So I don't know if this has been pointed out, but going back to the OP: The diseases that we vaccinate against now that people used to DIE from were occurring and killing people back when the only option was to eat natural foods.

So, clearly, eating natural foods is not a cure for those diseases or they wouldn't have occurred until we started highly processing our food.

mrsmccullen07

I'm on the fence.
My sister lives in Germany and is into "natural" and "organic" etc. and she did not give her kids any vacinnes when they were little - she let them get sick so they have natural immunity. Everything turned out OK for her, but I know there are some kids who get these diseases and die, sooooo You have to make your own choices.
Now that her kids are older, she does give them vaccines, figuring that their bodies are able to handle it. She recently got her pre-teen girls the Hepatitis vaccines so they could go to school in America. (they were here 3 weeks during Germany's "summer vacation" time)
I think the jury is out on autism and what causes it and I suspect it will be a long time before such a complicated brain-related condition is figured out.

While it may be the option to wait on immunization, I agree with schools that if you don't have your child immunized, they can't attend public school. While they may not suffer from a disease like measles that they contract, someone else still could be infected who may not have a high a resiliency.

I have a friend who does not give her son vaccinations and as long as she signs a waiver, her son can go to public school. I am not sure I agree with that. She says its for "religious" reasons but is that fair to expose other children to deathly diseases?

Every child is entitled to a public school education. I do not think any child should be denied a education that too me would seem more unfair to me than the slim chance that the one unvaccinated child in the school would be spreading deadly diseases.

Ashley_Panda

Our child is vaccinated, does not have Autism and holy ****, he's healthy too!? How is that possible!?

skinnyack

Are you up to date on your vaccinations ?
Will your child come into contact with any adult who is not up to date on vaccinations?


How would you feel as a parent if you were forced to breastfeed your child ? It has been proven over and over that breastmilk is best for babies however many parents choose to use formula. What if your insurance company made you pay more if you chose not to breastfeed ?


Great point!



No, not a great point. A person's decision to breastfeed or not breastfeed their child will only affect that child. Refusing vaccinations such as those for MMR, dyptheria, polio etc affects the entire society.

Breastfeeding is our first natural form of defence- a weakened immune system in one affects everyone, particularly in schools and workplaces. Your childs illness affects my childs health, and this can be in many regards +/-. For example a child's ADHD, Autism, Seizures, Inproper nutrition (starving, malnourished), abusive parents, cold, polio, etc will have an affect on another childs environment (whether it be inspiring them to become a doctor/social worker or stressing a teacher not equipped with the tools and skills to be able to manage different influences in a classroom or both). However I support the right to do with your breasts as you'd like.

servilia

Are you up to date on your vaccinations ?
Will your child come into contact with any adult who is not up to date on vaccinations?


How would you feel as a parent if you were forced to breastfeed your child ? It has been proven over and over that breastmilk is best for babies however many parents choose to use formula. What if your insurance company made you pay more if you chose not to breastfeed ?


Great point!



No, not a great point. A person's decision to breastfeed or not breastfeed their child will only affect that child. Refusing vaccinations such as those for MMR, dyptheria, polio etc affects the entire society.

Breastfeeding is our first natural form of defence- a weakened immune system in one affects everyone, particularly in schools and workplaces. Your childs illness affects my childs health, and this can be in many regards +/-. For example a child's ADHD, Autism, Seizures, Inproper nutrition (starving, malnourished), abusive parents, cold, polio, etc will have an affect on another childs environment (whether it be inspiring them to become a doctor/social worker or stressing a teacher not equipped with the tools and skills to be able to manage different influences in a classroom or both). However I support the right to do with your breasts as you'd like.

In the big scheme of things these (with the exception of polio) are not all that serious effectsfor society as a whole, compared to a polio or dyptheria pandemic which can wipe out millions. So please don't compare mountains with molehills.

ashleystetzer

Good post, bound to have some conflicting opinions! Personally (and I do mean my own point of view!) I felt it was my duty to immunise my children in order to protect those who couldn't be immunised - however - if diet can make these children resilient, fantastic!

