# Vaccines:  Life saver or Torturer?



## Poetic Device

I have done a lot of research on vaccines and what they are made to do, what they definately do, what they are theorized to do and what there is some evidence towards what they could do.  Can anyone tell me if they think that vaccinations are a good or a bad thing and why?  These vaccinations can be anything from the MMR vaccine that you give your infants to the flu vaccine that you get yourself.  (Note:  I am going to reserve what I have to say for a bit.)


----------



## papillon

Poetic Device said:


> Note:  I am going to reserve what I have to say for a bit.


Unlike the latest Tom Cruise film, an opinion about vaccines _cannot be formed_ without doing extensive research. 

Here is the general medical knowledge: vaccines work to raise antibodies against specific pathogens, and as such prevent future incidences of such an infection. A good recent example is the approval of a new vaccine against Human Papiloma Virus (HPV). Since HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer, the vaccines will probably become a standard preventive measure in women and girls.

But I am guessing  ... that since you brought up this question, you have found information contrary to this opinion. Why don't you tell us what you have found and why vaccines are torturous. Once we have that information, then we'll have a more interesting discussion.


----------



## cuchuflete

Is there a vaccine effective against polemical thread starters?

I agree with Papillon.  The thread title is provocative, but the first post gives no information to support such a sensationalist title.


----------



## la reine victoria

Poetic Device said:


> I have done a lot of research on vaccines and what they are made to do, what they definately do, what they are theorized to do and what there is some evidence towards what they could do. Can anyone tell me if they think that vaccinations are a good or a bad thing and why? These vaccinations can be anything from the MMR vaccine that you give your infants to the flu vaccine that you get yourself. (Note: I am going to reserve what I have to say for a bit.)


 

I am totally in favour of vaccinations but with some reservations.

My sons were vaccinated against diptheria, polio and tetanus.  I refused the whooping cough, mumps and rubella vaccines as there was some controversy surrounding them at the time.

At a later age they both fell victim to mumps and rubella but, fortunately, suffered no lasting ill effects.  They never suffered with whooping cough.

As a 12 year old I was tested for tuberculosis.  I had no immunity, so was vaccinated.

As an adult, before travelling to Iran, I was obliged to be vaccinated against yellow fever and typhoid fever.  These vaccinations caused an extreme reaction and I was obliged to stay in bed with a very painful arm, and muscular spasms, for 2 days.  But, on the positive side, I didn't contract yellow fever or typhoid.

My worst experience was when I had a tetanus booster.  I discovered I was allergic to tetanus serum.  I was in France at the time.  Huge, painful nodules appeared all over my body.  Each morning I woke up to find new ones.  The worst one was at the back of my right knee - it was the size of a lemon.    I could barely walk but managed to make my way to a quiet hotel in Uzerche where I was nursed back to health by a very caring hotelier and her doctor.  I was warned never to have tetanus boosters again as these nodules could grow internally in my respiratory tract and kill me.

These scary bits are probably exceptions and I wouldn't advise anyone against vaccination.  However, although eligible for free 'flu and pneumonia vaccinations I refuse to have them.



LRV


----------



## Trina

A friend of mine contracted polio as a child. At the time, polio was all but a memory in Australia, thanks to free vaccinations. My friend's parents did not believe in childhood vaccinations and as a result my friend faced many a tortuous day in callipers and having one leg stretched.


----------



## la reine victoria

Trina said:


> A friend of mine contracted polio as a child. At the time, polio was all but a memory in Australia, thanks to free vaccinations. My friend's parents did not believe in childhood vaccinations and as a result my friend faced many a tortuous day in callipers and having one leg stretched.


 

I remember the days, Trina, when polio victims had to spend their entire life in an "iron lung".  They lay on their back in a sealed container which "breathed" on their behalf.  All you could see was their head.  

Thank God for polio vaccine, which is administered orally in the form of drops.

And thank God for Jenner who discovered vaccination against smallpox.




LRV


----------



## Trina

la reine victoria said:


> I remember the days, Trina, when polio victims had to spend their entire life in an "iron lung".  They lay on their back in a sealed container which "breathed" on their behalf.  All you could see was their head.  I actually did not meet her until high school (when life was much easier for her - if you can call callipers & stretching , not to mention constantly being teased & bullied by other children, easier).  I don't know what her early childhood life  was like. It makes me shudder to think that as a baby, she went through something like this because her parents were against immunisation. What amazes me is that her parents were highly educated people. Her father was a scientist and her mother was a doctor.
> 
> Thank God for polio vaccine, which is administered orally in the form of drops.
> And thank God for Jenner who discovered vaccination against smallpox.
> Amen to that!
> LRV


We are so lucky nowadays. So many of these horrible diseases are preventable.
Yes, some people may suffer side effects from some of these vaccinations and for this reason should not be immunised which makes it all the more important for those of us who can be immunised, to have these vaccinations and/or oral treatments. If the majority are immunised, those who are unable to be immunised stand a better chance of protection themselves.
Here in Australia, it is virtually impossible to have your child accepted into daycare without proof that the child is fully immunised.
Because of immunisation, many diseases have virtually been "wiped out" (in countries with thorough vaccination programmes)


Edit: 


> Gone to never return.....


Hey guys, do you think she means it? Start a thread then never to return as her signature shows?


----------



## invictaspirit

Thank God, and Science!, for free (or at least inexpensive and available) immunisation.

If anyone thinks immunisations and vaccines are 'torture', I advise them to spend a few years living among the poor in a third world country.

My 9 week old son has just begun a programme of immunisations.  They are all free of charge in this country.  I am aware of extremely mininal risks but there are risks in anything and everything.


----------



## caballoschica

That's nice they're free in England.  Here, they definitely are not.  My mom works in a pediatrician's office and some of the prices for immunisations are ridiculously high!  I believe they can be in the hundreds of dollars!   

Yes, of course there are risks involved, but I think that vaccinations are pretty safe.  That being said, when I was younger I had a terrible reaction to an immunisation.  I do think, that people in the medical field take great care with their vaccinations.  What I mean is that they make sure they are safe for human use long before they are put out to the public.  Plus, a great benefit of vaccinations is that you build up your immune system against the virus.  In contrast to anti-biotics, the virus can't get used to your immune system.


----------



## maxiogee

We must remember that PD is a new mother.
I imagine that the MMR vaccinations are what has prompted this thread.
I have never heard a cogent argument against them. It's always 'a friend of a friend knows someone whose child…".
When I was a child we were immunised agin anything and everything - parents wouldn't have dreamt of saying "No" to them - they knew too many people who had contracted the illnesses. Three kids in my school (1,000+ pupils) had calipers.
When our son was born we had him 'done' with all the options available.


----------



## ElaineG

Something is causing an epidemic of autism, and some people believe that it is the mercury in the MMR vaccination.  This has yet to be proved, but I have an open mind to the issue.

It seems clear that the pharma companies could produce a mercury free MMR vaccine if they wanted to spend the money to do so.

