Natural food better than vaccinations?

1…457910

Replies

  • skinnyack
    skinnyack Posts: 683
    Neither is a vaccine... but no I was not referring to Polio specifically

    "3.Even Dr. Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine admitted under oath that most cases of polio in the USA since 1961 were actually caused by the vaccine."

    http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-health/vaccinations-parents-informed-choice

    Nutrition based cancer cure and research links: http://gerson.org/
  • RobynC79
    RobynC79 Posts: 331 Member
    Nutrition based cancer cure and research links: http://gerson.org/

    This is starting to diverge considerably from the initial topic. However:

    From the NIH:

    "Have any preclinical (laboratory or animal) studies been conducted using the Gerson therapy?

    No results of laboratory or animal studies have been published in scientific journals."

    "Have any clinical trials (research studies with people) of the Gerson therapy been conducted?
    In 1947 and 1959, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed the cases of a total of 60 patients treated by Dr. Gerson. The NCI found that the available information did not prove the regimen had benefit."

    There is no evidence that natural foods protect you from communicable diseases, cancer or any other illness at a level comparable to that of a vaccine, neither will they cure you in a manner comparable to tested, proven medications once you contract that disease. Eating a healthy diet is probably better than not eating a healthy diet, but any claim that it will save you or anyone else from polio, chickenpox, measles, cancer or whatever else is false. The Gerson 'research' is based on case notes made by the doctor himself, thus not meeting even the most lenient requirement for disinterest in reporting outcomes.

    In my opinion people who actively promote this type of 'therapy' are dangerous. Note that this 'therapy' requires patients to stop chemotherapy entirely in order to undergo it, thus this is not complementary medicine, it is purely alternative, and it is costly - just the 2 week initial stay is $5500, and this is followed by a months-long regimen of unproven supplements that are also rather overpriced. Making money offering worthless, or potentially harmful 'treatments' is unethical and no self-respecting medical practitioner would likely condone it.

    But let's assume it works - Why not donate some of those proceeds to fund a clinical trial, then there can be no doubt. It's been around since the 50's, so there's been plenty of opportunity to demonstrate it's purported success.
  • skinnyack
    skinnyack Posts: 683
    Nutrition based cancer cure and research links: http://gerson.org/

    This is starting to diverge considerably from the initial topic. However:

    From the NIH:

    "Have any preclinical (laboratory or animal) studies been conducted using the Gerson therapy?

    No results of laboratory or animal studies have been published in scientific journals."

    "Have any clinical trials (research studies with people) of the Gerson therapy been conducted?
    In 1947 and 1959, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed the cases of a total of 60 patients treated by Dr. Gerson. The NCI found that the available information did not prove the regimen had benefit."

    There is no evidence that natural foods protect you from communicable diseases, cancer or any other illness at a level comparable to that of a vaccine, neither will they cure you in a manner comparable to tested, proven medications once you contract that disease. Eating a healthy diet is probably better than not eating a healthy diet, but any claim that it will save you or anyone else from polio, chickenpox, measles, cancer or whatever else is false. The Gerson 'research' is based on case notes made by the doctor himself, thus not meeting even the most lenient requirement for disinterest in reporting outcomes.

    In my opinion people who actively promote this type of 'therapy' are dangerous. Note that this 'therapy' requires patients to stop chemotherapy entirely in order to undergo it, thus this is not complementary medicine, it is purely alternative, and it is costly - just the 2 week initial stay is $5500, and this is followed by a months-long regimen of unproven supplements that are also rather overpriced. Making money offering worthless, or potentially harmful 'treatments' is unethical and no self-respecting medical practitioner would likely condone it.

    But let's assume it works - Why not donate some of those proceeds to fund a clinical trial, then there can be no doubt. It's been around since the 50's, so there's been plenty of opportunity to demonstrate it's purported success.

    I can COMPLETELY understand your point of view. :smile: Seems a little fishy right? I thought the same thing so I read the book and am about to read a second and try it- will cost me about $100 plus the price for a juicer (which I wanted anyway) My comparison is it's the same reason when we walk into our Doc and say "I have XYZ symptoms" they prescribe us a pill instead of saying, "yeah, it's because you are obese and unhealthy. try going on a freaking walk and eating a carrot." Natural cures don't make $$. And people want quick fixes. The price tag on it is $5500 for a two week all inclusive intensive treatment/education and is probably really only needed for really sick patients. They have tried and failed to get medical approval but can't in the US but have physicians that practice this in Mexico and Europe.

    edited because I wasn't happy with my wording initially.

    I wish the best to all of you- whatever you decide to do. Stay healthy!
  • servilia
    servilia Posts: 3,452 Member
    Neither is a vaccine... but no I was not referring to Polio specifically

    "3.Even Dr. Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine admitted under oath that most cases of polio in the USA since 1961 were actually caused by the vaccine."

    http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-health/vaccinations-parents-informed-choice

    Nutrition based cancer cure and research links: http://gerson.org/

    OMG are you serious. Of course most cases were caused by the vaccine, since most people were already protected and wouldn't have caught it from infected individuals. Doesn't help your argument. Please stop spreading dangerous messages like less stress is as good as a vaccine against dangerous diseases.
  • BondBomb
    BondBomb Posts: 1,781 Member
    When my husband and I were trying to conceive I was offered the h1n1. I declined since I never took flu shots. A few months later I found out I was pregnant. A few weeks after that I ended up in the hospital with h1n1 and the doctor telling me there was a strong chance I was losing the baby. Thank god I didn't. That was a wake up and more for me. I am a scientist. I worked in vaccine development for Wyeth which manufactures the polio vaccine. I am not afraid of vaccines but I never took them as seriously as I do now.
    I can promise you I would rather have an autistic son than a dead one. But again..vaccines do not cause autism. Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them.
  • SarabellPlus3
    SarabellPlus3 Posts: 496 Member
    I think it's really intellectually dishonest to misrepresent the fact that polio cases in the us after the vax were caused by the vax & act as though that's the reasonable answer to some question. You have to think about that in the context it's in if you're AT ALL interested in looking at it fairly.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Nutrition based cancer cure and research links: http://gerson.org/

    This is starting to diverge considerably from the initial topic. However:

    From the NIH:

    "Have any preclinical (laboratory or animal) studies been conducted using the Gerson therapy?

    No results of laboratory or animal studies have been published in scientific journals."

    "Have any clinical trials (research studies with people) of the Gerson therapy been conducted?
    In 1947 and 1959, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed the cases of a total of 60 patients treated by Dr. Gerson. The NCI found that the available information did not prove the regimen had benefit."

    There is no evidence that natural foods protect you from communicable diseases, cancer or any other illness at a level comparable to that of a vaccine, neither will they cure you in a manner comparable to tested, proven medications once you contract that disease. Eating a healthy diet is probably better than not eating a healthy diet, but any claim that it will save you or anyone else from polio, chickenpox, measles, cancer or whatever else is false. The Gerson 'research' is based on case notes made by the doctor himself, thus not meeting even the most lenient requirement for disinterest in reporting outcomes.

