Would you trust the h1n1 shot after this...

[aragornlover8]

Honestly, I'm a little confused why this debate is still going on. I'm not trying to sound rude or anything, but there doesn't actually seem to be any more discussion over the evidence and/or facts on either side. Now, it just seems that some people are prolonging the discussion just to be contentious. To me, it seems that the only real conclusion to come to regarding this is to "agree to disagree" or just to understand that there are some people who cannot get vaccinations and those who can get vaccinations should just try to be as informed as possible before making their decisions and not let doctors be overly influential when the health of their families is at stake.

I may be wrong. There may be more to the tail end of this discussion than I currently realize. I just don't like seeing threads dissolve into arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[aob1013]

I am so glad that the people that don't vaccinate are in the minority. SO glad.

I find your remarks to be insenstive and unproductive to this discussion.

That's fine, however that is how i feel - i am genuinely worried about the innocent public being exposed to serious illnesses that could be prevented, hence why i am glad people that don't vaccinate are in the minority.

So what you're saying is that my children and myself are not a part of the innocent public too? If it turns out my daughter was vaccine injured, that still makes her a part of your guilty minority?

I don't give two rat's bums if that is how you feel. If that is how you feel, word it differently. Your comments are VERY insensitive and uncalled for.

If my daughter does turn out to be vaccine injured, her condition could have beem prevented. But, I know, I know, you're still "SO glad" my "guilty" daughter and son are in the minority. After all, you don't have to see her struggles every day or live the life of raising a special needs child, do you?

Keep your judgements to yourself. The non-vaxxing community is not just full of a bunch of idiots who don't want to fork over money to inject their children or themselves with chemicals. They're not an anarachy. They are not turning from vaccines because they have heard of a conspiracy theory and turn away, as you so assume. They are a very highly educated community who researched vaccines before making their decisions and decided the risks far outweighed the benefits for their children. That doesn't make them bad parents, or guilty parents, or a guilty community, it makes them smart, educated, still part of an innocent community, and it makes them loving parents who don't need and shouldn't be judged by insensitive people who disagree with their decision. Maybe if you have a vaccine-injured child yourself, you might understand.

Next time, word your comments differently, back it up with facts and evidence, and quit being judgemental and insensitive.

If you are content with your decision, you shouldn't need to defend yourself. I never said you were a bad parent or your daughter is guilty - those are your words

I'm not going to sit here and have a back and forth conversation about who is right. I don't care what you do with your child with regards to imm, and you shouldn't care what other people do with theirs. Of course if i had an 'vaccinated injured child' i would understand, but i don't and the likelyhood of that happening is practically nil. 99% of the time vaccinations are safe, there will of course be the exception -like with everything

With regards to 'backing stuff up' all i have to say is - Why were vaccinations introduced? Because people were dying. What happened when vaccinations were introduced? People stopped dying, and serious illnesses reduced.

I'm in the UK, and in my NHS birth-5 book page 104 (other UK women please clarify if you have the book - you may not if it is your first pregnancy):

How do we know vaccines are safe?
Before they can be licensed, all medicines (including vaccines) are throughly tested to check their safety and effectiveness. After they have been licensed, the safety of vaccines continues to be monitored. Any rate of side effects that are discovered can be investigated further. All medicines can cause side effects, but vaccines are among the very safest. Research from around the world shows that immunisation is the safest way to protect your child's health.

If diseases like polio and diphtheria have almost disappeared in the UK, why do we need to immunnised against them?
In the UK, these diseases are kept at bay by high immunisation rates. Around the world more than 15 million a year die from infectious diseases. Over half of the children are under 5. Immunisation doesn't just protect your child, it also helps to protect your family and the whole community, especially those children who, for medical reasons, cannot be immunised.

Like i said, i won't sit here and have a back and forth arguement. I will vaccinate, you will not. Nobody is right or wrong, it's just an informed decision we make as parents, i just don't agree with yours. That is all. It's not judgemental, it's not anything. I just don't agree.

