I consider the chance that my healthy baby might become autistic because of these safe vaccines to be a little more serious than silly.
1/million chance, is still a chance. They put warnings on everything else, why not vaccines.
As has been pointed out, it's not a 1/million chance, it's no chance; there's been no indication there's any relationship between the two.
And even if it was a 1/million chance, would you rather have that chance, or the 1 in 500 chance that your child would die from the measles?
And they DO put warnings on vaccines. You can get as much information as you wish online easily, summaries, to probably copies of the clinical trials and everything. The doctor goes over it when you get a vaccination as well, in as much detail as you wish. The stuff comes with documentation that covers the risks or where to go to find out about the risks.
The only way that someone can claim that the risks are hidden is if they are plugging their ears going "la-la-la-la-la-la"...
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Here is some facts I am pulling from the internet as I write this post. I have no idea what they will result in, nor which side of the argument they will support. I just find doing my own research will result in something I can believe. I figured some others here may benefit from it as well
According to this Human Water Requirement Calculator, the average 60lb person needs 1 liter of water a day. I know from my own baby that they drink far more than that when they are younger. But lets just assume they only drink 1 liter of water.
Mercury is a toxic element and serves no beneficial physiological function in humans. Presence of mercury in water has become a source of concern because of the finding that organic mercury is bio-concentrated by fish.
A maximum acceptable concentration of 0.001 mg/L has been established for drinking water.
Taking both these into account, this means that the average child can safely consume 0.001 mg of any type of mercury in a day.
As a vaccine preservative, thimerosal is used in concentrations of 0.003% to 0.01%. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 ml dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose.
The maximum concentration of thimerosal will result in .5 micrograms of mercury to be injected. Converted it means that 0.0005 milligrams of mercury are injected.
.001 is twice 0.0005. That is, the dose of mercury that the Sask government deems safe for consumption in a single liter of water is twice the amount of mercury that is in the maximum dose contained in a single injection.
I don't know about anyone else, but that seems pretty safe to me.
If anyone noticed any calculation or conversion errors, feel free to point them out. I am the first to admit I might have screwed something up.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Last edited by Rathji; 04-22-2009 at 06:51 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Rathji For This Useful Post:
Do you honestly believe that vaccines are the sole reason for a decrease in Polio?
Of course not, they are just one weapon in the arsenal of public health. Problem for you is they are an essential part. Maybe you should read up on the diptheria vaccine.
By the way, you still haven't answered whether or not you believe the rest of the stuff published on that website...
How dangerous can vaccines be? I really don't know. I'm somewhere between the two extremes in terms of what I suspect is the truth. I do think there are potential risks, though, and I think they should be treated as such ... much in the same way allergy medicine on TV ads are treated with a list of side effects, I suppose. Why haven't many more intense clinical studies on the subject already been performed? To me, this is the key... as Jim said, do more independent drug research, get a whole slew of reliable data (that even Mr. Carrey will accept ), and empower the public with three things: 1. all relevant information about a vaccination upfront; 2. 100% free vaccinations for all (for those strains of disease targeted as a danger to the community at large, especially within certain age groups); and 3. the right to decide whether or not they (or their child) should be vaccinated.
I'm just pointing out that for every medicinal treatment, highly detailed studies are conducted (way more detailed than many people realize). It's not like there haven't been any studies into vaccines. Nearly every conceivable facet of any treatment is investigated. I don't have time to get into details right now (game night!) but trust me on this. Besides, if you had every peer reviewed publication in your hands on vaccinations what good would it really do the general public? I'm more qualified than most and I STILL have a hard time comprehending a lot of the data in immunology or pharmacology or related sciences. It is not a simple topic, not even remotely.
