parents who dont vaccinate your babies??

[tinytabby]

Fair point. I don't know much about allergies. Do newborns have them or do they develop over time? I mean, could parents who are worried have their babies tested for allergies or wait until after they have started solids before vaccinating?

 

[Scottish mum]

Yes and that's why I choose to vaccinate my lo.

 

[pinklightbulb]

In Australia I don't think there's such a thing as objection on grounds of not agreeing with vaxxing. You have to be religious (which I think is unfair) or your child has to have a medical reason not to be vaxxed. Otherwise they aren't accepted into school.

 

[MillieJoan]

Fair point. I don't know much about allergies. Do newborns have them or do they develop over time? I mean, could parents who are worried have their babies tested for allergies or wait until after they have started solids before vaccinating?

Honestly, I'm not sure, but that's an interesting question.

 

[CMarie]

Fair point. I don't know much about allergies. Do newborns have them or do they develop over time? I mean, could parents who are worried have their babies tested for allergies or wait until after they have started solids before vaccinating?

I was told to wait until LO was 2 before testing him for allergies, but we decided to get him tested this past Wednesday.

We actually ended up finding out that he has a severe dairy allergy and I have to say, I'm very thankful we didn't vaccinate him especially with any vaccine containing fetal bovine serum as he could have had a very serious reaction to it. I personally feel like allergy tests should be mandatory before giving vaccines. I know that's a bit out there, but you have no idea what child is going to react to what. Dairy allergies run in my family, and my youngest cousin was vaccinated before finding out he had a dairy allergy and ended up being rushed to the emergency room.

 

[Natsku]

I think with a family history of allergies it would be very wise to check for allergies first (or indeed if the baby suffers from any allergy symptoms such as eczema) but not all allergic babies/children will have a reaction to the vaccinations. Maria is allergic to dairy and eggs but didn't have an allergy reaction to any of her vaccines.

 

[My_First]

I am not suggesting people should be forced into getting vaccinations. But I do think it wrong of people to say - for example - they are worried about autism when the link has been disproven.

This gets to me. No, the link hasn't been disproven -- it has just not been proven. There's a difference. Recently two families were awarded millions of dollars due to their children being harmed by vaccines and having autism: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html. The courts admitted that vaccines caused the boy's encephalopathy which led to his autism, but it sounds like the medical records are sealed and that access to information is limited. So if a vaccine causes encephalopathy that causes autism, it's not hard to see how the vaccine causes autism indirectly. I think this shows that continuing to examine the issue is very much warranted.

And do you know whose medical studies were used in this decision? Yes, the discredited Dr Andrew Wakefield. And this case is also going to appeal. There is no evidence. I also dont really like the 'its not safe until its disproven' statement. As you could say that about anything. You could say that it hasn't been disproven that carrots cause autism, therefore carrots are not safe? You could say it about breathing oxygen. Where does one draw the line?

 

[LoraLoo]

I am not suggesting people should be forced into getting vaccinations. But I do think it wrong of people to say - for example - they are worried about autism when the link has been disproven.

This gets to me. No, the link hasn't been disproven -- it has just not been proven. There's a difference. Recently two families were awarded millions of dollars due to their children being harmed by vaccines and having autism: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html. The courts admitted that vaccines caused the boy's encephalopathy which led to his autism, but it sounds like the medical records are sealed and that access to information is limited. So if a vaccine causes encephalopathy that causes autism, it's not hard to see how the vaccine causes autism indirectly. I think this shows that continuing to examine the issue is very much warranted.

And do you know whose medical studies were used in this decision? Yes, the discredited Dr Andrew Wakefield. And this case is also going to appeal. There is no evidence. I also dont really like the 'its not safe until its disproven' statement. As you could say that about anything. You could say that it hasn't been disproven that carrots cause autism, therefore carrots are not safe? You could say it about breathing oxygen. Where does one draw the line?

 

[joshiesmum]

Luckily in my area all children are vaccinated. im a big believer in vaccines but am aware some parents choose not to vaccinate their children. what if an unvaxxed child caught something then the disease mutated and caused a pandemic?

 

[Feronia]

I am not suggesting people should be forced into getting vaccinations. But I do think it wrong of people to say - for example - they are worried about autism when the link has been disproven.

This gets to me. No, the link hasn't been disproven -- it has just not been proven. There's a difference. Recently two families were awarded millions of dollars due to their children being harmed by vaccines and having autism: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html. The courts admitted that vaccines caused the boy's encephalopathy which led to his autism, but it sounds like the medical records are sealed and that access to information is limited. So if a vaccine causes encephalopathy that causes autism, it's not hard to see how the vaccine causes autism indirectly. I think this shows that continuing to examine the issue is very much warranted.

