Newsvine Q&A: Reporter JoNel Aleccia on vaccination

There is very little, if any, thimerasol used in vaccines in the U.S. anymore. It was removed a few years ago. Also, there is very little, if any, credible scientific evidence that shows thimerasol was harmful when it was incorporated as a preservative in vaccines.

I'm sorry... but if Thimerasol is so stinking safe, why did the veterinary community remove the preservative in the early/mid 1990's due to the amount of reactions that animals were having? Why did the veterinary community have more sense than the medical community to see that the preservative was harmful? And actually vaccines are STILL made with thimerasol (i.e. flu, MMR, etc), and you have to ask (demand) that your pediatrician give you one of the few Thimerasol free vaccines they have on hand, and please do not take their word for it, ask to see the vial they are using. Yes they do make thimerasol free vaccines, but believe the Dr's use the old stuff before the new. I don't mind vaccines, I just mind the medical community and drug companies pushing so many at one time. I had my son's vaccines spaced out and it took a while but he was finally finished with his series, and I asked and looked for myself. Please make no mistake, yes there are Thimerasol free vaccines out there, but there are not as many on your Dr's shelves as there are the Thimerasol laden ones, and they will off-load those on your children first.

Thimerisol was removed from all childhood vaccines with the exception of some flu vaccines. Thimerisol free flu vaccines are available.

Unvaccinated children are a risk to vaccinated children. No vaccine works 100% of the time in all children. Their effectiveness rates vary. Therefore, vaccinating all protects "the herd immunity."

Herd immunity occurs when 90-95% are vaccinated-- 100 % is not necessary

Boyd Haley, a Biochemist and head of the Chemistry Dept at the U of Kentucky added DTap to brain cells in a petri dish. The DTaP did not seem to do much harm until thimerosal and aluminum were added. Then the cells died within 24 hrs. Estrogen was added to the dishes without much change but testosterone accelerated the damage. Dr. Haley is quoted as saying "I think I know why they didn't demand animal studies on these vaccines. They would end up with very few lab animals left."

It is easy to say that there is no scientific information available but in fact there is a tremendous amount! How about for SIDS for exaxmple:
There are conflicting reports on whether or not the DTP vaccine is associated with SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) and convulsions. Even though these side effects are rare, it is worth knowing that the connection has been suggested. It is also worth noting that in many cases, more adverse reactions were seen in patients who received the DPT (Diphtheria-Pertussis-Tetanus) vaccine as compared to just the DT (Diphtheria-Tetanus) vaccine. (Cody, Baraff et al. 1981) In addition, there are reports, although rare, of children having neurological reactions and side effects to the DTP vaccine. (Taraszkiewicz, Bogus-Parafieniuk et al. 1994)

The EPA says the safe level of organic mercury is 0.1 mcg/day and the WHO says 3.3 mcg/week is safe. A 6 mos old with a DTaP, Hib, and Hep B vaccine gets 62.5 mcg. Do the math. Math also asks why should people who make money giving shots or make money making vaccines are the right people to decide what is "safe".

Logic asks why are people who have vaccinated children so afraid of unvaccinated children? Do they not think their vaccines work? Are they afraid of being around logical and educated individuals?

Mr Dickens, there is a reason vaccinations are typically given in the muscles of the arm, rather than directly into the brain, beyond that it has been determined that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of allergic reaction.

old enough to remember,,,"only my children who are not vaccinated, are at risk and therefore do not endanger others" is ludicrous.

It is ludicrous but not for the reasons you cite. The oral polio vaccine is a live virus that sheds and holds the potential to infect anyone with a compromised immune system who is near the vaccinated child. According to the American Autoimmune Disease Related Association that's millions at risk, just from the children who get an oral polio, which is given at least three times to each infant in the first year.

Approximately 50 million Americans, 20 percent of the population or one in five people, suffer from autoimmune diseases. Women are more likely than men to be affected; some estimates say that 75 percent of those affected--some 30 million people--are women.

Putting 50 million at risk can be avoided by substituting an inactive polio vaccine, known as IPV, but it is rarely done. Why? Because the bottom line of vaccinating or not has less to do with the greater good and overall public health as it does with profits. If you want to argue public health policy be my guest but don't blame parents who have concerns about the safety of an industry with a shoddy record of safety for putting at the public at greater risk than shoddy National policy does.

Very clever Pamela.

This industry is gone well too far already. Here in Europe, they are lobbying (a.k.a. buying politicians, a.k.a. corruption) to pass a law that will efficiently exterminate any alternative health remedy in the whole European Union.

They torture animals in tests to "find" remedies that in most cases are not necessary for anything except to launch a brand new product that will be more expensive to buy (in most cases for the same Governments they are lobbying, mmmmm how suspicious).

It has been proved that some have killed people in the third world with their tests, and lately we have this scandal in Poland where they tested flu vaccines in homeless people resulting in the death of many.

http://atonhunter.newsvine.com/_news/2008/07/03/1636429-homeless-people-die-after-bird-flu-vaccine-trial-in-poland

We shouldn't be concerned, right?

I am vegan and haven't taken a pill or shot in almost 20 years. For the health multi-billionaire mafia you can only be a customer or an enemy.

In response to the oral polio vaccine statement above--the most common vaccine used for polio in the U.S. is not the oral polio vaccine. Many countries still use the oral polio vaccine but the U.S. is not one of them, unless there are extenuating circumstances. The polio vaccine most commonly used in the U.S. is inactivated and is not capable of transmitting the infection.

The polio vaccine most commonly used in the U.S. is inactivated and is not capable of transmitting the infection.

I did note the IPV does not shed, that's why they call it Inactive! Unless policy has changed in the last decade and OPV has been substituted as the default the comment stands. If that is the case I'd like a link to show when the change was made and why. I have first hand experience trying to get an IPV for a child and it was not easy to come by.

