Would you trust the h1n1 shot after this...

[KandyKinz]

I found another interesting link.... I'm tired so I haven't read it entirely yet but it looks like it may be informative though a little bit biased.... But isn't everything we read?!?!

https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en...Chb4orc#v=onepage&q=immunization adhd&f=false

I just wanted to add before I go to sleep that thimerosal is an ingredient in the
H1N1 vaccine.

 

[lisaf]

Very interesting and well written... would like to see one more current though most of the google books are 2004-2005 or earlier.
Though I suppose a lot of the standard vaccines haven't changed that much, right?

I liked that it starts by explaining the hypothesis and the fact that it calls it a hypothesis instead of telling me right off the bat that its true... the whole scientific process you know?

 

[lisaf]

Yeah, I know I'll still be getting the H1N1

 

[PeanutBean]

KandyKinz remember that behind every government health policy is an army of highly qualified medical specialists who carry out and review current research and those policies are implemented because of new developments. Our health policies (thank god) are nit devised by politicians.

Blutea you've failed to reference any scientific research that demonstrates how many people are contracting a virus they have been immunised for, whether the strain was different and how this compares to people catching it who developed natural immunity. No statistics and references.

I'm on my phone so it's a pain to look at links so I didn't look at the one about smallpox. From what others have said it doesn't sound one bit credible though. If there was true supporting data for a theory why would there need to be irrational scaremongering imagery accompanying it? The data would tell the story itself. I can guess from what others have said that the cartoon was about people catching cowpox. Given that the earliest prevetion of smallpox was to get cowpox this hardly seems controversial.

 

[blutea]

KandyKinz remember that behind every government health policy is an army of highly qualified medical specialists who carry out and review current research and those policies are implemented because of new developments. Our health policies (thank god) are nit devised by politicians.

Blutea you've failed to reference any scientific research that demonstrates how many people are contracting a virus they have been immunised for, whether the strain was different and how this compares to people catching it who developed natural immunity. No statistics and references.

I'm on my phone so it's a pain to look at links so I didn't look at the one about smallpox. From what others have said it doesn't sound one bit credible though. If there was true supporting data for a theory why would there need to be irrational scaremongering imagery accompanying it? The data would tell the story itself. I can guess from what others have said that the cartoon was about people catching cowpox. Given that the earliest prevetion of smallpox was to get cowpox this hardly seems controversial.

Peanutbean, I really wish I could "reference scientific research that demonstrates how many people are contracting a virus they have been immunised (vaccinated) for, whether the strain was different and how this compares to people catching it who developed natural immunity." None is available because none of these "government health policy is an army of highly qualified medical specialists who carry out and review current research and those policies are implemented because of new developments" have conducted any. But current CDC recommendations of getting booster shots every few years supports this. Vaccines are obviously not working as well as science had hoped. In some cases it is actually doing more damage. Several doctors and nurses are proposing this idea. But, CDC data is not specific enough to show us one way or the other. There is so much information out there on the vaccine pamphlets, in books, on the internet, in medical reviews...but if you truly believe vaccines are the miracle cure nothing I say will convince you otherwise. Rather than shooting down my links and information, I encourage you to do your own research and find these studies. You could start with Dr Sheri Tenpenny's research and material.

At the end of the day, I trust my amazing immune system that God gave me over a vaccine theory that is only a few hundred years old and that is based on science that is constantly changing.

 

[blutea]

Peanutbean, I understand you don't have time for links so I'm going to post this for you right here-
https://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vaccine_debate.shtml

9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
Lire en Français

Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called "vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched with the following 9 questions.

Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements, effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven in scientific and medical circles.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined
or analyzed in any vaccine study?

One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug companies and health agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.

There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the history of vaccine development that has ever proven their safety, effectiveness or achievements (unless those achievements have underlined their damage to human health).

There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which have objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or consequential effect on the reduction of any type of disease in any
part of the world.

Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won't address those.