The Following User Says Thank You to Kybosh For This Useful Post:
I'm just pointing out that for every medicinal treatment, highly detailed studies are conducted (way more detailed than many people realize). It's not like there haven't been any studies into vaccines. Nearly every conceivable facet of any treatment is investigated. I don't have time to get into details right now (game night!) but trust me on this. Besides, if you had every peer reviewed publication in your hands on vaccinations what good would it really do the general public? I'm more qualified than most and I STILL have a hard time comprehending a lot of the data in immunology or pharmacology or related sciences. It is not a simple topic, not even remotely.
Interesting. I don't doubt you on this point at all. I was not aware that vaccines were proven to lack side effects to the extent that most here understand to be the case.
I think I'm to the point where I can agree that for life threatening conditions with a realistic likelihood of contact where one lives within one's lifetime, it's almost (if not) always prudent to get vaccinated.
Here's another semi-facet to the debate (sorry if this steers things off topic)... vaccines for non-life threatening conditions. The one example that comes immediately to mind is influenza vaccinations. I am not a fan of the fact that I am legally required for my work (in education) to get vaccinated for something against my will. This doesn't get me enraged, I don't write nasty letters about it, etc, etc, but it does bother me a little that I don't have the freedom to choose whether or not I want to get vaccinated for something like the flu.
Am I a danger to society or the workplace I am in if I don't get a flu shot??
I think I'm to the point where I can agree that for life threatening conditions with a realistic likelihood of contact where one lives within one's lifetime, it's almost (if not) always prudent to get vaccinated.
Or even if it's not likely, vaccinations keep it that way. Herd immunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBCT
Am I a danger to society or the workplace I am in if I don't get a flu shot??
Depends on how you define danger. There's a cost to society.
Like everything in life it's a risk/reward evaluation. The problem is most people's risk meter is skewed, they get all wacky about vaccines but then happily pile all the kids into the minivan for a day at the park.
(Or are blissfully unaware of the actual risk if their child contracts one of the things the vaccines combat, no one seems to remember how terrible these things were)
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Or even if it's not likely, vaccinations keep it that way. Herd immunity.
Depends on how you define danger. There's a cost to society.
Like everything in life it's a risk/reward evaluation. The problem is most people's risk meter is skewed, they get all wacky about vaccines but then happily pile all the kids into the minivan for a day at the park.
(Or are blissfully unaware of the actual risk if their child contracts one of the things the vaccines combat, no one seems to remember how terrible these things were)
It's probably something along the lines of "vaccine fatigue" that in some way must mirror the "condom fatigue" going on right now in regards to HIV prevention. Everyday people forget the horrors of small pox, polio, and the measles and are able to irrationally downplay the job that vaccines did in helping to eradicate these illnesses.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Interesting. I don't doubt you on this point at all. I was not aware that vaccines were proven to lack side effects to the extent that most here understand to be the case.
I think I'm to the point where I can agree that for life threatening conditions with a realistic likelihood of contact where one lives within one's lifetime, it's almost (if not) always prudent to get vaccinated.
Here's another semi-facet to the debate (sorry if this steers things off topic)... vaccines for non-life threatening conditions. The one example that comes immediately to mind is influenza vaccinations. I am not a fan of the fact that I am legally required for my work (in education) to get vaccinated for something against my will. This doesn't get me enraged, I don't write nasty letters about it, etc, etc, but it does bother me a little that I don't have the freedom to choose whether or not I want to get vaccinated for something like the flu.
Am I a danger to society or the workplace I am in if I don't get a flu shot??
Influenza is life threatening to a large proportion of the population, specifically the elderly, chronically ill and infant population. This in addition to the morbidity that is prevented, the significant net decrease in health care costs and almost non-existent side effect profile, make it arguably the most important vaccination out there. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I am fairly certain that mortality rates from influenza are very high. The distinction is that when healthy, relatively young people (like most people on this board) get influenza, the symptoms are bothersome but self-limiting. This same condition in someone with COPD, heart disease, immuno-deficient states can be life threatening.
Last edited by joe_mullen; 04-22-2009 at 11:32 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to joe_mullen For This Useful Post:
Aargh. This is the dumbest argument ever. Yes, immunizations are good, sorry there Tower, but thinking otherwise is just plain lunacy. Ok, mercury, whatever. At least myself or my daughter didn't die from a very curable disease.
Influenza is life threatening to a large proportion of the population, specifically the elderly, chronically ill and infant population. This in addition to the morbidity that is prevented, the significant net decrease in health care costs and almost non-existent side effect profile, make it arguably the most important vaccination out there. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I am fairly certain that mortality rates from influenza are very high. The distinction is that when healthy, relatively young people (like most people on this board) get influenza, the symptoms are bothersome but self-limiting. This same condition in someone with COPD, heart disease, immuno-deficient states can be life threatening.
I see. (Good post... I ran out of "Thanks"...)
So, the argument is that it becomes my responsibility (or, in this specific case, the government's responsibility thru legislation to specifically make it my responsibility) to make sure I cannot harbour --> spread the flu to anyone else, especially seeing as I educate gradeschoolers (who are at an increased risk of contracting influenza themselves). That's fair.
What if my profession or lifestyle did not put me directly in contact with the very young, very old, or chronically ill?... Would you consider it irresponsible for a healthy, somewhat drug/vaccine skeptical (for himself; when they're not "needed") adult to actively avoid getting vaccinated for things like influenza, while fully understanding the pros & cons, because the likelihood of very severe symptoms from it in my state is astronomically low? If it weren't for the thought that I might be dangerously passing it on to someone else unknowingly, I would never give a second thought to skipping flu shots for myself. The flu has never been a substantial enough nuisance to me to warrant that, IMO.
Travelling to exotic places with much increased risks of certain other life-threatening diseases is different, though. I know my body will have no resistance to any of these different strains when visiting foreign lands, so in these cases I have no problem getting my shots... I'm not crazy!
Although immunization is known to provide effective life-saving benefits for children, it has sometimes been blamed for an array of diseases that have unknown causes (eg, autistic spectrum disorder [ASD], multiple sclerosis and sudden infant death syndrome). This is not surprising, given that immunizations are common and that humans are primed to attribute causality to events that precede an incident. We all use the ‘after it, because of it’ logic. This is how we learned not to touch a hot stove as young children. Unfortunately, this logic can be faulty. Causality assessment requires careful consideration of a wide range of factors. Beyond the temporal relationship, the consistency of the finding, the strength of the association, the specificity of the association and the biological plausibility, all need to be evaluated before attributing causality (1,2). The present article reviews recent controversies surrounding immunizations and ASD, and concludes that there are no data to support any association between immunization and ASD
An important factor to consider is what has happened to autism rates since the removal of thimerosal from vaccines. In studies from Canada (25), Denmark (20) and the United States (26) the rates of autism have continued to increase despite removal of thimerosal from vaccines.
There is mounting evidence (27) that ASD has a strong genetic component – a very plausible cause for the disorder
After Tower's posts in the WHO thread I wanted to post this, but it really isn't topical there so I'll bump this thread with it. Interesting new piece:
If you are a parent, be warned it is VERY difficult to watch all the way through.
EDIT: Removed, feeling more calm.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Yeah, that made me furious too, photon. I have cousins and friends who force this irrational and cruel perspective on their innocent children. Gardasil is quickly becoming the new standard for the anti-vaccine crusade.
After Tower's posts in the WHO thread I wanted to post this, but it really isn't topical there so I'll bump this thread with it. Interesting new piece:
If you are a parent, be warned it is VERY difficult to watch all the way through.
I'm gonna go out for a while now because I'm very angry and need to calm down before I start banning people.
Here is what I can not fathom. The group that is against immunization said that the easy alternative is to expose your kids to the measles, to whatever, they get the disease, they are sick for a week or two, then they are ok and they have immunity.
And she was asked if her kids had diptheria or whooping cough, whichever, cant remember now. She said their whole family got it, whether immunized or not. And they were somewhat sick for a couple of weeks and then they got over it and now are ok.
