Are vaccines safe?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is true that the vaccine may not cause some of the problems, but what they mix with it like the Mercury does. No tests are done to be sure that children don't have a problem eliminating metals from their systems. The vaccine makes people sick and there isn't any proof that it increases immunity. There is a reason the shot costs so much.......malpractice insurance do to the high risk of injury to babies. There is much money to be made by everyone at the expense of our babies!

Some studies show that UN-immunized children have the same OR better immune systems than those who have been vaccinated. They main concern I ever had is the spread of polio through the live virus FROM the vaccine to those who have not had their polio vaccine. Proper sanitary procedures cover that for the first 24 hours after the vaccine is given to a child when anyone (vaccinated or not) who is changing a child or having contact with anything like spit up.

When my oldest was 2 (he's 26 now) I became aware of the dangers and possible links to autism and SID (sudden infant death). Child #4 had immunizations because her father insisted. It took a fight, but I got her the KILLED polio virus vaccine. She has the most problems with illness. Of the other 4, #2 had one set of immunizations because it was already given when I became informed. Yes...that is 5 children total (26-11 years old)

For participation in boyscout camp, as older children (when risk is significantly reduced), 3 received the minimum immunizations needed to attend.

I am still very much against them. The health department doesn't like to release the vaccine history of the people who were/were not vaccinated who become ill. Their excuse when almost everyone who is ill that was vaccinated is that it was done improperly. They also don't keep track of who got sick from being exposed to someone who was recently vaccinated!

Excessive antibiotic use and disinfectants have created bacteria we cannot control or produce immunities too. Natural exposure to everyday germs and bacteria produces plenty of immunities.

When Bob Schmuck went through chemo, we refused the flu shots for the family. With the supplements WE added, during the entire time (about a year) that he had aggressive chemo treatments, Bob did not get even a cold or a single infection. (He's the one that had only one set of immunizations as a baby). For those who get the flu even with a flu shot.....doctors always have an excuse why and it's NEVER because the shot was useless. We rarely have the flu or ever get sick in our family.

I believe the immunized kids/adults are spreading infections, not protecting those who are not immunized. Just because there was no evidence of immunization, it doesn't mean they weren't. Many adults don't carry their childhood immunization records around with them at it isn't in a database like it is now. Maybe the babies who have not had a chance for a measles vaccine have already had their immunity compromised by other vaccines that are given.

We all need to ask more questions and given more answers and see ENTIRE and ALL reports, not just little bits of them.
 


I see both sides, but I have to say that the majority of the hype is caused by parents of autistic kids who are mad at the world that their kid is autistic. I don't think it's coincidence that people don't understand autism, it's not like other diseases, it doesn't always manifest early, sometimes not until the teens. People don't want to understand for whatever reason.

So when kids start to show signs of autism around 2-4 years old, it's coincidentally the same time as their shots.
 
I see both sides, but I have to say that the majority of the hype is caused by parents of autistic kids who are mad at the world that their kid is autistic. I don't think it's coincidence that people don't understand autism, it's not like other diseases, it doesn't always manifest early, sometimes not until the teens. People don't want to understand for whatever reason.

So when kids start to show signs of autism around 2-4 years old, it's coincidentally the same time as their shots.

Vaccines schedules begin at birth, not 2-4 years old. Vaccine schedule from Mayo Clinic.

I work with autistic people and their families, they aren't all angry at the world, the vast majority are capable of appreciating their family member's uniqueness.
 
Vaccines schedules begin at birth, not 2-4 years old. Vaccine schedule from Mayo Clinic.

I work with autistic people and their families, they aren't all angry at the world, the vast majority are capable of appreciating their family member's uniqueness.

What I meant was the signs of autism coincide with the shots they got around the 2-4 year old range, not meaning they were the first shots. I could have worded that better sorry.

I also worked around Autistic kids and parents and I disagree. They are some of the most jaded and pissed off people in teh world. There's a reason 90% of marriages with an autistic kid fail..
 
Some studies show that UN-immunized children have the same OR better immune systems than those who have been vaccinated.

Show me the studies. This is just plain wrong, and there are diseases that have been eliminated through vaccination, read some of the links I posted above. You should realy be reasearching this in scientific forums and getting credible sources rather than listening to people that have autistic kids, talk about being bias about somthing. Also, did you even read this?
Autism rises despite MMR ban in Japan - health - 03 March 2005 - New Scientist

SEO, you really should research both sides of this instead of thinking you have just discovered a big conspiracy, the science is pretty clear on this one if you read credible sources.

I'm going to try and resist posting again as I think I've pretty much said all I have to say on this and I don't want to get drawn in to a long argument about it. All I would say to people is you are faaaaaaaaar better off doing your reasearch from scientific journals rather than autism websites / conspiracy sites etc etc etc.
 
SEO, you really should research both sides of this instead of thinking you have just discovered a big conspiracy, the science is pretty clear on this one if you read credible sources.

We both have our sources

MMR AND AUTISM: The link really has been established - Share The Wealth

"The new study, carried out by American paediatrician Dr Fouad Yazbak and Dr G S Goldman, tracks levels of autism in Denmark from 1980 - seven years before the MMR vaccine was introduced in Denmark - until 2002. Prevalence of autism among children aged from 5 to 9 stood at 8.38 cases per 100,000 in the pre-vaccine years of 1980 to 1986, and then rose to 71.43 cases by the year 2000."

