This thread is making me very nervous =\
I am pregnant with my first... so I'm getting pretty scared about all this vaccine talk.... It's like, what if I don't get them vaccinated, and they get really sick.... how will I ever forgive myself? And vice-versa.... I'm stressing out
Go through all the links and read and research, they are really helpful. You have to make your own decision for you child, just make sure it is an informed decision. I can not be anymore helpful then that as I am only just looking into it all myself.
Good luck with it all :)
there is no reason to stress out lauren.
you have plenty of time to make your decision.
one doesn't get sick because they aren't vaccinated. :D
you only get sick if your immune system is compromised.
the problem is that most doctors will tell you that people get sick if they aren't immunized, but that's because most doctors don't do much more that regurgitate what they are fed by big pharma (and sometimes the feeding is very generous too!)
you can counter this sort of thing much in the same way as is done in court - bring in your own expert witness.
my father was a prominent medical doctor, so when he freaked out after we told him no one was going to vaccinate our son, i knew he wasn't going to listen me (i was supposed to have followed in his footsteps but chose to be a major disappointment :D). therefore, i just brought in another doctor (full-fledged MD too - dr cridland who ended up taking over dr mcdougall's practice) who knew vaccination was really goofy.
doing this should be a lot easier now than it was 22 years ago. there are a lot more medical people who oppose vaccination despite big pharma propaganda.
so don't get nervous! get active and find some ammo!
you'll feel better and your child will be better!
Okay thanks, that makes feel a bit better. I'll definitely be doing some research, that goes without saying. I just know that a lot of people will be telling me to get my baby/babies vaccinated. I hate feeling pressured =(
I was actually looking at the vaccine ingredients the other night, and it disgusted me. I don't want that junk inside me or my baby. But those scare tactics they use in articles like this, do sadly work on me a bit. The only thing I care about is having a healthy, strong family. Scares me to death they could get sick or something.
And there IS research which shows correlation - but not causation - of vaccines and autism. Autism isn't fully understood, which is why it is referred to as a spectrum. There might be many causes, but we know it is auto-immune related, just like asthma and allergies, and MS, and a whole host of other "illnesses".
Think about the body's response to mercury/formaldehyde/fetal lamb cells/etc being injected into muscle tissue: this is not how we would acquire disease. After this type of injection, the body will attack itself - thus, auto-immune disorders manifest themselves. I've simplified the process here a bit, but that's the idea.
I also dislike being pressured - even my forward-thinking vegan liberal friends don't understand, and they think I'm putting my child at risk. But average people already think that my child is at risk because I don't drink cow's milk [makes for larger babies!] nor do I eat meat for iron [excess protein is not good for pregnancy!] and so on. I'm getting used to being the exception to the American norm :/ But now I get to be a fierce protector of my kid - be it avoiding junk food, or junk entertainment, or violence, or Big Pharma.
Last thing to consider - delay the vaccines. A newborn baby does not need formaldehyde and heavy metals in his/her brand new muscle tissue. They need their mom. They need unregulated breastmilk, cosleeping and baby-wearing, skin-to-skin contact, and love. They should not be around caregivers who are sniffling or coughing or are obviously unwell. Your immunity protects the baby in ways we don't fully understand, but we know it works. So give the baby a chance to develop strong immunity on his own, and do some more research :)
excellent points lolita!!
I would be interested to see that research. Correlation you say? There's more people out there that don't have Autism than people that do, so why do only some people who are vaccinated get Autism? That leads me to believe it has nothing to do with the vaccinations? What about all the people who don't get it, aka the majority? How can you say there is a correlation then? You're also making the assumption that people who aren't vaccinated won't get it. That seems extremely unplausible. Obviously I'm not a doctor. Maybe it just goes beyond my understanding.
