12 Vaccines Your Child Needs (physician, nurses, reaction, danger)
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.
This raises two very important issues that really need to be addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Me -- I had chickenpox and I'm perfectly healthy. I would rather have the full natural disease to get the broad immune response.
Not everyone is so lucky. Mortality may not be very high with the chicken pox, but the disease can cause some horrific complications. Lesions can develop internally and externally. I have taken care of children in the US with lesions on their corneas and in their trachea, and other areas. Losing your visions is a pretty big deal, don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Same with the influenza, I've never had a flu shot, I've never called in sick to work my whole life. I have not had a flu in a long long time.
Healthy people die from the flu every year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
If you have a working immune system, it's no less effective than a vaccine -- only you get a better immunity. Too many vaccines are not the whole virus or bacteria, they give you immunity against a tiny piece only.
Many healthy people die every day due to vaccine preventable illness. It is a misnomer to presume it is only malnourished, immunocompromised, eldery, or chronically ill who are affected. The potential is there.
Me -- I had chickenpox and I'm perfectly healthy. I would rather have the full natural disease to get the broad immune response. Same with the influenza, I've never had a flu shot, I've never called in sick to work my whole life. I have not had a flu in a long long time.
If you have a working immune system, it's no less effective than a vaccine -- only you get a better immunity. Too many vaccines are not the whole virus or bacteria, they give you immunity against a tiny piece only.
These are the types of fallacies that we are talking about.
You had chickenpox, and you are perfectly healthy --- until you get shingles. Some people who get chickenpox end up in the hospital. A few even die, from such things as pneumonia and superimposed bacterial infections.
In given year, not everyone will catch the flu, even if exposed to it. If you choose not to take the vaccine and do not get sick it really means you just won the flu lottery
The immunity with the vaccine is no less "broad" than the immunity with the wild infection. Some vaccines do need boosters. Why is that a reason not to use them at all? It does not matter whether the whole virus or bacterium is used to make the vaccine. All that is needed is to use the part of the organism that the immune system recognizes. The immune system then attacks the entire organism when it encounters it.
The biggest fallacy is that a normal, healthy immune system is no less effective than a vaccine. That is blatantly untrue. Otherwise, normal, healthy people would never catch infections, and they obviously do.
The difference between a vaccine and a wild infection is that with the vaccine, you do not have to get sick to become immune. To me, that is the "better" immunity.
By your logic, it would be better to get tetanus or rabies than to take the vaccines for those diseases. Of course, the infection with rabies has a near 100% fatality rate and tetanus over 10% mortality even with modern medical care.
Some other not so noticed examples: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/med-errors
Common treatments for mental disorders has changed over the years, as time goes by we change and correct what we once assumed to be enough overwhelming evidence to practice safely on humans. This happens all the time. It's perfectly logical to account for it regarding vaccines.
Truth is vaccine information has been wrong before, and corrected within the last 5 years. When a flu shot is introduced with an effective immunity rate of 70% then reclaimed to only have a 40% immunity rate after years of study, that's noticed. If a whooping cough vaccine was given with a long term immunity quote and years later when cases of whooping cough showed up in the vaccinated and we changed the requirements to early boosters needed, that's noticed.
It doesn't sound perfectly logical. I'm only going to address a portion of your post because you are addressing so much. To start, science is not wrong or right. Science is a method of inquiry. It's not corrected. You study science, so I'm probably covering familiar ground, but if conclusions change they don't change for the already collected data. An expanded data set will expand our understanding and perhaps have alternative application for the members in the expanded set. For example, a drug that makes it to market and ends up being taken off due to side effects doesn't all of a sudden not work for the people in the clinical trials or similar people. Instead, a segment of the population will have a genetic variation that produces a protein that may contribute to a drug-drug interaction, metabolize in a funky way that lends to harmful outcome, or whatever. The majority of the population will be fine with it, but that 10-20% will be in trouble. Off the market it goes. And this is why we are exploring personalized medicine. It's inevitable.
Science is not to be confused with medical errors, which are operational in nature at the hands of humans. Psychiatry, and especially the history of psychiatry, is/was not based on science. Also, as I have been learning, vaccines cannot be compared with meds. I don't know much about vaccines, but I do know about meds (small molecules in particular) and it really is a different animal. I suspect this is why we can all find mountains of evidence about side effects from meds, but not vaccines. The formulations are minimal, there is no particular target. Correct if I'm wrong on this. I just don't think it's valid to throw all of this into one pot. It's more than just apples and oranges here.
As far as what is and isn't noticed. I don't get your point. Of course these things are going to be noticed and most likely they will be noticed by epidemiologists and scientists. I don't know why vaccines lose immunity and I cannot find a credible site to learn about this so I would appreciate it if you could link something.
Aww you're cute by trying to scare with pictures. The thing with those pictures is that they likely arent of civilized modern societies. The cases of polio that are introduced now are either from people bringing it back from 3rd world countries or... wait for it... the vaccine itself!!
No, they aren't. The Amish have had a number of polio cases, and they were caused by neither of those reasons.
Some of those vaccines I would consider very important, but some of them I would consider unnecessary.
Nobody, especially kids, NEEDS 12 (!!) chemicals pumped into their bodies. Some vaccines are important but I highly doubt all 12 of these are needed, just maybe 1 or 2.
Who WANTS to get chicken pox? The Japanese must think Americans are crazy; they've been using the vaccine for 25 years now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
These are the types of fallacies that we are talking about.
You had chickenpox, and you are perfectly healthy --- until you get shingles. Some people who get chickenpox end up in the hospital. A few even die, from such things as pneumonia and superimposed bacterial infections.
Chickenpox is much more dangerous than some people realize. Especially as one gets older. And, Shingles is no joke! I'd definitely prefer my kids catch the common cold rather than contract the chickenpox "naturally." I'd do the vaccination for sure. And, I HAD the chickenpox as a child. It wasn't fun.
Nobody, especially kids, NEEDS 12 (!!) chemicals pumped into their bodies. Some vaccines are important but I highly doubt all 12 of these are needed, just maybe 1 or 2.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has issued recommendations for the number of vaccines that children should be given. These recommendations are based on voluminous scientific studies and research by the best facilities in this country.
You make the bald statement that "maybe just 1 or 2" vaccines are really needed. Really? Where do you get your information? Why should anyone believe an unsubstantiated opinion like this when we have a competent body, the CDC, to fall back on instead?
If you're going to try and comment on an issue like this, you might at least read up on it first.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has issued recommendations for the number of vaccines that children should be given. These recommendations are based on voluminous scientific studies and research by the best facilities in this country.
You make the bald statement that "maybe just 1 or 2" vaccines are really needed. Really? Where do you get your information? Why should anyone believe an unsubstantiated opinion like this when we have a competent body, the CDC, to fall back on instead?
If you're going to try and comment on an issue like this, you might at least read up on it first.
It's not good to get pumped full of so many medicines and chemicals. I didn't say anybody should listen to me or believe me, it's MY opinion and I'm allowed to have one whether you like it or not.
Yes, a vaccine can prevent something but it can also cause other health problems, risks, and reactions. I just don't think most vaccines are worth it. The CDC is slowly just going to keep adding more and more vaccines, saying they are needed. That's what it seems like. It might be 12 right now, 5 years from now it could be 19. You really think getting all that crap in your bloodstream is good for you?
The CDC is with the federal government. Yeah, I'm sure they are just trying to help us and protect us. Yeah, let's trust the government. If they say we need something, we must need it!
It doesn't sound perfectly logical. I'm only going to address a portion of your post because you are addressing so much. To start, science is not wrong or right. Science is a method of inquiry. It's not corrected. You study science, so I'm probably covering familiar ground, but if conclusions change they don't change for the already collected data. An expanded data set will expand our understanding and perhaps have alternative application for the members in the expanded set. For example, a drug that makes it to market and ends up being taken off due to side effects doesn't all of a sudden not work for the people in the clinical trials or similar people. Instead, a segment of the population will have a genetic variation that produces a protein that may contribute to a drug-drug interaction, metabolize in a funky way that lends to harmful outcome, or whatever. The majority of the population will be fine with it, but that 10-20% will be in trouble. Off the market it goes. And this is why we are exploring personalized medicine. It's inevitable.
