Why You Should NOT Vaccinate Your Children
-
there are two kind of people,
the one who believes undoubtlly in the vaccine, shot of unknown things for the pacient, as in all the rest of them,
and the ones who believes undoubtlly that our bodies when are under, and ache, like a soft and natural help of known natural actions.
The first class believe in the things to come.
The second one believe in the ancient things still alive.is just a matter of choice and both should be respected, except if one denies the other or imposses it as a fact.
And that is the case now.
Let people decide.In any case when one argĆ¼es in favour and reclaim a NO is because the other part have put him in that position. As an agression.
Cheers Modelhead, i know you dont need my support, but you can not avoid that i say it,
-
@unknownuser said:
In 1977, Dr. Jonas Salk (inventor of the Salk polio vaccine) testified along with other scientists that most (87%) of the polio cases which have occurred in the U.S. since the early 1970's probably were the by-product of the polio vaccine itself.
This is not entirely true, and is missleading. When he testified in '76 and '77, Salk was referring to the oral vaccine, which uses live strains of the virus. His vaccine uses a dead strain. He never questioned it's effectiveness; in fact, in '77 he started advocating the the total elimination globally of the polio virus by use of vaccinations.
Also, the contention that polio was waning before vaccines is not supported by the data. Prior to vaccines, in the U.S. annual outbreaks of polio ranged from 13,000 to 20,000, the peak being in 1952 with more than 21,000. These numberes declined drammatically after the first vaccine was introduced in 1955, and even more after the oral vaccine was added in '61. In 1961 there were 2,525 cases; in '61 there were only 61. From '80 to '99 there were 152 confirmed cases of polio. Six cases were imported, two indeterminate, and the remainder were the result of using the live oral polio vaccine. Since then, only the inactivated polio virus has been used in the U.S., with no reported cases of vaccine-related polio.
-
Daniel,
but that does not proof that it happens all the time.
I think that what we try to say, the people who are against of that action, is that it would be much better to act that way. I mean, in that case there was already an illness, polio, and many people affected, and then, they discover the right vaccine.
The case now is that there are not many people affected by an, yet unknown virus, and the Governments not only think but act compulsory over the people forcing them to be vaccinated with a vaccine that they are not clearly enough convinced, and can not ever be, just because the illness does not exists, like the polio did.
It is not rational. It is an assumption.
People should be respected.
dont you think ? -
So we should wait for the disease to kill a few thousand people before we start vaccinating people?
-
which disease ?
Remus, it is an assumption. -
Indeed it is an assumption, although a fairly good one in my opinion.
It just seems silly to me to say we're not going to use vaccines where available until there is a proven need when history has shown us beyond any reasonable doubt that they work.
-
They work when they act in the right direction.
this virus is assumed to be mutant,
People that have invented the vaccine dont know what is going to happen.
What seems silly to me is to get the risk of being infected with something, the vaccine, that nobody honestly, really, knows about.
cheers. -
I refer you once more to the case of small pox, polio, mumps and measles (among others.)
-
@juanv.soler said:
Daniel,
but that does not proof that it happens all the time.
I think that what we try to say, the people who are against of that action, is that it would be much better to act that way. I mean, in that case there was already an illness, polio, and many people affected, and then, they discover the right vaccine.
The case now is that there are not many people affected by an, yet unknown virus, and the Governments not only think but act compulsory over the people forcing them to be vaccinated with a vaccine that they are not clearly enough convinced, and can not ever be, just because the illness does not exists, like the polio did.
It is not rational. It is an assumption.
People should be respected.
dont you think ?Diseases ARE present, but people aren't affected by them because they've been vaccinated. We've had parent's in the U.S. who lately have refused to vaccinate their children, and as a consequence there's been outbreaks of measles and whooping cough.
-
@unknownuser said:
Now we are under threat...if we don't get vaccinations for our children....they are going to die.
if no one had a vaccine from now on there is no doubt in my mind that mortality rates (especially amongst the young and old) would rise dramatically.
@unknownuser said:
I have to say I am thankful at least that I have had the freedom to make these choices and I am glad you are free to make yours.
I couldnt agree more.
-
A bit OT:
UNICEF has a campaign (at least in Finland):
24 Euros gives vaccination against polio to 240 children
18 Euros gives vaccination against measles to 150 children
12 Euros gives an a-vitamin supplement to 330 childrenThe vaccinations are carried out by volunteers.
I donated the 54 Euros, partly because of this thread here, and I challenge you all to follow me - if you have issues against the UN, any organization promoting the health and education of 3rd world children is OK.
In my country, where practically all children are vaccinated, no child had measles last year. When I was a child, having the disease was considered natural. It has a very much larger death rate than the H1N1, and it can also damage your sight or hearing.
Anssi
-
Bravo! Well said!!
@unknownuser said:
Dr Mary Ramsay, an immunisation expert at the HPA, said: "We are still experiencing an unprecedented increase in measles cases across the England and Wales.
"This continued rise is due to relatively low MMR vaccine uptake over the past decade and there are now a large number of children who are not fully protected with MMR.
"This means that measles, which is highly infectious, is spreading easily among these unvaccinated children."
She added: "The HPA is concerned that we may see measles epidemics take hold.
"We again are urging parents to get their children vaccinated. Although MMR coverage is starting to improve, we cannot stress enough that measles is serious and in some cases it can be fatal. Delaying immunisation puts children at risk."here; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7819874.stm
I've vaccinated both my kids with the MMR jab. Incidentally, both are in the upper streams at school, and haven't developed autism.
This is also a good site for dissipating hysterical looney bad science nonsense;
Surgeon and journalist, Dr Ben Goldacre's site is also fairly good;
very amusing reading;
http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/#more-1374
-
Basically modelhead is saying "risk it.......expose your children to diseases that have killed and disabled millions".
Just so you can say "oh i refuse to vaccinate my children"-pathetic, keep your ill-informed stone age views to yourself. this is almost propaganda.
Good luck mate you'll need it.
-
To be honest I am not sure that people should have choice to not have their children vaccinated. It seems to me they pose the risk to everyone else's children.
As I am in the risk group I decided to be vaccinated against swine flue. I did it last week. If I get pig's ears next week I will let you know
-
I was thinking the same thing. Though it may be somewhat weird to start rounding up people, and transport them to the nearest sportpalast for a shot.
Maybe people should be offered a choice: either a shot, or pay for, say, ten vaccinations. Either way they contribute.
-
...Ahhhh..........
the Money Ā”
the System Ā”
would it both or even one assure your health, and your life, ?Life is apart from those mechanisms.
Life.
-
Obviously money won't ensure you remain healthy. But it does help a great deal.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZA0qNsf4m0&feature=player_embedded#
watch it
soon the money would not get you any advantage, fortunately. -
I'm hoping you're not implying the collapse of 'the system', and the majority of all people being hit with poverty as a result, will induce a sort of post-historian state of bliss. If anything, wealth will simply be rearranged - and not in a way that'll benefit many.
-
Can i be the first to call b.s? I find it hard to believe anyone has any idea whats going to happen in 5 to 10 years.
edit: beaten to it, sort of.
Advertisement