U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Does anyone still think vaccines are Kryptonite?
Yes 4 30.77%
No 6 46.15%
Unsure 3 23.08%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-07-2011, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Austin
453 posts, read 342,750 times
Reputation: 213

Advertisements

Less than a year ago, the urban legend about vaccines causing autism has been debunked. Andrew Wakefield - the doctor responsible for this propaganda - had his license revoked. It was unveiled that he falsified his research, and he was on the payroll of a law firm that represented a large insurance company. In other words, childhood diseases that could be prevented from vaccinations would all require insurance for the treatment. In other words, he got busted because he wrote out a check he couldn't cash.

Then it was later revealed Jenny McCarthy's son doesn't have autism but rather Landau-Kleffner Syndrome. She claimed she "cured" her son who never had it period. Nonetheless, she's written several books about her whole agenda and driven a wedge into the autism community. Thanks to her and Wakefield, several parents are terrified of vaccinating their children, and the mumps, measles, rubella, polio, and other childhood illnesses have come back with a vengeance.

I'm certain all this was to massage her fat ego and restore her image because she didn't want to be remembered as extra reading material for oversexed men and boys. Her seedy TV show and relationship with Jim Carrey weren't good enough, so she had to bring it up a notch. Anyone who thinks some Playboy bunny and debonair huckster are experts has serious issues. As a person with Asperger's, I find this quite offensive, too. They're no better than Denis Leary and Michael Savage who made disparaging remarks about autism.

Vaccines and mercury poisoning are nothing more than urban legends. People used to tell my mother drinking coffee would stunt her growth when she was little. Some would say watching too much TV would cause brain cancer. I've drunk plenty of coffee and watched lots of TV. I'm taller than both of my parents, and I don't have brain cancer. Others suggested eating Pop Rocks and drinking soft drinks would cause my entrails to explode. I've done that numerous times, and they're all still intact. Because I'm left-handed, I supposedly have a shorter life expectancy because I'm more likely to be killed or injured on the job. I know how to use can openers, paper cutters, table saws, round saws, and chainsaws though they're made for right-handed people. Just because my left hand is the dominant one doesn't mean my right hand is useless.

All things considered, Andrew Wakefield is now getting sued by the British government for fraud. Many parents on Facebook and I have had heated arguments over this issue. They think I'm Beelzebub because I didn't buy into this hogwash. I've tried the GFCF diet three times, and it didn't turn me into a neurotypical the way Popeye becomes a heavy-hitting superhero every time he eats his spinach. My Asperger's is an anomaly, and I've chosen to accept it. If that's too much for people to swallow, than I have no use for folks with that mindset. Does anyone still think vaccines are Kryptonite?

 
Old 01-07-2011, 12:21 PM
 
3,627 posts, read 12,410,667 times
Reputation: 2682
Austism and vaccines were one of many concerns. There are still other concerns about the relative levels of protection from disease vs immunization and other ilness caused by immunications.

My own case of German Measles in 1960 has still left me with a high titer of antibodies yet I know some who were immunized have to be re-immunized. (I had to get titred to avoid having to take an immunization to take some college classes a few years ago - and that immunization is one that is not good to do if you have already had the disease.

There are certainly serious life threatening diseases (German Measles was only bad IF you were pregnant at the time) that may be good for immunization (e.g., smallpox was given to all when I was a kid but is not now needed) and others such as chickenpox and german measles that are only dangerous to a small population...........so what is the risk / benefit. WHat is the overall impact on the immune system? I managed to surve German Measles, Measles, Mumps, Chicken pox, Scarletina, and Fifth without any long lasting negative impacts - now measles were/are bad and are a scary disease that can kill (and not just in oddball cases), the rest were minor ..........In my day we got shots only for Diptheria, Pertussis, Whooping cough, Polio (oral), and tetanus.

Yes, I was a biochemsitry major in college and it was not just granola eating back to earth types who had concerns about immunizations.....this finding does not eliminate caution on the mass immunization of children for everything under the sun. Also, what about breast fed babies? Mine were breastfed for a year and got to share in my own immunities - I put off their immunzations then staggered them out so they were not overhwhelmed with shots at any one time.
 
