Opinions on MMR vaccinations for children

1,235 posts in this topic

look let me be clearer about my CF point: it is not just vaccination of the child with CF but vaccination of all his or her family and peer group and indeed the wider society that keeps them alive. Many of the pulmonary infections and viral infections we non-CF people shrug off can kill a child with CF. My brother and sister-in-law had to singlehandedly visit the parents of all my nephews classmates to plead with them to get their kids vaccinated. It is dismaying therefore to see all the advances that vaccination has brought for people with CF being wiped out by the thoughtless actions of a few parents making unwarranted decisions on behalf of their kids that could kill other kids.

 

The scientologist answer to that I am told is that God intended children with CF to die in infancy. Nord 1 do you agree with that? If you don't you are being inconsistent with your arguments.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Most people don't even know what goes into a vaccination, adverse effects are rarely reported (see impfschaden.de as one source) If you feel that vaccinated children are protected why should you worry about those who aren't?

Before you comment on sources I suggest you read the article first. It was written by Senator Kennedy who actually believes in vaccination. The article appeared on several websites including Rolling Stone. (It happened to be the first one that came up when I googled).

Nord1, it's unfortunate that you're being derided to be a scientologist because of your opinion because you signed up a few minutes before your comment and it doesn't sit well with conventional thinking and hence your motivation is questioned. This is nonsense.

 

I think there's a grain of truth in your diatribe, particularly your comment about we don't know specifically what's in the immunizations administered. I also believe to some extent continuing mass immunizations of measles is profit motivated. Personally, I don't take immunizations and try to take the best care of my body as possible. I'm in a high risk group that influenza vaccination is highly recommended, but I refuse to get the vaccination or any immunizations.

 

I posted an earlier link that stated there were 34 cases of measles in the U.S in one year. It seems to me it would be money better spent to try to mandate foreigner coming in to be immunized as they identified this was a source of the measles cases versus subjecting millions of infants to painful MMR vaccinations and pharmaceutical companies profitting from this.

 

I also believe all diseases are self-limited either I'm going to get better or die. I'd much rather take my chances of not being immunized versus subjecting my body to some substance the government says is good for me to prevent me from getting the flu or some other disease. Btw, all of my colleagues who got the flu shot this year got sick a few days after the immunizations. Furthermore, the flu shot does not protect you against all strains of flu. So why do we think the measles vaccination would fully protect a child from measles? Modern societies have made significant strides in sanitation and public health methods including early identification and treatment of diseases, but we are still giving the same amounts of immunizations. I believe it's not the immunizations that's preventing the measles it the disease is just not very prevalent any more and we need to consider not giving immunization against it.

 

Regarding making immunizations mandatory for school admission, this in my opinion breaches a parent's right to decide what they think is best for their child. I would be a home schooling parent as I would not subject my children to immunizations.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

particularly your comment about we don't know specifically what's in the immunizations administered.

legally, all product labels MUST contain specifically everything that is in a vaccine. If you don't read it that is your own fault

 

 

I also believe to some extent continuing mass immunizations of measles is profit motivated.

Most of the common vaccines are actually now generic and not in the hands of the big drug companies. Small generic companies do not have much lobbying clout. Instead, the big drive for mass immunization has come from the WHO through national medical bodies. The generic companies will make profits out of this but it is not them behind programs to get kids mmunised.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I posted an earlier link that stated there were 34 cases of measles in the U.S in one year. It seems to me it would be money better spent to try to mandate foreigner coming in to be immunized as they identified this was a source of the measles cases versus subjecting millions of infants to painful MMR vaccinations and pharmaceutical companies profitting from this.

One (of many) fatal flaw in your theory: thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants come into the US, almost exclusively from third world countries, where you can bet the vast majority did NOT get immunized, therefore can and will bring measles into the country. The REASON why there are so few cases of measles in the US is exactly because of immunization. Not because the disease decided to slink off in a corner and not bother anyone anymore.