    In my opinion people who actively promote this type of 'therapy' are dangerous. Note that this 'therapy' requires patients to stop chemotherapy entirely in order to undergo it, thus this is not complementary medicine, it is purely alternative, and it is costly - just the 2 week initial stay is $5500, and this is followed by a months-long regimen of unproven supplements that are also rather overpriced. Making money offering worthless, or potentially harmful 'treatments' is unethical and no self-respecting medical practitioner would likely condone it.

    But let's assume it works - Why not donate some of those proceeds to fund a clinical trial, then there can be no doubt. It's been around since the 50's, so there's been plenty of opportunity to demonstrate it's purported success.

    I can COMPLETELY understand your point of view. :smile: Seems a little fishy right? I thought the same thing so I read the book and am about to read a second and try it- will cost me about $100 plus the price for a juicer (which I wanted anyway) My comparison is it's the same reason when we walk into our Doc and say "I have XYZ symptoms" they prescribe us a pill instead of saying, "yeah, it's because you are obese and unhealthy. try going on a freaking walk and eating a carrot." Natural cures don't make $$. And people want quick fixes. The price tag on it is $5500 for a two week all inclusive intensive treatment/education and is probably really only needed for really sick patients. They have tried and failed to get medical approval but can't in the US but have physicians that practice this in Mexico and Europe.

    edited because I wasn't happy with my wording initially.

    I wish the best to all of you- whatever you decide to do. Stay healthy!

    And I repeat: people got and died from these diseases for thousands of years before processed food was even available. If it was a cure or a valid treatment, that wouldn't have happened until the last 100 years or so. Use some common sense, please.

    And doctor's DO tell obese patients to lose weight. But when your blood pressure is 200/100, even if you DO manage to lose weight (many won't even bother trying), you still need to treat that in the meantime so you don't DIE.

    Yes, a healthy diet will go a long way in preventing certain diseases (though you're not guaranteed NOT to get them, anyway), but it won't keep you from catching contagious diseases and it won't cure a dammed thing.
  • ennaejay
    ennaejay Posts: 575
    I have my own (strong) opinions about this, but...

    BUMP for later
  • servilia
    servilia Posts: 3,452 Member
    Neither is a vaccine... but no I was not referring to Polio specifically

    "3.Even Dr. Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine admitted under oath that most cases of polio in the USA since 1961 were actually caused by the vaccine."

    http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-health/vaccinations-parents-informed-choice

    Nutrition based cancer cure and research links: http://gerson.org/

    OMG are you serious. Of course most cases were caused by the vaccine, since most people were already protected and wouldn't have caught it from infected individuals. Doesn't help your argument. Please stop spreading dangerous messages like less stress is as good as a vaccine against dangerous diseases.

    Gaah I'm quoting myself here because it's not letting me edit my last post (I'm the OMG are you serious quote above). I just wanted to clarify I don't know for a fact that most cases were caused by the vax but my response still stands, assuming what you stated was correct.
  • mrsmccullen07
    mrsmccullen07 Posts: 159
    When my husband and I were trying to conceive I was offered the h1n1. I declined since I never took flu shots. A few months later I found out I was pregnant. A few weeks after that I ended up in the hospital with h1n1 and the doctor telling me there was a strong chance I was losing the baby. Thank god I didn't. That was a wake up and more for me. I am a scientist. I worked in vaccine development for Wyeth which manufactures the polio vaccine. I am not afraid of vaccines but I never took them as seriously as I do now.
    I can promise you I would rather have an autistic son than a dead one. But again..vaccines do not cause autism. Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them.

    Sorry for your experience and scare with H1N1. I was pregnant and the same time and got "fired" from my doctor for refusing the Flu Vax as well as the H1N1 vax. However your statement that "Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them" is simply wrong. As a parent we each of the choice and for some of us there are thousands of reasons why our children shouldn't be vaccinated. If there was never a reported reaction to a vaccination than your statement may stand to be true but that isn't reality.

    I can not vaccinate my first child because of his seizures. I choose not to vaccinate my second child as the risk of reaction to a vaccination is one I am not willing to take. And before people go crazy defending vaccinations and throw up Polio & SmallPox you have to understand I have researched and read every article I have ever found or been linked too and I understand how devastating Small Pox & Polio were and could be today. I wish that each person that told me to vaccinate would read through all the articles that tell of reactions to vaccinations. Please understand that while you support your vaccination arguement with statistics/articles/studies etc. I can do the same for my beliefs.

    And while some believe articles www.thinktwice.com are just "propaganda" due to the fact they are published on a anti-vax website I have to argue with you about articles published/released by the CDC (and other organizations) as they benefit from the use of vaccinations therefore there is no way I can believe they accurately represent both sides of the vaccination arguement.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    When my husband and I were trying to conceive I was offered the h1n1. I declined since I never took flu shots. A few months later I found out I was pregnant. A few weeks after that I ended up in the hospital with h1n1 and the doctor telling me there was a strong chance I was losing the baby. Thank god I didn't. That was a wake up and more for me. I am a scientist. I worked in vaccine development for Wyeth which manufactures the polio vaccine. I am not afraid of vaccines but I never took them as seriously as I do now.
    I can promise you I would rather have an autistic son than a dead one. But again..vaccines do not cause autism. Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them.

    Sorry for your experience and scare with H1N1. I was pregnant and the same time and got "fired" from my doctor for refusing the Flu Vax as well as the H1N1 vax. However your statement that "Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them" is simply wrong. As a parent we each of the choice and for some of us there are thousands of reasons why our children shouldn't be vaccinated. If there was never a reported reaction to a vaccination than your statement may stand to be true but that isn't reality.

    I can not vaccinate my first child because of his seizures. I choose not to vaccinate my second child as the risk of reaction to a vaccination is one I am not willing to take. And before people go crazy defending vaccinations and throw up Polio & SmallPox you have to understand I have researched and read every article I have ever found or been linked too and I understand how devastating Small Pox & Polio were and could be today. I wish that each person that told me to vaccinate would read through all the articles that tell of reactions to vaccinations. Please understand that while you support your vaccination arguement with statistics/articles/studies etc. I can do the same for my beliefs.

    And while some believe articles www.thinktwice.com are just "propaganda" due to the fact they are published on a anti-vax website I have to argue with you about articles published/released by the CDC (and other organizations) as they benefit from the use of vaccinations therefore there is no way I can believe they accurately represent both sides of the vaccination arguement.

    Your children are relatively safe from those diseases even without the vaccinations because the REST OF US vaccinate our children against them.

    You're welcome.
  • RobynC79
    RobynC79 Posts: 331 Member
    articles published/released by the CDC (and other organizations) as they benefit from the use of vaccinations therefore there is no way I can believe they accurately represent both sides of the vaccination arguement.