Correlation you say? There's more people out there that don't have Autism than people that do, so why do only some people who are vaccinated get Autism?
correlation is a measure of how well two variables 'track' in the same direction. it isn't so much a 'majority/minority' matter (like voting) as a 'good/poor' lineup (is correlation real or by chance?).
here is dr campbell's article that illustrates the idea of correlation:
below are a list of sites you may want to look at for starters since the info is more recent than the earlier references i presented:
This video was filmed at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccinations in Reston, Virginia, October 2009. It highlights the concerns, opinions, and advice of physicians, reaserchers, and health professionals about the risks and dangers of vaccination and the options.
at least one of these sites has a 'vaccine autism proven' article, but i haven't checked to see how scientific it is. some of them read like conspiracy plots (which may well be true), but some of them seem to present substantial evidence. i haven't seen the video either, but thought i'd throw it in because it seemed to be from a legit conference (though they don't seem to know how to spell researchers).
all this is on short notice though so i can't vouch for any of them personally since i haven't checked them out. the vaccination issue is not one i bother with anymore (and haven't since the early 90s simply because our research at that time trashed it). however, i appreciate it is extremely important for many of you on this thread, so hopefully those who have better info and knowledge (like yogaranka, ednshell, lolita and others here) will present it.
good researching to all of you!
None of those links provide any real research or evidence that I could find.
Which I expected since they are all just articles written by god knows who. Like you said, it sounds like conspiracy theories.
I took the liberty of jotting down names and researching each person individually though, including from the video. Most, I couldn't find any real information on or anything that linked to any studies.
The two main people I could find info on were Andrew Wakefield and Arthur Krigsman, who did "studies" that were later found to be fraudulent.
The only Dr who I was inclined to listen to was Russel Blaylock.
I also found this website myself, which I think you should read. It refers to the two studies done by Wakefield and what the flaws were, and it also lists 4 studies that refute the conspiracy theory of MMR causing Autism.
Also this, but I don't know how credible it is, or who wrote it. BUT it does provide a lot of names and references you could look into a little deeper.
The two main people I could find info on were Andrew Wakefield and Arthur Krigsman, who did "studies" that were later found to be fraudulent.
So you stopped watching the news and reading the articles after it was found fraudulent. Read past that. Many of the claims against Wakefield were either misleading or false. Smear campaigns can be very convincing.
Please note that these articles may be just as much if not more biased than any article I might find that are against Wakefield. Look at the terminology used in some articles - "anti-vaccine quacks" etc. Just going to show that it's nearly impossible to determine if anyone actually did anything wrong; if it's a smear campaign or Wakefield really was a fraud. From the material that I have read, it appears that it was a smear campaign and Wakefield really did nothing wrong, but I first read the material that was widely available on mainstream news and from people that make money off of vaccines, and it was quite "clear" to me that Wakefield was a fraud. The interview is fairly informative, although I could say "It's OBVIOUS that Wakefield is lying about everything, since I am arbitrarily choosing to believe Brian Deer rather than Wakefield, for no reason other than it's subconsciously more exciting to piss on someone."
Now, the people that say "vaccines don't cause autism, that's been debunked" are, without realizing it, using the same reasoning that people use to say "BPA doesn't cause cancer, no strong link has been established." There are many sources of toxins that contribute to autism, cancer, etc; however there is no one substance that is in mainstream use that SINGLEHANDEDLY causes any particular disease. So we have "weak" links between thousands of chemicals and diseases, so people can say "lol this doesn't cause that, wakefield was debunked, don't you read mainstream news and nothing else?" Many studies "refute" these links simply because the link between any one substance and any one disease is small enough not to be significant. So if you are looking for scientific studies that say single toxic chemicals don't cause single diseases that have skyrocketed in recent years, your search will be very easy. So we can keep injecting aluminum and/or mercury into our infants' arms, 8-9 shots in one sitting, no problem, the scientific studies said this wasn't significantly linked to this or that.
Vaccines are dangerous for many reasons and that has been well-documented. Vaccines are not effective and virus/germ theory was completely "debunked" (I hate using that word) by Koch's four self-evident postulates, but we still act like we need chemicals to protect us from "viruses" and "diseases." Read some Natural Hygiene texts and this will become apparent to you.
If you read mainstream news articles and journal articles published in journals funded by the AMA and ADA and who knows what other groups, you will only get so far in your understanding - about as far as most Americans are right now.