Old 01-07-2011, 06:46 PM
ino
 
Location: Way beyond the black stump.
680 posts, read 2,132,154 times
Reputation: 1020
I'm not against vaccinations as such, but I must take into consideration the number of vaccines that seem to proliferate in todays society. If I were young again, and had kids again, there is no way I would be lining them up for all those vaccinations that are pushed by particular interests using scare tactics. We will effectively have our natural immune systems, or developing immune systems wiped out by vaccinations {opinion using logic} making us as a species more and more dependant of artificial 'protection?' for our survival.

I don't believe *anyone* actually knows what will result in the human immune system if it's continually bombarded with a multitude of vaccinations at an early age. The body *must* be allowed to develop a degree of it's own immune system. I believe the number of vaccinations people are exposing their tots to is ill advised...regardless of the media hype.

The mainstream supporters of all and sundry vaccinations for most everything is fine, that's their persoanl choice and I agree with some vaccinations, but *nobody* and *no studies* will convince me that the number of vaccinations available today are healthy in the long term...simply because nobody actually knows. Why would pharma be exempt from any comeback from the general public should something go wrong when most everyone else can be sued or whatever for picking their nose, or something equally stupid.

If most of the population can be held 'liable' for something, and yet 'alternative' therapies or practitioners must produce reems of paper with years of 'evidence' of 'efficacy' and 'safety' of their products or procedures, then how come pharma gets a piece of paper with a signature stating they are totally exempt within a very short comparitive time frame? Something smells decidedly off to me?

And like the previous poster, I survived the ailments associated with childhood, and some of those in adulthood if it comes to that, so what's with the bugs of today? Have they been laboratory twisted into something else? Are they producing some Frankenstein bugs that stand alone or mix with others? Of course, we all know the answer to those questions, so trace it back to it's source or origin and fix it there, not fill oneself up with a multitude of *who knows what* laboratory concoctions in the name of 'protection?'.

If we are going to survive as a species, we better start taking a much closer look at ourselves and what we do {opinion}.
 
Old 01-07-2011, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,518 posts, read 26,128,168 times
Reputation: 26491
Quote:
Originally Posted by grannynancy View Post
Autism and vaccines were one of many concerns. There are still other concerns about the relative levels of protection from disease vs immunization and other illness caused by immunizations.
Certainly some vaccines may require boosters, but the vaccines do provide lasting immunity for the most part. In researching a response on another vaccine thread, I found a reference to a study in which people who were in their 90s still had protective antibodies from smallpox vaccination. The risks of the vaccine preventable diseases far outweigh theoretical concerns about waning immunity. If we need boosters, we need boosters.


Quote:
There are certainly serious life threatening diseases (German Measles was only bad IF you were pregnant at the time) that may be good for immunization (e.g., smallpox was given to all when I was a kid but is not now needed) and others such as chickenpox and german measles that are only dangerous to a small population...........so what is the risk / benefit. WHat is the overall impact on the immune system? I managed to surve German Measles, Measles, Mumps, Chicken pox, Scarletina, and Fifth without any long lasting negative impacts - now measles were/are bad and are a scary disease that can kill (and not just in oddball cases), the rest were minor ..........In my day we got shots only for Diptheria, Pertussis, Whooping cough, Polio (oral), and tetanus.
I will quibble and remind you that pertussis and whooping cough are the same thing.

The newer vaccines are for illnesses that do have the potential for serious morbidity and mortality. Even chickenpox is not as benign as you might think. It can cause fatalities, and it can cause serious problems for mom and baby during pregnancy, not to mention shingles in us old fogies.

As far as the impact on the immune system is concerned, one natural infection exposes you to more antigens than are in all of the vaccines put together. The idea that too many vaccines is bad for the immune system is a myth.

Vaccines have done more for humanity than any other single medical innovation.

Quote:
Yes, I was a biochemsitry major in college and it was not just granola eating back to earth types who had concerns about immunizations.....this finding does not eliminate caution on the mass immunization of children for everything under the sun. Also, what about breast fed babies? Mine were breastfed for a year and got to share in my own immunities - I put off their immunzations then staggered them out so they were not overhwhelmed with shots at any one time.
Yes, there are antibodies in breast milk, but they primarily protect against infections where the portal of entry is the GI system. See here:

ScienceDirect - Vaccine : Transfer of antibody via mother’s milk

So breast fed infants should be vaccinated on schedule.