At this point the NIH is taking the position that there is no link between the mercury in the MMR vaccine and autism.  But global warming was thought to be crackpot science for a long time before it was accepted, and I can't blame parents for being worried.  

The autism epidemic is really notable, at least in this country.


----------



## maxiogee

I will quote this one piece of an article in this week's *New Scientist*, by _Harry Collins_, who is Distinguished Research Professor at the school of social sciences of Cardiff University in the UK. In the course of an article on sifting crackpot ideas from maverick genius, he writes about the MMR vaccine and autism.....

"Andrew Wakefield, the doctor behind the furore, published some evidence in _The Lancet_ suggesting a link between autism and measles-related virus particles in the gut. But these particles were never linked to MMR vaccine."

He goes on to mention that "word-of-mouth testimony from some parents, but no link between MMR and autism has ever been proved."

Finally he states "no one has ever gone further than to hypothesise about it."


Moderator Note: Quotation has been shortened to comply with forum rules.  Posting a link to the entire text is acceptable.  
(Alas, I don't have a link!)

The only evidence there is which is scientific is epidemiological and this apparently pointed to the safety of the MMR vaccine. But, as it is a hard thng to do - trying to prove a negative - nothing shows that there isn't any connection between the vaccine and autism, but equally, there is no evidence to show there is.

I would suggest that there is no evidence to show that a "Monday's child" is *not* "fair of face" but I don't imagine that that proves they are.

So we have a totally unfounded urban legend that MMR vaccine is a cause of autism - and fortunes will be spent trying to show that it isn't -- or worse, children will develop serious illnesses because they weren't vaccinated,

[size=1[COLOR=gray]](I know that this is beyond the four-sentence quotation limit, but I feel it is really important that this be put out in a thread where the link has been suggested.)[/[/COLOR]size]


----------



## Etcetera

In Russia, infants are to be vaccinated during the first days oif their lives. 
I was vaccinated, too. OK, it prevented me from suffering from some diseases, but it also had some negative consequences for my health. Not so dreadful as polio, for example, but still. 
I've read stories about what consequences vaccinations may have, and I can say that I'm really lucky. But I would think very carefully before giving vaccines to my children, had I had any. 
I never get the flu vaccine, by the way. For that very reason.


----------



## xarruc

The MMR issue is actually two issues. There are those convinced that MMR caused their kid's autism. It would seem that this campaign is running out of steam. Then there's the bigger issue which is that some scientists put forward comments to the effect that there was circumstantial evidence of a link and that this link merited closer inspection. Following these publications the medical community and government has apparently turned against and ostracised those scientists. I understand that the putative link between autism and the vacines only applies to MMR and not single jabs. The government has also waged a campagain against doctors prescribing single jabs and parents who want that must go abroad. A lot of the so called anti-MMR campaign is actually about honest discussion of scientific findings and patient choice (that good New Labour buzzword) and not about the safety of the vaccine - which may or may not be linked to autism.

For anyone really interested in the second issue they should consult a report by Private Eye magazine, which has campaigned tirelessly on the issue.

On the other hand parents wanting good advice on whether or not to immunise should think more about the benefits vs risks of the practice and bear in mind that these nasty, previously 'extinct' (in UK) diseases are on the rise due to immigration and a decline in vaccination.


----------



## Bonjules

Hola,
some vaccines have clearly had a very positive impact
and prevented a lot of illness (polio's ha a great record, for instance).
As always, there can be too much of a good thing:
There is talk today about flu vaccine for children. If this
is meant to be applied broadly (in healthy children) it would be a terrible thing. A good flu once in a while in a healthy person(elderly or immune compromised is another issue) keeps the immune system sharp and there is evidence that these indivuals also get less cancer.
Similarly, chicken pox vaccine in children is very controversial. The immune response might not be as good as 'the real thing'; if these individuals get the
chickenpox later in life, it could be a terrrible illness, compared to the clinical course the overwhelming ## of children experience (uncomfortable, but not serious).


----------



## V3nom_is_here

Poetic Device said:


> I have done a lot of research on vaccines and what they are made to do, what they definately do, what they are theorized to do and what there is some evidence towards what they could do. Can anyone tell me if they think that vaccinations are a good or a bad thing and why? These vaccinations can be anything from the MMR vaccine that you give your infants to the flu vaccine that you get yourself. (Note: I am going to reserve what I have to say for a bit.)


 
Life saver ... it protects you from deseases and all that stuff . Just because it hurts , it doesn`t mean it`s bad for you . A few seconds of pain and then months and maybe years without suffering from all sorts of ilnesses


----------



## Poetic Device

Fantastic! Thank you all who answered! Now that I have an idea of where you all are and whatnot...

Let me just say thank you to Tony I love ya, mand.
 I would also like to say I understand what you all are saying and I want to give a heads up that I am not going to hold anything back. I am putting my disclaimer up now:   if I should sound harsh or uncaring I apologize. I have very deep feelings about this topic and I have done my research on it. To give you an idea of how much research, I completed a large thesis paper on the subject and recieved high praise and scores for.  Because I have so many places where I got my information from, if anyone would like a list of them please let me know via PM and I will be far more than happy to share.  Thank you. 

In any event, Tony is right in his presumption that it is the MMR vaccine that caused me to start this thread, however, it is not the only thread.  When I was doing all of my research, i first found that America is one of the higest ranking counrties in autistic population.  When a closer look was taken, I saw that countries like Japan (who do not vaccinate their children until around three years old) have the lowest population of autism.  

There was a man that went into Amish country to see if he could find any autistic individuals in that community.  His findings:  two children, and both of them were adopted and had their MMR shot (it is against the Amish religion to have vaccinations injected into their bodies).

I also was able to find out that it is not so much the vaccines that may be causing the problem of autism but the overly abundant amount of *thimerosal* that is used as a preservative in the vaccines, particularly the MMR vaccine.  The thimerosal, depending on the child of course, will have an affect on the nervous system of the child and this will eventually result in a stunt in learning development as well as other things.  Another explanation of what thimerosal may do to a child is as follows:  let's say that the child in question is a girl.  Her chromosomes would be XX.  If thimerosal were to attack her body, one of these chromosomes would die.  She would still, however, have the one X chromosome to fall back on, so although she may have a potential problem in the future, chances are she will be fine.  Now, if the child was a boy then the chromosomes would be XY.  Should the thimerosal attack him, the X chromosome will die, and he will only have a Y chromosome.  This will most definately cause a neurological problem in immidiate and later years for him; it's just a matter of the severity.

These are just some of the things that I had found while I was researching the topic, and on top of researching I have had first hand experience with watching a normal child turn into a garden vegetable within two weeks of recieving the MMR vaccine.  I don't think that I have to tell you that experience is one of the most gut-wrenching things to ever have to experience.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Poetic Device said:


> There was a man that went into Amish country to see if he could find any autistic individuals in that community. His findings: two children, and both of them were adopted and had their MMR shot (it is against the Amish religion to have vaccinations injected into their bodies).