 

 

I also believe all diseases are self-limited either I'm going to get better or die. I'd much rather take my chances of not being immunized versus subjecting my body to some substance the government says is good for me to prevent me from getting the flu or some other disease.

So, I guess you also never take antibiotics? Good luck with that if you happen to get a virulent strain, as I did 4 years ago. I was on death's door and the only thing that saved me was surgery and massive doses of antibiotics. But by your theory, I guess I should have just died.

 

 

Btw, all of my colleagues who got the flu shot this year got sick a few days after the immunizations.

But how many of them died from the flu shot? Yes, the shot can make you ill. It makes me feel fluish for days every time. But that is better than actually DYING, which, while we are getting all anecdotal here, I have had two people in my extended family die from influenza in the last 30 years.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's like the abortion debate... there are no right or wrong answers, just the right to do what you want with your own child[ren].

No, it isn't. One side has a long and proven record of success and the other hasn't. At least the abortion debate has something for both sides, even if one is clearly much stronger than the other.

 

 

Nord1, it's unfortunate that you're being derided to be a scientologist because of your opinion because you signed up a few minutes before your comment and it doesn't sit well with conventional thinking and hence your motivation is questioned. This is nonsense.

 

I think there's a grain of truth in your diatribe, particularly your comment about we don't know specifically what's in the immunizations administered. I also believe to some extent continuing mass immunizations of measles is profit motivated. Personally, I don't take immunizations and try to take the best care of my body as possible. I'm in a high risk group that influenza vaccination is highly recommended, but I refuse to get the vaccination or any immunizations.

 

I posted an earlier link that stated there were 34 cases of measles in the U.S in one year. It seems to me it would be money better spent to try to mandate foreigner coming in to be immunized as they identified this was a source of the measles cases versus subjecting millions of infants to painful MMR vaccinations and pharmaceutical companies profitting from this.

 

I also believe all diseases are self-limited either I'm going to get better or die. I'd much rather take my chances of not being immunized versus subjecting my body to some substance the government says is good for me to prevent me from getting the flu or some other disease. Btw, all of my colleagues who got the flu shot this year got sick a few days after the immunizations. Furthermore, the flu shot does not protect you against all strains of flu. So why do we think the measles vaccination would fully protect a child from measles? Modern societies have made significant strides in sanitation and public health methods including early identification and treatment of diseases, but we are still giving the same amounts of immunizations. I believe it's not the immunizations that's preventing the measles it the disease is just not very prevalent any more and we need to consider not giving immunization against it.

 

Regarding making immunizations mandatory for school admission, this in my opinion breaches a parent's right to decide what they think is best for their child. I would be a home schooling parent as I would not subject my children to immunizations.

If by "profit motivated" you mean "motivated to keep herd immunity up and treatment costs to the government down" then you have a point. Unless you also do compulsory immunizations of tourists, people transiting throught the country etc it will never work. Broad based immunization is the only way to keep the disease rate down.

 

Self limiting is a concept not related to the obvious "you will live or you will die", but the fact a disease will reach a natural prevalence in the exposed population at a stable level related to factors such as fatal effects, transmissiblity and virulence. The reason we think the vaccine protects against measles is that it does, in fact, protect against measles, as attested by the fact that virtually nobody gets measles after being innoculated, as attested by loads and loads of controlled studies. If you can prove a widespread trend of the innoculated getting measles, then science would love to hear from you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Regarding making immunizations mandatory for school admission, this in my opinion breaches a parent's right to decide what they think is best for their child.

In Germany, the rights of the child will overrule any right of the parent with regard to well-being, mental state and right to state education of the child. It's actually a wonder that they haven't made such "misbehavior" (also in other regards) comprehensively illegal yet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court has ruled:

 

 

In a blow to the movement arguing that vaccines trigger autism, three Federal judges ruled Thursday against all three families in three test cases, all of whom had sought compensation from the Federal vaccine-injury fund. . . .