120% AGREE!!

mrsmccullen07

Breastfeeding makes healthier infants and they grow into healthy adults and teenagers. Breastfeeding alone can reduce the risk of SIDS , Childhood Cancer , Obesity , Allergies and Asthma.Teenagers and adults that were breastfeed suffer less from Type 1 & Type 2 diabetes as well as high chlosterol. Mothers that breastfeed develop some protection against breast and ovarian cancer. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends you breastfeed for atleast six months.

Considering in today's society thousands of people are on some sort of government assistance by requiring that mothers breastfeed we could potentially lower the amount of money we spend on healthcare. Our government spends our tax dollars by the billions to pay for health expenses that could be reduced by simply requiring mothers to breastfeed.I can name numerous reasons why requiring all mothers to breastfeed would help us out as an entire society.

By starting now with requiring mother's to breastfeed future generations could potentially be healthier and have fewer medical expenses.

rml_16

Breastfeeding makes healthier infants and they grow into healthy adults and teenagers. Breastfeeding alone can reduce the risk of SIDS , Childhood Cancer , Obesity , Allergies and Asthma.Teenagers and adults that were breastfeed suffer less from Type 1 & Type 2 diabetes as well as high chlosterol. Mothers that breastfeed develop some protecting against breast and ovarian cancer. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends you breastfeed for atleast six months.

Considering in today's society thousands of people are on some sort of government assistance by requiring that mothers breastfeed we could potentially lower the amount of money we spend on healthcare. Our government spends our tax dollars by the billions to pay for health expenses that could be reduced by simply requiring mothers to breastfeed.I can name numerous reasons why requiring all mothers to breastfeed would help us out as an entire society.

By starting now with requiring mother's to breastfeed future generations could potentially be healthier and have fewer medical expenses.

I was breastfed for a year. I have high cholesterol. I had chronic ear infections.

I breastfed my daughter for a year. She's overweight (at 17 years old, despite having healthy food in the house all the time) and it didn't keep either of us from chronic colds and strep throat. She had terrible ear infections and had to have adenoids and tonsils out when she was 4 and tubes put in her ears.

We both did escape SIDS, allergies and asthma, though.

And, no, no one in the house smoked (which is a common cause of chronic ear infections).

mrsmccullen07

Ok so I realize that was off topic but I am trying to demonstrate how unfair it is to assume vaccinations are what is best for everyone. While it is defintly best for the society as a whole it is not the best choice for each individual.

mrsmccullen07

Breastfeeding makes healthier infants and they grow into healthy adults and teenagers. Breastfeeding alone can reduce the risk of SIDS , Childhood Cancer , Obesity , Allergies and Asthma.Teenagers and adults that were breastfeed suffer less from Type 1 & Type 2 diabetes as well as high chlosterol. Mothers that breastfeed develop some protecting against breast and ovarian cancer. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends you breastfeed for atleast six months.

Considering in today's society thousands of people are on some sort of government assistance by requiring that mothers breastfeed we could potentially lower the amount of money we spend on healthcare. Our government spends our tax dollars by the billions to pay for health expenses that could be reduced by simply requiring mothers to breastfeed.I can name numerous reasons why requiring all mothers to breastfeed would help us out as an entire society.

By starting now with requiring mother's to breastfeed future generations could potentially be healthier and have fewer medical expenses.

I was breastfed for a year. I have high cholesterol. I had chronic ear infections.

I breastfed my daughter for a year. She's overweight (at 17 years old, despite having healthy food in the house all the time) and it didn't keep either of us from chronic colds and strep throat. She had terrible ear infections and had to have adenoids and tonsils out when she was 4 and tubes put in her ears.

We both did escape SIDS, allergies and asthma, though.

And, no, no one in the house smoked (which is a common cause of chronic ear infections).

Breastfeeding reduces the risk of you developing those it does not eliminate it just as vaccinations do not prevent you from getting a disease.