Research is finding a strong genetic component to autism, which could explain why there had been no autism in a relatively isolated community like the Amish.



> I also was able to find out that it is not so much the vaccines that may be causing the problem of autism but the overly abundant amount of *thimerosal* that is used as a preservative in the vaccines, particularly the MMR vaccine.


And yet large-sample studies are finding no difference in autism rates between populations that administer MMR with thimerosal and those that don't. Nor has a plausible scientific explanation been offered as to the mechanism by which thimerosal or any other mercury-based preservative might lead to autism.

I know my friends and relatives who have autistic children are desperate to understand its cause, and I feel for them, but science is not pointing to early childhood vaccines as the culprit, and many parents understand that.


----------



## Poetic Device

Would you believe what the Food and drug Administration (FDA) tells you?  They flat out say on their web site that thimerosal, while it may not cause all autism (there are many different forms of autism) it does cause at least a fraction of it.

The autism is not the only reason whay I am skeptical of vaccines.  I have read statiscics that say even with the flu vaccine people that accept the shot are at least 38% more likely to acquire the disease that the vaccine is to protect them from.


----------



## cuchuflete

I don't have any facts that would lead me to take sides, or even participate usefully, in a conversation about MMR with or without thimerosal and a possible connection with any ailment.

I continue to object to sensational headlines: "*Vaccines:  Life saver or Torturer?*".   Nothing has been presented in this thread to justify calling vaccines in general "torturers".  Might there be serious negative effects from one or more vaccines?
I imagine so, but would want more evidence than a statement that one person has done a lot of research before drawing a conclusion.   What did the research conclude?  

I had never heard of thimerosal, so I went looking for a definition.  http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimfaq.htm



> Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in some vaccines since the 1930's, ...It is 49.6% mercury by weight and is metabolized or degraded into ethylmercury and thiosalicylate.
> 
> FDA is continuing its efforts toward reducing or removing thimerosal from all existing vaccines.
> 
> FDA has been actively working with manufacturers, particularly those that manufacture childhood vaccines, to reach the goal of eliminating thimerosal from vaccines, and has been collaborating with other PHS agencies to further evaluate the potential health effects of thimerosal. In this regard, all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age or younger and marketed in the U.S. contain no thimerosal or only trace amounts (1 microgram or less mercury per dose)



Those statements lead me to think that the US Food and Drug Administration thinks it would be a good idea to get mercury out of vaccines.  Is that a sensible conclusion?

That organization appears to accept that the question of a possible relationship between thimerosal and autism is an important one.  While it has not found evidence of causality, it still has required the elimination of the substance from most childhood vaccines:  "Since 2001, all vaccines recommended for children 6 years of age and younger have contained either no thimerosal or only trace amounts, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccines, which are marketed in both the preservative-free and thimerosal–preservative–containing formulations."


----------



## xarruc

I really don't think that the wordreference forum is a good place to get any useful debate about this subject.

Here you will get opinions from opinionated people, but scientists or doctors by and large, they ain't.

There is a lot of "research" that can be done by googling from home, and reading reports from the protectionist medical journals, sensationalist national press, ulterior-motivated government and antiestablisment press. However what you cannot do is solve this here in this forum by discussing any elements of that "research".

I *am* a scientist. I work in the pharmaceutical industry. I come into contact with a lot of data regarding different vacines, how they work and how effect they have and so on. I still do not know enough about vacines in general, let alone the MMR vaccine, to even think about advising troubled parents about it. The information in the public domain that is easily accessible and understandable by an untrained member of the public is highly unlikely to be of much use or to present a balanced opinion. The correct place for this discussion is a conference between the scientists gathering the raw data and top imunologists and neurologists.

Whether or not MMR causes autism is unknown, unproved. Actually it is academic. The only reliable, logical action as a parent is to follow the official advice from the department of health and medical profesion.

V3NOM, Maxiogee, cuchuflete, Etcetera, ElaineG. All good people to get an opinion regarding foxhunting from. Or to to discuss Irish politics with, or even ask about the correct use of "whom". But they, and the rest of us are not qualified to discuss such a complex medical issue.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but when you wrote this thread I think you were either trying to start a lively debate or to ease you conscience / help make up your mind. In either case I don't think here is a good place to do it.

Also when you started the thread you said "I have done a lot of research..." I assume that you are not an immunologist, because if you were then I doubt, for the reasons stated above, that you would discuss it here. I therefore assume your  research has been secondary research into the reports issued by both sides. As I said above the reports a non- profesional is likely to come across are not to to be expected to be the correct and definitive word. If you are worried about giving it to your children, do yourself a favour. Go and see your doctor. If (s)he is not up on the debate ask him to put you in contact with someone who is.

They are in a real position to help you


PS. Tony, V3nom et al. No offence intended, yours just happen to be the  first names I recognize from this thread and not a criticism of your medical knowledge or other opinions.


----------



## cuchuflete

xarruc said:


> I really don't think that the wordreference forum is a good place to get any useful debate about this subject.
> 
> Here you will get opinions from opinionated people, but scientists or doctors by and large, they ain't.
> 
> There is a lot of "research" that can be done by googling from home, and reading reports from the protectionist medical journals, sensationalist national press, ulterior-motivated government and antiestablisment press. However what you cannot do is solve this here in this forum by discussing any elements of that "research".



Thanks for your post.  I fully agree with you, except the part about me having an opinion about foxhunting.

When this thread first showed up, I PMed a fellow forero, saying that this topic would evoke a lot of personal anecdotes, and little of scientific value.  If we want "peer reviewed" emotional statements, I suppose this is a good forum for the topic.  If we want useful scientific discussion, it is not.


----------



## maxiogee

xarruc said:


> V3NOM, Maxiogee, cuchuflete, Etcetera, ElaineG. All good people to get an opinion regarding foxhunting from. Or to to discuss Irish politics with, or even ask about the correct use of "whom". But they, and the rest of us are not qualified to discuss such a complex medical issue.
> 
> PS. Tony, V3nom et al. No offence intended, yours just happen to be the  first names I recognize from this thread and not a criticism of your medical knowledge or other opinions.



Fine, but you should probably have noted that I made two posts here.
One a general and personal comment about vaccines when I was a child (which was not specifically about MMR/Autism) and the other was to point people towards an article by a scientist about the alleged link.

I may be good for lots of opinions, but I'm also able to be useful too  when it is called for. One doesn't need to be a scientist to have worthwhile contributions to make.


----------



## badgrammar

I think that the most important thing to look at regarding vaccines, is do they globally do more harm than good, or vice-versa?

While there are certainly cases of awful reactions to vaccines that have profound effects on the lives of affected individuals, if we simply stop vaccinating because of this, the effects are far worse, on anincreased number of individuals and on humanity as a whole.