And do you know whose medical studies were used in this decision? Yes, the discredited Dr Andrew Wakefield. And this case is also going to appeal. There is no evidence. I also dont really like the 'its not safe until its disproven' statement. As you could say that about anything. You could say that it hasn't been disproven that carrots cause autism, therefore carrots are not safe? You could say it about breathing oxygen. Where does one draw the line?

Where did it say that they used Wakefield's medical studies? I didn't see that. Why would they use medical studies from someone who has been discredited for years? This article was only posted a month ago, so that doesn't make any sense. Anyway, it says that many of the documents related to these cases are sealed.

I never said that "it hasn't been disproven, therefore it's unsafe." I said that it warrants further investigation since there are still overwhelming questions on the link between MMR and autism. Enough children regress and develop signs of autism right after getting their MMR vaccination, so it's worth investigating. I know it could very well be simple correlation, but the fact that there hasn't been an unbiased, large scale study conducted examining autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations means that it's legitimate to question the link.

There aren't these same sort of questions about carrots, and you can't say something like this about something absolutely mandatory like breathing oxygen, so your counter examples make no sense.

 

[My_First]

I am not suggesting people should be forced into getting vaccinations. But I do think it wrong of people to say - for example - they are worried about autism when the link has been disproven.

This gets to me. No, the link hasn't been disproven -- it has just not been proven. There's a difference. Recently two families were awarded millions of dollars due to their children being harmed by vaccines and having autism: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html. The courts admitted that vaccines caused the boy's encephalopathy which led to his autism, but it sounds like the medical records are sealed and that access to information is limited. So if a vaccine causes encephalopathy that causes autism, it's not hard to see how the vaccine causes autism indirectly. I think this shows that continuing to examine the issue is very much warranted.

And do you know whose medical studies were used in this decision? Yes, the discredited Dr Andrew Wakefield. And this case is also going to appeal. There is no evidence. I also dont really like the 'its not safe until its disproven' statement. As you could say that about anything. You could say that it hasn't been disproven that carrots cause autism, therefore carrots are not safe? You could say it about breathing oxygen. Where does one draw the line?

Where did it say that they used Wakefield's medical studies? I didn't see that. Why would they use medical studies from someone who has been discredited for years? This article was only posted a month ago, so that doesn't make any sense. Anyway, it says that many of the documents related to these cases are sealed.

I never said that "it hasn't been disproven, therefore it's unsafe." I said that it warrants further investigation since there are still overwhelming questions on the link between MMR and autism. Enough children regress and develop signs of autism right after getting their MMR vaccination, so it's worth investigating. I know it could very well be simple correlation, but the fact that there hasn't been an unbiased, large scale study conducted examining autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations means that it's legitimate to question the link.

There aren't these same sort of questions about carrots, and you can't say something like this about something absolutely mandatory like breathing oxygen, so your counter examples make no sense.

The Italian court ruling was the middle of last year?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ter-award-over-child-with-autism-7858596.html

https://www.fimp.org/notizia.aspx?id=629

This is the original Italian press release from the Italian medical body on the verdict. It SPECIFICALLY mentions the Lancet paper and that it has been retracted and that the Rimini Court had ignored the retraction and subsequent reports in the BMJ.

There are more than enough peer reviewed artcles, does 575 million doses count as a large enough study?

https://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-mmr.htm

Oxygen was a bad example, I was trying to say that where do we draw the line?

I stand by my carrot example: (or maybe organic food in general?)
View attachment 568759

I realise that is a flippant retort, however correlation does not imply causation and please dont offer me headbutting smilies, I was respectful in my reply.

Ps reread your link apologies thought you cited the Italy case.

 

[Feronia]

I am not suggesting people should be forced into getting vaccinations. But I do think it wrong of people to say - for example - they are worried about autism when the link has been disproven.

This gets to me. No, the link hasn't been disproven -- it has just not been proven. There's a difference. Recently two families were awarded millions of dollars due to their children being harmed by vaccines and having autism: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html. The courts admitted that vaccines caused the boy's encephalopathy which led to his autism, but it sounds like the medical records are sealed and that access to information is limited. So if a vaccine causes encephalopathy that causes autism, it's not hard to see how the vaccine causes autism indirectly. I think this shows that continuing to examine the issue is very much warranted.

