I do not think I will get my kids vaccinated...

[James81]

Originally Posted by aelle

But I do question it. Just like I question the impact of everything I consume, medical or not. If you are like me weighting the benefits of vaccination against its negative aspects, I applaud you. We are obviously not reaching the same conclusions, but that's not my point.
What I condemn is the deliberate obscurantism of people who want to reach a certain conclusion and disregard any evidence that points to the other side of the balance - people who claim that vaccines don't work because they don't want to vaccinate, in this case. Or, for that matter, people who claim that there are no possible side effects.

I don't think it's that they don't want to vaccinate. I just think that certain people are so bent on doing something "different" than what the status quo is doing, that they take it to such extreme lengths of actually doing potential damage to their children's health.

You can tell who these people are, too, because they are always talking conspiracies and usually don't have much evidence to back up what they are saying. It's like they HAVE to believe that people in higher up positions are out to get them.

Not saying that all anti-vaccine people are like that, btw. Some of them actually do research and have logical arguements to support what they are saying. But when a person's whole argument revolves around conspiracies, it's a good bet they are just the type who lash out at anything that is "popular."

[liamona]

Originally Posted by aelle

What I find apalling is people who declare (in this case) that vaccines don't work altogether, in any situation, despite massive evidence of the contrary, and who won't test their theory.

I'm sure some of them work, but at what cost? Will they find a contaminant, but wait twenty years to tell us about it?

In the last five years or so in my community of non-vaccinating families, there's only been a few outbreaks of chicken pox; one kid had a mild case of measles, and a couple of other kids had mild whooping cough.

We are desperate to find those with chicken pox to expose our children for real immunity.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by James81

It's like they HAVE to believe that people in higher up positions are out to get them.

From the few things I posted about the actions of certain higher-ups, it sure seems clear that they're looking out more for their back ends than our well-being. But of course you're free to disregard any proof.

[James81]

Originally Posted by liamona

I'm sure some of them work, but at what cost?

What cost is there?

Are you talking physical cost? Because there are an ASSLOAD of people out there who have been vaccinated who lead normal, healthy lives. Bad reactions to vaccines are a rare exception rather than the rule. In fact, everybody in this thread is *probably* vaccinated as we discuss this.

Are you talking monetary cost? I'll be among the first to say that if a vaccine prevents my child from getting a deadly disease, then the money doesn't really matter.

You want to know where the real risk here is? The real risk is NOT vaccinating your child and him/her coming down with a deadly disease that kills them. That's the real risk. So, I pitch you the question right back at you, at what cost to *you* is worth your child's health? Do you really feel secure in the knowledge that you've gathered (most likely from internet sources and sparse medical sources that actually do these studies) that what you are doing is the *right* thing for your child's health?

Like I've said before, I've been there before. I've done the research on vaccines, and I've come out deciding that the risk of not vaccinating is more than the risk of vaccinating.

[Nex]

These diseases are costly to the government, they mean less taxes and also expenditure. It is no shock it is in their interest to get us vaccinated, their intentions may not be the best, but they are working for our health.

It is crazy for example that some guys think it is a government conspiracy to cause autism: News flash, people with autism are VERY expensive for the government. IT just doesn't add up.

It is sistematic that people from the anti-vaccine groups, disregard evidence completely, use faulty reasoning or just plain fear mongering, it has become easy to me to generalize, honestly...

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by James81

Both of my kids are vaccinated and they are so healthy, that it wears me out keeping up with them.

My kids are vaccine survivors apparently. Or have massively amazing genes and were able to withstand the sheer torture of injecting them with terrible, terrible chemicals.

Or, maybe, just maybe, the whole anti-vaccine thing is a bunch of fear-mongering propaganda.

I knew a woman who had kids that she didn't vaccinate. And her kid had whooping cough so terrible that it disgusted me.

This is anecdotal evidence. Wiki. says "Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".