That said, each vaccine must be considered individually.  The necessity of vaccintaing for poliio, diptheria, etc. far outweighs the complications.  The necessity of vaccinating for common childhood diseases is far more debatable - I did not choose to vaccinate my children against common childhood diseases, because I do believe that these illnesses, while uncomfortable, help form our immune systems and (in my non-scientific mind) probably make us healthier adults.

On a persoanl note, I chose not to vaccinate my son against tuberculosis, a vaccination that is recommended for all children in France, and is mandatory before starting school.  The vaccine is only about 90% effective, and can produce nasty side-effects.  So I did not vaccinate him for that during his first year of life. 

But when, at the age of 1 year, I took him to get the BCG (the skin test that must be performed before giving the vaccine to see if the individual has already been exposed), he not only tested positive for exposure, but was already in the first stages of the disease!!!

You can imagine how horrible and remiss I felt.  There are no words for it.  He then had to undergo all sorts of unsavory treatments and 6 months of antibiotics.  I didn't vaccinate because I cared for him at home, myself.  He was exposed only to family members and neihbors.  We are far from being in a "high-risk" group.  So how did he get it?  I think it was during an airplane ride back to the US, where a very nice, but coughing, gentleman offered my son his seat.  But I'll never know.

The moral of the story, if there is one, is that vaccinations can be dangerous, but if you find yourself as the parent of a child who has contracted a serious illness because you chose not to vaccinate (even though the medical comunity advised you to do so), you have to live with that.


----------



## germinal

maxiogee said:


> I will quote this one piece of an article in this week's *New Scientist*, by _Harry Collins_, who is Distinguished Research Professor at the school of social sciences of Cardiff University in the UK. In the course of an article on sifting crackpot ideas from maverick genius, he writes about the MMR vaccine and autism.....
> 
> "Andrew Wakefield, the doctor behind the furore, published some evidence in _The Lancet_ suggesting a link between autism and measles-related virus particles in the gut. But these particles were never linked to MMR vaccine."
> 
> He goes on to mention that "word-of-mouth testimony from some parents, but no link between MMR and autism has ever been proved."
> 
> Finally he states "no one has ever gone further than to hypothesise about it."
> 
> 
> Moderator Note: Quotation has been shortened to comply with forum rules. Posting a link to the entire text is acceptable.
> (Alas, I don't have a link!)
> 
> The only evidence there is which is scientific is epidemiological and this apparently pointed to the safety of the MMR vaccine. But, as it is a hard thng to do - trying to prove a negative - nothing shows that there isn't any connection between the vaccine and autism, but equally, there is no evidence to show there is.
> 
> I would suggest that there is no evidence to show that a "Monday's child" is *not* "fair of face" but I don't imagine that that proves they are.
> 
> So we have a totally unfounded urban legend that MMR vaccine is a cause of autism - and fortunes will be spent trying to show that it isn't -- or worse, children will develop serious illnesses because they weren't vaccinated,
> 
> [size=1[COLOR=gray]](I know that this is beyond the four-sentence quotation limit, but I feel it is really important that this be put out in a thread where the link has been suggested.)[/[/COLOR]size]


 

Well done! I was just about to look up that New Scientist article but you saved me the trouble. There seems to be a problem of late with researchers rushing to publish their preliminary results in order to attract funding. This practice allows our particularly cynical british press to seize on anything which looks as if it might lead to a nice juicy controversy - who cares if this then leads to children being left unprotected as long as it sells papers?


----------



## maxiogee

badgrammar said:


> The moral of the story, if there is one, is that vaccinations can be dangerous, but if you find yourself as the parent of a child who has contracted a serious illness because you chose not to vaccinate (even though the medical comunity advised you to do so), you have to live with that.



As a parent I can but sympathise with you in what must be a permanent period of self-reproach. My only words of comfort are that we all do what we think best in any situation where our children are concerned.

However, I would argue with you about…


badgrammar said:


> I think that the most important thing to look at regarding vaccines, is do they globally do more harm than good, or vice-versa?



I think that more and more we are coming to realise that, as this thread is showing, the concern is not just about the vaccine, but about it and the delivery system.


----------



## cute angel

I am in favoure with vaccines but with some exceptions.
Because some times it were a cause to other deseases and may be it took the person to the tomb.
So we are in need to it but we must use it wisely.


----------



## lablady

I don't know if this resource was part of the research that was done, but here it is for anyone who is interested.

As a microbiologist and a mother, and now a grandmother as well, I follow the studies on this type of subject quite closely. I might be one to read the studies more intently than the average person, but it still comes down to the fact that a parent has to make the decision they feel is best. And they make this decision using the information available to them, whether it be published studies from reliable sources, consultation with a trusted professional, or both (I recommend both). As for my children, I chose to vaccinate.

All medical treatments/procedures carry some risk as well as benefit. We have to decide for ourselves whether the risk or the benefit carry more weight. Unfortunately, when something has a "one in a million chance" of happening, it's difficult when you happen to be that "one."


----------



## Trina

xarruc said:


> I really don't think that the wordreference forum is a good place to get any useful debate about this subject.
> 
> Here you will get opinions from opinionated people, but scientists or doctors by and large, they ain't.
> 
> There is a lot of "research" that can be done by googling from home, and reading reports from the protectionist medical journals, sensationalist national press, ulterior-motivated government and antiestablisment press. However what you cannot do is solve this here in this forum by discussing any elements of that "research".
> [...]


I disagree. I cannot see anything wrong with debating topics like this in this forum (providing it fits in with the rules). The people who read & contribute to these forums are, generally speaking, intelligent and are able to think for themselves. I doubt anyone would take any information gleaned from here and make any life altering decisions based solely on the opinions and anecdotes from fellow forer@s. On the contrary, snippets of information, anecdotes etc can be helpful. It can raise awareness of issues and concerns that you may not have been aware existed thus enabling you to ask (doctors etc) the right questions. The more you know about a subject, the more likely you are to ask more questions about it. When a family member was diagnosed with an enlarged prostate, we read everything about it we could get our hands on. As a result we were able to ask informed questions of the specialist that we otherwise  would not have thought of  (and by the way, the specialist wouldn't have  volunteered that information either) and therefore be confident of the proposed treatment.

As for solving this issue here on this forum ... who said anything about solving it? I thought the whole idea of this forum was to discuss issues, not solve the world's problems!



maxiogee said:


> [...]One doesn't need to be a scientist to have worthwhile contributions to make.


Well said. 
While I agree that scientists, doctors, specialists etc and their opinions and advice are vital, sometimes it is the ordinary people and their personal stories which help someone make *the right choices for them.*


----------



## Victoria32

My tuppence worth - based on my experience. When I was five, we were given the polio vaccine at school.
My parents were very eager about this, because they remembered people who had polio, and the whole epidemic. Years later, New Zealand has been suffering an epidemic of meningococcal disease, of a strain unique to this country. Thank God and Science, a vaccine has been developed (from a vaccine used in Norway, because theirs is the closest. ) My youngest son has been vaccinated, because he is under 20, and the vaccine is so scarce that only those under 20 can have it, *no matter how much money* some desperate wealthy adults have offered the Health Department. I just wish it wasn't so scarce, I have children, nephews and nieces over 20 who are in just as much need.

