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.
I do remember I got measles at school after the vaccination, had to stay home but there was not an outbreak. I just reacted to the vaccine and got the actual disease. The worse is when you get the old timers version called shingles. I hope I do not ever get that.
IMO a lot of these strange diseases could well be as a result of the many nuke tests of the 50s when folk were ignorant of the effects of fallout. These huge plumes pushed the radioactive crap into the upper atmosphere and it spread globally by the jet streams.
Many years ago I came across an article of tests being conducted on lab rats with radiation particles and also cigarette smoke. Somehow the critters from one lab escaped and it turned out the smoking rats were unaffected by the radiation particles. Apparently this was at the time when folk were looking for the higher incidences of lung cancer, cigarettes became the scapegoat with false images of dead coal miner's lungs. The writer said the inhalation of one radioactive particle was an inevitable death sentence as like asbestos, it cannot be exhaled.
I would give credence to this "conspiracy" as if tobacco was so bad, by now they would have been outlawed. Even MJ has less bad effects and yet it remains mostly banned, many know of the medicinal benefits.
I am 55 and started smoking at 8. Scans of my lungs by x-ray and cat scan showed a clean bill of health and even the specialist did not believe I had been smoking that long. He showed me a comparative x-ray and scan of an older person who had lung cancer. That was about 20 years ago at which time I had been smoking 2/3rds of my life. Recent tests also show me relatively OK apart from high BP which my parents had w/o smoking.
Apparently, the coating of the smoke in the lungs prevents adhesion of these particles so they are exhaled.
These days with modern pollution it is pretty hard to ascertain what the carcinogens may be. I have been a 20 a day for most of my smoking life. My mother died of lung cancer having never smoked one cigarette her entire life.
Smoking is obviously not good for you as it is not really natural nor logical, neither are a lot of things we put in our mouths. The point is that everyone accepts the findings concerning smoking (and other things) yet the irony is that as bad as it is supposed to be, you can buy them legally and everywhere.
We found out about asbestosis and that building material was removed from the market or came under very stringent legislation. There are alternative building and insulation materials now being used.
I do remember I got measles at school after the vaccination, had to stay home but there was not an outbreak. I just reacted to the vaccine and got the actual disease. The worse is when you get the old timers version called shingles. I hope I do not ever get that.
IMO a lot of these strange diseases could well be as a result of the many nuke tests of the 50s when folk were ignorant of the effects of fallout. These huge plumes pushed the radioactive crap into the upper atmosphere and it spread globally by the jet streams.
Many years ago I came across an article of tests being conducted on lab rats with radiation particles and also cigarette smoke. Somehow the critters from one lab escaped and it turned out the smoking rats were unaffected by the radiation particles. Apparently this was at the time when folk were looking for the higher incidences of lung cancer, cigarettes became the scapegoat with false images of dead coal miner's lungs. The writer said the inhalation of one radioactive particle was an inevitable death sentence as like asbestos, it cannot be exhaled.
I would give credence to this "conspiracy" as if tobacco was so bad, by now they would have been outlawed. Even MJ has less bad effects and yet it remains mostly banned, many know of the medicinal benefits.
I am 55 and started smoking at 8. Scans of my lungs by x-ray and cat scan showed a clean bill of health and even the specialist did not believe I had been smoking that long. He showed me a comparative x-ray and scan of an older person who had lung cancer. That was about 20 years ago at which time I had been smoking 2/3rds of my life. Recent tests also show me relatively OK apart from high BP which my parents had w/o smoking.
Apparently, the coating of the smoke in the lungs prevents adhesion of these particles so they are exhaled.
These days with modern pollution it is pretty hard to ascertain what the carcinogens may be. I have been a 20 a day for most of my smoking life. My mother died of lung cancer having never smoked one cigarette her entire life.
Smoking is obviously not good for you as it is not really natural nor logical, neither are a lot of things we put in our mouths. The point is that everyone accepts the findings concerning smoking (and other things) yet the irony is that as bad as it is supposed to be, you can buy them legally and everywhere.