And do you know whose medical studies were used in this decision? Yes, the discredited Dr Andrew Wakefield. And this case is also going to appeal. There is no evidence. I also dont really like the 'its not safe until its disproven' statement. As you could say that about anything. You could say that it hasn't been disproven that carrots cause autism, therefore carrots are not safe? You could say it about breathing oxygen. Where does one draw the line?

Where did it say that they used Wakefield's medical studies? I didn't see that. Why would they use medical studies from someone who has been discredited for years? This article was only posted a month ago, so that doesn't make any sense. Anyway, it says that many of the documents related to these cases are sealed.

I never said that "it hasn't been disproven, therefore it's unsafe." I said that it warrants further investigation since there are still overwhelming questions on the link between MMR and autism. Enough children regress and develop signs of autism right after getting their MMR vaccination, so it's worth investigating. I know it could very well be simple correlation, but the fact that there hasn't been an unbiased, large scale study conducted examining autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations means that it's legitimate to question the link.

There aren't these same sort of questions about carrots, and you can't say something like this about something absolutely mandatory like breathing oxygen, so your counter examples make no sense.

The Italian court ruling was the middle of last year?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ter-award-over-child-with-autism-7858596.html

https://www.fimp.org/notizia.aspx?id=629

This is the original Italian press release from the Italian medical body on the verdict. It SPECIFICALLY mentions the Lancet paper and that it has been retracted and that the Rimini Court had ignored the retraction and subsequent reports in the BMJ.

There are more than enough peer reviewed artcles, does 575 million doses count as a large enough study?

https://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-mmr.htm

Oxygen was a bad example, I was trying to say that where do we draw the line?

I stand by my carrot example: (or maybe organic food in general?)
View attachment 568759

I realise that is a flippant retort, however correlation does not imply causation and please dont offer me headbutting smilies, I was respectful in my reply.

Ps reread your link apologies thought you cited the Italy case.

Sorry about the headbutting smiley if you were using a respectful tone. I read your reply as being snarky, but it was early in the morning before coffee so sorry if I misinterpreted it. (The problem with text-based replies!)

I don't see any articles that examine both unvaccinated and vaccinated populations in a large scale study. I hear from a researcher at my university that there is such a study being conducted for the first time by researchers in Canada, so I'll be awaiting the results of that! But as to the link you provided me, the first is a lit review, the second is just a Q&A about the MMR vaccine, the third is information about the Wakefield retraction, so and and so on. I don't see any actual studies that prove anything one way or another, and I do recall Sears mentioning in his book that there hasn't been a suitable study either.

I mean, one of the problems is that vaccine studies usually are heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies. That's not going to produce very reliable results. On the other hand, it's also a problem when autism or anti-vax organizations fund studies as well, so it's really hard to get an unbiased results either way.

As to the organic food and autism chart, I did already say that it may very likely be simple correlation. However, I wasn't talking about a correlation where more autism is diagnosed in larger numbers overtime as more vaccines are given. I was talking about when the vaccine is given to children. MMR is generally given at 1 year of age, and that's also when a great number of autism cases are diagnosed and regression is noted. It could, again, be simple correlation, but it could also be that certain children have allergies or are genetically susceptible to autism and that this particular vaccine triggers something. Personally, I don't think that vaccines would cause something like autism out of nowhere. I think that if they do cause autism, then it acts as some sort of trigger when the child is already susceptible. I'm not one of those people who says flat out "MMR CAUSES AUTISM" or anything like that; it's honestly not one of the reasons I don't vaccinate. But I'm also not ruling it out since vaccine safety isn't tested nearly as much as I think it should.

 

[My_First]

And your right. I was taught by a heavily critical tutor. However I'm unsure whether there really is the possibility of total non bias. I mean I realise that pharmas etc all have their agendas, as do anti vax groups. But I guess one could pull apart anything. I mean if someone was 'independent' it could be found out that maybe they aren't due to a sister who works for gsk say or another whose brothers, aunties neighbour has vax damage. I, personally think that anything can be pulled apart if you were to did deep enough. So at what point does it become trustworthy? I don't have an answer just my musings

 

[tinytabby]

It's not in the drug companies' interests to release vaccines that are ineffective or unsafe. Perhaps in the past they would be less rigorous in tests than they are now but the real money is in making/licensing something good that works well for decades, worldwide. I maybe sound quite naive about this... But I hope not!

 

[tinytabby]

The other thing about autism is that the initial symptoms tend to be noticed (though maybe not diagnosed) at around the same time as the mmr is given. That's when many children start to speak and learn some social skills. They might not develop them and appear to regress at the same time as the vaccine but there is no proven link.