That being said, I have a friend in England with a son in his forties, who was born after a difficult labour, and with mild disabilities. Tom and Helen had their son vaccinated and as a result (this has definitely been established) his disabilities were exacerbated and he can neither speak nor eat without assistance, much less walk. For this reason only, Tom is very doubtful that he would ever allow the vaccination of another child (or grandchild if he had one) *if that child already had disabilities!* (Back in the 1960s, there was nothing that anyone knew about any link, which is why not only is there nothing to be done now, nothing could have been done then.)
On balance, vaccination is a very good thing indeed!

Vicky


----------



## Poetic Device

Thank you Trina and Maxi for coming to mine and the topics defense.  Honestly, there is a lot of cultural difference when it comes to the vaccines.  These are the things that I wanted to talk about in addition to what was already posted.  What am I talking about?  Look at the ages in which different countries distribute the vaccines to.  In America they waste no time injecting a brand new and healthy body with diseases (dead or not).  In Japan, from what I have read, they wait until the child is round about three years old, this way the child has an immune system of their own first and they can take advantage of the vaccine better.  Discuss.


----------



## Victoria32

Poetic Device said:


> Thank you Trina and Maxi for coming to mine and the topics defense.  Honestly, there is a lot of cultural difference when it comes to the vaccines.  These are the things that I wanted to talk about in addition to what was already posted.  What am I talking about?  Look at the ages in which different countries distribute the vaccines to.  In America they waste no time injecting a brand new and healthy body with diseases (dead or not).  In Japan, from what I have read, they wait until the child is round about three years old, this way the child has an immune system of their own first and they can take advantage of the vaccine better.  Discuss.


That does make sense in some respects - and when my youngest was about to have the measles vaccine, he caught measles anyway! I took him to the doctor and was wailing that he couldn't have the vaccination - she pointed out that natural immunity was superior and that I should be happy about it.

When we were children, our mother would hold 'measles' parties for all the children in the neighbourhood so that we would get all the diseases going - she was especially eager for my brother to get mumps as a child - as it can cause sterility in adults - he never did. I wished my son had got chickenpox as a child - he got it two years ago at 18, and really suffered! (It can be fatal at 18, but thankfully wasn't...) 

So natural immunity is superior, yes, but vaccines are still a Good Thing. (I kept mis-typing God thing, which may indicate what I really think about them... that they are an unmitigated blessing.)

Vicky


----------



## cuchuflete

There is no reason for anyone not to state a personal opinion here.  

Confusing such opinions, often influenced by one or more individual experiences, and then extrapolating to a declaration of what is universally "right and wrong", with rational, scientific analysis is a bad joke. 

Sensationalist thread titles may be an effective way to attract attention to a topic, but they lend nothing to the quality of the discussion.

Discuss.  

"...they waste no time injecting a brand new and healthy body"   Please!  That writing style is appropriate to Rupert Murdoch's tabloids, not a serious discussion.  How about, "they cynically deny safety and protection to the innocent and helpless newborn"?  That's every bit as silly.

Why not present what facts you have, together with your opinions, and let people discuss those rationally?


----------



## Poetic Device

Well, then, can you explain to me why you would inject a disease into an infant that has been diagnosed to be 100% healthy? Isn't that putting the child at risk to becoming sick? I'm sorry if you don't agree with what I say. I guess that I am just a silly girl that does not know what she is talking about. Lord knows, the FDA writes poppycock, and BBCA is rubbish as well.


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> Well, then, can you explain to me why you would inject a disease into an infant that has been diagnosed to be 100% healthy? Isn't that putting the child at risk to becoming sick? I'm sorry if you don't agree with what I say. I guess that I am just a silly girl that does not know what she is talking about. Lord knows, the FDA writes poppycock, and BBCA is rubbish as well.


 
As I understand it, in most cases you are not injecting the disease into an infant; you are injecting inert "carcasses" of the disease-carrier into the system. This causes the infant's immune system to react and build up a defense against the disease without actually exposing them to the live disease itself. (The same immune reaction will occur if the infant is exposed to the disease, but often too late to do them any good.) If the infant encounters the actual disease later, he or she already has defenses built up against it. It basically "supercharges" the immune system.

There is a certain minimal risk with anything. However, for those of us who saw the tail-end of the polio era in the U.S. and the horrible crippling that it could cause with the only initial symptoms being similar to catching a cold, avoiding the certainty of that life-changing debilitation is well worth the small risk of the vaccination. Can you imagine your child catching what appears to be a cold and having them suddenly lose the use of an arm or their legs_ for life_ as a result?

I think it's an ironic side-effect of a successful vaccination program that entire generations grow up with no direct experience of the actual disease, so they fear the vaccination with no idea how horrible and widespread the effects of the disease can be when there is no vaccination.


----------



## cuchuflete

Poetic Device said:


> Well, then, can you explain to me why you would inject a disease into an infant that has been diagnosed to be 100% healthy?


 JamesM has just done that.  Vaccines are not intended to be treatments; rather, they are designed to prevent serious illness. That is the way they normally work.



			
				Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Isn't that putting the child at risk to becoming sick?


There is some risk.  It's usually very small.



			
				Poetic Device said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if you don't agree with what I say. I guess that I am just a silly girl that does not know what she is talking about.


 Other than your headline, I'm not sure what you know, or what your opinion may be, so I don't agree or disagree with whatever it is.  




			
				Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Lord knows, the FDA writes poppycock, and BBCA is rubbish as well.


 Would you care to point out an example of FDA popyycock, together with your specific reasons to characterize it that way?   Government agencies are not generally known for being forthright, so I'm fully prepared to believe any real evidence you might have.  

When this thread began, I knew nothing whatsoever of mercury as a vaccine preservative.  I've now read the FDA statements.
They have banned most of it in vaccines for young children.
They quote sources as saying that a link to autism has not been scientificly established, yet there are grounds for further investigation, and they are trying to further reduce the use of mercury.  If I were partisan on this issue, I might want something stronger.  They have acknowledged that there is an issue worthy of examination and further study.  Is that an example of "poppycock"?


----------



## xarruc

I wish to clarify my position here as some of you consider the topic "vacines - .. " under attack. It was not. The WRF MMR debate was under attack.

My point was simple. A serious discussion of whether a link between MMR and autism exists and whether it is caused by a component of the vacine, a gentic disorder or whatever is not going to take place here.

I don't believe people should take out decisive action regarding their health, particularly on contraversial issues, such as MMR and herbal remedies, based on websites or forum chat.

That doesnt meant I don't think you should discuss whether or not you like vacines. (Personally I am quite fond of them. I had a nice one, just the other day, as it happens. Went rather well with a chilled glass of Viña Sol...).