That being said this was a thread about vaccinations and we should get back on topic I do not believe every mother should be forced to breastfeed as it is a personal decision but I do believe if they were it would benefit each of us. I also do not believe every parent should be forced to have their child vaccinated but I do agree it is best for society as a whole.

bassettpig

Just 2 things I want to address:
1. Those who are worried about their kids getting "deathly diseases" from unvaccinated kids. If you are concerned, then YOUR kids should be vaccinated. Then they are safe, right? Oh, wait, there is always a slim chance that the vaccine won't be effective in that kid's particular case and you as a responsible parent aren't willing to take that risk, however small....but yet the people who choose not to take the risk of vaccinating THEIR kids are wrong b/c "it's a slim chance" that that kid will have a severe and/or permanent side effect? I guess I don't see why one group of parents who get worked up about a "small risk" is responsible and another group who gets worked up about a different "small risk" is irresponsible.....

2. More on the "small risk" topic: Yes, there may be a 1 in a zilliion chance of a major side effect, like Guillain-Barre syndrome after a flu shot, but it sure does suck if that one person is you or a loved one.

I think the pro-vaccine, anti-choice folks here mean very well, but I think there is a real lack of putting the shoe on the other foot--pick a medical procedure you DON'T believe in and imagine it's being forced on you or your kids. Are you able to see the "bright side" then and feel like it's your "responsibility to society" to go against what you deeply believe is best for your kids?

This came off way more antagonistic than I meant it to, but I hope the point still gets across--this is a sore spot for me as I am looking at either getting a flu vaccine which I do NOT want or losing my job come January 1.

servilia

Just 2 things I want to address:
1. Those who are worried about their kids getting "deathly diseases" from unvaccinated kids. If you are concerned, then YOUR kids should be vaccinated. Then they are safe, right? Oh, wait, there is always a slim chance that the vaccine won't be effective in that kid's particular case and you as a responsible parent aren't willing to take that risk, however small....but yet the people who choose not to take the risk of vaccinating THEIR kids are wrong b/c "it's a slim chance" that that kid will have a severe and/or permanent side effect? I guess I don't see why one group of parents who get worked up about a "small risk" is responsible and another group who gets worked up about a different "small risk" is irresponsible.....

2. More on the "small risk" topic: Yes, there may be a 1 in a zilliion chance of a major side effect, like Guillain-Barre syndrome after a flu shot, but it sure does suck if that one person is you or a loved one.

I think the pro-vaccine, anti-choice folks here mean very well, but I think there is a real lack of putting the shoe on the other foot--pick a medical procedure you DON'T believe in and imagine it's being forced on you or your kids. Are you able to see the "bright side" then and feel like it's your "responsibility to society" to go against what you deeply believe is best for your kids?

This came off way more antagonistic than I meant it to, but I hope the point still gets across--this is a sore spot for me as I am looking at either getting a flu vaccine which I do NOT want or losing my job come January 1.

I agree your situation is ridiculous. Flu vaccines are unneeded except maybe in the case of severely susceptible individuals.

Your first point is invalid. For herd immunity to be maintained a certain critical percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated and immune. Otherwise it all becomes pointless. And why on earth would you put "deathly diseases" in quotes? What, you don't believe in the seriousness of polio or pertussis??

bassettpig

Just 2 things I want to address:
1. Those who are worried about their kids getting "deathly diseases" from unvaccinated kids. If you are concerned, then YOUR kids should be vaccinated. Then they are safe, right? Oh, wait, there is always a slim chance that the vaccine won't be effective in that kid's particular case and you as a responsible parent aren't willing to take that risk, however small....but yet the people who choose not to take the risk of vaccinating THEIR kids are wrong b/c "it's a slim chance" that that kid will have a severe and/or permanent side effect? I guess I don't see why one group of parents who get worked up about a "small risk" is responsible and another group who gets worked up about a different "small risk" is irresponsible.....