It is judgemental when you make insensitive statements without explaining. I think you know that. So glad you took the time now to explain your remarks.

That's a pleasure, no problem

I couldn't explain myself the first time as i was nursing my 4 week old at the same time.

Glad i have cleared things up for you.

 

[blutea]

Yes it never seems to matter who I am addressing you always seem compelled to question me. I don't recall saying the evidence is foggy, I did the say the debate on here was but as is clear I don't see anything wrong with the evidence in favour of vaccination.

I also don't see how many more times we need to say that the decisions taken by blutea and brandi are totally understandable. Our beef is with the statistically ridiculous comparison of an individual's experience with that of the population at large together with the lack of evidence backing up the generalised anti-vaccination claims.

This is a public board so everyone has a right to write their input...hopefully in a respectful manner.

Peanutbean, it did feel like you were always questioning me and it felt like your statements always have a condescending tone.

 

[blutea]

Honestly, I'm a little confused why this debate is still going on. I'm not trying to sound rude or anything, but there doesn't actually seem to be any more discussion over the evidence and/or facts on either side. Now, it just seems that some people are prolonging the discussion just to be contentious. To me, it seems that the only real conclusion to come to regarding this is to "agree to disagree" or just to understand that there are some people who cannot get vaccinations and those who can get vaccinations should just try to be as informed as possible before making their decisions and not let doctors be overly influential when the health of their families is at stake.

I may be wrong. There may be more to the tail end of this discussion than I currently realize. I just don't like seeing threads dissolve into arguing for the sake of arguing.

I think you have a good handle on it. And I see that now too...

 

[lisaf]

And I have a real problem with the phase that said something to the effect of "gambling with your family's lives by not vaccinating" stated by lisa f. If a person makes an educated decision to not vaccinate based on personal history of vaccine injury then they would be "gambling with their life" IF they got the vaccine. By not vaccinating they know the risks and choose to take the route which is healthiest for their family.

Wow, I never meant that not vaccinating was a 'gamble'. I think we can all agree that any choice with risks (and there are risks to both vaccinating and not vaccinating) is a gamble. I said, (see below), that to make your decision about the RABIES vaccine soley on the information from that site is a gamble. That site offers no verified facts but just theories and opinions.

While there is a risk whether you choose to vaccinate or not... which could be called a gamble, I did not mean to call all choices not to vaccinate a gamble. My comment was directly mainly at a site that I found to have no facts but just opinions.

Please stop being overly defensive and jumping out to attack anyone you think is unfairly criticizing your choices. This was supposed to be a discussion about the vaccines, not personal attacks.

I just checked out that link. It is NOT a medical site, one of the statements it made was "Health is the outcome of a lifestyle which results in cell structure which is well nourished and toxin free. " which I'm sure is pretty insulting to those who have health issues depsite living as healthy as they can.

It says that 1-3 people in the US die of rabies each year. It does NOT state that those 3 people were vaccinated or not, or if those who were bitten but did not die were vaccinated.

The site gives no medical background for anything and just claims that fear of rabies is what causes it. That is completely unfounded and totally untrue.. .nobody will die just from the fear of it, and people who DO die from it, especially in other countries may not even know what rabies is.

That site is an interesting THEORY but is by no means something that should be taken as fact. If you want to gamble your health based on the beliefs on there, that is your choice, but that site is not proof of anything other than a set of beliefs.
They label their site Vaccine Liberation... their information will be biased in one direction only.

If vaccines don't work, then why are there only 3 rabies deaths per year in the US where we mostly vaccinate our dogs, and 50,000 worldwide in countries where dogs are not vaccinated. Surely its not that those 50,000 people did not have access to soap and water?

 

[PeanutBean]

The point is that this issue is not actually about matter of opinion it's about evidence which is why the debate is so foggy.

No I did not say the evidence was foggy. Here is a direct quote of my post in which I used the word. What I am saying here is that the evidence is strong so it isn't a matter of opinion but because people choose to base their opinions on whatever other than the evidence the debate is foggy.