Just knowing the fact that a single vaccine can contain not just twice but 20+ times the safety levels of mercury and being asked to have it injected in you especially your baby several times in a few months is beyond wise.
 
Leaving religion and conspiracy theories out of this question ..... don't you think our immune system works just fine? At the very least we shouldn't be taking flu shots every few months due only to paranoia. People get sick, it's only natural.

If the black plague, bubonic flu, mad cow disease or whatever was supposed to wipe out 98% of the people... so be it. It's earth's way of dealing with us over-populating it. 6.7+ BILLION people is WAY too many.
 
Whoo hoo, my first post! Heh. Been lurking a long time, still sort of lurking, but this issue is close to heart for me. My 6-year-old is slightly autistic (there are staggeringly large variants inside the autism spectrum), so I did a LOT of research into it. The MMR controversy started with an issue in the Lancet, a medical journal, 'bout the late 90s if I remember right. There are a ton of studies (real, scientific, peer-reviewed) about, and I recommend you read those.

Yes, there are risks from vaccination, but so far, the incidence of autism has not been cleanly linked to vaccines, and increased incidence of autism is much more likely the result of increased teratogenic effects from pregnancies later in life (on average), as well as increased exposure to toxic chemicals during feotal development.

That said, giving my son vaccines makes me want to scream and run in circles. Needles suck.
 
You should realy be reasearching this in scientific forums and getting credible sources rather than listening to people that have autistic kids, talk about being bias about somthing.

SEO, you really should research both sides of this instead of thinking you have just discovered a big conspiracy, the science is pretty clear on this one if you read credible sources.

The scientists on one side say one thing. Those on the other side another. Scientists are like any one else, they put their pants on one leg at a time and have the same bias toward what they themselves were trained in. Because someone is a scientist doesn't make them less prejudiced toward a position that they have an enormous educational investment in.

Government Scientists yesterday concluded that , yes WTC Building 7 was the first steel framed building in history to collapse from fire damage.

We all ultimately embrace the research that best fits our world-view, because there is plenty of it on both sides of an issue.
 
The scientists on one side say one thing. Those on the other side another. Scientists are like any one else, they put their pants on one leg at a time and have the same bias toward what they themselves were trained in. Because someone is a scientist doesn't make them less prejudiced toward a position that they have an enormous educational investment in.

Government Scientists yesterday concluded that , yes WTC Building 7 was the first steel framed building in history to collapse from fire damage.

We all ultimately embrace the research that best fits our world-view, because there is plenty of it on both sides of an issue.

Which is why they have something called peer review. Look it up. The evidence is massively weighted to one side on this issue, bad news / propaganda spreads far faster than good news.

There are a ton of studies (real, scientific, peer-reviewed) about, and I recommend you read those.
Spot on.
 
don't you think our immune system works just fine?

HIV
Herpes
The flu
Colds
Chicken Pox
Cancer
Allergies
Lupus
etc

Our immune systems work about the same as they ever have. Thing is, due to modern medicine, the average lifespan is about twice what it was 1,000 years ago.

Feel free to forfeit those advantages if you want. You'll end up helping that 6.7 billion number sooner than the rest of us.
 
Man, I hate stuff like this...I've read both sides of the coin, but look at the sheer numbers and proportions here. In the 1800's, a doctor wouldn't have to worry about coronary artery disease or cancer with his patients because they would more than likely already be dead due to a virus or bacterium. While there is the possibility of side effects in vaccinating your child, such as autism (even though the link still isn't totally clear yet), look at the big picture. Every medical procedure has its risks, but the possibility of something catastrophic happening with vaccinations is so low its almost statistically insignificant--especially compared with the overall protection and numbers of successful vaccinations.
 
References to several studies re: immune system and vaccines here

This article is FOR vaccines, but admits the proteins have been reduced, I don't think it is because they found out that it was working safely. How long until they decide the current amount isn't correct?

I'm not as up on studies as I was when I first looked into it, but try to keep updated once in awhile because the topic comes up a lot.

Is is good to know who funds the research and who is making money from the results. Not sure if those who are against immunizing are making much money. Those who have any connection with immunizations do make the big bucks-from the state who gets money for free clinics, to companies who produce the over the counter medications to deal with the side effects, doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug companies, publishing companies, magazines, etc.

I heard there is an ADD support group run by the drug company that supplies ADD meds! Not sure those parents are getting unbiased support.
 
...
The evidence is massively weighted to one side on this issue, bad news / propaganda spreads far faster than good news.
...

The money is also massively weighted to one side. Billions of dollars buy more studies than zero.
 
seo, I'm going to play into your paranoia.

If the goverment and said organizations your claiming are 'out to get you', they wouldn't need to poison your medicine supply. They could simply poison your food, water, and air supply.
 
Which is why they have something called peer review. Look it up.

sounds to me like peer review isn't all its cracked up to be...

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

"Peer review as a reliable technique for assessing the validity of scientific data is surely discredited. "

-Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet (British medical journal)

eMJA: Horton, Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up

"Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. He remarks, "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
sounds to me like peer review isn't all its cracked up to be...

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

"Peer review as a reliable technique for assessing the validity of scientific data is surely discredited. "

-Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet (British medical journal)

eMJA: Horton, Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up

"Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. He remarks, "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well it may not be perfect, but talk about cherry picking...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.