Evidence can be anecdotal in both senses: "Goat yogurt prolongs life: I heard that a man in a mountain village who ate only yogurt lived to 120." "

[Infinte7]

Originally Posted by Nex

These diseases are costly to the government, they mean less taxes and also expenditure. It is no shock it is in their interest to get us vaccinated, their intentions may not be the best, but they are working for our health.

It is crazy for example that some guys think it is a government conspiracy to cause autism: News flash, people with autism are VERY expensive for the government. IT just doesn't add up.

It is sistematic that people from the anti-vaccine groups, disregard evidence completely, use faulty reasoning or just plain fear mongering, it has become easy to me to generalize, honestly...

People on welfare are very expensive too, but the government loves taking people in...Dont you get it? It makes you completely dependent on the government and this is what they obviously want...

When you sign up for welfare you get a social worker, this person can come into your home and actually take your kids away from you, because when you sign your kids up, they are property of the state now...

Not saying some people just dont need children, which is true, but a government agency (corporation) knows better? These social workers can tell you how to raise your children, tell you not to homeschool, tell you to get vaccinated, tell you to buy similac, tell you where and when to get a job, tell you they are taking your kids away if you do not meet status quo...

So the things that cost the government money are just business investments, vaccinations= business investment, welfare= business investment, disease= business investment, etc, etc, etc....

You are going to sit here and tell me that my 2 year old daughter needs "25" vaccinations before she turns 3 years old?

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by Nex

Sometimes I actually think there is a link between anti-vaccination teams and population control, this fearmongering, tends to affect mostly the more ignorant branches of society, which are also the ones an assumed evil government would love to get rid of to make savings. So, these guys stop vaccinating and Shazzam! Important reduction in those groups. The more educated (aka rich) will not fall for this. It is very clever actually. Ever wondered why celebrities and other elites are actually the ones spreading this fear-mongering? It has been getting VERY difficult for real science to have a saying about this in mainstream TV, BTW.

If there were such a conspiracy, I believe it would be quite the opposite. It seems more likely that those in power would be interested in getting rid of those segments of the population who question things and aren't just blind followers. Why would they want to get rid of the "ignorant branches of society", if they can easily control their actions. It is those of us who question the status quo who would be a bigger thorn in their side.

I'm not suggesting that there is such a conspiracy. I just wanted to point out that if there is one, it seems unlikely to me that the point is to save money by eliminating people who rely heavily on the government (which is what I'm understanding the above to suggest).

[Infinte7]

Vaccination and the pharmaceutical industries are a business= fact, not conspiracy...

Philadelphia Inquirer suggests that vaccines will bring in 7 billion smackers a year in the near future...

A shot in the arm for vaccines | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/19/2009

[Infinte7]

Originally Posted by Infinte7

Vaccination and the pharmaceutical industries are a business= fact, not conspiracy...

Philadelphia Inquirer suggests that vaccines will bring in 7 billion smackers a year in the near future...

A shot in the arm for vaccines | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/19/2009

And this is only one vaccine!!!

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Infinte7

When you sign up for welfare you get a social worker, this person can come into your home and actually take your kids away from you, because when you sign your kids up, they are property of the state now...

Not saying some people just dont need children, which is true, but a government agency (corporation) knows better? These social workers can tell you how to raise your children, tell you not to homeschool, tell you to get vaccinated, tell you to buy similac, tell you where and when to get a job, tell you they are taking your kids away if you do not meet status quo...

I don't live in the US but I highly doubt it works this way...

It doesn't matter if you sign up for welfare, social workers always can take your children away if they see that they are being abused. Being homeschooled by parents who didn't finish their own school (home or elsewhere) and who have the intelligence similar to a fishstick is child abuse in my opinion...


Of course they tell you to get a job. If you don't want them to tell you that, supply your own income instead of getting it for free.