 

[PeanutBean]

I totally agree with you aragornlover, every time the thread goes pleasantly quiet someone else come wading in with more. It is indeed the thread that will never die.

 

[lisaf]

I totally agree with you aragornlover, every time the thread goes pleasantly quiet someone else come wading in with more. It is indeed the thread that will never die.

Agreed!! (hehe, and I just added to it/kept it going by posting this )

 

[blutea]

So, let's just let the thread die and agree to disagree.

 

[bubble123]

I just wanted to leave everyone with an article that helps but this topic into persepective. Just some things to ponder because everyone has the right to choose and the right to informed consent.

https://drtenpenny.com/vaccine_decisions_trust.aspx

Vaccination Decisions - Who Should You Trust?
By Dr. Sherri J Tenpenny

June 28, 2007

Most parents want to trust their pediatrician. We no longer live in extended families. Moms and grandmas frequently live far away so when Johnny gets sick, instead of consulting with those close to us who have taken care of sick kids, we confer with our doctor.

Most pediatricians are well meaning and want to do what they feel is in the best interest of children's health. However, when it comes to vaccination, pediatricians often go beyond helpful suggestions; they resort to fear tactics. Parents are told frightening, "worse case scenario" stories of a child who had serious complications from a childhood illness such as measles, mumps or chickenpox. The children who recovered uneventfully are never mentioned. The pressure to vaccinate can escalate and sometimes results in threats. Intimidated and believing the "doctor knows best," the injections proceed.

Then you begin to read articles and books by doctors who have discovered problems with vaccines.

The information about vaccine dangers is not opinion but represents thousands of hours of research, documenting facts even most pediatricians don’t know. The information tackles mainstream thinking about vaccines head on. Importantly, the information is presented with detailed references. This new data causes feelings of confusion. It is radically different from what has been generally accepted about vaccination for more than two hundred years: "Vaccines are safe, effective, protective and cause no harm." You spend hours researching both sides of the argument to determine which doctor is telling the truth, which information is correct. You struggle, you argue, and you often feel very conflicted.

Both doctors are convincing. Both speak with authority and present information you struggle to assimilate. Which guidelines should you follow? Which doctor should you trust?

Quite frankly, you shouldn’t trust either at face value.

You should trust your intuition, your gut feeling, your own internal guidance system. Sit quietly and privately, see how you "feel" when you consider vaccination. What does it feel like when you look at your precious baby and know that injections are planned at the next doctor visit? What does it feel like to think about not vaccinating? If both feelings are neutral or confusing, you need more information. If both feelings are equally strong and negative, examine your fears. Do you understand the real risks of the disease you want to prevent? Do you know the real risk of the vaccine? When one feeling is definitely stronger than the other, that is your instinct talking.

Moms know when something is not right with Johnny, even when he is not in sight. That’s intuition. On the other hand, mothers have cried while their child was being vaccinated, praying that "nothing would go wrong." That's going against intuitive sense.

We have abdicated our personal power to professionals, particularly doctors, even though the medical industry has failed us miserably in many ways. Parents, it’s time to take back your power. Trust what you feel when considering vaccination. Know that you are intelligent and capable of reading and then understanding the risks vs the benefits. The more you listen to that "voice within," the louder it becomes. It is the best test of the vaccine information you hear.

 

[lisaf]

Die thread! Die!!


(this is not meant as a personal comment on anyone here, just a laugh at how this thread won't die)

 

[bubble123]

Since the thread opened with a video it only seems fitting to end it with a video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8ne-yhe8S0&feature=player_embedded

 

[Vickie]

it seems like there has been a lengthy and mostly healthy debate on this thread so far. Since it does seem that some are ready for it to end and some are not I went ahead and moved it to the debates section of the forum, so those in first tri don't have to keep seeing it pop up and those who want to continue to debate can

 

[blutea]

https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html

Family to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award

The first court award in a vaccine-autism claim is a big one. CBS News has learned the family of Hannah Poling will receive more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone.


In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime.

Hannah was described as normal, happy and precocious in her first 18 months.