 

These three decisions, each looking into a different theory as to how vaccines might have injured the children, are expected to guide the outcomes of all those claims.

 

The judges ruled that the families seeking compensation had not shown that their children’s autism was brought on by the presence of thimerosal, a mercury vaccine preservative, by the weakened measles virus used in the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine, or by a combination of the two. . . .

 

“Hopefully, the determination by the special masters will help reassure parents that vaccines do not cause autism,” the Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement released Thursday.

 

In Germany, the rights of the child will overrule any right of the parent with regard to well-being, mental state and right to state education of the child.

That's also generally true in the US, as far as health issues are concerned. Some parents get away with not vaccinating for religious reasons, but many school districts, such as the one in which I live, will not allow a child to attend public schools without the minimum vaccinations, whether or not the parents have claimed religious exemption from vaccination.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an ad campaign now in Munich about vaccinating your child. Basically it says to give them the MMR or you are not being responsible. It is a good campaign and I couldn't have said it better myself (well, at least not in German). ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting article, rather gives the lie to the idiotic claims that Wakefield is some sort of maverick standing out against an overweaning establishment of medicine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, not so sure about that, it could also be seen as heavy backpedalling in the face of massive opposition.

 

Regardless of that, his article, which was by his own admission unsubstantiated, was the trigger for mass-hysteria amongst parents, leading to a significant and worrying drop in vaccinations. If nothing else, it was wantonly negligent.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An incredibly long debate going on here.

 

I thought a little clarification should help a little. We all tend to speak a little bit out of our asses even unknowingly at times. How well do we know our own language and the words we use?? Apparently not very well. I had to look it up to set it all straight.

 

* Immunization is the process of rendering a subject immune, or of becoming immune. Immunization can occur naturally as your own body creates immunities to fight off a disease, or through the administration of a vaccine.

* Vaccination is the use of vaccines to help prevent certain diseases. The vaccine is the actual suspension (in a liquid form given orally or by injection) of weakened or non-live organisms.

* An inoculation is the introduction of live organisms to produce a mild form of the illness, thereby giving the body immunity. This differs from the vaccine, which generally uses weakened or killed forms of the disease.

http://www.babyzone.com/askanexpert/vaccin...ns-inoculations

 

I personally intend to do more research on my own, and speak to doctors, and medical professionals about what to do for my child. I have heard of vaccine links to cancers, and have heard also that the "old, bad" forms have been corrected. But I know that ever since science/medicine have started their methods and ideas have very often been viewed as barbaric in light of what future information and studies reveal.

I do know that my friends who are going to be doctors have learned in school that medicines sometimes cause more problems than anticipated. Antibiotics for example will one day be rendered helpless against new illnesses which have evolved and developed beyond our control, and in most cases because of the medicines we have used to fight them.

My question is: Who in today's world would simply accept what the government or the medical officials or the pharmaceutical companies say? If you haven't realized yet, our governments are corrupted by money and power. Does anyone really think that the individual people are kept in mind when these two things are on the table?

Use your own logic, your own mind, and the vast amounts of resources available. You owe that to yourself and your children.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chadley, whether or not governments are corrupt, the licensing of drugs and vaccines is carried out by independent bodies (FDA/ EMEA/MHRA/BfARM) following very stringent guidelines. Any company ishing to bring a drug onto the market must first satisfy the authorities that the product is safe enough to be used by humans before any testing of its effectiveness against disease can begin. The process of repeated trials and investigation takes about a decade with an enormous failure rate (most compounds that start out the process never get licensed as medicines). I say this because, although there is a tiny grain of truth in some of the things you say, you seem to be under a fundamental misapprehension about current practice and safety issues for licensed pharmaceutical products.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But still---- the fact is, even though all of the research is done, and strict guidelines are followed, many deaths still occur from medicines which are later deemed to be harmful.