[lovelyn]

I'm all late to the conversation but I wanted to add my two cents anyway. I will not vaccinate my children. I've made this decision because my husband had only one vaccine as an infant. After the vaccination he threw up, went limp and turned blue. He was rushed to the hospital where he stayed for a few days. His mother never took him back to get the rest of his vaccines. My stepson had the same experience when he was vaccinated. The difference is that his mother did take him back to the doctor's to get the rest of his required vaccinations. Now he has an autistic spectrum disorder. People say the connection between autism and vaccinations haven't been proven, but past events have made me fearful enough. I don't know why they would've had this reaction to the vaccines. Could it be because of the things they contain that shouldn't be put in an infants body like mercury and aluminum?

[liamona]

Originally Posted by James81

Bad reactions to vaccines are a rare exception rather than the rule.

Right, because the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), the only place where vaccine reactions are officially reported, is so reliable?

"VAERS data are derived from a passive surveillance system and represent unverified reports of health events, both minor and serious, that occur after vaccination."

Even the FDA admits:

"While assessment of VAERS data is often the first step in identifying potential new information about the safety of vaccines, it is important to recognize that VAERS data alone are usually inadequate for drawing firm conclusions or providing a basis for regulatory actions. Many reports omit important data and/or contain obvious errors that may not be easily identifiable or correctable. Multiple vaccines are frequently administered simultaneously, according to currently recommended vaccine schedules, making it difficult or impossible to determine which (if any) of the vaccines administered was the possible cause of the event. The extent of under-reporting of events occurring after vaccination is unknown, and the number of individuals in subgroups of interest (for example, infants) receiving the vaccine during specific time intervals is not known, so that incidence rates cannot be calculated.

"Probably the most important limitation of VAERS, as it is for any passive reporting system, is its inability to establish causality for most reports it receives. Adverse events occurring in unvaccinated individuals are not reported, so there is no "control group" to study. Most of the types of serious adverse events reported to VAERS can occur in unvaccinated as well as vaccinated individuals. Without an unvaccinated group it is usually impossible to assess whether the number of reported events is different from the number that would have been observed in the absence of vaccination."

From: FDA's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

Hmmm, maybe that's the main reason why no real studies have been done with a control group—they don't want to know the truth.

Do you really feel secure in the knowledge that you've gathered (most likely from internet sources and sparse medical sources that actually do these studies) that what you are doing is the *right* thing for your child's health?

Yes, I feel pretty secure in my knowledge. The stuff that I've quoted here represents a fraction of what I've read on the subject (never mind the seminars I've attended over the years).

I have to admit it's been years since I started reading up on it, so my memory is not as good on some of the finer points. I've also given away a lot of the books I read from when I first started researching the subject almost ten years ago, so I can't quote from them either.

But the stuff I have quoted have come from reliable mainstream sources, or even the CDC. You certainly don't have to take my word for it.

[liamona]

This is a good article by Benjamin McRearden that was published in the Oct. 2003 issue of the "Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients."

What is coming through that needle? The problem of pathogenic vaccine contamination | Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients | Find Articles at BNET

Here's a snippet:

Other bovine viruses

Another contaminating virus found in the calf serum used for vaccine production is bovine polyomavirus (polyomaviruses are strongly associated with cancer); one pertinent article is titled "Bovine polyomavirus, a frequent contaminant of calf serum." (39) Other contaminants include a virus from the parvovirus family (40); another study cites "virus-like particles" and "mycoplasma-like agents" in 68% and 20% of the samples, respectively (41);

[...]

An interesting report from 1975 not only affirms the presence of these viruses in calf serum, and mentions the additional presence of bovine enterovirus-4, but also tells us that 25% of serum lots that were pre-tested by the suppliers and "considered to be free of known viral contaminants" were actually contaminated with bovine viruses.(43)

Also:

Toxin contamination

The unintentional presence of bacterial-source toxins (called "endotoxins" or "exotoxins") in human and veterinary vaccines has been recognized for many years. Such toxins are originally present in source materials, or are produced as a result of bacterial infection during the manufacturing process. (61,62) The various methods used in attempts to eliminate viruses and bacteria from vaccines are simply not effective in the removal of these problematic toxic proteins. (63) Several observers have expressed concern that the presence of endotoxin may be a source of severe adverse reactions seen in some individuals after receiving a vaccine. (61,64)

These are the references cited:

39. Schuurman R, van Steenis B, Sol C. Bovine polyomavirus, a frequent contaminant of calf serum. Biologicals 1991 Oct;19(4):265-70. PMID 1665699.

