tube fanatic Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 It has been quite a while since I posted anything about relevant medical issues. The following is for your consideration: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/01/24/catastrophic-vaccine-reactions.aspx?e_cid=20150124Z1_DNL_RTLB_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20150124Z1_RTLB&et_cid=DM67629&et_rid=817256636 Maynard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 While I'm not a physician, my brother is; he says the benefits of vaccination to prevent disease FAR outweighs the benefits of not doing so. My twin sons, Lee & Jackson, take the shots; as do my wife & I. What do you have your children do? What do you do? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyto Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I work in the medical field, not a doctor but board certified in molecular diagnostics and cytology. I diagnose cancer basically. Something to keep in mind: Nothing is 100% effective and nothing is 100% free from side effects. Potential negative side effects have to be weighed against suspected gains. The human body is very complex and diverse from person to person, what works on me may not work on you. Don't blindly believe everything you read on the internet (or anywhere else for that matter) about medicine even if a "doctor" supposedly wrote it. The positive effects of vaccines do outweigh the negative. My kids were vaccinated as was I. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The paper here is a broad and unscientific narrative. It is not a study nor is it a formal literature review of any valid studies on vaccinations or their complications. These issues have been previously raised and they have been extensively studied and debunked. Currently there is a measles outbreak threatening So. California. Measles is highly contagious and can be deadly or debilitating. In the last several years Calif has allowed parents to sidestep state laws and enroll children unvaccinated into public schools with a simple waiver. Some elementary schools have 30% of the student body unprotected from measles and other easily preventible ID's. You can bet this will get remedied real fast. Ever watch a child die from a viral infection? Ever witness what that does to the parents and the family? Immunizations very safely protect the population from many horrific illnesses. Advocating against such an effective program had better be profoundly well anchored in solid irrefutable scientific proofs. Reference the recent Ebola outbreak if you need any guide to the terrors of virulence and deadly ailments. There are 5 states that legally allow parents to rely solely upon prayer as a valid medical treatment for their children. In Idaho one religious sect has applied this treatment liberally. In 'Peaceful Valley' near Boise the local cemetery is comprised of 25% children, a most grisly and telling statistic in a world where modern medicine keeps child mortality at much lower numbers. There are some things where 'wing and a prayer' do not belong. The same can be said for guesswork. Immunize your children and please put an end to this unfounded speculative application of fear mongering voodoo medicine. If it cannot be scientifically proven it offers NO proof. http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/Fatal-Faith-Idaho-laws-protect-faith-healing-even-when-children-die-233374791.html 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) The paper here is a broad and unscientific narrative. It is not a study nor is it a formal literature review of any valid studies on vaccinations or their complications. These issues have been previously raised and they have been extensively studied and debunked. Currently there is a measles outbreak threatening So. California. Measles is highly contagious and can be deadly or debilitating. In the last several years Calif has allowed parents to sidestep state laws and enroll children unvaccinated into public schools with a simple waiver. Some elementary schools have 30% of the student body unprotected from measles and other easily preventible ID's. You can bet this will get remedied real fast. Ever watch a child die from a viral infection? Ever witness what that does to the parents and the family? Immunizations very safely protect the population from many horrific illnesses. Advocating against such an effective program had better be profoundly well anchored in solid irrefutable scientific proofs. Reference the recent Ebola outbreak if you need any guide to the terrors of virulence and deadly ailments. There are 5 states that legally allow parents to rely solely upon prayer as a valid medical treatment for their children. In Idaho one religious sect has applied this treatment liberally. In 'Peaceful Valley' near Boise the local cemetery is comprised of 25% children, a most grisly and telling statistic in a world where modern medicine keeps child mortality at much lower numbers. There are some things where 'wing and a prayer' do not belong. The same can be said for guesswork. Immunize your children and please put an end to this unfounded speculative application of fear mongering voodoo medicine. If it cannot be scientifically proven it offers NO proof. http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/Fatal-Faith-Idaho-laws-protect-faith-healing-even-when-children-die-233374791.html I disagree with the general tenor of this post. The documentary was not designed to be a medical study. It was simply put together to inform people that immunizations do exhibit some serious, debilitating side effects in some small part of the population. Does this mean all immunizations are bad? No. If you are looking to save the species, they tend to be good. If you are looking at your child, there is nothing wrong with having concern and perhaps even abstaining. In addition, the documentary is not presenting an argument that immunization should be ended. It is simply putting forth information concerning some serious hazards that most people do not appreciate or even know. All in all, I think it does a fair job. The take-away appears to be to enlighten the public and to probably foster some attention so that scientists might be able to determine, through studies, which people are at greater risk or, alternatively, how to reduce risk. "Those things don't happen to people like me" is a pretty uninformed attitude. Edited January 24, 2015 by Jeff Matthews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OO1 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I work in the medical field, not a doctor but board certified in molecular diagnostics and cytology. I diagnose cancer basically. Something to keep in mind: Nothing is 100% effective and nothing is 100% free from side effects. Potential negative side effects have to be weighed against suspected gains. The human body is very complex and diverse from person to person, what works on me may not work on you. Don't blindly believe everything you read on the internet (or anywhere else for that matter) about medicine even if a "doctor" supposedly wrote it. The positive effects of vaccines do outweigh the negative. My kids were vaccinated as was I. The positive effects of vaccines do outweigh the negative.