It is not possible to "overwhelm" the immune system with vaccines. Part of the testing of vaccines includes making sure than giving the vaccines together will not interfere with one another. If the system were "overwhelmed," then the vaccines would not "take" and cause antibodies to develop.
 
Old 01-07-2011, 08:05 PM
 
Location: Great Plains
25,584 posts, read 30,523,662 times
Reputation: 22713
Concerns with are real. Data shows that the advantages of vaccines have thus far outweighed any risk. It has been shown that vaccines help to overcome many things that years ago were often fatal and are nothing but a distant memory.
 
Old 01-07-2011, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,518 posts, read 26,128,168 times
Reputation: 26491
Quote:
Originally Posted by ino View Post
I'm not against vaccinations as such, but I must take into consideration the number of vaccines that seem to proliferate in todays society. If I were young again, and had kids again, there is no way I would be lining them up for all those vaccinations that are pushed by particular interests using scare tactics. We will effectively have our natural immune systems, or developing immune systems wiped out by vaccinations {opinion using logic} making us as a species more and more dependant of artificial 'protection?' for our survival.
But the vaccines only work if there is a functioning immune system. People who are on immunosuppressive drugs are not given vaccines because they very likely will not produce the protective antibodies that people with normal immune systems will. The vaccines do not alter the immune system they just use it the way it is designed to be used. Using vaccines will not make us "dependent" on them. Stop using them, though, and the diseases come back.

And it is possible to vaccinate diseases into extinction. It's been done with smallpox, and the effort is slowly succeeding with polio, where the biggest obstacles slowing the process are social and political.

I do not believe that scare tactics are used to push vaccines. What the media does with public health recommendations can make them sound scary, say for example with the flu vaccine. All the public health folks are trying to do is to warn us when the risk levels change, as with H1N1.

As I said to grannynancy, the diseases that the newer vaccines protect against may not be as familiar to you as chickenpox, but the are not trivial. They make a lot of children very sick and kill some.


Quote:
I don't believe *anyone* actually knows what will result in the human immune system if it's continually bombarded with a multitude of vaccinations at an early age. The body *must* be allowed to develop a degree of it's own immune system. I believe the number of vaccinations people are exposing their tots to is ill advised...regardless of the media hype.
Again, the immune system receives a much bigger challenge every day from things in the environment --- such as pollen --- than it does from all the vaccines we could ever get in a lifetime. The only reason the vaccines work is because they use the machinery of the immune system. Getting sick from infectious diseases does nothing to make the immune system better or stronger.

Quote:
The mainstream supporters of all and sundry vaccinations for most everything is fine, that's their persoanl choice and I agree with some vaccinations, but *nobody* and *no studies* will convince me that the number of vaccinations available today are healthy in the long term...simply because nobody actually knows. Why would pharma be exempt from any comeback from the general public should something go wrong when most everyone else can be sued or whatever for picking their nose, or something equally stupid.

If most of the population can be held 'liable' for something, and yet 'alternative' therapies or practitioners must produce reems of paper with years of 'evidence' of 'efficacy' and 'safety' of their products or procedures, then how come pharma gets a piece of paper with a signature stating they are totally exempt within a very short comparitive time frame? Something smells decidedly off to me?
Pharmaceutical companies are not immune from being sued. They do have the right to not make vaccines if they do not want to. Faced with the prospect of not having any vaccines because the manufacturers did not want the liability, the vaccine compensation fund was established. So there is a resource for people who have been injured by vaccines.

I do not know what "alternative therapies" you are referring to. I can assure you that drugs, including vaccines, are required to go through extensive testing for safety and efficacy before they are approved. We have all heard horror stories about drugs being pulled off the market after they were approved. The truth is that some of the serious adverse effects do not show up in sufficient numbers until millions of people have used the drug. And the drug companies that try to hide studies that indicate there are problems do end up in the courtroom sooner or later. They do not get "a piece of paper stating they are totally exempt" --- within any time frame.