We found out about asbestosis and that building material was removed from the market or came under very stringent legislation. There are alternative building and insulation materials now being used.
With studies linking autism to mercury used in vaccinations, do you blame her? Whatever means she can use to get her ends.
If you're saying the problem is that she is not religious, I see it every day in "religious" people who do what they want, are as mean, hateful and judgmental as they want to be and claim they are saved.
At least this woman admits it.
Yes, I do blame her (or more likely, the internet conspiracy nuts who spread these stories).
There is NO, I repeat NO evidence that vaccines cause autism and there is evidence that those who do not vaccinate their children are harming them by allowing them to be exposed to harmful diseases.
It all started with bad science. The now-debunked theory that autism is caused by the common immunizations nearly all children receive beginning in infancy began with a fabricated piece of research, a 1998 study published—and later retracted—in the journal Lancet. In 2010, Great Britain stripped Andrew Wakefield, the lead author of the study, of his medical license. An investigation had deemed his research an elaborate fraud.
But in those dozen years, fear of lifesaving immunizations took hold of millions of parents. Jenny McCarthy—former Playmate of the year, model, actress, and soon-to-be cohost of the television show The View—fueled parental fears. She built a movement around the flawed theory. McCarthy, who has an autistic son, wrote Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism, correlating the increase in childhood vaccinations with the rise in autism worldwide.
"She is absolutely entitled to her opinion, but to say that it's fact when it's not fact is just wrong," says Glenn Braunstein, vice president of clinical innovation at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. "It's one step down from yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire. It's fear-mongering."
And lest you think that measles is not serious, please remember that:
Measles is highly contagious. Infected people are usually contagious from about 4 days before their rash starts to 4 days afterwards.
Measles itself is unpleasant, but the complications are dangerous. Six to 20 percent of the people who get the disease will get an ear infection, diarrhea, or even pneumonia. One out of 1000 people with measles will develop inflammation of the brain, and about one out of 1000 will die.
Firstly the "studies" that implicate the "mercury" in vaccines causing autism were done by a "doctor" in the UK..his name is WAkefield..sorry cannot remember his first name..but google Wakefield and vaccines and you should find it..
Wakefield's *study* did not have anything to do with thimerosol and mercury. His *study* involved the MMR vaccine and yes, it has been discredited. Andrew Wakefield is a fraud.
The British Medical Journal has declared that the research was not simply bad science, as has been known for years, but a deliberate fraud.
The study, led by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, was published in The Lancet in 1998. It was based on just 12 children with supposedly autismlike disorders and purported to find a link between the vaccine, the gastrointestinal problems found in many autistic children, and autism.
As for mercury and thimerosol, there have been scientific studies that debunk this myth as well.
Objective: Exposure to thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative that is used in vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations, has been hypothesized to be associated with increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This study was designed to examine relationships between prenatal and infant ethylmercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines and/or immunoglobulin preparations and ASD and 2 ASD subcategories: autistic disorder (AD) and ASD with regression.
Methods: A case-control study was conducted in 3 managed care organizations (MCOs) of 256 children with ASD and 752 controls matched by birth year, gender, and MCO. ASD diagnoses were validated through standardized in-person evaluations. Exposure to thimerosal in vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was determined from electronic immunization registries, medical charts, and parent interviews. Information on potential confounding factors was obtained from the interviews and medical charts. We used conditional logistic regression to assess associations between ASD, AD, and ASD with regression and exposure to ethylmercury during prenatal, birth-to-1 month, birth-to-7-month, and birth-to-20-month periods.
Results: There were no findings of increased risk for any of the 3 ASD outcomes. The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for ASD associated with a 2-SD increase in ethylmercury exposure were 1.12 (0.83–1.51) for prenatal exposure, 0.88 (0.62–1.26) for exposure from birth to 1 month, 0.60 (0.36–0.99) for exposure from birth to 7 months, and 0.60 (0.32–0.97) for exposure from birth to 20 months.
