Would you trust the h1n1 shot after this...

[blutea]

Another note, my son had chicken pox back in May, a very bad case, in fact. His scarring was bad enough that even today when a doctor looks at his belly, asks me where th scarring came from. I've even had one doctor accuse me of abusing my child by burning him with cigarettes...I don't smoke.

Anyway, he landed in the hospital one night because his fever was unresponsive to Advil, and we have a lot of experience with unresponsive fevers due to my daughter's condition. And the emergency room doctor, when I told him he didn't have any vaccines told me that the chicken pox vaccine, in his personal opinion, was pointless. It's extremely rare to suffer complications from chicken pox and it is a normal childhood illness. He also told me if was pointless because as of right now, there is no evidence that suggests the chicken pox vaccine still offers protection against shingles later in life. He also said that what they are currently trying to start studying is whether children who did not have chicken pox in their childhood, but had the vaccine, are at an increased risk of severe shingles.

I know there will be many people here who take this the wrong way and will want to flame me for it, but I would much rather my children become sick with an illness, especially where severe complications are rare, and carry a lifelong immunity rather than needing a booster every 5 or 10 years. Exposing them to the actual conditions will help to boost their immune system to the natural causes rather than the artificial disease in the vaccines.

Just my viewpoint.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

[PeanutBean]

I'm with you too where there is limited risk. In the UK we don't use the chicken pox vaccine at all.

 

[KandyKinz]

Another note, my son had chicken pox back in May, a very bad case, in fact. His scarring was bad enough that even today when a doctor looks at his belly, asks me where th scarring came from. I've even had one doctor accuse me of abusing my child by burning him with cigarettes...I don't smoke.

Anyway, he landed in the hospital one night because his fever was unresponsive to Advil, and we have a lot of experience with unresponsive fevers due to my daughter's condition. And the emergency room doctor, when I told him he didn't have any vaccines told me that the chicken pox vaccine, in his personal opinion, was pointless. It's extremely rare to suffer complications from chicken pox and it is a normal childhood illness. He also told me if was pointless because as of right now, there is no evidence that suggests the chicken pox vaccine still offers protection against shingles later in life. He also said that what they are currently trying to start studying is whether children who did not have chicken pox in their childhood, but had the vaccine, are at an increased risk of severe shingles.

I know there will be many people here who take this the wrong way and will want to flame me for it, but I would much rather my children become sick with an illness, especially where severe complications are rare, and carry a lifelong immunity rather than needing a booster every 5 or 10 years. Exposing them to the actual conditions will help to boost their immune system to the natural causes rather than the artificial disease in the vaccines.

Just my viewpoint.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I agree as well.... and I want your doctor....

 

[bubble123]

Trivializing my family's reactions to vaccines for the betterment of society is a socialist view.

Ok for one thing I really haven't trivialised your situation, I was completely sympathetic and only put it into context against the wider population. It really annoys me that you suggest I have anything other than sympathy for your reactions.

Secondly this is not a socialist issue it's an ecological one. No amount of toing and froing in this debate can alter the laws of population dynamics and disease transmission.

If the antivaccination lobby put their money where their mouth is and paid for independent scientists to research the issues in a recognised and peer reviewed way then we wouldn't be having this debate. But they don't.

Your comment was not really sympathetic toward bluetea, it was patronizing.

It would cost more for an entire family to get vaccinated every few years than to endure a mild to moderate childhood illness. To expect everyone to comply with vaccines even though they have caused injury and death is very silly.

And you know why it is difficult to conduct independent vaccine studies...I can read the nasty attitude in this post. They are not anti vaccine lobbiest, they are vaccine safety advocates. It's questions and statements like these that annoy me. This issue was discussed at length several pages back. It's very hard for an independent organization to fund scientific research without a ton of money. Big pharma companies would have no problem doing these studies on the very vaccines they make but they choose not to. It's not important enough to them even though vaccines can cause harm.

 

[bubble123]

this old chestnut

Vaccinations are there for a reason.

Like I said, they do offer minimime benefit...and they are a huge money maker.

I don't really care if they are a money maker, they save lives.

Thankfully though, people that choose not to immunise are in the minority and i hope it stays that way.

It is silly to say that vaccines save lives. There is absolutely no way to prove this! Your statement sounds like it came right out of a PBS commercial. I suggest you do your research. Washing your hands saves lives, eating well saves lives, exercise saves lives, getting enough sleep saves lives. Vaccines are only a very, very, very small part of the equation. Without a healthy way of life vaccines would not save your life and in some cases they would cause more harm.