    The CDC does not release or produce the articles referenced here. The CDC is a government body that assesses original research done by academic scientists and medical professionals, and makes recommendations to government based on that body of original research studies. You can take issue with the CDC's recommendations if you choose, but please educate yourself about the source of the original research. Any study published in a primary literature journal has been conducted by qualified scientists, and their findings are supported by rigorous statistical analyses, such that the findings are free from bias or poor interpretation (this is not foolproof, but it is generally considered the best-practice system). Those results and their interpretation are then reviewed and critiqued by other, independent scientists (this is 'peer review', a foundation of scientific publishing), before being released into the literature. So the CDC does not necessarily conduct the studies themselves, they integrate the results of many studies to form their own recommendations.

    How does the CDC benefit from vaccinations? They don't manufacture them, and in the strictest sense a well vaccinated populous makes less work for the CDC. Be careful of lazy conspiracy-mongering...
    Please understand that while you support your vaccination arguement with statistics/articles/studies etc. I can do the same for my beliefs.
    The statistics/articles/studies that are anti-vaccination tend to be of poor quality. They rarely meet objectivity and disinterest requirements, are rarely peer-reviewed, and are not well controlled. Sorry, but countering published, peer reviewed science with opinion pieces and anecdotes on blogs and websites doesn't cut it.
  • mrsmccullen07
    mrsmccullen07 Posts: 159
    When my husband and I were trying to conceive I was offered the h1n1. I declined since I never took flu shots. A few months later I found out I was pregnant. A few weeks after that I ended up in the hospital with h1n1 and the doctor telling me there was a strong chance I was losing the baby. Thank god I didn't. That was a wake up and more for me. I am a scientist. I worked in vaccine development for Wyeth which manufactures the polio vaccine. I am not afraid of vaccines but I never took them as seriously as I do now.
    I can promise you I would rather have an autistic son than a dead one. But again..vaccines do not cause autism. Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them.

    Sorry for your experience and scare with H1N1. I was pregnant and the same time and got "fired" from my doctor for refusing the Flu Vax as well as the H1N1 vax. However your statement that "Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them" is simply wrong. As a parent we each of the choice and for some of us there are thousands of reasons why our children shouldn't be vaccinated. If there was never a reported reaction to a vaccination than your statement may stand to be true but that isn't reality.

    I can not vaccinate my first child because of his seizures. I choose not to vaccinate my second child as the risk of reaction to a vaccination is one I am not willing to take. And before people go crazy defending vaccinations and throw up Polio & SmallPox you have to understand I have researched and read every article I have ever found or been linked too and I understand how devastating Small Pox & Polio were and could be today. I wish that each person that told me to vaccinate would read through all the articles that tell of reactions to vaccinations. Please understand that while you support your vaccination arguement with statistics/articles/studies etc. I can do the same for my beliefs.

    And while some believe articles www.thinktwice.com are just "propaganda" due to the fact they are published on a anti-vax website I have to argue with you about articles published/released by the CDC (and other organizations) as they benefit from the use of vaccinations therefore there is no way I can believe they accurately represent both sides of the vaccination arguement.

    Your children are relatively safe from those diseases even without the vaccinations because the REST OF US vaccinate our children against them.

    You're welcome.

    I do not believe you vaccinating your child protects my child in anyway. If your vaccination can not even protect your child 100% how is it going to protect my child at all ? If anything I would believe that your vaccinated child would be a threat to my child as they are known carriers of diseases. So no I do not thank you for vaccinating your child !
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    When my husband and I were trying to conceive I was offered the h1n1. I declined since I never took flu shots. A few months later I found out I was pregnant. A few weeks after that I ended up in the hospital with h1n1 and the doctor telling me there was a strong chance I was losing the baby. Thank god I didn't. That was a wake up and more for me. I am a scientist. I worked in vaccine development for Wyeth which manufactures the polio vaccine. I am not afraid of vaccines but I never took them as seriously as I do now.
    I can promise you I would rather have an autistic son than a dead one. But again..vaccines do not cause autism. Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them.

    Sorry for your experience and scare with H1N1. I was pregnant and the same time and got "fired" from my doctor for refusing the Flu Vax as well as the H1N1 vax. However your statement that "Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them" is simply wrong. As a parent we each of the choice and for some of us there are thousands of reasons why our children shouldn't be vaccinated. If there was never a reported reaction to a vaccination than your statement may stand to be true but that isn't reality.

    I can not vaccinate my first child because of his seizures. I choose not to vaccinate my second child as the risk of reaction to a vaccination is one I am not willing to take. And before people go crazy defending vaccinations and throw up Polio & SmallPox you have to understand I have researched and read every article I have ever found or been linked too and I understand how devastating Small Pox & Polio were and could be today. I wish that each person that told me to vaccinate would read through all the articles that tell of reactions to vaccinations. Please understand that while you support your vaccination arguement with statistics/articles/studies etc. I can do the same for my beliefs.

    And while some believe articles www.thinktwice.com are just "propaganda" due to the fact they are published on a anti-vax website I have to argue with you about articles published/released by the CDC (and other organizations) as they benefit from the use of vaccinations therefore there is no way I can believe they accurately represent both sides of the vaccination arguement.

    Your children are relatively safe from those diseases even without the vaccinations because the REST OF US vaccinate our children against them.

    You're welcome.

    I do not believe you vaccinating your child protects my child in anyway. If your vaccination can not even protect your child 100% how is it going to protect my child at all ? If anything I would believe that your vaccinated child would be a threat to my child as they are known carriers of diseases. So, No I do not thank you for vaccinating your child !

    Well, then, PLEASE explain to me how 60-70 years ago, children (and adults) were dying in droves from these illnesses, or some being crippled or maimed for life and now they've been more or less erradicated in this country? Did people just suddenly develop immunity to them?
  • SarabellPlus3
    SarabellPlus3 Posts: 496 Member
    Your children are relatively safe from those diseases even without the vaccinations because the REST OF US vaccinate our children against them.

    You're welcome.
    I do not believe you vaccinating your child protects my child in anyway. If your vaccination can not even protect your child 100% how is it going to protect my child at all ? If anything I would believe that your vaccinated child would be a threat to my child as they are known carriers of diseases. So no I do not thank you for vaccinating your child !
    I don't think you're looking at this in the right context. You may as well be telling us that 4+4=3 TO YOU, & we need to respect that. It's simply not true. Your child is protected by us getting vaccinated because the more people vaccinated, the less presence that illness has in society. He is less likely to be exposed, because the viruses aren't around, because the rest of us are getting vaccinated. Thats why your son is probably unlikely to be exposed, and it's why the small percentage of people who get a vax and it doesn't "take" for whatever reason, will be safe. That's exactly what herd immunity is, and it doesn't matter if I believe in it or not. Your son has a medical examption it sounds like, and that's FINE. I don't think a single poster takes issue with that. But see how long some of these illnesses stay a third-world problem as more and more people stop getting immunizations for non-medical reasons.
  • mrsmccullen07
    mrsmccullen07 Posts: 159
    When my husband and I were trying to conceive I was offered the h1n1. I declined since I never took flu shots. A few months later I found out I was pregnant. A few weeks after that I ended up in the hospital with h1n1 and the doctor telling me there was a strong chance I was losing the baby. Thank god I didn't. That was a wake up and more for me. I am a scientist. I worked in vaccine development for Wyeth which manufactures the polio vaccine. I am not afraid of vaccines but I never took them as seriously as I do now.
    I can promise you I would rather have an autistic son than a dead one. But again..vaccines do not cause autism. Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them.