2. More on the "small risk" topic: Yes, there may be a 1 in a zilliion chance of a major side effect, like Guillain-Barre syndrome after a flu shot, but it sure does suck if that one person is you or a loved one.

I think the pro-vaccine, anti-choice folks here mean very well, but I think there is a real lack of putting the shoe on the other foot--pick a medical procedure you DON'T believe in and imagine it's being forced on you or your kids. Are you able to see the "bright side" then and feel like it's your "responsibility to society" to go against what you deeply believe is best for your kids?

This came off way more antagonistic than I meant it to, but I hope the point still gets across--this is a sore spot for me as I am looking at either getting a flu vaccine which I do NOT want or losing my job come January 1.

I agree your situation is ridiculous. Flu vaccines are unneeded except maybe in the case of severely susceptible individuals.

Your first point is invalid. For herd immunity to be maintained a certain critical percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated and immune. Otherwise it all becomes pointless. And why on earth would you put "deathly diseases" in quotes? What, you don't believe in the seriousness of polio or pertussis??

I put "deathly diseases" in quotes b/c that is what a prior poster called it and I am quoting that term, but I was not aware we were limiting the definition of "vaccine" to only polio or pertussis. I believe we are discussing vaccinations in general, including flu and chicken pox. .

kunibob

Hope you don't mind if I drop in some responses to your post, bassettpig!

Just 2 things I want to address:
1. Those who are worried about their kids getting "deathly diseases" from unvaccinated kids. If you are concerned, then YOUR kids should be vaccinated. Then they are safe, right? Oh, wait, there is always a slim chance that the vaccine won't be effective in that kid's particular case and you as a responsible parent aren't willing to take that risk, however small....but yet the people who choose not to take the risk of vaccinating THEIR kids are wrong b/c "it's a slim chance" that that kid will have a severe and/or permanent side effect? I guess I don't see why one group of parents who get worked up about a "small risk" is responsible and another group who gets worked up about a different "small risk" is irresponsible.....

The issue I have with this is that as the herd immunity decreases, it's more and more of a risk that folks will get these illnesses. It's small risk vs. small risk now, but as fewer people vaccinate, the situation gets worse.

2. More on the "small risk" topic: Yes, there may be a 1 in a zilliion chance of a major side effect, like Guillain-Barre syndrome after a flu shot, but it sure does suck if that one person is you or a loved one.

Agreed; it really does. I've been a medical edge case a few times, and I really understand how much it sucks. That being said, I'm still all about the greater good.

Also, it's important to keep in mind that the risk of G-B from the swine flu vaccine in the 70s was ten times LESS than the risk of getting G-B from the illness itself...so while I do feel for the folks who got G-B from the vaccine, the flu itself was an even worse risk of G-B...imagine if the spread hadn't been contained by the vaccine! The number of G-B cases would have skyrocketed.

mrsmccullen07

I have read and read and read about vaccinations but I still have questions.

I thought vaccinations lessened the severity of any illness you may catch for which you were vaccinated against ? If that is true than while my child who is unvaccinated would die from certain diseases shouldn't your child have a much better chance of surving due to the fact that they are vaccinated ?

Why do you expect any parent to choose to protect everyone over doing what they believe is best for their child ?
You vaccinate your child because you feel that is what is right or best for you family however by me choosing to do what I feel is best for my child I am wrong.

I am very open to reading others thoughts even when I strongly disagree and I certaintly do not mean this to sound as harsh as it does but here goes ...

Each person seems concerned that there vaccinated child will die from a serious disease and that the parents of the unvaccinated children are just ignorant. Do you understand that we know the risks and that our children are at a even greater risk than yours. Do you understand that by choosing to not vaccinate we realize we are taking a chance but it is a chance we are willing to take. I do not feel that my unvaccinated child is a threat to your vaccinated child. My son is not going to magically wake up one morning with Polio he is going to have to catch it from someone just as your child would. If your vaccinations do not prevent your child from catching Polio then why are you mad at me ? I would never take my child out of the country since they are not vaccinated. I also do not travel outside of the country. Tell me how will my child catch Polio ? And if he does wouldn't it be because someone else introduced it to him and if that is the case couldn't it just as easily be introduced to your child ?