******************************************************************************

Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture of vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them unsafe for use in humans.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the preservatives and chemical additives in vaccines damage cells. Neurotoxicity, immune suppression, immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic proliferation are just a few of several effects that have been observed on the human body. See a list of chemicals in vaccines

Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines have on the human body. People just don't read them. All you have to do is look at the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact ingredients, alerts and potentially lethal effects.

See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.

Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject any type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is completely misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic regarding human health.

******************************************************************************

Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?

8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?

All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates natural immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment which continue to assault the immune system.


Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a fixed target that has already been moved from its location. You would be shooting at what was, not what is!

Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times over a period of one flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine 100% redundant and ineffective every single flu season. Ironically, the natural immune defenses of the human body can target these changes but the vaccines cannot.

I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of these questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any of the above questions:

- They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped

- They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain to the question.

- They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over again.

Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these questions in an open mainstream venue.

 

[bluecathy1978]

I had this vaccine last year when I was pregnant and my baby was fine. At least if there is an outbreak I know that he will be protected

 

[Ajisai]

Bluetea, our immune system has limit. We are exposed different strands of disease in daily basis. Of course we cannot be immune to the disease for the life time you were exposed previously. That is why you need boost. The exposure could be either vaccine or getting sick. Some disease has such a serious symptoms and even death so people take vaccine to avoid symptoms.

I think vaccine is like a traffic right. When people follow the signal, the traffic goes smoothly. But no guarantee that we are safe because of that. But it helps to prevent accidents and death. When someone is ignoring the light, he or she may cause accidents or death to himself or herself or others. Or perhaps, the person crosses the road without any problem.

I had to get H1n1 vaccine last year because I'm in the healthcare profession and i5 was mandatory by the hospital I was working. I was concerned about the safety but I thought the risk of getting the disease was very high for me because I worked in the hospital. Also, I didn't want to infect my patients or my family.

I hope I was able to help some people here to understand how vaccine works. Please avoid conspiracy theorist web sites for facts. Go to Pubmed and government sites for information. Pubmed is where doctors and researchers search for legitimate research. I was a researcher myself before.
Healthcare professions and immune compromised people are first to be vaccines before general public. If it isn't safe, trust me, doctors will definitely blow whistles.

 

[KandyKinz]

I liked that it starts by explaining the hypothesis and the fact that it calls it a hypothesis instead of telling me right off the bat that its true... the whole scientific process you know?

And I also wanted to add that the conclusion that they came at the end of the review was that the studies were all inconclusive and they could neither confirm or deny that the immunizations had a direct link to autism, ADHD, and speech and language delay.....

 

[lisaf]

Blutea - I'm not trying to shoot your argument down exactly, but the logic frustrates me.
There is no proof that aliens aren't abducting people, that doesn't make it true.

I know there are not the studies you are looking for to prove vaccines are safe, but that doesn't automatically mean they are bad for you.

 

[PeanutBean]

For me the research is easy. When I'm on campus I have access to online journals and those in the library at the University. I have been in academic science to PhD level so I am lucky that I can mostly understand the articles and have developed the level of critical thought required to consider them too. These are peer reviewed studies and as a scientist I cannot in conscience completely believe anything that has not been studied in the same rigorous way. Certainly mistakes are made (like Andrew Wakefield's discredited research making it into the Lancet) and once in a blue moon results are falsified but that is far more rare than the level of misinformation available on the internet or in conspiracy theory books, it gets discovered at some point and retracted. I often don't feel the need to look into it further as I have no cause to. Like I said, in your case it is clear you are the 1 in 10,000 having a bad reaction but sadly that is just part of the laws of population.

 

[blutea]

Suggesting that someone believes in conspiracy theories is very judgmental. Did you know that the majority of parents and individuals who choose not to vaccinate are college educated? This article says it all- https://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/More-Educated-Mothers-Are-Less-Likely-To-Vaccinate Trivializing my family's reactions to vaccines for the betterment of society is a socialist view. I don't deny that vaccines are a contributing factor but that's all they are. Without modern improvements vaccines would not help. The problem is when people believe that vaccines are going to save them from disease and that vaccines are the cure. This is not the case and there will probably be a backlash in the future. For example: mild to moderate childhood illnesses are now becoming severe adult illnesses because vaccines do not offer life long immunity. I still hold strong to the value that a healthy immune system is far better than an injection. So lets just agree to disagree and stop with the judgmental conspiracy attacks.