    Sorry for your experience and scare with H1N1. I was pregnant and the same time and got "fired" from my doctor for refusing the Flu Vax as well as the H1N1 vax. However your statement that "Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them" is simply wrong. As a parent we each of the choice and for some of us there are thousands of reasons why our children shouldn't be vaccinated. If there was never a reported reaction to a vaccination than your statement may stand to be true but that isn't reality.

    I can not vaccinate my first child because of his seizures. I choose not to vaccinate my second child as the risk of reaction to a vaccination is one I am not willing to take. And before people go crazy defending vaccinations and throw up Polio & SmallPox you have to understand I have researched and read every article I have ever found or been linked too and I understand how devastating Small Pox & Polio were and could be today. I wish that each person that told me to vaccinate would read through all the articles that tell of reactions to vaccinations. Please understand that while you support your vaccination arguement with statistics/articles/studies etc. I can do the same for my beliefs.

    And while some believe articles www.thinktwice.com are just "propaganda" due to the fact they are published on a anti-vax website I have to argue with you about articles published/released by the CDC (and other organizations) as they benefit from the use of vaccinations therefore there is no way I can believe they accurately represent both sides of the vaccination arguement.

    Your children are relatively safe from those diseases even without the vaccinations because the REST OF US vaccinate our children against them.

    You're welcome.

    I do not believe you vaccinating your child protects my child in anyway. If your vaccination can not even protect your child 100% how is it going to protect my child at all ? If anything I would believe that your vaccinated child would be a threat to my child as they are known carriers of diseases. So, No I do not thank you for vaccinating your child !

    Well, then, PLEASE explain to me how 60-70 years ago, children (and adults) were dying in droves from these illnesses, or some being crippled or maimed for life and now they've been more or less erradicated in this country? Did people just suddenly develop immunity to them?


    Which disease ?

    I have come across the same information numerous times and I have thousands of articles saved on my computer and I am going through them to find the one's that discuss it.

    Between 1900 and 1920 the rate of death from infectious disease dropped. This drop was before the introduction of childhood vaccinations. It also worth noting that after the spike around 1920 that the death rate started dropping again at nearly the same rate as before vaccination. Also take notice that death from non-infectious causes has risen since the introduction of vaccinations.
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61/F2.expansion

    I think it is interesting to note the decrease in deaths from Typhoid & Dysentery. There is no vaccination for dysentery and people are not regularly vaccinated against typhus. No deaths from either disease has occured since 1960. The death rate from pnuemonia & influenza from 1970 to 1996 shows a increase although vaccinations were given for both. The Pnuemonia vaccines were introduced in 1977 & 1983. Diphtheria shows more decrease in deaths before 1920. The vaccine was introduced during the early 1920s and there is a spike in deaths from diphtheria at that same time. The rate of deaths decreased after that but no faster than it was decreasing before the introduction of the vaccine.
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61/F4.large.gif

    Lets look at "evidence" from other countries that proves that vaccinations do not eliminate disease.
    http://www.vaccinationdebate.net/web2.html
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    When my husband and I were trying to conceive I was offered the h1n1. I declined since I never took flu shots. A few months later I found out I was pregnant. A few weeks after that I ended up in the hospital with h1n1 and the doctor telling me there was a strong chance I was losing the baby. Thank god I didn't. That was a wake up and more for me. I am a scientist. I worked in vaccine development for Wyeth which manufactures the polio vaccine. I am not afraid of vaccines but I never took them as seriously as I do now.
    I can promise you I would rather have an autistic son than a dead one. But again..vaccines do not cause autism. Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them.

    Sorry for your experience and scare with H1N1. I was pregnant and the same time and got "fired" from my doctor for refusing the Flu Vax as well as the H1N1 vax. However your statement that "Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them" is simply wrong. As a parent we each of the choice and for some of us there are thousands of reasons why our children shouldn't be vaccinated. If there was never a reported reaction to a vaccination than your statement may stand to be true but that isn't reality.

    I can not vaccinate my first child because of his seizures. I choose not to vaccinate my second child as the risk of reaction to a vaccination is one I am not willing to take. And before people go crazy defending vaccinations and throw up Polio & SmallPox you have to understand I have researched and read every article I have ever found or been linked too and I understand how devastating Small Pox & Polio were and could be today. I wish that each person that told me to vaccinate would read through all the articles that tell of reactions to vaccinations. Please understand that while you support your vaccination arguement with statistics/articles/studies etc. I can do the same for my beliefs.

    And while some believe articles www.thinktwice.com are just "propaganda" due to the fact they are published on a anti-vax website I have to argue with you about articles published/released by the CDC (and other organizations) as they benefit from the use of vaccinations therefore there is no way I can believe they accurately represent both sides of the vaccination arguement.

    Your children are relatively safe from those diseases even without the vaccinations because the REST OF US vaccinate our children against them.

    You're welcome.

    I do not believe you vaccinating your child protects my child in anyway. If your vaccination can not even protect your child 100% how is it going to protect my child at all ? If anything I would believe that your vaccinated child would be a threat to my child as they are known carriers of diseases. So, No I do not thank you for vaccinating your child !

    Well, then, PLEASE explain to me how 60-70 years ago, children (and adults) were dying in droves from these illnesses, or some being crippled or maimed for life and now they've been more or less erradicated in this country? Did people just suddenly develop immunity to them?


    Which disease ?

    I have come across the same information numerous times and I have thousands of articles saved on my computer and I am going through them to find the one's that discuss it.

    Between 1900 and 1920 the rate of death from infectious disease dropped. This drop was before the introduction of childhood vaccinations. It also worth noting that after the spike around 1920 that the death rate started dropping again at nearly the same rate as before vaccination. Also take notice that death from non-infectious causes has risen since the introduction of vaccinations.
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61/F2.expansion

    I think it is interesting to note the decrease in deaths from Typhoid & Dysentery. There is no vaccination for dysentery and people are not regularly vaccinated against typhus. No deaths from either disease has occured since 1960. The death rate from pnuemonia & influenza from 1970 to 1996 shows a increase although vaccinations were given for both. The Pnuemonia vaccines were introduced in 1977 & 1983. Diphtheria shows more decrease in deaths before 1920. The vaccine was introduced during the early 1920s and there is a spike in deaths from diphtheria at that same time. The rate of deaths decreased after that but no faster than it was decreasing before the introduction of the vaccine.
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61/F4.large.gif

    Lets look at "evidence" from other countries that proves that vaccinations do not eliminate disease.
    http://www.vaccinationdebate.net/web2.html

    People with AIDS tend to die of things like pnemonia. Older people, as well. People live much longer and are therefore more susceptible to those diseases, which would increase the number of deaths. When you look at the statistics, do you also look at WHO is dying from those diseases? And what other factors play a part in those deaths?