- the main problem is that currently any outbreak that is caught by young children mostly will transfer to adults - so if all the family is protected - that is the best recommendation - as they say - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Does this mean all immunizations are bad? No. If you are looking to save the species, they tend to be good. If you are looking at your child, there is nothing wrong with having concern and perhaps even abstaining Either way the species will get weeded out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OO1 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 While I'm not a physician, my brother is; he says the benefits of vaccination to prevent disease FAR outweighs the benefits of not doing so. My twin sons, Lee & Jackson, take the shots; as do my wife & I. What do you have your children do? What do you do? you cant take a chance with kids today - the fact is that to protect your kids - you have to take the shots as well - 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Does this mean all immunizations are bad? No. If you are looking to save the species, they tend to be good. If you are looking at your child, there is nothing wrong with having concern and perhaps even abstaining Either way the species will get weeded out. The old "If it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger" argument. I don't think it is a universal imperative. But in any event, many of the points in the debate depend on whether you are more concerned with the species as opposed to a particular specimen. For example, from looking from merely a "species" perspective, one might be able to argue that it would help us all if we got rid of all invalids and retarded people. To many of us, life is more than utilitarian concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Yes exactly. Your mechanism for protecting "your" child is exactly how it has always been done. There is always a drive to protect your children instead of someone else's. In this way evolution has occurred. Therefore either way someone gets weeded out. Whether it is for the betterment or the detriment to the species is unknown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Therefore either way someone gets weeded out. We are thinking similarly, except for this phrase right here. We cannot say that all non-immunized people will be afflicted, nor can we say that all immunized people are never afflicted. The whole thing has to do with "odds" and taking chances to some extent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The whole thing has to do with "odds" and taking chances to some extent. Doesn't it always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The whole thing has to do with "odds" and taking chances to some extent. Doesn't it always. Pretty much. What I found interesting is that mercury and aluminum are used as a preservative and adjutant, respectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The body safely eliminates mercury from itself at a certain rate per week. That is why you should make sure you don't ingest more than that amount per week, usually through certain species of fish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) Therefore either way someone gets weeded out. We are thinking similarly, except for this phrase right here. We cannot say that all non-immunized people will be afflicted, nor can we say that all immunized people are never afflicted. The whole thing has to do with "odds" and taking chances to some extent. There is a fallacy to this logic. It is called 'herd immunity'. When a certain proportion of a community is immunized the entire community realizes a greater degree of protection as the diseases simply cannot vector easily amongst the group. Conversely, when too many are not immune the disease can transmit more easily and through frequency of occurrence, will also mutate more frequently. Not only will more people get exposed but they will eventually all lose their immunity to new variants of the same pathogens. Immunization succeeds better if most of a population has immunity and remains immune. That is how major pathogens get entirely eradicated. If the confounding variable is our inherent mortality I see no reason to accelerate the process unnecessarily and no reason to imperil your own children. Consider also that you're not just risking death. Defense mechanisms in kids are well known to overreact. They tend get high temperatures quickly. Febrile seizures will leave your child retarded for life or worse. Do you really want to risk polio resurgence and so many other illnesses? As I said........... the health advantages we gain as a community through vaccination should not ever be casually set aside. Edited January 24, 2015 by oscarsear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 According to this we get 7 to 9 mgs a day of aluminum which is essentially eliminated quickly. I wouldn't go popping lots of aspirin or antacids though. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=1076&tid=34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) I wouldn't go popping lots of aspirin or antacids though. Dude … live a little. I’ve been to some mean antacid parties. Edited January 24, 2015 by BigStewMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Therefore either way someone gets weeded out. We are thinking similarly, except for this phrase right here. We cannot say that all non-immunized people will be afflicted, nor can we say that all immunized people are never afflicted. The whole thing has to do with "odds" and taking chances to some extent. There is a fallacy to this logic. It is called 'herd immunity'. When a certain proportion of a community is immunized the entire community realizes a greater degree of protection as the diseases simply cannot vector easily amongst the group. Conversely, when too many are not immune the disease can transmit more easily and through frequency of occurrence, will also mutate more frequently. Not only will more people get exposed but they will eventually all lose their immunity to new variants of the same pathogens. Immunization succeeds better if most of a population has immunity and remains immune. That is how major pathogens get entirely eradicated. If the confounding variable is our inherent mortality I see no reason to accelerate the process unnecessarily and no reason to imperil your own children. Consider also that you're not just risking death. Defense mechanisms in kids are well known to overreact. They tend get high temperatures quickly. Febrile seizures will leave your child retarded for life or worse. Do you really want to risk polio resurgence and so many other illnesses? As I said........... the health advantages we gain as a community through vaccination should not ever be casually set aside. No doubt, this is true. Again, though, the point is utilitarian. Also, compare this line of thinking (which is valid) to the line of thinking as regards the over-prescription (and use) of antibiotics. Many professionals now believe many bacteria have, over time, become resistant to antibiotics through repeated exposure to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.