TK421NotAtPost

Each person seems concerned that there vaccinated child will die from a serious disease and that the parents of the unvaccinated children are just ignorant. Do you understand that we know the risks and that our children are at a even greater risk than yours. Do you understand that by choosing to not vaccinate we realize we are taking a chance but it is a chance we are willing to take.

Maybe I missed it because I only skimmed through this mountain of a thread, but why would you take that chance in the first place? Why would you put your children at greater risk?

mrsmccullen07

Each person seems concerned that there vaccinated child will die from a serious disease and that the parents of the unvaccinated children are just ignorant. Do you understand that we know the risks and that our children are at a even greater risk than yours. Do you understand that by choosing to not vaccinate we realize we are taking a chance but it is a chance we are willing to take.

Maybe I missed it because I only skimmed through this mountain of a thread, but why would you take that chance in the first place? Why would you put your children at greater risk?

In my personal situation the vaccinations would be harmful even deadly for my son.Also if my community experiences a outbreak of a disease my child vaccinated or not is at risk so why should I take the chance that he could have a serious side-effect from the vaccination ?

bassettpig

Kunibob, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am having a tough time finding info regarding the risk of G-B syndrome from flu itself rather than the vaccine. I did find the following http://www.aan.com/news/?event=read&article_id=8618 which I will quote a portion of here:
"The CDC asked all state health departments to participate in a national surveillance program to report all cases of GBS, and approximately 1,100 cases were reported through early 1977. The initial reports of the incidence of GBS following swine flu vaccination were high—leading to calculations that vaccination produced a seven- to eight-fold increased risk of GBS. However, these numbers were criticized on two key points: whether patients who probably had other conditions were included, and the appropriate figure to use for the estimated baseline incidence of GBS.

Following a court order, a panel of academic experts was convened in 1981 to review the data reported. This panel included one neurologist, Maurice Victor, MD, and their report was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology ("An epidemiologic and clinical evaluation of Guillain-Barre? syndrome reported in association with the administration of swine influenza vaccines." Am J Epidemiol. 1984 Jun;119(6):841-79). Only a limited dataset was available under the court order. After excluding cases outside the time window of vaccination, there were 944 adult cases of GBS that the panel reviewed. Of these, 504 cases had received swine flu vaccinations, and 440 cases were unvaccinated. Cases of GBS were classified as "extensive" or "limited" according to the extent of motor and respiratory involvement, clinical characteristics such as progression and pattern, and supportive diagnostic information such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings or examinations by neurologists. The onset of symptoms in the vaccinated "extensive" cases showed a clear peak beginning during the first days after vaccination, rising to a maximum by the end of the second week, with a smoothly declining curve over the next six weeks. "Limited" cases, which were fewer in number, had a less clear-cut onset in relationship to the timing of vaccination."

By my reading, with 504 cases of G-B syndrome in vaccinated people versus 440 in unvaccinated people, it actually looks as if the risk was GREATER if one was vaccinated than not. If you would care to share your source, I would be glad to educate myself further, absolutely.

SarabellPlus3

I have read and read and read about vaccinations but I still have questions.

I thought vaccinations lessened the severity of any illness you may catch for which you were vaccinated against ? If that is true than while my child who is unvaccinated would die from certain diseases shouldn't your child have a much better chance of surving due to the fact that they are vaccinated ?

Why do you expect any parent to choose to protect everyone over doing what they believe is best for their child ?
You vaccinate your child because you feel that is what is right or best for you family however by me choosing to do what I feel is best for my child I am wrong.

I am very open to reading others thoughts even when I strongly disagree and I certaintly do not mean this to sound as harsh as it does but here goes ...