Pamela - just an opposing thought -

I have a compromised immune system due to auto-immune Hashimoto's Disease - very serious - life threatening if not managed. My mother has Lupus - another auto-immune disease. Both of us received oral polio vaccines with no adverse affect.

My daughter, age one, has never been given any oral vaccines; in fact, I never even knew that was a possibility. Not that I am looking for one, but all of her vaccines have been injections. Her polio one was the IPV and I was not given a choice of either active or inactive.

An enhanced IPV was licensed in November 1987 and first became available in 1988. Use of OPV was discontinued in 2000. ("Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases" 10th Edition January 2007 pg. 105) You can get Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine (IPV) for free from your local health department or if your child is uninsured, underinsured, on medicaid, Native American, or Alaska Native from your private provider if they participate in the Vaccines for Children Program. The only oral vaccine used in the U.S. right now is Rotavirus you can get Rotateq from Merck or Rotatrix from GSK Rotavirus vaccines are also available through the Vaccines for Children Program and is recommended but not a required infant immunization.

Here's the CDC's fact sheet for Polio vaccination...

www.cdc. gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-IPV.pdf (you might need to visit the CDC website and search for 'polio vaccine')

The bottom of the first page indicates that the oral vaccine is no longer recommended. If a physician is trying to give an oral vaccine, it might be a good idea to find another physician.

So then what is our government doing to change any of this? They took some mercury out of vaccs. Thanks! What about the rest of the crap? And how about all of it? How many people know that there is aborted fetal tissue in many of the vaccs? I can't imagine what the reaction would be if that got out when abortion is such a controversial issue. There is a HUGE difference in the ways foods are being packaged now, so why can't the same be done to vaccs.? I immunized my oldest son completely, but with my last two I did my research. How much research do you think the typical person is doing before they take their kids in? My friends who vacc. say they really haven't done any. Why? Aren't our children more important then that? So don't think that those of us who have decided against immunizations just did it on a whim---most of us have done our reading and research. Have you? Maybe the drug comanies and the US government are who you should be going to if you have a problem--because a change does need to be made. Then you may see more people vaccinating. And, NO, I don't think anyone should be able to tell me I have to do something when I don;t think it's safe. I am protecting my children and doing no harm to yours.

Kendra,
If you just believe everything you read...then you truly have not done your research. Your beginning statements are ludicrous.

More people should try talking to their pediatrician instead of surfing the internet and reading any trash that's out there.

I want to point one major thing out...the initial "study" that lead to the global vaccine scare was proven a scam between a doctor and an attorney that wanted to win some lawsuits.

Re: Pamela - just an opposing thought -

I have a compromised immune system due to auto-immune Hashimoto's Disease - very serious - life threatening if not managed. My mother has Lupus - another auto-immune disease. Both of us received oral polio vaccines with no adverse affect.

Reply: Hey Pamela- just a logical thought - how do know that both of you would not have these chronic illnesses without the vaccines? Another way to phrase this is how do you know that these chronic illnesses are not a sequela of the vaccines?

I have a compromised immune system due to auto-immune Hashimoto's Disease - very serious - life threatening if not managed. My mother has Lupus - another auto-immune disease. Both of us received oral polio vaccines with no adverse affect.

The greatest likelihood is that you and your mother got the vaccine as children, prior to the immune system problems. The risk for you would come if you were exposed to a child who had gotten the OPV, which sheds and now that you have a suppressed immune system you could get polio from the exposure to the child.

No Pam -wrong. My mother and I have been ill with our immune system diseases all our lives. Before she was vaccinated (she is older - 70's) as they started later at that time.

Oh, and Andrew - my father contracted polio as a child. He hadn't been vaccinated yet.

I'll take my chances, I think my Dad's recommendation stands over a few stay-at-home mom's with too much time on their hands.

I think my Dad's recommendation stands over a few stay-at-home mom's with too much time on their hands.

Feel free to look at any source you'd like for medical advice, but if that was aimed at me you missed the mark by a mile. I'm a widowed, single mom who has done the job of two parents and put food on the table for more than a decade. I've spent many years in a cancer research environment and the name is Pamela, if you're interested in getting the details right.

You are confusing your concepts of cause and effect which is leading to a wrong conclusion. Lupus can be triggered by a host of environmental, viral and bacterial agents and we would have no way of knowing if the polio vaccine played any role in your mother's condition.

Nor do we know if there was an invitro effect, that caused her to bear a child with autoimmune problems. The human body is the most complex system of interrelated functions and systems ever created. There is far more that we don't know than we do about what goes wrong.

The only thing we can know is that it did not trigger polio at the time it was administered. It proves nothing about the vaccine or her ability to be infected now. There is also no way of knowing the source of your immune system problems. Hashimoto's disease is a problem with your thyroid gland that generally affects women over 45 and it thought to be triggered by bacteria or viruses also.

It is fortunate that you were diagnosed in early childhood because it is very common to misdiagnose it until the symptoms are advanced and until recently the TSH tests to determine Hashimoto's were not available. Hat's off to whatever medical professionals you have had for that.

The fact remains that we have no idea what effect the vaccine may have played in your problem. It may be none and it may be a triggering factor but without a clinical study of affected individuals and an exhaustive search for common factors its anyones guess.

There is no way your stories constitute proof of safety since both of you have serious health problems and potentially life threatening immune system failures with unknown sources.

Pamela - there is no way YOUR "stories" prove that immunizations caused either Lupus in my mother - or Hashimoto's in me.

Flip side? The rest of my health? Remarkable in that I rarely get sick. At all. Colds, flu, whatever - I haven't gotten anything (as I said above) in over 7 years. My mother is the same. So are my children.

We were all innoculated. Go figure - from this board, you'd think we'd all be ravaged by disease and dropping body parts from those "deadly" vaccines.

The truth does not substantiate your stand.

FYI - no issue with the name - just shortening for poor typing skills. Additionally, most on boards I've seen shorten screen names. No offense intended in that.

Pamela - there is no way YOUR "stories" prove that immunizations caused either Lupus in my mother - or Hashimoto's in me.

