Childhood vaccinations...
Ok, I haven't really thought about it, but I probably should. What does everyone think about them, and what does RESEARCH say about them? I know this sounds stupid, but I really don't have much time to do a whole lot of research and I think I really should know about these things. Alright...any comments or anything (besides debating) that needs
( Read more... )
Care to give a cite? There's a handful of vaccines out there that have incredibly small residual amounts from storage and processing, but not in concentrations that pose any credible risk.
And please don't lump all heavy metals together. Iron is a heavy metal, afterall.
I find it hard to believe that pregnant women are told to limit their consumption of certain fish (including tuna) during pregnancy because mercury is harmful to the baby, but then we turn around hours after birth and intentionally put mercury in their small bodies.
The key word here is limit - not eliminate. Even prior to the removal of thimersol from most vaccines, the amount of mercury was well below the established limits of the WHO and FDA. Further studies following infants through the vaccination cycle confirmed that blood mercury concentrations never reached dangerous levels.
It's worth further noting that the limits based on fish consumption were done with chronic exposure to methylmercury in mind. Aside from vaccinations not qualifying as chronic exposure, thimersol contains ethylmercury, which is excreted more easily and thus doesn't accumulate as readily.
Along with these metals and other "preservatives" that have been added to make vaccines "shelf stable"... the number of childhood cancers diagnosed has increased exponentially as more and more vaccines have become mandatory.
First off, cite? And second, correlation does NOT equal causation. If childhood cancer is on the rise, there are an incredible number of other correlations. Maybe television causes cancer, for example, since average television viewing among children has also been increasing exponentially during the same time period.
There is now research that says the vaccines a child received before cancer treatment are no longer viable after treatment - so the cycle starts all over again
Again, cite? Even if it's true that cancer treatments counteract certain vaccinations, that says nothing as to whether vaccinations are good or bad.
Most of these diseases were about gone (measles, mumps, etc) until mandatory vaccinations were instituted.
Quite the opposite, most laws mandating vaccination have been made in the wake of epidemics, or upon reviewing significantly lower incidence rates in states that had already started enforcing them.
To date, most cases of these diseases start with a child who WAS vaccinated getting the disease and then in spreads throughout other people - vaccinated and non-vaxed. These viruses are not "wild" any more.
No, most are "imported" from countries where vaccination isn't required. Many of these diseases are definitely still in the "wild" elsewhere in the world and vaccination is what prevents them from becoming prevelant again.
The closest thing to an exception is polio, which widespread vaccination has been completely eliminated with the exception of four countries.
Even then there are still "wild" cases of measles and mumps being reported, mostly in populations religiously opposed or too old to have been immunized as children. There were two cases of measles in Minnesota just last month, including a teacher and a bus driver. Given how many people they come in contact in a day and how infectious the disease is, it could have quickly become an epidemic.
Chicken pox is WAY more dangerous for an adult (read: child vaccinated who doesn't get a booster later in life) to get the illness than it is for a child
It's also more dangerous for infants. And adults who were never vaccinated as children and never got it.
A child treated with calamine lotion, oatmeal baths, and lots of love, care, and fluids will not only get over it quickly (within about a week), but will also have lifetime immunity.
They also have a 10-20% chance of developing shingles in their lifetime, because the disease is just dormant.
Reply
Alright...any comments or anything (besides debating) that needs to be said, please leave it!
I'm not here to try and sway anyone's opinions - and I even said in my orriginal post that it is a decision that every parent has to research and make for themselves. I've done my research, presented it and my sites to my doctor, and she has said that I have valid points and agreed with our decision to not vaccinate for the time being. And, no, before you ask, she's not some hocus-pocus witch doctor... she's a regular ol' MD who does family practice and vaccinates at least 90% of her patients.
I do have information readily available on most of those concerns - including a press release from the Associated Press within the last year stating Merck lied and did NOT remove thimerisol from all it's vaxes as they said they had - if you really are interested... but somehow I don't think you are. I just came here to answer Nea's "plea" for info on what we are doing - not to tell her what to do and not to get into a debate with someone I don't even know... especially when she asked for no debates.
Reply
(And I am familiar with the Merck case. Regardless of whether you think their 1999 press release was misleading or not, the last of the thimersol produced stock expired in 2002, so it's not a current concern.)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment