Why You Should NOT Vaccinate Your Children
-
I'm as cynical about political and corporate collusion in widespread vaccine programmes as the next guy, but the vast majority of medical research is in total agreement that vaccines work. I'm no expert, but my fianceé is a doctor in immunology and although I only understand about 2% of her chosen specialism I have learned a little about how the immune system operates at a cellular level. The ability of the immune system to remember and recognise pathogens which it has previously encountered (carried by dendritic cells to the lymph nodes) by producing memory T- and B-cells is fundamental to its functioning (and to its malfunctioning i.e. allergies and autoimmune diseases). In fact, as far as I'm aware it's so fundamental that in the 21st century research is focused on a much deeper understanding of how dendritic cells and T- and B-cells actually work rather than if they work. After all, tyre companies spend their time and money researching rubber compounds and tread patterns, not whether wheels should be round.
I'm extremely wary of "Well, it never did me any harm!" advice. It reminds me of the comedian George Burns in his 90's proudly puffing away on his trademark cigar saying it "never did me any harm". It used to make me so angry- just thinking of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who spend the last decades, years, months, weeks and days of their lives hacking up blood and gasping for breath while emphysema and lung cancer ravages their bodies... but we don't see them hidden away in hospital wards and hospices- we saw George Burns beaming from the tv as though he is the true face of elderly smokers everywhere. I liked the guy as a comedian, but he should have kept his medical advice to himself.
Bruce,
In spite of what I've written above, I'm not really implying it's the same thing to suggest smoking doesn't do any harm as it is to suggest that we shouldn't automatically vaccinate our children. I just mean that the "it didn't do my kids any harm" argument is pretty weak as it's impossible to prove or disprove that your kids or grandkids would ever have caught those diseases anyway. Maybe they were never exposed to them.... maybe they've just got good genes!
Long live healthy debate!
-
Tried that one already
-
modelhead
One thing is saying that you don't want the vacine for the h1n1 other thing is saying that vacination and medicine are like religion and, well as your talking, a lie.
I can't even completly express how wrong (to put it ligh) i think this is. I could like the others remind you of some diceases erradication, people that would die in few months with certain diceases and now don't, the medicine helping to improve human life span etc etc etc. Instead lets make a deal. The next time your grand doughter breaks and arm or the head playing don't let any doctor see her, touch it,or even give her any of those evil antibiotics alright? Will see who's the hypocrit and disrespectfull for others people life work then...
(i, by no means, wish your family any harm)
David
-
There is a huge medicalization of the human conditions going on. No wonder why some have reacted to that, denying medicals and vaccination. Developed countries would most likely look rather different, if there had not been antibiotics and vaccination. Just imagine if smallpox (Variola major) would rampage now all over the world like H1N1, it has a mortality rate of 30–35% (comparing to 0.x% of H1N1). Thanks to vaccination, you don't need to fear that.
Is H1N1 dangerous enough for a large scale vaccination that is happening now - I don't think so. Is vaccination needed for people in a risk group - more likely. Do vaccination have side effects - certainly. Finding a balance between two different risk is not a easy job. -
Ahh, the luxury of modern times. Life is so good and clean, everything in such abundance for the majority of the westernized world that we can afford to have beliefs that fly in the face of medical science, often with no ill effect.
Nothing is 100%. There will be people that have bad reactions to vaccines. There will be bad vaccines. There will be many who die of diseases that could have been avoided, or the severity reduced, had they had a vaccine; but I think this number will be much higher than the ones who had any ill effects from vaccine. So much is taken for granted.
There is no resolution to get those who chose not to believe in medical science to change their minds. They are the only ones who will suffer the consequences of their actions, but unfortunately they pass these beliefs on to others.
-
this is where we leave the hypocrite to stew.
why do I call him a hypocrite? simple. to him, science / medicine is a religion followed blindly.
yet he'll happily use it's results. headache? he'll take an aspirin. get ill? he'll go to hospital. want to tell us we're wrong? he'll use a computer. he'll sit there surrounded by the trappings of science, books, television, etc, having been cared for by medical science all his life - oh, it goes beyond visiting a doctor you know. no salmonella or botulism in your food? hello medical science. - but hey. you won't care. it's wrong and unproven.. even tho there's evidence to the contrary. huge amounts of evidence. yet he won't care. his mind is closed and he's right and not one thing can change it.
I pity you and the those around you. I really do.
-
@unknownuser said:
Religion and Medicine have many good points...speaking of closed minded (you think I am an idiot and that is your focus).
You are right though.(yes I can be an idiot but no one will describe me as stupid)..I take the good things from both but I don't do so blindfolded. I am very critical of those who take on the roll of a god and in both religion and medicine this is happening everyday.
@unknownuser said:
even tho there's evidence to the contrary. huge amounts of evidence.
I'm waiting for you to provide it....??
I can't. I tell you where to go tho. the LIbrary. your local University.
you won't. you will tell me thats not what you meant or that is not proven or that is not good enough.
you've already made quite clear whatever we say, produce, etc you will dismiss out of hand. and don't deny that. this thread is FULL of you doing that.
you don't want to have your mind changed, you don't want evidence. you want to bait ppl then tell them they are wrong so you can feel superior.
and again. I pity you. I don't think your stupid or an idiot. I think your mind is closed. there is a difference.
but enough of playing into your game. I have more important things to do. like Learn.
-
@unknownuser said:
OK...nice chatting with ya...
....anytime!!Good, because, when I was a young lad, my next door neighbour suddenly dropped dead after receiving a prick from a rose bush, after gardening, simply because she had chosen not to be vaccinated against tetanus.
Both my kids have had the MMR vaccination, and consequently, neither of them have developed autism.
So yes, good luck to you too!
Oh yes and PS, A good drop of autistic-spectrum can be a good thing. Just think of all those wonderful scientists at CERN who are currently discovering new understanding of the universe through particle physics! If it wasn't for them, many new discoveries especially in modern medicine and low carbon emission power generation techniques would never have been discovered.
-
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 argües 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;
http://www.cochrane.org/index.htm
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
Advertisement