40. Nettleton PF, Rweyemamu MM. The association of calf serum with the contamination of BHK21 clone 13 suspension cells by a parvovirus serologically related to the minute virus of mice (MVM). Arch Virol 1980;64(4):359-74. PMID 7396725.

41. Fong CK, Gross PA, Hsiung GD, Swack NS. Use of electron microscopy for detection of viral and other microbial contaminants in bovine sera. J Clin Microbiol 1975 Feb;1(2):219-24. PMID 51855.

42. Erickson GA, Bolin SR, Landgraf JG. Viral contamination of fetal bovine serum used for tissue culture: risks and concerns. Dev Biol Stand 1991;75:173-5. PMID 1665460.

43. Kniazeff AJ, Wopschall LJ, Hopps HE, Morris CS. Detection of bovine viruses in fetal bovine serum use in cell culture. In Vitro 1975 Nov-Dec;11(6):400-3. PMID 172434.

61. Geier MR, Stanbro H, Merril CR. Endotoxins in commercial vaccines. Appl Environ Microbiol 1978 Sep;36(3):445-9. PMID 727776.

62. Kreeftenberg JG, Loggen HG, van Ramshorst JD, Beuvery EC. The limulus amebocyte lysate test micromethod and application in the control of sera and vaccines. Dev Biol Stand 1977;34:15-20. PMID 838139.

63. Sharma SK. Endotoxin detection and elimination in biotechnology. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 1986 Feb;8(1):5-22. PMID 3548752.

64. Fumarola D, Panaro A, Palma R, Mazzone A. Endotoxic contamination of biological products (ribosomal vaccines, viral vaccines and interferon). G Batteriol Virol Immunol 1979 Jan-Jun;72(1-6):72-7. PMID 95449.

[liamona]

This is a workshop called "EVOLVING SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY PERSPECTIVES ON CELL SUBSTRATES FOR VACCINE DEVELOPMENT" by scientists from the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from the NIH, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the International Association for Biologicals, the National Vaccine Program Office, and WHO.

Although this particular meeting took place 10 years ago, it sounds like a lot of the issues are still unresolved. But do they let the public know about their hesitations?

It's interesting how frankly they speak among themselves:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Biologi.../UCM056219.pdf

"After a few years of use of primary monkey kidney cells, it became apparent that these cells contained many unwanted viruses, some of which were lethal to humans.

At about this time in 1961, we described the development of normal human diploid cell strains that were free of contaminating viruses, and we suggested that they may be useful for the 17 preparation of human virus vaccines. It took about 10 years before our suggestion became generally accepted in the scientific community." [Ten years?!]

"I am frankly astonished to observe that after 10 years of debate on the risks of moving from frequently contaminated primary monkey kidney cells to virus free normal human cells that the time required to make the final leap to abnormal cell lines for producing human biologicals occurred in the 1980's in a matter of weeks."

"But the main disadvantage of the continuous cell line is that many do express endogenous viruses and there has always been this concern over tumorigenic potential, should we say, associated with cellular DNA. The main three risks then with these different cell lines for producing biologicals are contaminating viruses, and we must include here, the TSEs, the transmissible spongiform encephalitis agents, whatever that may be in the end, residual host cell DNA, and growth-promoting proteins."

[liamona]

Vaccinations & Health Concerns - Shows - Coast to Coast AM

This was a good show. The link above has links for the guests' sites.

Barbara Loe Fisher, the co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) often goes around the country giving vaccine seminars. I highly recommend them.

Coincidentally, I had just come across one of the guest's work with vaccine-damaged children and adults:

Dr. Andrew Moulden believes that vaccines damage blood flow (and can cause ischemic strokes) and introduce measurable brain and body damages.