 

Here is a strange compasrison, but bare with me...I wrote to Haribo in USA to complain about their products. I was shocked to find that the Gold Bears over there are FULL of chemicals and food colorings. THe Gold Bears in Germany are made with all natural colorings and flavorings. I asked for an explanation. I recieved a great and honest response declaring that the American people don't want "natural". They had at one point tried to introduce natural bears to the market and the American people found them to be too dull and colorless and bought less.

 

The fact is, no matter what we think, most companies are not looking out for OUR best interest, they are instead looking to "please" us enough for as cheaply as they can. To bring it all together, this goes for the drug companies as well. The more we know, and the more we tell them what is acceptable and unacceptable, the better the chances are that we will get what is best for us. If we just "trust them" , then we can not expect the best quality. SO yes, inform yourself.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arghhhh! If your sick child has an illness that an antibiotic can take care of, are you really going to surf the Net looking at varying opinions on whether to do so or not? If you need to be treated in the hospital, are you going to ask for a list of everything they give you then do research to give your approval or not. It is right to inform yourself and ask questions instead of blindly accepting what others tell you. But sometimes, those of us who are not doctors try to play doctor. Unless you are in the field, there are somethings that we just cannot understand (I edited research articles for over 10 years and it's still Chinese to me). It is because of science and research that we are living longer. When our children are seriously ill, we turn to science to help them get better.

I know a woman who's child has asthma really bad. She has been on her homeopathic kick for God knows how long. Her son's asthma is still just as bad as day one (and this over years). My son had suffered the first few years of his life with asthma and chronic pneumonia. We had tried everything. Only one drug seemed to work, but I hated using it so much. Another friend of mine has 2 girls that had suffered as much as my son. She tried the same drug and it worked well for her too. We were all in Mexico City, which has a high rate of air pollution and asthma cases. Since we have been back in Germany, my son has not had one bout of asthma or pneumonia. My friend with the 2 girls went to Holland and they suffer just as much as in Mexico. I could research asthma until I'm blue in the face (I think I have), but perhaps the cure for my son was simple - just change countries. I've had people give me all kinds of advice, and I was more confused than ever. So you decide to stop listening to everyone and trust one person - his doctor.

If we could find other ways of curing illness without antibiotics or vaccines, that would be great. But that is what we have right now! Perhaps all the laymen in all their research can come up with something better?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But still---- the fact is, even though all of the research is done, and strict guidelines are followed, many deaths still occur from medicines which are later deemed to be harmful.

And you would have what? Nothing. The fact is there is no comparison in numbers between the numbers of lives saved from medical advances and the numbers of lives lost due to "medicines which are later deemed to be harmful". Which doesn't mean we give the companies free reign. That's what BTC pointed out. For an adult to make the decision to forgo vaccination/immunization is one thing but to make that decision for your child (w/o any outstanding medical issues) it borders on harmful. Why wouldn't a parent do everything possible to insure the health of their child?

 

There are conspiracy theories in every field from medicine, food science, politics, etc... What we need to realise is that the human race is living a much longer life span today for many reasons. If all these conspiracies were true our life spans would be about 40 years.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... the licensing of drugs and vaccines is carried out by independent bodies (FDA/ EMEA/MHRA/BfARM) following very stringent guidelines...

Well they may be independent in name and concept but in practice they are just as open to curruption as every other bullshit holier than thou establishment... from churches to governements to medical associations to the parents and teachers association... every single institution is open to it and if you want to believe that they really are looking out for your best interests... then enjoy your dreamland.

 

When and If I ever have children this question is far from answered as far as i am concerned.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well Pleb I don't think they are and I also think I am in a very much more informed position than you to comment.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When and If I ever have children this question is far from answered as far as i am concerned.

Then you are an idiot and should get in line with the other Darwin candidates.

 

It is SIMPLE folks:

 

No vaccination=greater chance of dying.

With vaccination=almost no chance of dying.

 

Are you an idiot or are you an idiot?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now