Quote:
And like the previous poster, I survived the ailments associated with childhood, and some of those in adulthood if it comes to that, so what's with the bugs of today? Have they been laboratory twisted into something else? Are they producing some Frankenstein bugs that stand alone or mix with others?
Bacteria and viruses are living organisms that are capable of evolving due to the stresses they face in their environments, just like all living organisms. No laboratory is required. Unfortunately, humans provide a lot of those stresses. One of the biggest stresses humans apply to bacteria is exposing them to antibiotics. One of the best ways to reduce the number of bacteria that develop resistance to antibiotics is to use antibiotics only when they are really indicated. Please do not ask your doctor for an antibiotic for a cold!!!!

Quote:
Of course, we all know the answer to those questions, so trace it back to it's source or origin and fix it there, not fill oneself up with a multitude of *who knows what* laboratory concoctions in the name of 'protection?'.

If we are going to survive as a species, we better start taking a much closer look at ourselves and what we do {opinion}.
"Tracing it back to its source or origin and fixing it there" is the very essence of the science of epidemiology. Prevent ticks from biting you, and you won't get Lyme disease. Prevent mosquito bites, and you prevent a whole batch of infections. Taking Typhoid Mary out of circulation was effective.

In 1854 in London a cholera outbreak was stopped in London by removing the handle from a water pump in Soho. The source of the epidemic was traced to one person, a child whose infected diaper was rinsed in water that was dumped near the well, contaminating it. Dr. John Snow was the one who figured it out and essentially invented epidemiology. See here for how he did it.

Sept. 8, 1854: Pump Shutdown Stops London Cholera Outbreak | This Day In Tech | Wired.com

When no one could drink water from the cholera contaminated well, the epidemic stopped, but 600 people died.

Vaccines are an important part of epidemiology. With polio for example, the docs go where cases are identified --- track it back to the source --- and fix it there: they immunize everyone they can get their hands on who could come in contact with the infected person. Eventually, the disease dies out because there are no susceptible people for it to spread to.

This will not work for diseases like tetanus, for which the organism is in the soil. Since we cannot wipe out tetanus, we have to keep vaccinating for it.

Vaccines work with the immune system, not in competition with it.
 
Old 01-07-2011, 09:07 PM
 
Location: San Antonio-Westover Hills
6,878 posts, read 17,819,402 times
Reputation: 5139
Andrew Wakefield, as far as I'm concerned, should be taken out in front of a firing squad. That firing squad should consist of real scientists--postdocs and the like--that work for pennies trying to find answers to issues like autism, cancer, and other diseases and disorders.

He is a criminal and should be treated as such. People's kids have died over his judgement calls.
 
Old 01-08-2011, 03:37 AM
 
Location: state of procrastination
3,487 posts, read 6,129,703 times
Reputation: 2883
Yes for me. I mount a gigantic immune response to anything that is injected into me. No for most people.
 
Old 01-08-2011, 04:40 AM
 
3,627 posts, read 12,410,667 times
Reputation: 2682
I must admit, with gorwn kids, I am not as up on it as I once was but do consider that most immunizations bypass the gatekeepers of the immune system (nose, stomach) and are unatturally injected into the bloodstream (well, ok sub-q, not direct but may as well be). Oh gosh - once cell one antibody - I remember such discussions as a biochem major but over time........

No doubt immunizations have done wonderful things but I still have concerns about them being a two edged sword. I also have concerns about the flouride, the estrogenizers in plastics, etc. No doubt we can keep folks alive longer these days but things like asthma, autoimmune diseases. I recall only ONE kid in my class as a youngster having ashtma. Now every other kid has it.
 
Old 01-08-2011, 08:24 AM
 
12,440 posts, read 14,569,865 times
Reputation: 14146
Andrew Wakefield is a genious, and still has the backing of thousands of pathologists, neurologists,scientists,you name it.grannynancy is right when she notes that autoimmune diseases have increased significantly since mass vacinations began.We quadrupled the vaccinations to our infants from what kids had 30 and more years ago. Vaccines do bypass the gatekeepers of the immune system and then wrech havoc inside. Every year at about this time you can bet our ignorant mainstream media will be broadcasting their 2 favorite names, Andrew wakefield and jenny mcCarthy,in the hopes of scaring more people into getting their toxic flu shot.

Last edited by purehuman; 01-08-2011 at 08:42 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top