I agree. That's exactly what I said. We can not draw conclusions about your polio vaccine either way. There is no way to know what effect it had on either of you. No proof of safety or harm.

The truth does not substantiate your stand.

My stand is that there is no way you can assume the safety of a vaccine without knowing what other effects it might have had, nor can you assume cause. The fact of the effect is unknowable. That's what I said from the beginning and if you'd stop trying so hard to find a right and wrong and assert that anecdotal experience is proof that these are safe a you might get the point.

If you ever have the good fortune to deal with the greatest minds in science and medicine the first thing you will learn is they never assume to know so much with certainty they rule out anything.

The treatment for miscarriages given to mothers in the 1950 was heralded as a wonder-drug with no negative effects. It was a miracle as DES allowed couples who otherwise could not carry babies to term to deliver perfectly healthy children. It was not until the female offspring reached maturity and rates of cervical cancers so far in excess of population wide rates began to appear that a connection was found.

It can take generations for effects of any alteration or treatment to manifest and suggesting otherwise is something no informed person would do. To criticize people who choose not to trust an industry that is by its nature filled with risk and by its history filled with fraud denies people the right of self determination. Feel free to have blind faith, but don't demand that others follow blindly along with you. No one knows all the risks, ever. What is safe for most is not necessarily safe for all. Every body is different enough that all substances cause different responses.

The funny thing is, while many of the diseases we vaccinate against no longer exist in the United States, it only takes one trip across the globe to bring some back, and then we'll have an epidemic among the unvaccinated children...

I would be interested to see a valid study done on how many children are affected with autism that have been vaccinated vs those that have not in a percentage.

i.e. 100,000 people polled
x were vaccinated #% have developed autism, #% have developed allergic reactions, #% have developed, #% have developed life threatening illnesses, etc.. x were not vaccinated #% have developed autism, #% developed life threatening illnesses

Until I see a valid study with these kinds of numbers I do not even consider and will not vaccinate, myself, my child and my family. I believe natural immunity is the best way. Most people that contract anything that has a vaccine is usually suffering from poor immune system for one reason or another if it been disease or lack of proper nutrition and sleep.

Shawn - I hope you do not plan to take your children or yourself out of the country anytime soon.

Proper nutrition and sleep are not going to stop a case of plague, mumps, measles, smallpox or any other disease. Only immunities do.

You do realize you are repeating what you've been told without looking into it and it's not correct.

Your immune system is designed to fight off all forms of virus and infection naturally.

==
by plague you mean Yersinia pestis(The Plague)? I hope you are kidding.

==
mumps vaccine:

(taken from the Mayo website)
Side effects of the vaccine You can't get mumps from the MMR vaccine, and most people experience no side effects from the vaccine. A few may experience a mild fever or rash, and some people (mostly adults) have achy joints afterward for a short time. Less than one out of a million doses causes a serious allergic reaction. -since this is not a deadly virus and you have better chances getting ill from it then getting the virus I see no reason to get the vaccine for it.

==
measles vaccine:

(again mayo website)
Side effects of the vaccine
Most people experience no side effects from the vaccine. About 10 percent of people develop a fever between five and 12 days after the vaccination, and about 5 percent of people develop a mild rash. Fewer than one out of a million doses causes a serious allergic reaction.

Measles usually lasts about 10 to 14 days. In some parts of the world, the disease is severe, even deadly. In Western countries, that's usually not the case. People with measles may become quite ill, but most people(99.98%) recover completely. -- again better chanced to not get it then suffer the side effects from the vaccine.
==
I'm sorry but smallpox is gone other than in two labs one in the states and one in Siberia.

Naturally occurring smallpox was finally eradicated worldwide by 1980 — the result of an unprecedented immunization campaign. But the virus didn't disappear entirely. Stocks of smallpox virus, set aside for research purposes, are officially stored in two high-security labs — one in the United States and one in Siberia. This has lead to concerns that smallpox someday may be used as a biological warfare agent.

nobody is vaccinated for smallpox anymore. of all of these vaccines this is the only one anyone should ever have gotten as it's the only real mass killer.

No Shawn - I am repeating what is the truth - and it is correct. Vaccines save lives. Look at third world nations for God's sake! How many countless lives were lost before vaccination programs in Africa, India, Ethiopia...? Oh, that's right, it just falls under your answer in another post: survival of the fittest I think you said...right? I'm sure all those mothers in Africa agree with you too? (Not)

Your information fails to mention that measles can cause loss of hearing and vision in some - I would say that is fairly serious, wouldn't you?

---- Here some quotes for you - just in case you wondered:

"in the late 1980s and early 1990s when immunization rates against measles dropped.
The result was 11,000 hospitalizations and more than a hundred deaths caused by measles. Now, due to an increase in measles immunization rates, there are only
about a hundred cases of measles and no deaths every year in the United States."

that one came from the CDC. I am going to trust them on this point.

"The price paid for a single natural infection is usually considerably greater (than not vaccinating the child) : paralysis from natural polio infection, mental retardation from natural Hib infection, liver failure from natural hepatitis B virus infection, deafness from natural mumps infection, or pneumonia from natural varicella infection are high prices to pay for immunity."

I see no need to post equally telling details about all the others you chose to poo poo. You are simply not in possession of all the facts about vaccines.

It is amazing to me how judgmental most vaccinating parents can be on this issue. Until you have walked in the other person's shoes, you have no right to judge someone for the decisions they have made. I can say this because I have seen both sides of this issue. I used to be strongly pro-vaccinations until my two month old baby ended up hospitalized for a life-threatening reaction to his vaccines. Watching my precious son, who had been incredibly healthy up until the shots, be strapped to a board twice for x-rays (kicking, screaming, and terrified the entire time), subjected to FOUR unsuccessful spinal taps, 2 failed IV ports, and numerous other pricks and shots all to be told that there was nothing they could do to help (but lets just do one more invasive test....) was the most difficult experience of my life. Thank goodness he survived despite (and not because of) all that medical intervention. At the same time, my older son came down with a very bad case of chicken pox (despite having been vaccinated - and he was exposed when the virus shed from a friend who had also been vaccinated) AND was diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder that has been linked to vaccines.