[James81]

Originally Posted by liamona

Yes, I feel pretty secure in my knowledge. The stuff that I've quoted here represents a fraction of what I've read on the subject (never mind the seminars I've attended over the years).

I have to admit it's been years since I started reading up on it, so my memory is not as good on some of the finer points. I've also given away a lot of the books I read from when I first started researching the subject almost ten years ago, so I can't quote from them either.

But the stuff I have quoted have come from reliable mainstream sources, or even the CDC. You certainly don't have to take my word for it.

Excellent.

Now how much of the opposing viewpoint sources have you read over the years?

I wouldn't call someone knowledgeable on a subject until they are able to read equal amounts of sources on both sides of a subject.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by James81

I wouldn't call someone knowledgeable on a subject until they are able to read equal amounts of sources on both sides of a subject.

What have you read that is critical of vaccines? Or do you not consider yourself knowledgeable either?

[liamona]

Originally Posted by aelle

But I do question it. Just like I question the impact of everything I consume, medical or not. If you are like me weighting the benefits of vaccination against its negative aspects, I applaud you. We are obviously not reaching the same conclusions, but that's not my point.

You're a vegan, right? What do you think about all the animal ingredients that are in vaccines?

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pin...nt-table-1.pdf

No one in this forum who is vegan seems to care to address this issue.

[James81]

Originally Posted by liamona

What have you read that is critical of vaccines? Or do you not consider yourself knowledgeable either?

Deflecting the question to me doesn't really answer my original question, does it?

[joylangtry]

Originally Posted by liamona

No one in this forum who is vegan seems to care to address this issue.

I've been vegan almost 2 years, and my kids are 25 and 28, so I've just been lurking on this one. If I had young children now, I would be following in your footsteps, I believe. I don't intend to participate in any personal vaccinations for H1N1, either.

I feel that veg*n issues are approaching a tipping point in our US culture. Somebody smart will investigate the launch of a plant-based pharmaceutical company, then the media can have fun touting "green drugs". Watch for it on Oprah!

[liamona]

Originally Posted by James81

Deflecting the question to me doesn't really answer my original question, does it?

I've shown you just a fragment of what my sources are. You haven't. So now it's your turn to reveal what you've read that's anti-vaccine, since that's the criteria you've set as someone who's knowledgeable about a topic.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by joylangtry

I feel that veg*n issues are approaching a tipping point in our US culture. Somebody smart will investigate the launch of a plant-based pharmaceutical company, then the media can have fun touting "green drugs". Watch for it on Oprah!

When, in the year 2250? LOL.

A plant-based pharmaceutical company would be interesting!

[James81]

Originally Posted by liamona

I've shown you just a fragment of what my sources are. You haven't. So now it's your turn to reveal what you've read that's anti-vaccine, since that's the criteria you've set as someone who's knowledgeable about a topic.

I'm not setting criteria. I asked you a simple question and I'm waiting for that answer before I move on with the discussion with you. If you don't want to answer it, that's fine.

My point is that if you spend your time reading anti-vaccine sources, then you are only getting half the story. A similar thing happened back in the 30's and 40's in Germany. They called it "brainwashing" and it astounds me how many people will read a ton of information on a subject from only one side of the issue and consider themselves knowledgeable on a subject.

So again, I ask, how many pro-vaccine sources have you read on the subject? I would consider somebody who has, say, read 1 anti-vaccine book and 1 pro-vaccine book far more knowledgeable on a subject than someone who has read 100 anti-vaccine books and no pro-vaccine books.

[James81]

BTW, I'm not the one trying to persuade people of a viewpoint in this thread. I've openly stated that I don't think the anti-vaccine crowd has very solid arguements, but that's just an opinion I put out there. I have no interest in persuading others one way or the other on the issue.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by James81

My point is that if you spend your time reading anti-vaccine sources, then you are only getting half the story.