Each person seems concerned that there vaccinated child will die from a serious disease and that the parents of the unvaccinated children are just ignorant. Do you understand that we know the risks and that our children are at a even greater risk than yours. Do you understand that by choosing to not vaccinate we realize we are taking a chance but it is a chance we are willing to take. I do not feel that my unvaccinated child is a threat to your vaccinated child. My son is not going to magically wake up one morning with Polio he is going to have to catch it from someone just as your child would. If your vaccinations do not prevent your child from catching Polio then why are you mad at me ? I would never take my child out of the country since they are not vaccinated. I also do not travel outside of the country. Tell me how will my child catch Polio ? And if he does wouldn't it be because someone else introduced it to him and if that is the case couldn't it just as easily be introduced to your child ?

I'm not sure I'll answer all of your questions, but to address those that stand out to me, I think you're kind of seeing a strawman. No one said vaccinations are a 100% surety. They're not. There's a possibility that though I'm up to date on my Rubella vax, I catch Rubella, a small possibility. That's why we rely on the immunity of the herd, kwim? Because the more people vaccinated = the less presense that disease has in our society. And further, people are talking about people who can't be vaxed, or immuno-compromised people-- there is a certain segment of the population that can't be vaccinated. I didn't read all of the background, I don't know if you said your son experienced a severely dangerous reaction to a vaccination in the past, if he has an egg allergy that would make a vaccine life-threatening, or if there was another medical reason he can't be vaxed-- but if so, your son is who people want to protect when they talk about herd immunity. If it's just the idea that MMR might = autism, etc, that's more what we mean about these diseases coming back. My kid might be fine with the Measles, but my kid might be part of a movement of Measles that KILLS babies too young to be vaccinated, elderly, weak, and immuno-compromised people-- and the more people that aren't vaccinated, the faster it'll move and the bigger it'll get.

That's why I care who gets vaccinated, and though I choose to extended BF my 3 kids, I don't care if other people choose not to BF.

ninerbuff

Just 2 things I want to address:
1. Those who are worried about their kids getting "deathly diseases" from unvaccinated kids. If you are concerned, then YOUR kids should be vaccinated. Then they are safe, right? Oh, wait, there is always a slim chance that the vaccine won't be effective in that kid's particular case and you as a responsible parent aren't willing to take that risk, however small....but yet the people who choose not to take the risk of vaccinating THEIR kids are wrong b/c "it's a slim chance" that that kid will have a severe and/or permanent side effect? I guess I don't see why one group of parents who get worked up about a "small risk" is responsible and another group who gets worked up about a different "small risk" is irresponsible.....

A parent can choose to put a seat belt or not a put a seat belt on a child in a car (just for hypothesis). A seat belted child has a better chance of only minor injury than one that's not seat belted in if there's an accident. Even though the chances of getting into accidents daily by responsible drivers are slim, you still would seat belt that child even there was no law in effect. Right or wrong?

2. More on the "small risk" topic: Yes, there may be a 1 in a zilliion chance of a major side effect, like Guillain-Barre syndrome after a flu shot, but it sure does suck if that one person is you or a loved one.

Back to the seatbelt. It doesn't guarantee that every life will be saved, but the odds are much better.

I think the pro-vaccine, anti-choice folks here mean very well, but I think there is a real lack of putting the shoe on the other foot--pick a medical procedure you DON'T believe in and imagine it's being forced on you or your kids. Are you able to see the "bright side" then and feel like it's your "responsibility to society" to go against what you deeply believe is best for your kids?

I don't believe in "giving" money to the government. Unfortunately I'm forced to.
If someone had TB and couldn't get medical help in his town, do you think they would let that person seek out help on their own or quarantine them to keep it from spreading to the population? That's pretty much a no brainer, even if it put the person with the virus in jeopardy for their life.

This came off way more antagonistic than I meant it to, but I hope the point still gets across--this is a sore spot for me as I am looking at either getting a flu vaccine which I do NOT want or losing my job come January 1.

Sorry about your job, but if you deal with people who may have weak or weakened immune systems, I could understand why.