All of this was a sign to me that I needed to do some research and see what I was putting in my children's bodies. I learned that when my baby got those 2 month shots (6 vaccines total), he was injected with 1000mcg of aluminium (a known neurotoxin) from his vax injected into him - the govt recommends a healthy person getting no more than 25 mcg a day, but apparently they make exceptions for vaccinations, so in one go, a 10 pound baby can have 400 times the legal adult daily limit. In those same vaccines, he was also injected with cow and monkey dna, human dna, aborted fetal cells, formaldehyde, msg, 4 kinds of antibiotics, and yes traces of mercury/thimerosol. Wow. The human body is designed to keep neurotoxins and other dna out of our systems, so what do the scientists do? They bypass our bodies' safety nets by injecting them straight into our cells. If you ask me, it's incredible that we aren't seeing more health problems in young children when exposing them to those levels of toxins. But wait - we are, they just haven't been conclusively linked to vaccines in (surprise surprise) the studies paid for by the vaccine manufacturers. Autism, allergies, autoimmune disorders, ADHD, and cancers are skyrocketing at the same time as the amount of vaccines given to our children (both throughout their lives and in one single visit) are climbing. At the very least, there is a correlation here, and it would be great to see more unbiased studies completed to find causation. But then, so many of the ones that do find links between vaccines and health problems are swept under the carpet thanks to the big pharma lobbyists.

I have done a great deal of research regarding vaccines, and I have come to the conclusion that for *my* children, the risks of vaccinating are greater than the risks of not vaccinating. I am a stay at home mom, we eat a healthy diet (organic and toxin-free whenever possible) and we practice extended breastfeeding and child-led weaning, so their risks are lower than those of a formula-fed baby in daycare. Most of the diseases for which we vaccinate cause problems in only a tiny percent of the population with other health issues, not in healthy strong children. I would much rather have them catch a disease (like measles) naturally and end up with natural immunity than risk another hospitalization and further danger through exposure to neurotoxins and foreign dna for something that's not a sure thing, could cause lots of health problems down the line, and wears off in a few years time, leaving them vulnerable at an age when it would be more harmful to them to catch the disease.

I strongly feel that each parent should research all sides of this topic and make the conclusion that is best for *their* family. To deny them that right is un-American. And yet 99.5% of the pro-vaccination parents that I know have not done any research at all, they trust their doctors to do it for them. Unfortunately, most doctors do not know much more than parents when it comes to vaccines, other than the fact that it has been indoctrinated into them that vaccines are good for public health and therefore everyone must have them.

It would be nice if we could all stop judging each other on hot topics like this and instead support people towards making the choice that is best for their own children.

Mom of 2 - it has absolutely NOTHING to do with how healthy you eat and how clean or perfect your home is. It has everything to do with what your family is exposed to. People in the grocery store - your husband's office, the dentist, doctor, play group, church.

A virus doesn't care that you eat organic foods - all it cares about is reproducing in a human host. Hopefully it will not end up doing that in your sons. All judgements aside - were you vaccinated? If so, did you turn out healthy?

Healthy eating boosts your own immune system -- making it more likely that you can fight off diseases easier.

zillamutt,

While I agree that healthy eating does lead to healthy bodies, this is no protection against a virus or bacteria. None.

it's not a guarantee- but "healthier" people get sick less often...

Which is why all these parents against vaccines - with children that suffer from asthma, allergies, colds every other week, anemia, etc should vaccinate.

vaccinating a weak immune system is like a bully picking on the smallest kid in class.

I ask again - were you vaccinated?

People with AIDS put everyone at "risk" vaccinated or not .

It seems unjust to label people that don't vaccinate as greedy and not label those who want them to vaccinate greedy as well after all both sides want the same thing in the end, at least in most cases right?

That is of course for the children to be healthy and live without complications.

The only difference is that those who vaccinate follow the big pharmaceutical companies advise and the other side looks at the facts at hand and makes the decision not to because from the current evidence at hand it is not the proper course for their family.

America "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" There is nothing in our constitution that says we must inject poisons into our children for the sake of the "herd", we are not sheep people.

Oh yes, "Z" let's just shoot the AIDS patients, right? Then there would be no "risk".

That's really humane and compassionate.

@KeltWolf

He's making a point that if you are going to segregate against non vaccinated people then you would also need to segregate against people with HIV/AIDS. His point is valid and shows just how out of line your thought process is.

So why don't we just start numbering people and putting arm tags on them too, while your at it toss in an RFID chip so we know where they are at all times.

see how crazy your thought process sounds now?

The point that I think you are missing is this: AIDS is not contagious unless bodily fluids are exchanged. On the other hand, many diseases that children are innoculated against are airborne and can be exchanged by passive contact.

Thus, children who are unvaccinated sitting in a room while they are sick are more dangerous to a person with HIV or AIDS sitting in that same room than they are to the child.

When you use an example that is not an equal comparison, your point is not made at all.

Your analogy of a child infected with AIDS is a bit of an "apples to oranges" comparison. It can't be assumed that all un-immunized children are infected with a contagious disease. In my mind there is a significant difference between sending an healthy, un-immunized child to school and sending a sick child to school. Parents who have taken enough time to study this issue and have chosen not to immunize their children generally have enough sense to know that you don't send your sick child to school or daycare.

Additionally, in my experience, parents who have made the informed decision to opt out of immunizations are more likely to raise their children on organic, "slow foods." Our society's complete disregard for childhood nutrition and exercise is a great source of concern when we take a look at the issues surrounding pandemics and the spread of disease. If a child's immune system can be strengthened through nutrition and exercise I don't see any reason why parents who choose that path should be legally obligated to share that decision with the world.