    My grandmother was a pediatrician and old enough to remember before vaccinations. She was a huge proponent of them. Three of my grandparents almost died from diseases that now are vaccinated against (two of them AFTER 1920, since they weren't even born yet before then). My 6th grade teachers was a polio survivor and spent the majority of his life in a wheelchair with horribly shriveled up legs because of it. Two of my aunts, my mother's best friend and a cousin are RNs (with BSs and MSs), my other cousin is a pharmacist and every one of them is a proponent of vaccinations.

    Just because someone is making money off of something doesn't mean that something is bad. They're making money off of vaccines because they've seen what they have done for the health and wellness of the population and it was a good thing.

    Typhoid and dysentary are diseases usually spread through poor hygienic practices. That's why people in the Western world don't die from them anymore.
  • mrsmccullen07
    mrsmccullen07 Posts: 159
    Your children are relatively safe from those diseases even without the vaccinations because the REST OF US vaccinate our children against them.

    You're welcome.
    I do not believe you vaccinating your child protects my child in anyway. If your vaccination can not even protect your child 100% how is it going to protect my child at all ? If anything I would believe that your vaccinated child would be a threat to my child as they are known carriers of diseases. So no I do not thank you for vaccinating your child !
    I don't think you're looking at this in the right context. You may as well be telling us that 4+4=3 TO YOU, & we need to respect that. It's simply not true. Your child is protected by us getting vaccinated because the more people vaccinated, the less presence that illness has in society. He is less likely to be exposed, because the viruses aren't around, because the rest of us are getting vaccinated. Thats why your son is probably unlikely to be exposed, and it's why the small percentage of people who get a vax and it doesn't "take" for whatever reason, will be safe. That's exactly what herd immunity is, and it doesn't matter if I believe in it or not. Your son has a medical examption it sounds like, and that's FINE. I don't think a single poster takes issue with that. But see how long some of these illnesses stay a third-world problem as more and more people stop getting immunizations for non-medical reasons.

    You should respect my decision just as I respect yours ! Not once have I said any one you should stop vaccinating your child although I have been told numerous times I should vaccinate mine.

    Lets focus on Pertussis. During the outbreak in California 80% of the children infected were fully vaccinated.I believe that alone proves that vaccinations do not work. Instead of admitting that vaccinations do not work they encourage you to get more vaccinations.
    http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_18930093?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

    What about the flu vaccination. Why do you think you are told to get it every year ? Because it doesn't work ! If you catch a "strain" of the flu then you are forever immune to that "strain". The flu shot this year is exactly the same flu shot that was given out last year.

    While epidemics of disease are heartbreaking they are natural and will continue to occur even with vaccinations. If you paid attention in history class you will remember that Europeans came to America and killed off many American Indians by giving them smallpox. The Europeans did not die because they were naturally immune to the disease. Natural Immunity is life-long and 100% effective in preventing a reoccurence of the same disease.

    Explain to me why you think a newborn infant should be vaccinated against Hepatitis B. I understand in some cases it is necessary if the child is at high risk but I am specifically asking about children not at high risk. My son had a reaction to the Hep B shot and he is not at risk for getting Hep B so why was it even given ? www.iansvoice.org
  • mrsmccullen07
    mrsmccullen07 Posts: 159
    When my husband and I were trying to conceive I was offered the h1n1. I declined since I never took flu shots. A few months later I found out I was pregnant. A few weeks after that I ended up in the hospital with h1n1 and the doctor telling me there was a strong chance I was losing the baby. Thank god I didn't. That was a wake up and more for me. I am a scientist. I worked in vaccine development for Wyeth which manufactures the polio vaccine. I am not afraid of vaccines but I never took them as seriously as I do now.
    I can promise you I would rather have an autistic son than a dead one. But again..vaccines do not cause autism. Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them.

    Sorry for your experience and scare with H1N1. I was pregnant and the same time and got "fired" from my doctor for refusing the Flu Vax as well as the H1N1 vax. However your statement that "Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them" is simply wrong. As a parent we each of the choice and for some of us there are thousands of reasons why our children shouldn't be vaccinated. If there was never a reported reaction to a vaccination than your statement may stand to be true but that isn't reality.

    I can not vaccinate my first child because of his seizures. I choose not to vaccinate my second child as the risk of reaction to a vaccination is one I am not willing to take. And before people go crazy defending vaccinations and throw up Polio & SmallPox you have to understand I have researched and read every article I have ever found or been linked too and I understand how devastating Small Pox & Polio were and could be today. I wish that each person that told me to vaccinate would read through all the articles that tell of reactions to vaccinations. Please understand that while you support your vaccination arguement with statistics/articles/studies etc. I can do the same for my beliefs.

    And while some believe articles www.thinktwice.com are just "propaganda" due to the fact they are published on a anti-vax website I have to argue with you about articles published/released by the CDC (and other organizations) as they benefit from the use of vaccinations therefore there is no way I can believe they accurately represent both sides of the vaccination arguement.

    Your children are relatively safe from those diseases even without the vaccinations because the REST OF US vaccinate our children against them.

    You're welcome.

    I do not believe you vaccinating your child protects my child in anyway. If your vaccination can not even protect your child 100% how is it going to protect my child at all ? If anything I would believe that your vaccinated child would be a threat to my child as they are known carriers of diseases. So, No I do not thank you for vaccinating your child !

    Well, then, PLEASE explain to me how 60-70 years ago, children (and adults) were dying in droves from these illnesses, or some being crippled or maimed for life and now they've been more or less erradicated in this country? Did people just suddenly develop immunity to them?


    Which disease ?

    I have come across the same information numerous times and I have thousands of articles saved on my computer and I am going through them to find the one's that discuss it.

    Between 1900 and 1920 the rate of death from infectious disease dropped. This drop was before the introduction of childhood vaccinations. It also worth noting that after the spike around 1920 that the death rate started dropping again at nearly the same rate as before vaccination. Also take notice that death from non-infectious causes has risen since the introduction of vaccinations.
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61/F2.expansion

    I think it is interesting to note the decrease in deaths from Typhoid & Dysentery. There is no vaccination for dysentery and people are not regularly vaccinated against typhus. No deaths from either disease has occured since 1960. The death rate from pnuemonia & influenza from 1970 to 1996 shows a increase although vaccinations were given for both. The Pnuemonia vaccines were introduced in 1977 & 1983. Diphtheria shows more decrease in deaths before 1920. The vaccine was introduced during the early 1920s and there is a spike in deaths from diphtheria at that same time. The rate of deaths decreased after that but no faster than it was decreasing before the introduction of the vaccine.
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61/F4.large.gif

    Lets look at "evidence" from other countries that proves that vaccinations do not eliminate disease.
    http://www.vaccinationdebate.net/web2.html

    People with AIDS tend to die of things like pnemonia. Older people, as well. People live much longer and are therefore more susceptible to those diseases, which would increase the number of deaths. When you look at the statistics, do you also look at WHO is dying from those diseases? And what other factors play a part in those deaths?