To have an analogy. We could have a good debate about bringing back hanging. We could call it Hanging - life taker or torturer? That would be good. We could all contribute and so on. However if someone correctly guessed that all along it was a ploy to say - Shall we hang, draw and quarter Stephen Wright, that bastard that killed those prostitutes - oh no, My aunt said actually she reckoned it was Tom Stephens , the other one they arested, 'cos her mum's builder said.... Then I would have the same objection, that this forum is not qualified to discuss the guilt of two suspects in a murder case and any resulting debate would be hearsay, opinion, lies, myths and a waste of time.



> Originally Posted by *maxiogee*
> [...]One doesn't need to be a scientist to have worthwhile contributions to make.


I quite agree. Even being one sometimes isn't enough...

*Trina* - I think you made a very good point regarding arming yourself before seeing a specialist. I coudn't agree more. You can do a lot worse on the web then www.answers.com, (which is a compendium of, on the whole, reliable sources) for information on *known, acknowledged and understood* medical conditions. What the web is not good for is rumours, hypotheses postulations, especially if the story is sellable. There are sites out there with conspiracy theories so well thought out they could make you believe you were born yesterday. 

Answers itself even has a good introduction to the MMR debate: http://www.answers.com/topic/autistic-enterocolitis.

But all in all, nothing will come better than a straight face-to-face chat with a professional.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> Thank you Trina and Maxi for coming to mine and the topics defense.  Honestly, there is a lot of cultural difference when it comes to the vaccines.  These are the things that I wanted to talk about in addition to what was already posted.  What am I talking about?  Look at the ages in which different countries distribute the vaccines to.  In America they waste no time injecting a brand new and healthy body with diseases (dead or not).  In Japan, from what I have read, they wait until the child is round about three years old, this way the child has an immune system of their own first and they can take advantage of the vaccine better.  Discuss.



My sole take on this is that the appurtenances of childhood 'medicine' and the attitudes of parents (especially new parents) to them very wildly from state to state - and from county to county. 
(there are certain cogent Grannies who have a habit of getting their way (we'd probably all agree with that!) 
When the medical profession in a country is looking at what will be deemed "best practice" among them, they make allowances for the harridans and their influences.

(I know that when my Sister in Law had four children over a period of about 8 or 9 years, she got very different advice on each of them - "Don't do X, it can lead to cot-death, Do Y if baby is too warm … … all of it contradictory of earlier 'official wisdom.
It's a wonder the human race kept going for so long without doctors.


----------



## xarruc

> My sole take on this is that the appurtenances of childhood 'medicine' and the attitudes of parents (especially nbew parents) to them very wildly from state to state - and from county to county.


I think that here there is some room is some very interesting, insightful and informative discussion.

P.S. Tony, I think your post has sent me to the dictionary more times than any other post here ever!

ths one got me - "was nourn children" . is this a typo?


----------



## cuchuflete

xarruc said:


> ths one got me - "was nourn children" . is this a typo?



With or without professional advice, shift your left hand slightly to the right.  b>n


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I'll add a couple of quick notes, arising from an academic background that includes both microbiology and local history.

Vaccines take a variety of forms, from killed or reduced strains of diseases to particular proteins extracted from them.  Some give temporary immunity and require the administration of boosters.  Some give permanent immunity.  Reactions usually come from the "side ingredients" and not the viral or bacterial strain.

If you take a walk through the graveyards of rural Ontario, you notice clusters of names on the older monuments.  A look at the dates reveals tragedy after tragedy:  four children dying within six days of each other in 1897 from diptheria; a cluster of deaths that coincided with a cholera epidemic in the 1840's; several babies and toddlers in one summer whose deaths coincided with an outbreak of whooping cough.  It was not uncommon for parents to talk of their first families and second families - and you'd know immediately that the first set of children had all died in one epidemic or other.

Many children then died without medical attendance, so tetanus in a newborn (due to the midwife not sterilizing the knife in advance, perhaps) might be written down as "spasms" in the family bible.

In Latin America I heard a whole litany of completely preventable deaths from tetanus and whooping cough, and I worked with children permanently and unnecessarily crippled by polio.

As a result, when my children arrived, I vaccinated them promptly.... and  gratefully.


----------



## badgrammar

I just had dinner with a couple who decided not to vaccinate their child (3 months).  They cited the dangers of reactions and the rarity of the diseases to which the child might be exposed.  

I let them know my feelings diplomatically, what else can you do...  But if too many people take that attitude, what will become of diseas like polio?  They will come back.  And probably with a vengenace (like tuberculosis).

While the effect on your child, if he/she is the one in a million who has a bad reaction to the vaccine is awful, what if we all, as parents, decide not to vaccinate?  What then?  What about the effects on entire generations? 

Jmes M made an excellent point - the generations who were not around to see the devestation of diseases like polio or cholera ask themselves why they should take any risk to vaccinate their child against it.  Those of us who have seen the effects of a disease that could have been prevented by a vaccination tell another tale (read my previous post).

I don't like doctors and medecine, but I think it is part of our civil  responsibility to vaccinate our children agaisnt life-threatening communicable diseases. Yes, your child might catch one.  And what's even more frightening, is he might spread it to someone else's child... might even start an epedimic  Where do you stand then?  Happy that you avoided him/her a personal risk or ashamed that you shunned your responsibility to protect others?

It's not just about your child.  It's about communicable diseases and humanity.

Sorry to be pissy, but I find the situation near-sighted and irresponsable vis à vis society and humanity (and other people's children!!!).


----------



## zimbron

Hi everyone.   A lot of opinions in this thread caught my attention.  I've heard the mercury induced autism theory before quite a few times.   While it hasn't been proved nor refuted at this time it opens the possibility for a lot of guessing.  

My personal point of view is that vaccines (like any other medical procedure) pose a risk.  However when you compare the risk of vaccines (having allergic reactions, getting the actual disease) against the risk of the disease itself (paralysis, infertility, increased cancer risk) it becomes  easy to see vaccines are less risky.   And so far we have only compared the relative risks.  Once you add the  "benefits" such as less visits to the Dr's and less financial burden on the health system, vaccination seems like a pretty good idea.

This however doesn't mean a thing.  It all comes down to what you belive is best for you, and in this case, for you children. 

ps.- Just a couple comments on this thread:  

1) some vaccines CAN give you the disease they are supposed to prevent.  Such case is the Salk vaccine against polio (which is made of attenuated virus and is rarely applied)


2) While the link between mercury (or mercury related compounds such as  Thimerosal) and autism has not been proved (nor refuted)we do know that a child could ingest more mercury from fish than what is contained in the vaccines.  This suggest that there might not be a direct link between vaccines and autism.  This is an opinion from Skeptic magazine.  Since I do not have the 30 post required, I cannot post a link to it.  A similar paper was published in Scientific American.