I'll address this in sections so it will be clearer from my view point, which is really all this is. Science is both a body of knowledge and a process. When it comes to vaccine research and policy, a lot goes into it and it changes all the time depending on new research data, as well as a variety of issues.
The Global Vaccine Research conference for example, brings together every year a selection of top researchers and scientists and this serves as a gathering for the partners of GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) to discuss vaccine research and development issues, and to update findings, explore new research, etc. These meetings provide for discussion of broader issues of vaccine policy and implementation, and arising issues. Vaccines are in effect, preventive medicine though. Side effects are charted, as well as effectiveness. Objectives and conclusions of vaccine trials are addressed also.
Science is not to be confused with medical errors, which are operational in nature at the hands of humans. Psychiatry, and especially the history of psychiatry, is/was not based on science. Also, as I have been learning, vaccines cannot be compared with meds. I don't know much about vaccines, but I do know about meds (small molecules in particular) and it really is a different animal. I suspect this is why we can all find mountains of evidence about side effects from meds, but not vaccines. The formulations are minimal, there is no particular target. Correct if I'm wrong on this. I just don't think it's valid to throw all of this into one pot. It's more than just apples and oranges here.
Well, not as far off as you think but the reason I threw it in the pot was to show how parents minds can be influenced by it. Their trust in medical information, from what most will say is reputable, can be tarnished by this. When people see medical mistakes taking place on such a large scale it can add to their distrust of the whole package. The entire medical system can look like they aren't trust worthy. That was what the reference was for. I hope this is clear.
As far as what is and isn't noticed. I don't get your point. Of course these things are going to be noticed and most likely they will be noticed by epidemiologists and scientists. I don't know why vaccines lose immunity and I cannot find a credible site to learn about this so I would appreciate it if you could link something.
Sure, you can google on your own as well. And if I can correct the phrasing. Vaccines don't offer the immunity stated at release of vaccine is what I was referring to, vaccines CAN loose their immunity if stored wrong as well which lies in the hands of the medical staff storing the vaccines but that is a different topic but does happen. In other words, reliable information doesn't last forever. They take this into account. I don't think we can do anything other than to trust our own judgement. There is no 100%. My whole point was I can understand why some come to a different conclusion on giving vaccines than I do, or others do. It's confusing out there and no information is concrete. More of a sloshy material. lol
Whooping cough vaccines: Some Whooping Cough Strains Now Outsmarting Vaccine - Cold and Flu Center - Everyday HealthOutsmarting vaccine
There are a lot more but you can google as well as I can. I hope this is efficient. Scare tactics rarely work, on either side of the fence. Most parents just ignore these and try to think clearly without panic or anxiety. IMO, of course.
Last edited by PoppySead; 08-21-2013 at 06:29 PM..
Yes, a vaccine can prevent something but it can also cause other health problems, risks, and reactions. I just don't think most vaccines are worth it. The CDC is slowly just going to keep adding more and more vaccines, saying they are needed. That's what it seems like. It might be 12 right now, 5 years from now it could be 19. You really think getting all that crap in your bloodstream is good for you?
Most people who get vaccinated don't have an extreme reaction though, at most they're going to have a sore spot on their arm for a day or two. To me its worth having a temporarily sore arm then to end up dead or disabled from a preventable disease.
And yeah, it might be 19 in 5-10 years as science advances even further and more vaccines are created to help us from getting diseases. Maybe we'll have a vaccine that prevents AIDS or stops the body from producing cancerous cells.
Quote:
The CDC is with the federal government. Yeah, I'm sure they are just trying to help us and protect us. Yeah, let's trust the government. If they say we need something, we must need it!
Because secretly the government is trying to kill off all the citizens of the world?
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.