    My grandmother was a pediatrician and old enough to remember before vaccinations. She was a huge proponent of them. Three of my grandparents almost died from diseases that now are vaccinated against (two of them AFTER 1920, since they weren't even born yet before then). My 6th grade teachers was a polio survivor and spent the majority of his life in a wheelchair with horribly shriveled up legs because of it. Two of my aunts, my mother's best friend and a cousin are RNs (with BSs and MSs), my other cousin is a pharmacist and every one of them is a proponent of vaccinations.

    Just because someone is making money off of something doesn't mean that something is bad. They're making money off of vaccines because they've seen what they have done for the health and wellness of the population and it was a good thing.

    Typhoid and dysentary are diseases usually spread through poor hygienic practices. That's why people in the Western world don't die from them anymore.

    Due to your "experience" with diseases you are in favor of vaccinations that is fine. I however am not in favor of vaccinations due to their negative side effects that happen more often than reported!

    Have you ever know a child who died from SIDS ? SIDS has risen since the introduction of vaccinations furthermore a large number of infants who die from SIDS have been vaccinated within the last hours to days. While you believe that vaccinations have done our population a good thing I disagree respectfully I must add. Our country as some of the highest Infant Mortaility Rates yet our children are vaccinated the most. Infants die here more from "unexplained" causes.

    I understand why the death rates decreased for Dysentery as well as Typhoid. We have better hygienic practices today and well as medicine therefore you can not accurately say that contagious disease deaths would not have decreased significiantly on their own.
  • SarabellPlus3
    SarabellPlus3 Posts: 496 Member
    Look, I'm not going to change your mind, you're not going to change mine. As it happens, you've not directly said, but hinted that your child has a medical exemption, which NO SINGLE POSTER takes issue with, in the first place; but in the second place, it's my opinion that you are not looking at this scientifically, rather emotionally, but yes, you are entitled to your opinion. So frankly, I'm not going to spend hours responding to you. I will give you my quick answers, though.

    Newborns get Hepititis vaccinations for the same reason kids get up to 4-5 vaccinations at a time instead of spreading them out more. Because they want to make sure it happens, and they figure rather than waiting to hope they happen to come in before X,Y,Z, they'll just do it now. If you want to SPREAD YOUR VACCINES out farther than the recommended schedule, I have no problem in the world with that. The problem with your argument is that you use things like this-- even if you wanted to delay your Hep B vax, that has nothing to do with declining completely, kwim?

    Yes, I pretty much did pay attention in History class, and went on to study it deeply in college, majoring in it. In such, I've learned a lot about the history of vaccination programs, and perhaps it's because I view the world through that educated lens, as well as a scientifically-educated one, that I FEAR this movement to stop vaccinating. It's either really ironic, or hilarious, or sad, that you brought up both History and Smallpox, b/c we have the Smallpox vaccinations to THANK for ridding the world of this huge, literal, pox. Seriously, read a little more about Smallpox before you think that's a good example for an attemptely-condescending non-vax argument.
  • TaraTLC83
    TaraTLC83 Posts: 93 Member
    THREADLOCK.jpg

    Anyone?

    Not to be an *kitten*... but are we all talking about weight loss related stuff? I think this thread is getting really far away from the original intentions and is turning into a heated argument.

    Nothing side A will say to Side B will change their minds or vice versa.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    When my husband and I were trying to conceive I was offered the h1n1. I declined since I never took flu shots. A few months later I found out I was pregnant. A few weeks after that I ended up in the hospital with h1n1 and the doctor telling me there was a strong chance I was losing the baby. Thank god I didn't. That was a wake up and more for me. I am a scientist. I worked in vaccine development for Wyeth which manufactures the polio vaccine. I am not afraid of vaccines but I never took them as seriously as I do now.
    I can promise you I would rather have an autistic son than a dead one. But again..vaccines do not cause autism. Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them.

    Sorry for your experience and scare with H1N1. I was pregnant and the same time and got "fired" from my doctor for refusing the Flu Vax as well as the H1N1 vax. However your statement that "Unless your child can not receive vaccines there is no reason not to receive them" is simply wrong. As a parent we each of the choice and for some of us there are thousands of reasons why our children shouldn't be vaccinated. If there was never a reported reaction to a vaccination than your statement may stand to be true but that isn't reality.

    I can not vaccinate my first child because of his seizures. I choose not to vaccinate my second child as the risk of reaction to a vaccination is one I am not willing to take. And before people go crazy defending vaccinations and throw up Polio & SmallPox you have to understand I have researched and read every article I have ever found or been linked too and I understand how devastating Small Pox & Polio were and could be today. I wish that each person that told me to vaccinate would read through all the articles that tell of reactions to vaccinations. Please understand that while you support your vaccination arguement with statistics/articles/studies etc. I can do the same for my beliefs.

    And while some believe articles www.thinktwice.com are just "propaganda" due to the fact they are published on a anti-vax website I have to argue with you about articles published/released by the CDC (and other organizations) as they benefit from the use of vaccinations therefore there is no way I can believe they accurately represent both sides of the vaccination arguement.

    Your children are relatively safe from those diseases even without the vaccinations because the REST OF US vaccinate our children against them.

    You're welcome.

    I do not believe you vaccinating your child protects my child in anyway. If your vaccination can not even protect your child 100% how is it going to protect my child at all ? If anything I would believe that your vaccinated child would be a threat to my child as they are known carriers of diseases. So, No I do not thank you for vaccinating your child !

    Well, then, PLEASE explain to me how 60-70 years ago, children (and adults) were dying in droves from these illnesses, or some being crippled or maimed for life and now they've been more or less erradicated in this country? Did people just suddenly develop immunity to them?


    Which disease ?

    I have come across the same information numerous times and I have thousands of articles saved on my computer and I am going through them to find the one's that discuss it.

    Between 1900 and 1920 the rate of death from infectious disease dropped. This drop was before the introduction of childhood vaccinations. It also worth noting that after the spike around 1920 that the death rate started dropping again at nearly the same rate as before vaccination. Also take notice that death from non-infectious causes has risen since the introduction of vaccinations.
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61/F2.expansion

    I think it is interesting to note the decrease in deaths from Typhoid & Dysentery. There is no vaccination for dysentery and people are not regularly vaccinated against typhus. No deaths from either disease has occured since 1960. The death rate from pnuemonia & influenza from 1970 to 1996 shows a increase although vaccinations were given for both. The Pnuemonia vaccines were introduced in 1977 & 1983. Diphtheria shows more decrease in deaths before 1920. The vaccine was introduced during the early 1920s and there is a spike in deaths from diphtheria at that same time. The rate of deaths decreased after that but no faster than it was decreasing before the introduction of the vaccine.
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61/F4.large.gif

    Lets look at "evidence" from other countries that proves that vaccinations do not eliminate disease.
    http://www.vaccinationdebate.net/web2.html

    People with AIDS tend to die of things like pnemonia. Older people, as well. People live much longer and are therefore more susceptible to those diseases, which would increase the number of deaths. When you look at the statistics, do you also look at WHO is dying from those diseases? And what other factors play a part in those deaths?