Which sources are you complaining about? Everything I've put on here has been from mainstream sources, or even from the CDC. Yet you have no comment about them. In addition, you have yet to reveal what you've read that's critical of vaccines.

A similar thing happened back in the 30's and 40's in Germany. They called it "brainwashing" and it astounds me how many people will read a ton of information on a subject from only one side of the issue and consider themselves knowledgeable on a subject.

Sounds like you know a lot about that. Time to take a page out of your own book?

[James81]

lol I have no idea why you keep avoiding the quesiton.

Fair enough. I'll keep reading the thread, but I'm done with you until you answer the question.

I'll be more than happy to answer your question when you specifically answer mine.

(the mainstream sources that I've seen you post thus far, unless I'm missing something, have been excerpts from very large studies and documents taken out of context and used to fuel your arguements even further. The more vaccine specific sources have come from anti-vaccine sources and sites. At least that's what I've noticed. Unless I missed something. That's why I'm wondering if you had any knowledge of the pro-vaccine arguements and sources or if most of your research has been anti-vaccine heavy.)

[liamona]

Originally Posted by James81

lol I have no idea why you keep avoiding the quesiton.

Why should I, when you're avoiding my question just as much?

(the mainstream sources that I've seen you post thus far, unless I'm missing something, have been excerpts from very large studies and documents taken out of context and used to fuel your arguements even further.

Those aren't the only things I've posted—and even if they are excerpts, they are still troubling ones that don't exactly increase one's confidence in vaccines.

But what about the rest? For instance, you don't have any trouble with the fact that the top researchers who found viral contaminants in vaccines were fired, and the "health" authorities went on vaccinating people with SV-40-contaminated vaccines?

Or with scientists at meetings admitting to problems they saw in vaccines, yet ten years passed before anything was done about them?

Or the fact that no long-term studies have been done on vaccines that include a control group?

Or that a company like Glaxo Wellcome allowed thousands of babies to be vaccinated with toxic whooping cough vaccines it knew had not passed crucial safety tests?

If so, you're a lot more trusting than I am.

[liamona]

The Healthy Belly Vaccine Topics with Dr. Sears, Dr. Bob Sears talks about Vaccines, The Healthy Belly.com

"I recently talked with two physicians in different states that told me the HMO plans that they contract with do chart reviews and patient surveys at the end of each year. If their office scores high enough on these reviews, the HMO plan gives them a several thousand dollar bonus. This bonus varies depending on the number of patients the doctor sees. One of the requirements for a patient’s chart to pass the test is that they are fully vaccinated."

So if we parents offered them a few thousand dollars to give us a non-biased opinion on vaccines, would they? LOL.

[liamona]

Judicial Watch Investigates Side-Effects of HPV Vaccine | Judicial Watch

PDF file of report:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/documen...ineRecords.pdf

Article about report on News With Views:

NWV News -- Eighteen Deaths Linked to Gardasil Vaccine Report Claims

From the report:

Analysis of the records shows:

• Gardasil is a prophylactic, preventative vaccine and will not treat pre-existing HPV infection. It is not a cancer vaccine or cure.

• Gardasil is marketed as a vaccine that prevents cancer, but it “ . . . has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.”

• Gardasil is not 100% effective against all HPVs. It is designed to protect against only four strains of HPV, even though there are over thirty strains including at least fifteen that can cause cancer.

• While Gardasil is the most expensive vaccine ever to be recommended by the FDA, its long-term effectiveness is unknown and could be as brief as only two to three years.

• During testing, an aluminum-containing placebo was used. Aluminum can cause permanent cell damage and is a reactive placebo, unlike most standard saline placebos. This means that tests of Gardasil may not have given an accurate picture of safety levels.

• Although some states are considering making it mandatory for young girls to get the Gardasil vaccine, it has only been tested with one other vaccine commonly given to children. There are ten commonly administered adolescent vaccines.

• Gardasil is still in the testing stages, and will not be fully evaluated for safety until September 2009. VAERS reports show that as many as eighteen people have died after receiving Gardasil.