What parent would advocate their child to go through suffering in order to build up natural immunity? I would think it would be the opposite, that parents would try to spare their children having to suffer at all for anything.
Measles, mumps, chickenpox, any of the diseases that immunization is available for, not one of them is fun to have. And there are risks with each and every one of those diseases, some with far reaching results that will last a lifetime.
And if Vaccines are the real deal. Why would you have to worry about it? You are already protected.
Drops in immunization rates are related to a positive increase in disease among small infants. Most kids don't receive their full vaccinations until they are 2-3 years old. Up until that age they are still very susceptible to illnesses such as polio, pertussis and the measles. We require herd immunity in order to have the most effective degree of protection.
Measles, mumps, chickenpox, any of the diseases that immunization is available for, not one of them is fun to have. And there are risks with each and every one of those diseases, some with far reaching results that will last a lifetime.
Perhaps I'm not stating my thoughts clearly and that is completely my fault.
The vaccine injury fund has paid almost a BILLION dollars out to people vaccines have injured in the USA (Easy to find). Don't hold your breath waiting for the vaccine manufacturers to admit to anything. (But expect them to scare you like in the video earlier. And I understand the irony with me in that statement.) Most people that support the idea that vaccines cause harmful effects believe that it could be either allergic reactions or toxic overload of an immature immune system (baby).
Remember this is the same volume that you are given will go into a 2 month old baby. It is still a good idea to wait till the child it 2 before starting if you are wanting vaccines. And use 1/4th of the volume at maximum. Why give a 15lb baby the same amount as a 200lb man? A one testicled man can still get a woman pregnant. (No I do not know this from experience)
aluminum-Aluminum toxicity has been recognized in many settings where exposure is heavy or prolonged, where renal function is limited, or where apreviously accumulated bone burden is released in stress or illness. Toxicity may include: encephalopathy (stuttering, gait disturbance, myoclonic jerks, seizures, coma, abnormal EEG) osteomalacia or aplastic bone disease ( associated with painful spontaneous fractures, hypercalcemia, tumorous calcinosis ) proximal myopathy, increased risk of infection, increased left ventricular mass and decreased myocardial function microcytic anemia with very high levels, sudden death.
ether- ether causes a wide range of effects depending on the concentration and length of exposure. Symptoms include irritation of the nose and eyes, dizziness, acute excitement, drowsiness, vomiting, paleness, decreased pulse rate, decreased body temperature, irregular respiration, muscle relaxation, lung irritation with increased bronchial secretions, laryngospasm, loss of consciousness, and death [Clayton and Clayton 1982]. Post-narcosis effects include excessive salivation, vomiting, headaches, and irritation of the respiratory tract.
formaldehyde - Ingestion: Ingestion of as little as 30 ml of a 37 percent solution of formaldehyde (formalin) can result in death. Gastrointestinal toxicity after ingestion is most severe in the stomach and results in symptoms which can include nausea, vomiting, and severe abdominal pain. Diverse damage to other organ systems including the liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, brain, and central nervous systems can occur from the acute response to ingestion of formaldehyde. (This however is straight to the blood stream.)
anti-freeze - Finding this is mostly about ingestion... And large sums. It is toxic (as we all know) and putting this straight into a 2 month old baby with other toxic chemicals is a toxicology nightmare.
Throughout this discussion people keep pointing the research from actual companies or governments that assist in transporting and injecting. It's compromised research that tells you everything is fine to avoid a lawsuit. And that would be the end of their bottom line. Nobody will put the money into such research that will satisfy everyone or come to a fully disclosed conclusion. It's business, and the health comunity is just as involved in business as GM.
), and empower the public with three things: 1. all relevant information about a vaccination upfront; 2. 100% free vaccinations for all (for those strains of disease targeted as a danger to the community at large, especially within certain age groups); and 3. the right to decide whether or not they (or their child) should be vaccinated.