    My grandmother was a pediatrician and old enough to remember before vaccinations. She was a huge proponent of them. Three of my grandparents almost died from diseases that now are vaccinated against (two of them AFTER 1920, since they weren't even born yet before then). My 6th grade teachers was a polio survivor and spent the majority of his life in a wheelchair with horribly shriveled up legs because of it. Two of my aunts, my mother's best friend and a cousin are RNs (with BSs and MSs), my other cousin is a pharmacist and every one of them is a proponent of vaccinations.

    Just because someone is making money off of something doesn't mean that something is bad. They're making money off of vaccines because they've seen what they have done for the health and wellness of the population and it was a good thing.

    Typhoid and dysentary are diseases usually spread through poor hygienic practices. That's why people in the Western world don't die from them anymore.

    Due to your "experience" with diseases you are in favor of vaccinations that is fine. I however am not in favor of vaccinations due to their negative side effects that happen more often than reported!

    Have you ever know a child who died from SIDS ? SIDS has risen since the introduction of vaccinations furthermore a large number of infants who die from SIDS have been vaccinated within the last hours to days. While you believe that vaccinations have done our population a good thing I disagree respectfully I must add. Our country as some of the highest Infant Mortaility Rates yet our children are vaccinated the most. Infants die here more from "unexplained" causes.

    I understand why the death rates decreased for Dysentery as well as Typhoid. We have better hygienic practices today and well as medicine therefore you can not accurately say that contagious disease deaths would not have decreased significiantly on their own.

    Nope. I don't personally know anyone whose child has died from SIDS. I do know several people who were very negatively affected by NOT having the vaccinations, however (more than mentioned in my last post).

    Unfortunately, you're relying very heavily on statistics without looking at what's behind those statistics and other factors that may play a part. Coincidence isn't evidence.

    If you don't want to vaccinate your children, that's your decision. But nothing you've said has made me question my decision to vaccinate my daughter against horrific diseases that she, thankfully, never had to endure. and neither did I because of the same reasons.

    And, again, you're welcome for my child being vaccinated so as not to spread the diseases you didn't vaccinate yours against.
  • mrsmccullen07
    mrsmccullen07 Posts: 159
    Thank you ! I totally agree that you will certainly not change my mind and I will not change your mind. I used smallpox just to show that people do live and have natural immunity to diseases without a vaccination.

    I have two children and hope to have a few more and at this time I do not believe I will ever vaccinate any of them because the risks for my family outweigh any potential benefits. I still have not had anyone prove to me that being vaccinated is going to protect you from a disease in the event of an outbreak. I can understand giving Hepatitis B to children but I do not understand why it is mandated that it should be given to newborns. Also it has been stated that vaccine immunity does not last a lifetime so why should we assume a child vaccinated in early childhood against Hep.B is not going to "catch" Hep. B as an adult ? I dont think it is going to significantly decrease Hep.B is this country.

    Anyway I agree that this discussion has gotten way off topic. I think it can be proven enough that nutrition plays a vital role in your health and someone who is "healthy" is going to fare better when hit by sickness however you will still get sick !
  • mrsmccullen07
    mrsmccullen07 Posts: 159
    Everything that has been showed to me to prove that vaccines ridded us of disease was based on statistics. There is no way to know that people today would be dying from smallpox if the vaccination hadn't been introduced. Statistics are important !

    I dont understand how in today's world we can create vaccinations that are supposed to mimic ones natural immunity yet we can not figure out why babies die unexpectedly.

    I am done arguing my side and I hope for your daughters sake that she doesn't suffer from the vaccinations that were injected into her body ! I still don't know how you can say you vaccinating is saving my child when I have proven that vaccinations FAIL.

    The children in California who had pertussis for example ! 80% of them were fully vaccinated ... therefore more vaccinated children had pertussis than unvaccinated children ! ---- I realize I worded this incorrectly and I apologize !!

    In order for me to be able to prove that vaccines do not work I would need to know more about the vaccination rates of the area affected by the Pertussis outbreak. However if 80% of the children who got pertussis were vaccinated fully than apparently the vaccination does not work ! I also feel strongly that the DPaT vaccination is one of the most harmful vaccinations given to children today. So in my opinion the risk from that vaccine outweighs any benefits. However I realize everyone has an opinion and I respect that.
  • SarabellPlus3
    SarabellPlus3 Posts: 496 Member
    Yes, smallpox did offer survivors immunity. Wonderful immunity. "Survivors" of course being the up to 50% of people who contracted it and didn't die from it, those people who ended up often blind, scarred from head to toe, and infertile from having lived through it, after spreading it to their family and friends killing half of them. But they did have that natural immunity! God forbid it comes back (via warfare), I think anyone's smart money would be on the vaccination, if we can get our hands on it.

    The reason those Europeans were so better prepared to handle the virus was precisely because it had already been killing so many of them for so long.
    Please do read up on Smallpox, it's an amazing and terrifying tale.

    eta: That's actually probably the best real life example of the herd's immunity, which you "don't believe in," so I hope you do take the opportunity to read up on that.
  • mrsmccullen07
    mrsmccullen07 Posts: 159
    Yes, smallpox did offer survivors immunity. Wonderful immunity. "Survivors" of course being the up to 50% of people who contracted it and didn't die from it, those people who ended up often blind, scarred from head to toe, and infertile from having lived through it, after spreading it to their family and friends killing half of them. But they did have that natural immunity! God forbid it comes back (via warfare), I think anyone's smart money would be on the vaccination, if we can get our hands on it.

    The reason those Europeans were so better prepared to handle the virus was precisely because it had already been killing so many of them for so long.
    Please do read up on Smallpox, it's an amazing and terrifying tale.

    eta: That's actually probably the best real life example of the herd's immunity, which you "don't believe in," so I hope you do take the opportunity to read up on that.

    I have read up on Small Pox and will continue to read any information placed in front of me. I was coming back to update my last post since I realized I worded something wrong.

    With the pertussis outbreak i said 80% of the children were vaccinated which meant only 20% were unvaccinated however I realize in order to understand what that really means for the effectivenss of the vaccination I would need to know how many children go without vaccinations in that area. I am sorry I posted that before worded the way I did .. I am most defintly wrong in stating that in a matter that reflects vaccinations are not effective because I think in order for that to be proven I would defintly need to know the vaccination rate of that area. I am honestly not here to change anyones vaccination decision. I am trying to teach myself as much as I can about both sides so that I can make an informed decision.