 

[My_First]

It's not in the drug companies' interests to release vaccines that are ineffective or unsafe. Perhaps in the past they would be less rigorous in tests than they are now but the real money is in making/licensing something good that works well for decades, worldwide. I maybe sound quite naive about this... But I hope not!

I do agree with this too. They are in the business to make money, yes, there is no denying that. It takes decades of research and millions of pounds/dollars and then validation from whichever countries scruitneers before its even given human trials. If they got it wrong or knowingly produce something that damaged it has catestrphic consequences, not only for the people who are vaccinated, but the company looses shareholders and ultimately collapses. It's not in their interests at all.
I don't see what the alternative is? Goverments and individuals can't afford studies and research at that level.

 

[Feronia]

It's not in the drug companies' interests to release vaccines that are ineffective or unsafe. Perhaps in the past they would be less rigorous in tests than they are now but the real money is in making/licensing something good that works well for decades, worldwide. I maybe sound quite naive about this... But I hope not!

I do agree with this too. They are in the business to make money, yes, there is no denying that. It takes decades of research and millions of pounds/dollars and then validation from whichever countries scruitneers before its even given human trials. If they got it wrong or knowingly produce something that damaged it has catestrphic consequences, not only for the people who are vaccinated, but the company looses shareholders and ultimately collapses. It's not in their interests at all.
I don't see what the alternative is? Goverments and individuals can't afford studies and research at that level.

They make HUGE amounts of money (i.e., between 10 and 15 billion dollars from the swine flu vaccine in 2009 alone). Isn't it fair to question the motives of companies that profit to such a high degree over people's health? The safety trials are also not very strenuous and do not account for long-term effects. Sadly, if they get it wrong or produce something that does damage people, they face absolutely no liability (kind of like banks, lol) due to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Consumers pay taxes on vaccines, and these taxes are used to pay people who are injured from vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies are not liable at all -- they face no financial repercussion -- so they don't really have an incentive to conduct effective safety trials.

(Ugh, I'm against animal testing entirely though -- I don't think anything is worth putting animals through such torture, I don't care what it is. This is a separate issue altogether though. Sorry for the rant!)

I agree with you that I don't see much of an alternative for effective studies. It's just unfortunate. Everything is so complicated!

 

[tinytabby]

Isn't it an enormous generalisation to say that safety trials are 'not very strenuous'? What do you mean by that? What is the evidence for that?

I am interested to know why you believe this.

 

[Feronia]

Isn't it an enormous generalisation to say that safety trials are 'not very strenuous'? What do you mean by that? What is the evidence for that?

I am interested to know why you believe this.

I mean that there are no long-term safety tests for vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies test their products for short-term effects, and their long-term effects are only compiled through the VAERS reporting system *if* enough people report an adverse effect (which are typically under-reported and a lot of doctors are quick to dismiss any suggestion of a link between an effect and a vaccine). I believe this (as you put it) because I have two family members who were/are involved in vaccine testing/manufacture so I've heard first hand what it entails. I've also read about it in a number of places, including Sears' books. Here's a quote from his page about aluminum toxicity in vaccines and the lack of safety testing:

As a medical doctor, my first instinct is to worry that these aluminum levels far exceed what may be safe for young babies. But then my second instinct is to assume that this issue has been researched and that studies have been done on healthy infants to determine their ability to excrete aluminum rapidly. My third instinct is to go looking for these studies, and so far I have not been able to find any ... There is good evidence that large amounts of aluminum are harmful to humans. There is no solid evidence that the amount of aluminum in vaccines is harmful to infants and children. No one has actually studied vaccine amounts of aluminum in healthy human infants to make sure it is safe. Should we now stop and research this matter? Or should we just go on and continue to hope that it is safe?

Honestly, I'm sick of debating this. I only posted in this thread originally because the OP seemed genuinely curious why people choose not to vaccinate, and I've found that people who don't vaccinate are often unfairly characterized so I posted my reasons. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind on the matter; I don't care what other people choose to do at all.

 

[Larkspur]

They make HUGE amounts of money (i.e., between 10 and 15 billion dollars from the swine flu vaccine in 2009 alone). Isn't it fair to question the motives of companies that profit to such a high degree over people's health?

Given that the companies that make vaccines also make a huge range of drugs that are used as treatments for all the illnesses they can vaccinate against, would they not make more money if people just got sick? That way they wouldn't have to invest any money in making or testing vaccines, but could just reap the profits of illness.