Then, in July 2000, she was vaccinated against nine diseases in one doctor's visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae.

Afterward, her health declined rapidly. She developed high fevers, stopped eating, didn't respond when spoken to, began showing signs of autism, and began having screaming fits. In 2002, Hannah's parents filed an autism claim in federal vaccine court. Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed. It's taken more than two years for both sides to agree on how much Hannah will be compensated for her injuries.

Read Sharyl Attkisson's 2008 report on Hannah Poling

In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't "cause" her autism, but "resulted" in it. It's unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder. All other autism "test cases" have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court.

Time Magazine summed up the relevance of the Poling case in 2008: ...(T)here's no denying that the court's decision to award damages to the Poling family puts a chink -- a question mark -- in what had been an unqualified defense of vaccine safety with regard to autism. If Hannah Poling had an underlying condition that made her vulnerable to being harmed by vaccines, it stands to reason that other children might also have such vulnerabilities."

Then-director of the Centers for Disease Control Julie Gerberding (who is now President of Merck Vaccines) stated: "The government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism. This does not represent anything other than a very specific situation and a very sad situation as far as the family of the affected child."

Read the newly-released decision on Hannah Poling's compensation.

 

[blutea]

I know this thread is probably dead but I found some better graphs about disease decline prior to vaccines...if anyone is interested.

https://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=3920&end=3940&view=yes&id=5264#newspost

https://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Immunization Graphs PPT - RO 2009.pdf

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

Having stuided child development in depth and worked with autistic children I am positive a child is born with austim. Having talked to parents of autistic children and looking at their development records the signs are there from birth but these signs are so subtle that they are not picked up on until a later stage, when the child starts to have social interaction with others.

It just so happens that at the same time social interaction occurs the vaccination is given.
X

 

[blutea]

I agree that there can be a predisposition to autism...the article does explain that. If only there were tests available to find these genetic markers before vaccines have a chance to cause damage. Maybe that way parents would know not to vaccinate or at least delay the vaccines. But, anyway, that's just a what if. According to the article, there are approximately 4,800 cases awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court. I'm hoping this court case will give other parents and individuals the confidence to speak out about legitimate vaccine injury too. So many vaccine reactions and injuries go unreported.

 

[BrandiCanucks]

Thank you for posting that article on Hannah Poling, blutea. We know my daughter has a chromosome abnormality, where chromosome 15 is translocated (moved) to either chromosome 13 or 21 (not sure which yet), but her geneticist is also currently looking at an underlying mitochondrial disorder. Zoe was born perfectly normal and healthy. Her head circumference was in the 25th percentile at birth. Unfortunately, if it does turn out she has a condition that was triggered to activate by the vaccines, there is no vaccine-injury court here that will "reward" us for her injuries.

 

[aob1013]

Children are born with Autism, immunisations do not cause autism

 

[AppleBlossom]

Just to add my two cents worth

Yes I would still trust it. I would rather have a vaccine and take the risk of side affects any day. It's like the MMR. It does NOT cause autism in children. It has been disproven a number of times and the guy who wrote article on it was discredited. It is a fact, possibly not as well known as it shuold be that autism often isn't detected in children until between the ages of 1-2 years old. Coincidentally around the same time MMR vaccines are usually given. There is no link, just coincidence. And even if it was a possibility I would rather take the risk of having an autistic child than have a child die from a horrendous disease like measles or mumps.

There are risks in everything we do. But if we all stopped doing things "just incase" the world would be pretty dull. I could go out today into town and I could be in a crash, I could be hit by a car, I could fall down an escalator. But it doesn't stop me going out. Same with vaccines. The chances of having a major side affect from any vaccination are very very small, one in thousands to one in millions. If I didn't vacinate the likeliness of me catching the disease itself is probably more likely like one in hundreds to even one in tens. THAT isn't a risk I'm willing to take.

I know some people choose not to vaccinate their children and that is their own choice. For me knowledge of the disease/virus itself is enough for me to make sure my daughter, myself and any future children I have will be vaccinated against it