 

[aob1013]

this old chestnut

Vaccinations are there for a reason.

 

[blutea]

this old chestnut

Vaccinations are there for a reason.

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

 

[aob1013]

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.

 

[BrandiCanucks]

I haven't read this entire thread, but I'm throwing my two cents in here. Feel free to flame me for my decision, but I feel I am doing right for my children. I don't trust vaccines. When we believed our daughter had autism, we looked into the vaccines. I don't believe vaccines cause autism, but I do believe certain chemicals in vaccines can trigger certain underlying conditions to suddenly "activate". There have even been very few court cases in the United States where the family won because the MMR vaccine triggered an underlying condition that caused autism in their child.

My daughter was likely born with her condition, however there was no evidence of it when she was born, or until she had her first vaccine. In fact, she had a CT Scan done at 5 weeks old because of a fall and there was no microcephaly, no brain damage, nothing. Around the same time that she had her first vaccine, her brain stopped growing.

We don't know what her exact condition is yet, we just have a bunch of symptoms and other conditions that somehow fit, we just can't piece the puzzle together.

My point here is, it is unlikely, but there is a slight possibility, as admitted by her geneticist, that a vaccine triggered her condition to activate. Knowing her condition is genetic also means that our son could have it. We didn't know of her condition until she was almost 2 1/2 years old (our son was 6 months old when she was diagnosed), but based on the chemicals in these vaccines, such as formaldehyde and even aborted fetal tissue, we didn't feel it was right to inject our daughter any further, nor inject our son at all. We made the decision not to vaccinate before he was born based on the chemicals and ingredients in the vaccines.

Anyway, feel free to flame based on my decisions. I just don't feel comfortable with vaccines, is all.

As for the h1n1, because of the field I am in, I have no choice but to get it to protect my clients, but I will not get it in pregnancy because the effects on the developing fetus are not yet known. For all we know, 20 years from now, unborn babies whose mothers had the vaccine during pregnancy may carry a rare condition or gene that is related to the h1n1, kind of like that anti-miscarriage drug from the 60's...it seemed great at the time, but female fetuses were born with infertility issues, you know?

Just not something I'm comfortable with risking.

 

[lisaf]

I'd just like to clarify that they do not put aborted fetal tissue in vaccines.
"The rubella vaccine virus is cultured in human cell-line cultures, and some of these cell lines originated from aborted fetal tissue, obtained from legal abortions in the 1960's. No new fetal tissue is needed to produce cell lines to make these vaccines, now or in the future. Fetal tissue is not used to produce vaccines; cell lines generated from a single fetal tissue source are used; vaccine manufacturers obtain human cell lines from FDA-certified cell banks. After processing, very little, if any, of that tissue remains in the vaccine."

That may be too close for comfort for some people, but who likes to know what's in their hot dogs?


Brandi - I understand a parent's concerns especially if their child is showing a suspected reaction to a vaccine, especially a serious/not temporary one like autism.
I am afraid though, that if the vaccines do not cause any of these issues that people are afraid of, then people are exposing their children to unneccesary risks and possibly making them suffer more, you know?
It is actually ok when a few parents choose not to vaccinate, but the more who choose not to, the higher the risk to the whole population.

 

[PeanutBean]

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.

 

[BrandiCanucks]

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.

 

[lisaf]

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 agree about that especially for things like chicken pox. But there are some diseases that are riskier than the vaccine and I'd rather take the risk with the vaccine.
There are also illnesses that smaller children will die from that an older child won't... so vaccinating your older children can protect the younger one at home etc. (As discussed pages back, my sister died of a disease that my brother had survived when he was 6 months older than her or so... it wasn't a contagious disease but it has shaped my opinion about vaccinations).