Apples or oranges??? They are both infectious diseases it just happens that one is always a death sentence while the other is not. Not send their kids to school sick? AIDS kids in fact attend school regularly because their disease is not always incapacitating or noticed by eye.

I wasn't implying all un-innoculated kids always had disease but that they pose an unneccessary risk to others when they do have the disease. Disease is contagious BEFORE the symptoms manifest themselves.....too late to close the barn door after the horse ran out. Which brings me to notifications of un-innoculated people. I strongly believe that parents should have the knowledge to do what is right for their child especially if that child is considered frail enough to easily contract diseases......why should one child suffer for the beliefs of another family?

I guess time will tell whether or not all that natural stuff and good living will prevent disease enough to control future outbreaks. My bet is that it won't because some diseases are severe enough to overcome all except for a good shot of vaccine. Personally I'm 50 years old, love to eat meat, handled mercury several times as a child, did not wear helmets, always had a good tan, etc. and I'm in better shape than the few teens I see out on the hiking trails I go on. So I think the naturalist stuff is much more than it is hopped up to be and I certainly don't think that lifestyle will prevent all diseases.

Do you realize how crazy this sounds?

"However, my feeling is that making a choice such as this they should have to report it to any organizations where children congregate in numbers so other parents have the opportunity to make decisions based on their children's best interests. Both parties should be able to make informed decisions by having all the information available to them."

You are 100% entitled to your feelings and I wouldn't think of changing them.

What good would it do you to know which children in your child's school aren't vaccinated? You can't change it and they will continue to exist whether it's religious, personal, medical, etc. I guess we should send home letters with the specific children's name, address, phone, email, etc. on ever cold, flu, chicken pox, measles, ear infection, sore throat, etc. Those are all contagious.

I would bet any of these people who feel everyone should vaccinate for the great good would stop being so self-centered and judgemental after watching their child have 200 seizures after their DTaP! I bet you'd stop vaccinating after that, too. And, you wouldn't know until you were faced with that situation and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy!

I guess it is whatever you believe is crazy. To me and the majority it seems crazy not to vaccinate for obvious reasons other people seem to ignore like an elephant in the room. That one child you give as an example is an extremely rare case......do you let your kids drive when they reach age 16? What about if you saw a horrible accident victim would you not let them drive? How about our brave boys in Iraq would you not allow 18+ year olds protect our country. I guess you would rather let us all turn the other cheek and encourage another 911.

Vacinating is the same, it protects everyone but it does have its incredibly few hazards that result in grief. I feel sorry for those families but feeling sorry for a few versus many I think is a good trade off. That sounds like reasonable and valid judgment rather than starting an epidemic which sounds crazy to me.

I know it won't change your mind but I'msure glad most people think like I do and you should be grateful of that because if you don't vaccinate your kids the chances are still small they will get sick because the "herd" is intact (thank God) for now at least.

Char -

Your great-granddaughter did not have to be "out anywhere to get exposed". Since Whooping Cough is extremely contagious; anyone of the family (who I assume did not barricade the doors) who was out and about could have been carrying the virus. The DPT vaccine your great-granddaughter had been injected with had not finished building her immunity to the virus and thus; she was at risk.

Don't blame the vaccine when in point of fact, it could have been you.

I don't mean to split hairs, but Whooping Cough is caused by a bacteria, not a virus. It's called Bordetella pertussis and it is, as you stated, highly contagious, found asymptomatically in many individuals, and usually only causes long-term harm to children under the age of 1 year.

With all due respect. Your comments seem to imply that those who have their children vacinated are sheep that simply follow the herd and lack the intelligence to think about what they are doing. In fact, if you were to read some history you would find polio, influenza, etc. were rampant in society UNTIL vacines were developed and the diseases were controlled to the extent that they were nearly eliminated saving millions of lives. That, to me, sounds like real intelligence benefiting society since I haven't ever heard of millions of people dying from vacines.

Remember if it weren't for "Those who follow the herd and do everything they are told without a little bit of thought" (as you put it in your words) these diseases would again resurface with a vengence and as a parent you would be worried about even allowing your kids out of the house. Isn't it nice that you can choose to not innoculate with little fear that the disease will ever infect a family member? That is only made possible by "Those who follow the herd and do everything they are told without a little bit of thought" and have had their kids innoculated.

Funny - the same kind of bull I have heard spewing from the mouth of mothers who damned me for bottle feeding is what we are hearing from the anti-vaccine group here.

More bullying because they have no argument to further their cause.

Christop

If you really want to read your history-- vaccines were not available until the diseases had already run their courses.
Better sanitation and nutrition have done more to control diseases than vaccines ever have.

Zillamutt,

You are correct about sanitation and washing hands etc in order to reduce disease. However, have you ever watched people leaving a bathroom that do not wash their hands........there are many of them! Therefore the ONLY method of controlling disease, since there are alot of people who are less than sanitary, is to innoculate everyone for the good of the many.

As far as history goes, yes they ran their course and as a result society developed a vaccine or method to eliminate the disease. However, my reference to history was directed to make the point that disease does come back as seen in the influenza epidemics (plural) that killed millions across the globe. In fact, I had contracted the adult form of whooping cough while down in Texas even though I was innoculated as a child. Point is we should consult history to determine how our actions will eventually turn out. You know the quote "If we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it".

"If you really want to read your history-- vaccines were not available until the diseases had already run their courses.
Better sanitation and nutrition have done more to control diseases than vaccines ever have"

That is not true. It is a fallacy put out by antivaccine web sites. Look at the CDC and the AMA web sites. Look at REAL scientific evidence. The fact that every outbreak of measle in the U.S. in the past 10 years was in a community with unusually high levels of non-vaccination. Look at the outbreaks of Pertussis in the 90's that coincided with reduction in vaccination rates. Look at the African outbreaks of polio that coincided with the African governments saying the vaccinations caused HIV. To say that Vaccinations do not work is to ignore the science.