 

[PeanutBean]

I'm not going to be drawn into a row with you, you know nothing about my intentions or attitude. My first response to blutea, in which I fully supported her personal decision under the circumstances, is there plain for all to see. Nothing patronising at all.

The pharma companies do their research to show their product is effective. The independent government bodies such as NICE examine all available research and consider long and hard about the efficacy if treatments before approving them. It may be different in the states where the user pays at point of use but within the NHS we have finite resources so everything is extremely well considered before being put into use. I am sure if there is money for Scientology there are famous anti-vaccinationists who would happily stump up some money. Plus there is plenty of independent research carried our by universities, not funded by big pharma companies.

I was a contributor to the pages ago discussion in fact I was the person who discussed the various funding issues in the first place. Thinking rationally and logically about the issues does not mean I am a bitch without sympathy so you can keep your opinions about my personal attitudes to yourself.

 

[lisaf]

If the antivaccination lobby put their money where their mouth is and paid for independent scientists to research the issues in a recognised and peer reviewed way then we wouldn't be having this debate. But they don't.

It's questions and statements like these that annoy me. This issue was discussed at length several pages back. And you know why this is difficult...I can read the nasty attitude in this post. They are not anti vaccine lobbiest, they are vaccine safety advocates. It's very hard for an independent organization to fund scientific research without a ton of money. Big pharma companies would have no problem doing these studies on the very vaccines they make but they choose not to. It's not important enough to them even though vaccines can cause harm.

Considering that there is a fund set up to compensate victims of vaccine injuries, the vaccine organizations do know there is a possibility of risks. I think the trouble is that people blame everything that goes wrong with their child on vaccines and there is no way to prove it didn't cause it.

The studies that would have to be done would be unethical because it would mean they'd have to do a double-blind study on a large group of children and give several children placebo vaccines which isn't ethical because it would leave a large part of the population unprotected.

Vaccine safety lobbyists and anti-vaccine lobbyists are the same thing. Because there are no studies to prove to the satisfaction of the vaccine safety people that vaccines are as safe or effective as claimed, they are by default, against vaccination until the safety has been proven.

 

[bubble123]

I'm not going to be drawn into a row with you, you know nothing about my intentions or attitude. My first response to blutea, in which I fully supported her personal decision under the circumstances, is there plain for all to see. Nothing patronising at all.

The pharma companies do their research to show their product is effective. The independent government bodies such as NICE examine all available research and consider long and hard about the efficacy if treatments before approving them. It may be different in the states where the user pays at point of use but within the NHS we have finite resources so everything is extremely well considered before being put into use. I am sure if there is money for Scientology there are famous anti-vaccinationists who would happily stump up some money. Plus there is plenty of independent research carried our by universities, not funded by big pharma companies.

I was a contributor to the pages ago discussion in fact I was the person who discussed the various funding issues in the first place. Thinking rationally and logically about the issues does not mean I am a bitch without sympathy so you can keep your opinions about my personal attitudes to yourself.

I never said you were a bitch. Explaining something to someone who already knows exactly what your are telling them does appear to be patronizing. Whether or not you did it intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know.

Peanutbean, if only conducting independent vaccines were as simple as that.

 

[bubble123]

If the antivaccination lobby put their money where their mouth is and paid for independent scientists to research the issues in a recognised and peer reviewed way then we wouldn't be having this debate. But they don't.

It's questions and statements like these that annoy me. This issue was discussed at length several pages back. And you know why this is difficult...I can read the nasty attitude in this post. They are not anti vaccine lobbiest, they are vaccine safety advocates. It's very hard for an independent organization to fund scientific research without a ton of money. Big pharma companies would have no problem doing these studies on the very vaccines they make but they choose not to. It's not important enough to them even though vaccines can cause harm.

Considering that there is a fund set up to compensate victims of vaccine injuries, the vaccine organizations do know there is a possibility of risks. I think the trouble is that people blame everything that goes wrong with their child on vaccines and there is no way to prove it didn't cause it.

The studies that would have to be done would be unethical because it would mean they'd have to do a double-blind study on a large group of children and give several children placebo vaccines which isn't ethical because it would leave a large part of the population unprotected.

Vaccine safety lobbyists and anti-vaccine lobbyists are the same thing. Because there are no studies to prove to the satisfaction of the vaccine safety people that vaccines are as safe or effective as claimed, they are by default, against vaccination until the safety has been proven.

This funding is set up by the CDC, pharma companies and other similar industries, whom we all know will not conduct vaccine safety studies.