A smear campaign indeed! Who has their heart in the right place? A researcher not making much money and getting harassed for his findings or a big corporation who is making billions off of vaccines?
Here is an update on Andrew Wakefield:
By Richard Moore
Speaking in an exclusive interview with Richard Moore on the American Investigator and for The Lakeland Times, internationally renowned and controversial autism researcher Dr. Andrew Wakefield says recently announced numbers on the prevalence of autism – which showed a two-year spike from one in 110 children diagnosed with ASD to one in 88 – are likely understated and by a dramatic order.
Hear the entire interview on the American Investigator podcast at www.rmmoore1.com at 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, April 17, 2012. The entire podcast will be devoted to the issue of autism. In addition, the interview will appear in Friday’s edition of The Lakeland Times (www.lakelandtimes.com).
“The CDC data (that children born in 2000 have a one in 88 risk of autism) is actually out of date,” Wakefield said. “If you extrapolate that risk of developing autism to a child born today, you may be looking at something as high as 1 in 25 or 1 in 29. That's an absolutely staggering level.”
Wakefield was referring to the fact that the new CDC numbers were based on 2008 data of eight year olds diagnosed with autism. Thus the numbers reflect the risk of autism for children born in 2000; because the numbers have continuously escalated, children born in 2012 are likely at much higher risk.
In the interview, Wakefield reiterated his belief that the autism epidemic is environmental, and vaccines are a prime culprit.
"You do not have a genetic epidemic,” he said. “The cause is environmental. Yes, the cause is complex, too, but the way you unravel a complex mystery is to listen to the parents' narrative. What actually happened to the child? This is where medicine begins. This is where the clues come from. And when we were working on this back in (England in) 1995, the parents told the story that their normally developing children regressed after a vaccine.”
Wakefield also offered concerned parents some important advice.
"Challenge your doctors,” Wakefield said. “Don't just say it’s OK because my doctor says so. Say, 'OK, could you tell me the science upon which you base your opinion that the current vaccine schedule is entirely safe?’”
Finally, Wakefield discusses the loss of his medical license in England because of his groundbreaking 1998 paper that found bowel disease in children with autism and raised concerns about the safety of the MMR vaccine. His co-author has now been exonerated and his medical license returned; Wakefield left Britain for the U.S. but is now suing the pharmaceutical-connected British Medical Journal for libel.
After the interview, Richard debunks current studies by the “scientific establishment” – all of them funded by pharmaceutical companies – and points to new studies confirming an environmental link. He will offer those concerned about the epidemic a wide variety of web resources to consult. Those links will be posted on the website.
i'm glad you looked into all this deeper because that's a good attitude to have. i certainly had the same attitude 22 years ago.
from the links you've found, several people have been discredited on the 'vaccination causes X' issue on various grounds. i think that is significant to a certain extent.
however, even the medical profession will acknowledge that vaccines aren't 100% safe. their argument is that the risks of not getting vaccinated outweigh the risks of getting vaccinated. i don't find that to be a good argument because it assumes the body's internal mechanisms are helpless without prior medical intervention. it is also very small consolation to those who have been damaged before they even get a fighting chance.
couple that with the repeatedly demonstrated self-serving approach of the pharma and medical industries (and that i can get you plenty of researched evidence of in various areas such as diet, animal experimentation, etc), i don't see substantial grounds on which to trust:
a) doctors (particularly gps)
b) the industry (which is very different from the days of housecalls)
c) even the research which is often sponsored and even fabricated by vested interest groups admittedly on both sides - though there is usually more money on one than the other side ;)
d) iatrogenic issues are rampant
i realize the above is not a direct argument regarding the issue at hand and i by no means do the 'do it all naturally' dance (in fact, i have a post about this here: natural = good?), but since i have no direct interest in this matter (specifically, i'm not willing to make the time to examine and evaluate the recent literature), i am unable to argue beyond what i recall from my earlier investigations.
however, there seem to be others here who are willing to address your points (i think peter, for instance, above brings out some significant points), so i leave it up to them.