Christop

You made 2 lousy points.
There is no vaccine for "flu" because there are so many strains that the have to guess a year ahead of time which might show up the most.
Then you caught whooping cough-- even though you were innoculated-- guess it doesn't work so well does it??
More than half (68 of 131) cases of measles in the last year were kids who were vaccinated

zillamutt

Your understanding of the history of vaccines and vaccination is non-existant. Your statements show how ignorant many Americans are.

Takes an expert in ignorance to recognize ignorance.

You are so blissfully free of the ravages of intelligence.

Zillamutt,

You really don't know what you are talking about do you? First, flus change all the time and the CDC and world health organizations make their best determination of which flu will hit. There are vaccines for them so your wrong.

As far as getting the whooping cough and the idea that the vaccine I took as a kid not working.....please open a book and read or ask your doctor if vaccines can fail years later as an adult. He or she will tell you that the MMR shot, for example, works period. I caught the disease because after 20 some odd years the antibody level in the body reduces to a point where you are once again suseptible to the disease. That is the case with almost all shots. So once again you are wrong.

You know, if an outbreak happens measles mumps and rubella can hit older adults as well as children. It is nothing to play around with and you should really take the nose out of the naturalist's handbook and read some medical and historical books dealing with epidemics. It won't be people in their teens, 20s or maybe even 30s that die, it will be the babies, the mothers, the fathers, and the grandparents that die since they will be the most vulnerable. I wouldn't want to even THINK that it could have happened because I didn't get the shots. I experienced the whooping cough in my thirties and it lasted for 7 months! I know that if I had been older it would have killed me because in my thirties it almost did. It was serious and they couldn't do a thing for it except let it run the course......I KNOW IT IS NOTHING TO FOOL AROUND WITH and I wouldn't wish it on anyone else.

There is not "1" flu vaccine. Last years was only about 35% effective by "their" standards- which translates into that roughly 65% of people that got a flu shot caught the Flu anyways. Unvaccinated people had a rate of about 35%.

Guess the whooping cough was all your fault because you didn't run to get a booster.... If vaccines work correctly then they activate your immune system , something you don't have to worry about now. But the point is -- Why take something that doesn't work ( only to find out years later). Also there is no difference between catching a disease whether you are vaccinated or not - you still have it and it's still just as dangerous, and just as contagious.

By the way- I am working on a doctorate in Natural Medicine, so I know this is a lot more hype than it should be.

And again ( look at lower posts) I am not against vaccines in general-- just all the added garbage that is poisonous and is being forced into children.

Doctorate in Natural Medicine? Huh? I'm not surprised! Reading how you rationalize and think I'd say you must be attending some school from left field. No wonder you can't seem to get the point you are being or have been programmed to ignore rational thought in the face of devastating facts :)

rational thought requires thought- not just a blind following-- whatever I've said - this is my main point to everyone. THINK !!! RESEARCH !!! FIND THE TRUTH!!!LEAD DON'T FOLLOW!!!DON'T GIVE IN TO FEAR!!!

"rational thought requires thought- not just a blind following-- whatever I've said - this is my main point to everyone. THINK !!! RESEARCH !!! FIND THE TRUTH!!!LEAD DON'T FOLLOW!!!DON'T GIVE IN TO FEAR!!!"

Seems to me your comment of "don't give into fear" is contradictory. Don't you think the "research" you talk about also promotes fear? Could it be that autism rates have increased simply because they know what it is and can detect it sooner? Could it possibly be genetic?

To vaccinate or not vaccinate is indeed a choice, however I firmly believe that if you want to send your child to school they must be vaccintated with only ONE exception - medical reasoning. Personal & religious beliefs are bogus. And should you choose not to vaccinate, then you should have to homeschool your child.

Miles From a Farm -

You are correct in pointing out Autism stats are not apples to apples any more.

Additionally, there is such a widening of the categories of mental illness, I almost expect that eventually, there will be a category for all of us.

Autism diagnosis in decades past, was reserved for the worst of cases. Now, there are many diagnoses for questionable behavioral abnormalities. (people do not jump me here - I am not saying autistic children don't exist or that there is no need for intervention)

Today, children that are diagnosed with mild forms of autism would in the 60's and 70's be diagnosed as "bad" kids; or kids that were behavior problems. Does this mean there is or isn't more autism? I can't say because there is no data to analyze who would have been autistic in the past and who wouldn't.

Perhaps this is all for naught - and there is no increase of occurrences of Autism, just better abilities to recognize it.

what do you do with a child that has not been immunized because they are allergic?? Lock them away?? Force Homeschooling ?? What??

You ARE talking from fear.

I have not told you what to believe, but obviously you can't think for yourself and anyone who doesn't agree with the "norm" is wrong.

I'm not against vaccines-- just get the garbage out.

You don't need to worry about fear, because you can't think for yourself, you blindly believe what you are fed, and you couldn't handle hearing the truth if it doesn't fit into your little LaLa land.

:-) wow zillamutt - pretty offensive and aggressive reaction. I am going to try some questions. You will probably go postal instead of answering.

What is your child allergic to? Eggs? There are alternatives to some of these compounds. Being allergic to some vaccines does not mean you are allergic to all vaccines. Also - what constitutes an allergic reaction in your book? A fever? Can be normal reaction. A "hive"? Can be normal too. A full blown anaphylactic shock? Yep - THAT is a bad reaction - one not to be played with.

Oh, and don't tell people they "can't think for themselves" unless you are able to back that up with YOUR personal stats - IQ, success rate, income, etc. Don't get in over your head - you may drown.

miles from a farm said "one exception- medical reasoning" not me.
Doctors don't know or care what they are allergic to, because they don't have the time to be bothered with it. It is assumed that it is safe for everyone.

1) 155
2) cured 2 terminal cases of cancer (out of 2 - that's 100%)
3) none of your business

I personally had a swelling the size of a large grapefruit on my arm everytime I was vaccinated- and they just kept coming.