Thanks for reading


----------



## xarruc

RE Badgrammar - 

Its not unlike the missuse of antibiotics. Takeing antibiotics unnecessarily is bad for the rest of us as it accelerates drug resistance among the nasty critters. Not vacinating increases the risk of the disease resurgence. If you say, I wont immunize because my kids will be not run the risk and will benefit from the fact their friends wont spread the diseae  - then that puts you in the same boat in my book as those who say, I dont care that using these antibiotics reduces their use for the elderly, infirm and newborns who really do need them - 'cos I'll feel better.


----------



## cuchuflete

zimbron said:


> 1) some vaccines CAN give you the disease they are supposed to prevent.  Such case is the Salk vaccine against polio (which is made of attenuated virus and is rarely applied)
> 
> Since I do not have the 30 post required, I cannot post a link to it.  A similar paper was published in Scientific American.



Back before many of you were born, I was part of the clinical trials for the Salk vaccine.  My parents consulted with the pediatrician, did what research they could, long before personal computers existed, and decided to take the risk of allowing their 6 year old to be "a guinea pig".  Nationwide, there were a very few isolated cases of polio associated with what was called the "live virus" I took.  There were also thousands, if not tens of thousands, of children who were saved from Polio, Iron Lungs, and braces and crutches for life.

Based on that bit of personal history, I am not prepared to say that all vaccines are perfect, all the time for every child.
I did recall the Salk vaccine test when deciding to have my own children vaccinated.  I also do not doubt that some parents have had terrible experiences when their child was the "one in ten thousand".

PS- Zimbron...you can post links. Just change the "." to "dot".   Or...send me the link and I"ll post it for you.


----------



## zimbron

Indeed, the odds of getting sick because of an attenuated virus vaccine are about 1 in 3 million.  However I must correct myself in some things I said earlier.

There are 2 different kinds of vaccines against polio: Sabin's and Salk's.  Salk's was the first one to be developed and greatly reduced polio incidence worldwide.  It is made of inert virus (dead virus parts) and it has to be injected.  This produces IgG antibodies which give serum immunity.


Sabin's vaccine came some years later and it was made by attenuated viruses.  It is to be taken orally and confers IgA antibodies.  This antibodies are secretory antibodies.  Since the polio virus enters the body trough the gastrointestinal tract (by eating it) this vaccine protects against sub-clinical (without symptoms nor paralysis) infection as well as preventing the virus from spreading to the rest of the body.

The salk vaccine doesn't provide this "intestinal" protection.  Because of this the person who was vaccinated with Salk's won't get sick but he is able to carry the virus and spread it to other non-vaccinated subjects.  Thus making it hard to contain the disease.  

I previously misstated the Salk vaccine to be made out of attenuated virus.  Sorry if this confused someone.  


And just to clarify: I believe in worldwide vaccination as a mean to stop and eradicate diseases.  I have even volunteered to go on vaccination campaigns and as a medical student, I strongly believe in medical science.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't inform other people about the risks, no matter how small they are.  Poetic device is concerned about the risks of vaccination and I think it is only fair to give the facts and let everyone make their own minds up.  Alas to be completely fair, people should also see the effects of the disease just like many of the older and wiser people in this forum have.  Only then would we be able to see the pros and cons of our decision making.

For the record.  Even tough the WHO and Federal authorities here in Mexico claim that Polio is eradicated,  I have had the chance of seeing young boys and girls still being affected by the disease.  They come from far away communities the vaccination program doesn't reach.


"Only he who doesn't do anything doesn't commit mistakes"


----------



## roxcyn

Since the poster was discussing babies, I think yourself as a parent need to assess if your child needs the vaccines or not.  For example, what are the benefits to this vaccine?  Many other members have mentioned several positive things, and what are the costs?  Then you have to take into consideration that if you give your child no vaccinations---he or she will not be able to attend most daycares or schools because they need to see record that your child was vaccinated.  

In the USA, vaccines are not free because here the government does not pay for help care.  Perhaps that is why the original poster mentioned the vaccines?  I know they can be expensive, but I am sure there are health clinics that give them out at reduced cost.


----------



## Poetic Device

roxcyn said:


> In the USA, vaccines are not free because here the government does not pay for help care. Perhaps that is why the original poster mentioned the vaccines? I know they can be expensive, but I am sure there are health clinics that give them out at reduced cost.


 
Real quick and I know that it is off topic, and I apologize. You are quite right that they are not free, but there are assisted living programs that will help. You should know, there are are a copious amount of left-winged groups, companies and organizations that are more than willing to help out. I decided not to vaccinate Savanna because of what I have seen happen to people that are exceptionally close to me.  From autism to rash, I figured enough was enough.

Now, for the FDA thing. I can't seem to find what I originally found, but I found it origionally at this website, http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm#saf.

Let's take a look at mercury poisoning right now. You can find some information at the following sites:
http://www.vran.org/vaccines/mercury/research-link-mer.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2005/jan/19/mercury_vaccines.htm
http://www.newstarget.com/011764.html

I shall post more later. RIght now I have to deal with a divorce.


----------



## roxcyn

Well the FDA says that it is removing the thimerosal from the vaccines.  I wanted to go to one of the website but one has to enter the email.  Then again Poetic Device, once dental fillings contained mercury too.  I am not sure of the amount of mercury that are in these vaccines.  I would highly suggest that you discuss with a health care profession.  Go to an office with a list of positives and negatives and maybe have some sources that you print off, especially from medicial journals.


----------



## ireney

Since I am not an expert I cannot really participate in this thread but I have read it with much interest especially since there's a debate going on in my country ever since diseases which had not appeared for years resurfaced due to the immigration from countries were vaccination against them wasn't the norm and what should we do about that etc. However I am a bit confused. 
Are we talking about all vaccines or some vaccines such as the one for polio?


----------



## xarruc

> Are we talking about all vaccines or some vaccines such as the one for polio?


There is one subject which is attiudes to vacines

and then another subject, which is one particular vacine MMR and the putative link between it and autism

I consider the first topic appropriate fr WRF and non-experts, and the second not, but that is just my opnion. Other people here are more interested in telling people what they know about the second.




> Since I am not an expert I cannot really participate in this thread


Of course you can participate. Its open to everybody and their views, no matter what their agenda or slant on the issue. If you think you have something useful to contribute then thats great.


----------



## ireney

xarruc thanks and thank you for the clarification too (though I am still dense enough not to be able to "categorise" some of the posts) but my take is thumbs up for vaccines if only for the reason I've stated (the immigration is causing old nightmares to resurface and makes my mother's generation pity those who, not having their experiences, didn't go for full vaccination of their children).

As it is obvious I'm for it for practical purposes, when I have a child it is going to get all its vaccines done (?) [although if there are two "alternatives" that'll mean I will have to do some serious research before choosing one of them] but my only reply to those who argue that there are dangers is "I'll take my chances" so to speak. Extremely unscientific (unless you count my logic of "there are more chances as I see it that my child may get one of these diseases than suffering from side-effects" as (pseudo) scientific).