Many individuals who choose not to vaccinate would volunteer for the studies and it would not be unethical.

There is a huge difference between vaccine safety and anti vaccine. If vaccines were truly safe and effective then vaccine safety individuals would get vaccinated. The anti vaccine individuals still would not.

 

[PeanutBean]

I hope you're not suggesting that the entire scientific community is biased and interested in deceiving, injuring, the general population for their own gains?

 

[bubble123]

I hope you're not suggesting that the entire scientific community is biased and interested in deceiving, injuring, the general population for their own gains?

Why would you ask me that question? THAT is very patronizing and bitchy.

I do believe that vaccines started out with good intentions but they have gotten way out of hand. We have no idea what the ramifications are of mutiply injections on the same day for babies. Vaccines have not been properly studied and each year the vaccine recommendation list just keeps getting bigger. Conducting studies on vaccines would be too much of a risk for the financial security of pharma companies. There is a huge profit in vaccines and it would cripple pharma companies if they were haulted. Many parents are getting bullied into getting vaccines by doctors and schools, not realizing they have a choice.

 

[lisaf]

This funding is set up by the CDC, pharma companies and other similar industries, whom we all know will not conduct vaccine safety studies.

Many individuals who choose not to vaccinate would volunteer for the studies and it would not be unethical.

There is a huge difference between vaccine safety and anti vaccine. If vaccines were truly safe and effective then vaccine safety individuals would get vaccinated. The anti vaccine individuals still would not.

How do we 'know' that they have no interest in vaccine safety studies? I think with the growing concerns about vaccines, they would be very interested in proving once and for all exactly how safe they are and what the true risks are.

It is still unethical even if people volunteer for it. They will not allow pregnant women to participate in trials for medications even if they want to. So pregnant women like me have to take medications that they don't know are safe, and the data from my experience will not even be collected and passed on to future pregnant women.

I don't think there is ever going to be proof enough for some people that vaccines are safe. There will always be some reason to doubt, a 20 year study needed instead of just a 5 year study etc.... some rumor of a conspiracy to suppress data etc. (I just look at the birther group in the US who will not believe Obama is a US citizen... nothing short of having witnessed his birth themselves will convince them otherwise... though even then I'm sure they'd think it was some other kid and he was 'switched').

I'm not saying that you can't be convinced... I'm just saying that there ARE people who will never think vaccines are ok no matter what proof they are shown.

 

[lisaf]

I hope you're not suggesting that the entire scientific community is biased and interested in deceiving, injuring, the general population for their own gains?

Why would you ask me that question? THAT is very patronizing and bitchy.

Can we skip the name calling? We've managed to keep it pretty civil in here despite heated conversation.

 

[bubble123]

I hope you're not suggesting that the entire scientific community is biased and interested in deceiving, injuring, the general population for their own gains?

Why would you ask me that question? THAT is very patronizing and bitchy.

Can we skip the name calling? We've managed to keep it pretty civil in here despite heated conversation.

Yes, we can stop the name calling if the flaming stops too. Besides, she did call herself bitchy first...I was only agreeing with her.

 

[lisaf]

I hope you're not suggesting that the entire scientific community is biased and interested in deceiving, injuring, the general population for their own gains?

Why would you ask me that question? THAT is very patronizing and bitchy.

Can we skip the name calling? We've managed to keep it pretty civil in here despite heated conversation.

Yes, we can stop the name calling if the flaming stops too. Besides, she did call herself bitchy first...I was only agreeing with her.

I saw what she said as checking to see if you really meant to make such a strong accusation.
I think it would be better if you responded with proving to her how many times it has been proven that businesses, including scientists hired by pharmaceutical companies HAVE twisted the results of their research to increase profits.

I don't see anybody flaming here but you

 

[bubble123]

This funding is set up by the CDC, pharma companies and other similar industries, whom we all know will not conduct vaccine safety studies.

Many individuals who choose not to vaccinate would volunteer for the studies and it would not be unethical.

There is a huge difference between vaccine safety and anti vaccine. If vaccines were truly safe and effective then vaccine safety individuals would get vaccinated. The anti vaccine individuals still would not.

How do we 'know' that they have no interest in vaccine safety studies? I think with the growing concerns about vaccines, they would be very interested in proving once and for all exactly how safe they are and what the true risks are.

It is still unethical even if people volunteer for it. They will not allow pregnant women to participate in trials for medications even if they want to. So pregnant women like me have to take medications that they don't know are safe, and the data from my experience will not even be collected and passed on to future pregnant women.