So does that mean I should have been homeschooled, or locked away, or what??

zillamutt -

first - your answers are not clear in the least.

Second - a swelling on your arm doesn't mean you are allergic. Also - just because YOU had a reaction - doesn't mean your child will.......

you asked the questions - or did you forget?

You answered in some willy nilly order - picking and choosing at will.

"There are no scientific studies on the effect of vaccines. There is no comparative study of vaccinated and unvaccinated children"

There are several lerge epidemiological studies that do exactly what you asked. Every one of them have shown no correlation between vaccines and Autism disorders.

AMEN!

She said what I couldn't.....if more people knew exactly (not what they want to tell you but EXACTLY) what was found in these concoctions we shoot into our children, less people would have them.

These shots include things that our bodies normally reject. I know this is going to sound cold and cruel, and no I don't wish it on anyone, but maybe the reason for some of the epidemics of old was to maintain a feasible population...one that the earth could hold without worries. And before anyone questions the "what if it were your child" question, yes, I would have to deal with it and it would kill me just as it would anyone else. However, because of my faith, I am sure God knows what is best overall.

Honestly, its all about money. The government has their hand in it just as much as the pharmacuticals do. And if no one will drink this stuff, what does that say about it? Nah, I don't want that in my son. I would rather take my chances.

Vaccinations are not about the money. Vaccinations were started by people like Jonas Salke who risked his own life to try to save the lives because he had seen first hand the suffering of people stricken with a devastating disease. We are very spoiled in our society today because we have not had any type of pandemic for over 50 years. It will happen.
No one has had to watch their loved ones die. I am for parents having the right whether to vaccinate or not. In the U.S. we start vaccinating our children very early, I believe too early. The first vaccination happen before your child is discharged from the hospital. IS THE CHILD'S IMMATURE IMMUNE SYSTEM READY TO HANDLE THE INTRODUCTION OF THESE VACCINES????. With the growing population, if I am not mistaken their were more children born in the U.S. this year than post war; and the continueous flow of immigrants to our country who are not innoculated, I would most certainly decide to vaccinate. Possibly waiting to the age of 2 or 3. Vaccines are expensive to make and believe me if insurance pays for them the reimbursement is very little. Alot of parents have to take their children to their local health department to get the vaccines because insurance doesn't cover them.

Zillamutt and Pro Choice Mommy (et. al)-

All of those TOXIC POISONS being FORCED into children?

I really doubt there is a huge conspiracy on the part of pharmaceutical companies and Doctors with regards to vaccines. Why would the pharmaceutical giants put chemicals they know are harmful into their vaccines? Why would Doctors willingly poison their patients?

If, as you claim, these companies are solely driven by profits, how would they profit from hurting children? Do any of you know why formaldehyde and aluminium and mercury are included in the vaccines? Why would anyone put a potentially harmful chemical into a vaccine unless it were necessary?

Aren't the quantities of these TOXINS minuscule in each dosage of the vaccines? Doesn't the average American ingest much larger quantities of all of these chemicals in their normal lives?

Large ocean fish are choc-ful of Mercury, Cigarettes are loaded with formaldehyde, our rivers are laden with PCBs, our air is choked with smog, and yet your concern is with the injection of an absolutely minute amount of these chemicals under the suggestion of a trained physician?

I'm sure that you are correct that if enough money were poured into research we could develop vaccines that are as effective but do not contain these potentially harmful chemicals. But, if our children are going to come in contact with them on a daily basis anyways, don't you think there's a better use for that money? Don't you think the government could use it to solve issues with more far-reaching consequences (global warming, dead-zones in the Gulf of Mexico, our lagging educational system, to name three of the thousands of potential uses)?

One more point- does anyone know the percentage of Doctors who choose to withhold vaccinations from their children? I tend to believe a Doctor's opinion on medical issues far more than I believe the on-line rants of people who did not go to school for the better part of a decade specifically to learn about what is good and bad for the human body.

Oh So Small ??? Why the hell are they in there in the first place??? These are put directly into the bloodstream and straight to the brain, bypassing all the safety devices of other organs. These amounts are much larger than is recommended for a full grown adult-- and they have a choice of which toxins to allow in their systems

Zillamutt,

I don't understand the last part of your comment? "and they have a choice of which toxins to allow in their systems." Are you saying that Doctors have a choice of which toxins to allow in their systems? Is there any reason why you don't have this same choice? (If this is indeed what you are referencing, if not, please clarify so I can tell you why you are wrong).

As to your question: "Why the hell are they in there in the first place???" I don't know the answer, but my assumption is that there is a very logical reason why they are there. I assume that if the vaccine could be made reasonably without TOXINS and have the same effectiveness the drug companies would be happy to do so. However, since it appears that they have not eliminated these POISONS, there is some factor that necessitates their inclusion in the vaccines.

The amounts are indeed much larger than what is recommended for an average adult's daily intake, but then again, what is the average adult's daily recommended intake for Measles? I don't think you're supposed to get any... but that doesn't seem to be the issue for you, it's the chemicals, which, as I've already tried to tell you, are clearly necessary.

Adult can make choices that affect what toxins enter their bodies and which ones don't.
I am talking about unnecessary added ingredients

Re: "I really doubt there is a huge conspiracy on the part of pharmaceutical companies and Doctors with regards to vaccines. Why would the pharmaceutical giants put chemicals they know are harmful into their vaccines? Why would Doctors willingly poison their patients?"

It's called job security. Ever wonder why we don't see cures for anything anymore? Not quite as profitable as treatment. If you have a ailment/disorder/disease you can guarantee that the drug companies have a drug for it...to treat it, not cure it. I hate to say it but the Achilles heel in any business is greed, and a little collateral damage is acceptable. When you stand to gain a lot more from treating a disorder/disease for a life time as opposed to curing it, it kinda causes one to wonder about the medical/pharmecutical community.