Plus, I don't have a child right now so my .. resolution is based on cold logic. I prefer making my decisions if possible in an unemotional state but not all people are like me or find this kind of decision making "right".

There! I participated but not really contributed to the thread


----------



## Poetic Device

roxcyn said:


> Well the FDA says that it is removing the thimerosal from the vaccines. I wanted to go to one of the website but one has to enter the email. Then again Poetic Device, once dental fillings contained mercury too. I am not sure of the amount of mercury that are in these vaccines. I would highly suggest that you discuss with a health care profession. Go to an office with a list of positives and negatives and maybe have some sources that you print off, especially from medicial journals.


 

See, that's what I find most funny about all of this.  Everyone says "thimerosal does not cause any problems and if it does it is very rare" but meanwhile they are taking it out of the vaccines.  Doesn't that strike anyone as odd???  THat's why I investigated this thing to begin with.  When my e-mail account is up and running again, I have to post corresponding e-mails between myself and one of the doctors that I contacted.  I really think that you would all find it interesting.  Wait, is there a rule about that?


----------



## cuchuflete

Poetic Device said:


> See, that's what I find most funny about all of this.  Everyone says "thimerosal does not cause any problems and if it does it is very rare"



Everyone says?   Who is "Everyone"?  Not a single person in this thread has said anything remotely like that.

Please do not set up phoney strawmen just to knock them down.  It doesn't prove anything about vaccines, their benefits, or their risks. 

I came to this thread never having heard of thimerosal. I googled it.  The first site I found was the FDA.  It is abundantly clear that (1)they think mercury is a bad thing to put into a child's body (2)they have, as of a few years ago, either banned or severely restricted the use of Thimerosal.

They have not—yet—seen conclusive scientific evidence of a link between Thimerosal and autism, but they very clearly say that this is an important question that deserves more objective, scientific research.


----------



## Poetic Device

You know what, the autism thing is justrelevant, and actually I would like to not lean on that so much because of it being so indefinate.  What I WOULD like to discuss are the other symptoms.  I'm not sure, but I think that I have said that in previous posts.

In any event, the everyone that I was talking about was/is the scientists, officials and government.  You are right, on the FDA that say only things that are on the wire--true polititians.  However, look at all of the other sites.  They say that there is absolutely nothing unsafe about the vaccines and what have you with the exception of a possible slight fever and maybe a blemish at the site of the injection.


----------



## JamesM

> are right, on the FDA that say only things that are on the wire--true polititians.


 
What does this mean?  I'm sorry, I don't understand.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Poetic Device said:


> Would you believe what the Food and drug Administration (FDA) tells you?  They flat out say on their web site that thimerosal, while it may not cause all autism (there are many different forms of autism) it does cause at least a fraction of it.


Could you show me that statement, Poetic, as I'm not finding it?  Here is what appears to be the FDA's current position:


> In 2004, the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee issued its final report, examining the hypothesis that vaccines, specifically the MMR vaccines and thimerosal containing vaccines, are causally associated with autism. In this report, the committee incorporated new epidemiological evidence from the U.S., Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and studies of biologic mechanisms related to vaccines and autism since its report in 2001. The committee concluded that this body of evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, and that hypotheses generated to date concerning a biological mechanism for such causality are theoretical only.


Thank you.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> That organization appears to accept that the question of a possible relationship between thimerosal and autism is an important one. While it has not found evidence of causality, it still has required the elimination of the substance from most childhood vaccines: "Since 2001, all vaccines recommended for children 6 years of age and younger have contained either no thimerosal or only trace amounts, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccines, which are marketed in both the preservative-free and thimerosal–preservative–containing formulations."


My take is that as of 2001, the research was more open-ended, so removal of thimerosal at that point in time probably was prompted by legal liability concerns should causality be proven later.  Instead, the post-2001 research has moved the other way.

I must say I have wondered on occasion about the rush to vaccinate against the "non-lethal" diseases that were a right-of-passage in my childhood, like chicken-pox and mumps.  I understand that those can be quite serious if contracted as an adult, but a possible alternative would seem to be to vaccinate at a later age if, e.g., mumps had not been contracted by then.  

I must add, however, that as I don't have children and therefore haven't had to face the issue head-on, I've not done much research on it.   I'm just "wondering."  

Elisabetta


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi Everyone

Where do you stand on the vaccination debate? I know of certain parents who are not particularly keen on vaccinations and immunization as it just pumps the little child or baby's body full of drugs, and they are'nt really effective. They also believe that it's really a ploy used by pharmacutical companies to get there products sold, and get rich. Others again maintain that a great number of epidemics have been prevented since the introduction of the immunization programs, and many lives have been saved in the process. 

I, myself, am ambivalent on the whole issue and don't know quite what to make of it as I'm not very familiar with topic. So what are your views on the debate? Are we risking the health and wellbeing of kids by not taking vaccinations?


----------



## Abu Bishr

Thanks to the mod that grouped my thread with a previous thread on the topic. I did search for "vaccination" and "immunization" but did not see this thread. So, I guess the topic has been discussed at length, and I will just have to read through the posts of the previous thread.


----------



## Musical Chairs

This is just from my own experience but I was vaccinated for chickenpox in Japan when I was little but I still got it when I was a lot older (like 14) in the US. I think the virus must've evolved or something. It really sucked for me because chickenpox is worse the older you are when you get it and I was in bed for two weeks, not being able to sleep because it itched too much, a lot of (now mostly unnoticeable) scars on my face and body, etc. I wish I'd gotten it when I was younger like everyone else.


----------



## Poetic Device

No.  Chicken pox isa the same here.  I am not against vaccines, just giving them to infants that have just been born.  They are healthy when they come out, why pump them up with that stuff, especially with the amount of thimerosal that is in them?


----------



## .   1

I have not read this long thread so I will just address the original question.
If nobody vaccinated their kids I would not vaccinate mine.
As it is an unvaccinated kid is too vulnerable to resistant strains of whatever so I would vaccinate at the recommended times.
I think that whatever horror stories are told are probably isolated cases and perhaps the reaction was not to the vaccine per se.
It is a very complex issue.
People forget how terrifying measles and mumps and lockjaw and all the nasties were.
If your kid cut a finger the danger was death.

I'll go for the needle.

.,,


----------



## Poetic Device

How did people that lived before vaccines survive and become immune to diseases?  Whatever was done then was pretty damn good.


----------



## vachecow

People died at a much younger age.


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> How did people that lived before vaccines survive and become immune to diseases? Whatever was done then was pretty damn good.


They just died in their pathetic multitudes.  You should have seen the London bobby who was almost the first successful example of penicillin use.
He was at deaths door from an infected cut and was given all the penicillin that was available at the time.  He rallied for a few days and started to speak and eat but when the bugs saw off the last of the penicillin they bley him up like a black blimp and killed him.

Go for the needle.

.,,


----------