I don't think there is ever going to be proof enough for some people that vaccines are safe. There will always be some reason to doubt, a 20 year study needed instead of just a 5 year study etc.... some rumor of a conspiracy to suppress data etc. (I just look at the birther group in the US who will not believe Obama is a US citizen... nothing short of having witnessed his birth themselves will convince them otherwise... though even then I'm sure they'd think it was some other kid and he was 'switched').

I'm not saying that you can't be convinced... I'm just saying that there ARE people who will never think vaccines are ok no matter what proof they are shown.

With all the concern on vaccines I sure hope they do become interested in unbiased vaccine safety studies. After all, it would only be right if they did the studies because they made the vaccines. I just feel it's a high call to expect other independent reseachers to finance these studies when it wasn't their creation.

 

[lisaf]

Look, no matter who wants to volunteer for a study, it doesn't make it ethical to conduct a study.

The concerns on vaccines... some are valid, and some have been disproven time and time again and people still don't believe it.
The vaccine industry has passed all the levels of safety that the government has set up for them. If you want that level to be stricter, lobby your government... do not expect a company that has shareholders to spend millions on a study they are not required to do, and which will only be believed by half the people out there who want more proof.

Do you expect sugar-free chewing gum companies to prove that there is no link between aspartame and cancer?

 

[bubble123]

I hope you're not suggesting that the entire scientific community is biased and interested in deceiving, injuring, the general population for their own gains?

Why would you ask me that question? THAT is very patronizing and bitchy.

Can we skip the name calling? We've managed to keep it pretty civil in here despite heated conversation.

Yes, we can stop the name calling if the flaming stops too. Besides, she did call herself bitchy first...I was only agreeing with her.

I saw what she said as checking to see if you really meant to make such a strong accusation.
I think it would be better if you responded with proving to her how many times it has been proven that businesses, including scientists hired by pharmaceutical companies HAVE twisted the results of their research to increase profits.

I don't see anybody flaming here but you

There was a recent medication that was called into concern...however, I can't remember the name. There have been several in the past but I don't have time to look those up right now. All I am saying is man can be greedy. I don't blindly trust large corporations, especially when profit is involved.

 

[bubble123]

Look, no matter who wants to volunteer for a study, it doesn't make it ethical to conduct a study.

The concerns on vaccines... some are valid, and some have been disproven time and time again and people still don't believe it.
The vaccine industry has passed all the levels of safety that the government has set up for them. If you want that level to be stricter, lobby your government... do not expect a company that has shareholders to spend millions on a study they are not required to do, and which will only be believed by half the people out there who want more proof.

Do you expect sugar-free chewing gum companies to prove that there is no link between aspartame and cancer?

I would hope that they would be compelled to do so for honesty and concern of the public but I would not expect it because, like you said, they are looking out for their shareholders.

 

[lisaf]

I hope you're not suggesting that the entire scientific community is biased and interested in deceiving, injuring, the general population for their own gains?

Why would you ask me that question? THAT is very patronizing and bitchy.

Can we skip the name calling? We've managed to keep it pretty civil in here despite heated conversation.

Yes, we can stop the name calling if the flaming stops too. Besides, she did call herself bitchy first...I was only agreeing with her.

I saw what she said as checking to see if you really meant to make such a strong accusation.
I think it would be better if you responded with proving to her how many times it has been proven that businesses, including scientists hired by pharmaceutical companies HAVE twisted the results of their research to increase profits.

I don't see anybody flaming here but you

There was a recent medication that was called into concern...however, I can't remember the name. There have been several in the past but I don't have time to look those up right now. All I am saying is man can be greedy. I don't blindly trust large corporations, especially when profit is involved.

Agreed, and well-stated. I think it cuts both ways and there are times when the companies definitely do things that are not in the best interest of the public in order to increase profits.

I just want to add that I've seen people go crazy online blaming their IUD (Mirena) for some crazy, ridiculous things.... and maybe 25% of what they are claiming was caused by the device... maybe another 25% is an underlying condition or predisposition they had causing them to react badly to the device, but at least 50% of it is completely unrelated, in their head, a different condition, or just plain paranoia. I've SEEN how crazy some people get out there.... and I'm someone who had issues conceiving after the device and even I think they were crazy. I don't blame the device if I happen to be in the .05% of the population who has this response to it... and I'm 98% sure that it was an underlying condition that would have happened anyway that the device masked, not to be blamed on the device. Does it mean the company was evil? Not in my mind... at least not in that circumstance.