Wakefield's *study* did not have anything to do with thimerosol and mercury. His *study* involved the MMR vaccine and yes, it has been discredited. Andrew Wakefield is a fraud.
Its human nature for people to try to make sense of things (or render them [un]fair) that are random and senseless. Therefore you won't be able to convince some people that there isn't some kind of big pharma cover-up involved.
Sometimes it's hard to discern fact from fiction. An allegedly promising new drug, Ampligen, was salvaging a lot of people with severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis back in the 80's in its stage 1 trials, promising enough that one of the big pharma companies partnered with the small upstart who had developed the drug, to have clinical trials. But the drug was unstable, and for whatever reasons -- bureaucratic bungling or a pointy-haired boss insistence that the drug had to work with standard methods of dispensal -- the big partner ignored instructions to use only glass IV bottles to distribute the drug intravenously. The big pharma company didn't like the results and abandoned the trials; the small company claimed their drug had interacted with the plastic IV bottles and was rendered largely inert. As far as I know the drug never saw the light of day, for lack of resources and $$ to bring it to market. Stories like this play out all the time, where we'll never know the facts because the disease doesn't impact enough people to make big $$ for big pharma.
I'm not saying the autism folks are right, they are most likely wrong ... but I understand the impulse and some of the reasons to suspect the science has been corrupted by corporate greed. IF (e.g.) Thimerosal WERE a contributing factor to autism spectrum disorder in a small number of cases, they COULD PLAUSIBLY dismiss it by manipulating people's grant money and such -- figuring that it was the less costly of the routes to go. It's not like researchers aren't human, and can't fear funding cutoffs if they don't color their conclusions in the desired fashion.
Personally I've decided to gamble that vaccines are safe, except that I strive not to get a bunch of them at once, preferring to spread them out so that the immune system isn't overwhelmed with several faux infections at once -- and minimizing any risk from preservatives. This seems like a rational compromise to me.
The only problem is there are no studies that actually link autism to vaccines....
FYI...there are PLENTY of studies showing the link, not only to autism, but other harmful disorders including DEATH...they are just not published in this country. The pharmaceutical companies would never allow that!!! When independent studies ARE done in this country...the pharmaceutical industry does their best to discredit those doctors to make them seem like they are crazy...so they never get published here.
You need to research it thoroughly before you make a statement like that. Just saying...
The anti vaccination movement relies on anecdotes, not empirical evidence. The truth is that the benefits of being vaccinated outweigh the risks. Not getting your child vaccinated actively puts them at risk of getting sick. Because of vaccinations, major diseases like measles and smallpox have been greatly reduced. It's pure folly to not get your child vaccinated.
BOSTON - Sabrina Rahim doesn't practice any particular faith, but she had no problem signing a letter declaring that because of her deeply held religious beliefs, her 4-year-old son should be exempt from the vaccinations required to enter preschool.
Parents use religion to avoid vaccines (OneNewsNow.com) (broken link)
She's a smart woman...good for her...whatever it takes.
The anti vaccination movement relies on anecdotes, not empirical evidence. The truth is that the benefits of being vaccinated outweigh the risks. Not getting your child vaccinated actively puts them at risk of getting sick. Because of vaccinations, major diseases like measles and smallpox have been greatly reduced. It's pure folly to not get your child vaccinated.
There are no "benefits" to being vaccinated. What happens to kids, whose immune systems are just forming, when they are bombarded with all the vaccines on the current schedule, is that their innate immunity is inhibited and thus doesn't form properly as it should. All of these vaccines are actually detrimental to their new immune systems. Our bodies are fully equipped to handle any pathogens they encounter...it we allow them to.
Making a blanket statement that vaccines have eradicated any disease is silly...if you understand the times when those diseases were prevalent and the living conditions that allowed them to spread. It is our better understanding of how they spread and our living conditions that have eradicated them.
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.
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.