Zillamutt,

Please prove to me and everyone else that these chemicals are unnecessary. As I've stated before, to me their inclusion in the vaccines implies their necessity, plain and simple.

Amanda,

So you're saying that the drug companies and doctors are intentionally poisoning the human race so that they can make money by treating their ailments? That's an amazing business plan Kudos to them!

But seriously, what the heck are you talking about? As the son of a Doctor I sincerely doubt that my father had me innoculated just to give his doctor friends' another patient... Actually, as best I can tell, I've been a terrible business client for the medical community. Aside from my health insurance premiums, I generally spend about $50 on doctor's visits per annum. So there goes my father's grand scheme...

"Why would the pharmaceutical giants put chemicals they know are harmful into their vaccines? Why would Doctors willingly poison their patients?"

Who do you think gets rich off of medical treatments for those who have ailments? Especially long term ailments? The pharmaceutical giants and governments do. Figure if someone gets something that needs to take a medicine for the rest of their life because of something in those vaccines, the companies are set to make a mint off of that one person. Now imagine a million people with complications that need medicine for even short-term...it is unfathomable.

Horrible idea? You bet. But one that happens every day. Greed runs the world, after all.

So you're saying that they're preventing a myriad of complicated and deadly (and, by your logic, consequently profitable) diseases such as Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Small Pox, etc... all in the name of causing side-effects from the vaccinations? Wouldn't they stand to make even more off of the diseases themselves?

Or are you saying that by vaccinating children they are more likely to survive to adulthood, and therefore be more long-term customers and consequently spend more money in the long run? That sounds like a win-win situation to me... the drug company makes money on you because you're alive for 70 years and have a lifetime of medical expenses... and you get a much better chance to survive childhood.

I have a hard time buying the argument that the drug companies are completely profit-driven and that's why TOXINS are included in the vaccines.

Eben-- please read post #19 - even though it's not mine- that should be proof enough-- and you can make $120,000 while you are at it ( by the way-- it 's safer to drink than have injected !)

Zillamutt,

I'm not sure what post 19 proves...

as best I can tell it's just some idiot offering MD's and drug companies $120K to drink a poisonous solution, which does not prove anything other than Mr. Doubleday's idiocy.

I'm not arguing that ingesting formadahyde or mercury is healthy; what I am arguing is that the benefits of innoculation far outweigh the downsides to consuming small amounts of those chemicals.

I'd like to think that I'm not an idiot, which is why I'm not about to drink that cocktail. Neither are you, I'd like to think you're not an idiot either. It's just a preposterous scheme on Mr. Doubleday's part to gain attention for his agenda. You should be able to recognize that, as a rational and logical and educated person.

honestly though, by not receiving vaccines you are ostensibly saying that you would rather take the high risk of contracting an easily preventable disease over the the low risk that the vaccine's ingredients have the potential to cause problems.

There's no proof that the vaccines cause autism... but there is proof that the vaccines cause very effective resistance to these diseases. It's your choice...

Drink the mix or drink the Kool-aid - it's your choice.

Eben-449479,

As someone who is studying to go into the medical field and surrounded by medical professionals I know that medicine and drugs are HUGE business. Dr's (and God bless your dad, I'm sure he was a good one) are only interested in diagnoses, because that's how they get paid. The insurance companies they work for (and make no mistake they do not work for you, but the insurance co) only pay up for a 15 min office visit and that's if they come up with a diagnoses (check the bottom of your exit slips you'll always find a code that links to a diagnoses, if you are longer than 15 min theres usually a second code for an additional diagnoses) Dr's also have little knowledge about vaccines beyond what the pharmaceutical sales rep has briefed them on. If you want to know whats in your drugs go to a pharmacist, not a Dr. Beyond that, the vaccines they inject you with are not 100% FOR ANYONE. As the stats show MORE than half of the Measles cases were from child inoculated, so it's not as simple as you make it sound. And as to your infrequent trips to the Dr's office, hats off to you, I too go infrequently, but my elderly parents that didn't use to got but once every blue moon now go every one to two months. Just wait, you'll get there.

Oh yeah...another example of the medical community purposely harming folk for the sake of profit would be abortion, specifically partial birth...but that's another discussion for another time.

@Eben-449479 and others
================================
The reasons the poisons are put in the vaccines...
================================ is to kill the virus before it's injected or it would no longer be a vaccine and just be the virus.

so you either take the vaccine with live virus cells taking the same chance of infection that a healthy child does that is not vaccinated or you can take the poisons with the dead virus cells to hope that it will build a strong enough immunity to protect from future exposure and hope you don't suffer side effects from the poisons in the mean time.

viruses are killed by heat- poison is not necessary.
The additives wouldn't even kill the viruses.

I was under the understanding that if they are heated then the body does not react to them properly and thats why chemicals were used to kill them instead.

I'm unable to verify either way, perhaps someone can post a link to an valid article/data explaining why in fact all of these chemicals are in these vaccines?

Just to add to Danielle-W,

My daughter got the chicken pox with her shot too! My daughter had a rash that covered 1/4 of her leg within a matter for ten minutes after they injected her. I showed the doctor as we were still in the office, and he said that it was nothing to worry about, unless she had a high fever! She then got a white ring 1/2 an inch from the injection sight, which lasted 3 weeks along with the chicken pox. It took my poor daughter over 6 weeks to get over this. I sincerely doubt that her doctor reported it.

There are probably many more cases of injury that are never reported, because the doctor neglects to for what ever reason.

If you want to say that those who do not get vaccinated should not be allowed in public schools fine... my children are all being home schooled anyways. Remember who pays for your child to go to that public school, the public. I would like my tax money back please, tyvm.

If you take the same logic that you've shown in your post then I think children that get immunizations should not be allowed to go to public school for 3 months after they received shots because of the chance they may have contracted it from the vaccine.

It's only fair to say there is a greater chance of it being contracted from someone that was just exposed to a virus by vaccine then a healthy child who has not been exposed to it regardless of if they have been vaccinated or not.