    I really do thank all of you who responded to my posts in a respectful manner.I appreciate the information that was presented before me and I have made notes and saved every link I was sent too. I really do want what is best for my children.I am sure most of you consider me a bad mom for not vaccinating my second child. If he were to catch a deadly disease and suffer serious complications I would feel awfu. I however have to live with knowing that I choose to allow a nurse to inject a toxic vaccine into my newborns body and because of my actions he will suffer with difficulties for the rest of his life. My son will never outgrow the damage done to him by that vaccination and that is something I am faced with everyday.

    Also for the poster who recommended reading about the risk to siblings of someone who has had such a reaction I did pull out my vaccination inserts I have printed off and most of them state that any child with a family history of reaction as well as any child with a family history of seizures should not receive that vaccine.

    Again I really do appreciate most information that was passed along to me !! And since I am constantly wanting to learn more if anyone else feels they have something I should know or read please dont hesistate to message me !! I will never be offended by anyone's attempts to pass along information. I do however take offense to anyone that calls me names so please do not message me if your only reason is to pick a fight with me or insult me.
  • TaraTLC83
    TaraTLC83 Posts: 93 Member
    Mrs. Cullen.

    Do you and your family drive in a car?

    Let's say your drive is about 650 miles, if this is right -- http://tinyurl.com/2a7vahj

    If you want the average probability of getting into an accident per mile driven, it's about 2008 accidents per billion miles driven

    So, over 650 miles, that's 0.13% probability.

    The math:

    According to the study in the source, there are an average 45.8 injuries, 77.0 property damage-only accidents, and 78.0 unreported accidents per 100 million miles driven. So that's a total of 200.8 accidents per 100 million miles driven

    The odds of not getting into an accident per mile are 1-(200.8/100,000,000)

    The odds not getting into an accident over 650 miles are [1-(200.8/100,000,000)]^650 = 0.99869565

    So the odds of getting into an accident on that same stretch are 1 - [1-(200.8/100,000,000)]^650 = 1 - 0.99869565 = 0.0013043499

    which is about 0.13%


    Do you buckle your children's safety belt? I mean... the risk of getting into an accident is only 0.13% so why bother?

    Difference between my parenting and your parenting?

    I buckle my children's seat belts. Even if the risk is 0.13%, I'll buckle her belt every single time.
  • mrsmccullen07
    mrsmccullen07 Posts: 159
    Mrs. Cullen.

    Do you and your family drive in a car?

    Let's say your drive is about 650 miles, if this is right -- http://tinyurl.com/2a7vahj

    If you want the average probability of getting into an accident per mile driven, it's about 2008 accidents per billion miles driven

    So, over 650 miles, that's 0.13% probability.

    The math:

    According to the study in the source, there are an average 45.8 injuries, 77.0 property damage-only accidents, and 78.0 unreported accidents per 100 million miles driven. So that's a total of 200.8 accidents per 100 million miles driven

    The odds of not getting into an accident per mile are 1-(200.8/100,000,000)

    The odds not getting into an accident over 650 miles are [1-(200.8/100,000,000)]^650 = 0.99869565

    So the odds of getting into an accident on that same stretch are 1 - [1-(200.8/100,000,000)]^650 = 1 - 0.99869565 = 0.0013043499

    which is about 0.13%


    Do you buckle your children's safety belt? I mean... the risk of getting into an accident is only 0.13% so why bother?

    Difference between my parenting and your parenting?

    I buckle my children's seat belts. Even if the risk is 0.13%, I'll buckle her belt every single time.

    My children are buckled into their carseats anytime they are in a vehicle. My 18month old is also still rear-facing which is the recommendation (until 2).My 4 year old was kept rear-facing until his 3rd birthday.

    I see your logic and I could also throw those same numbers at you to explain my feelings on vaccinations. I am not willing to vaccinate my child because of the risk of an adverse reaction. I would rather take the risk of my son catching a disease that is possibly prevented by vaccine. I understand the risk I am taking because he could die or suffer permanent damage.

    I know I am not going to change anyone's mind but let me see if I can make my feelings make sense :

    Lets say I give my son all the recommended doses of the DTaP Vaccination and after each shot he suffers a high fever followed by seizures.However when he is about 6 our community suffers a pertussis outbreak and he catches pertussis. I will not talk about how much worse pertussis could be on him then because he already suffers from other underlying issues since I honestly dont know how pertussis would affect him. But at this point I have exposed my son to a very dangerous vaccination that causes him serious reactions each time for nothing because he still catches pertussis.

    Its not an impossible scenario !


    I just wanted to add that I hope that each of you parents who feel it is right to vaccinate also read information from the opposing side. I can not speak for everyone who chooses to not vaccinate but I know that I try to be as informed as possible which is why before every well-child checkup I not only re-read articles I have saved I also look for any new information that is available for either side.

    I really recommend every parent look up www.iansvoice.org no matter which side you are on we should all hold our babies a little tighter because real risks exist in every decision we make.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/032579_hepatitis_B_vaccines.html
  • TaraTLC83
    TaraTLC83 Posts: 93 Member
    so give your kid some tylenol to reduce the minute chance he or she may have a fever.

    There! I fixed it!
  • TaraTLC83
    TaraTLC83 Posts: 93 Member
    WAIT! I WAS WRONG

    Based on your reasoning, we should never give our children tylenol. After all....
    "Acetaminophen causes three times as many cases of liver failure as all other drugs combined, [1] and is the most common cause of acute liver failure in the United States,[2] accounting for 39% of cases"

    Well.. that's ok I suppose. You could give them Advil to reduce their fever. WAIT I WAS WRONG
    "In 2007, the manufacturer added an adverse effect warning to Advil's packaging and website informing consumers "[Advil] may cause stomach bleeding,"[3] after the FDA demanded changes"

    Well... I wonder what type of medication commonly used today we could use that doesn't have any sort of risk associated with it...

    Hmm... I can't think of any. Maybe we should all NOT have children so that we don't expose them to the risk of potential side effects from using life saving medication.

    I guess we all better go on the pill.

    OMG WAIT! That means I take the risk of having Venous thromboembolism (which can cause a massive stroke), Cancer (that sounds bad!), Weight Gain, Depression, Hypertension, and all sorts of other crazy risks.

    BUT WAIT THERES MORE.

    Having a BABY has higher risks of injury or death than taking the pill! [5]

    [1]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E4D81130F933A1575AC0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
    [2]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/health/27awar.html?_r=1
    [3]http://www.advilpm.com/faq.asp
    [4] Blanco-Molina, A; Monreal, M (2010 Feb). "Venous thromboembolism in women taking hormonal contraceptives.". Expert review of cardiovascular therapy 8 (2): 211–5. doi:10.1586/erc.09.175. PMID 20136607.
    [5] Crooks, Robert L. and Karla Baur (2005). Our Sexuality. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. ISBN 0-534-65176-3.

    Well.. I guess we all better go back to living in caves
This discussion has been closed.

Categories