Sorry Miss E, I don't have the time to answer your post atm, but will be back later :)
Printable View
Sorry Miss E, I don't have the time to answer your post atm, but will be back later :)
I re-re-read your comment, and I did take it out of context, I just misunderstood you.:redface::
I will take the time to research and compare the stats on the issues I outlined, and I will look with an open mind. I'm still waiting on that journal article you were talking about earlier. I am curious.
I know I'm taking this slightly out of context too but I find even the vague idea of population control by disease abhorrent. I don't see accepting the burden of disease as the same thing as accepting death as a natural process. I would like to think that in this age we could try to control suffering and population but unfortunately I think that we took control from nature long ago but I can't see how we can just give it back now.
So true LimeSlice. A little OT I know, but, you only need to look in our own backyard to see a fine example of this.:
:ROFL: ...I read that too, or saw it on something, very interesting as well as amusing :D:
SAHD: You still will die.
Sometime.
You will age.
You will be vulnerable to bacterial infection, illness.
You took no control from natural at all, you are kidding yourself thinking you (or we as a species) have taken that control from nature.
She is still very much in control and it is sad that you think a few technological advancements will take that ultimate control away from the very environment that sustains you and birthed you. It has existed longer than you me the whole human race and will continue to exist long after we have destroyed ourselves.
It has done this through meeting obstruction - like vaccines - and evolving, adapting and beating them. Just like WC is doing now, just like the Flu bugs do every year.
Yes, every age would like to think they can help ease suffering, it is a wonderful thought, and would be even better if we could cure all the suffering in the world without changing the natural system of life, sadly though it is not possible.
There is nothing abhorrant about accepting natural process - people, animals, organisms - we are ALL susceptable to disease and it is one of the ways a population is controlled. Go and read some biology books and you will find this is not some revolutionary idea, it is a fact of life and death - bacteria exist and they can cause illness and death to some creatures - and there are bacteria that cause it in humans, always will be, always has been.
:
I am not an expert, but here goes from my understanding. :)
China took the very dramatic and unique step many years ago, 1979 in fact, of limiting the number of children a couple could produce to one. Only. Ever.
This is a MASSIVE step in social change and structure for so may reasons. Primarily it was borne out of a desire to get some handle on being able to feed the huge population and tackle the projected issues socially and economically with such a massive population growth tht would have happened.
The policy has reduced the population by 250 MILLION. That is a massive number.
The reasons it was implemented etc etc are too many to go into here and really are for another thread lol but have a read of this China it really is fascinating.
However, one of the major reasons the population increased so rapidly (1953-1970 = 250Million more people) was due to a lowered death rate - which was a result of less war, and less epidemic illness among other things. The birth rate jumped from .3% to 2.8%
It is just an example, but it is a major reason as to why death rates are falling, birth mortality rates decreasing, are causing issues with population - and this increased population poses many problems as they will procreate and exponentially increase the population. (This is why population growth has been massively accelerated in the last 2000 years.)
Anyway, I don't know the answers, I don't pretend to, but there are considerations to be addressed, I don't have the figures to answer you in regards to birth control etc, although I would guess that it nowhere near equitable to the number of lives saved.
OT here now I think! lol
It would appear that policy of population control worked even better than expected. Due to the preference of males, a lot of Chinese men are having trouble finding wives, therefore some family lines aren't just being limited but destroyed because they're not having even their one child.
Totally OT now, but just wanted to say the period 1958-61 in China actually was a period of great population loss, with estimates of 20-43 million deaths due to famine. The govt had launched their "Great Leap Forward" without attention to the effects of collectivised farming and a new attention to steel took attention away from food production. This coupled with natural disasters lead to widespread starvation and death.
BUT Lime, I totally get your point, and yes it was also a period without wars, and with increased maternal and general health, leading to a large population growth rate (which managed to counter the deaths due to famine).
Hmm... I know death is a natural process but personally I would like to get there via old age and not a painful, debilitating disease. And my children too.
I absolutely think population control is a concern but I like to think I do my bit through minimising the number of children we choose to have.
I vaccinate my girls and i figure thats my CHOICE, i do not believe that it should be compulsory, there are a lot of people out there who make informed choices either side of the vaccination line.
Personally i do it as i believe vaccinations HAVE helped minimise the occurrence of some of these diseases, i do also agree it's not the only reason there are fewer cases BUT there is something to be said about it as the number of whooping cough cases have increased considerably once the vaccine wore off. it has played a big role in keeping the numbers down.
When DD1 was born i got a letter a couple of weeks later stating that a staff member on the maternity ward had had whooping cough and we were to be very careful to watch for signs with DD.. i was petrified.
Each to their own i say and it should be OUR choice
The Chinese 'One Child' policy may have achieved the aim of population control, but has resulted in many well documented cases of state ordered forced abortion, late term abortion and infanticide of female infants. I, along with many international social commentators, find THAT abhorrent.
This thread is primarily about the individuals' right to choose to vacc or not. The loudest argument against compulsory vacc has been the fundamental right of an individual to make their own choice. Does the One Child policy respect the fundamental rights of a Chinese citizen? Population control? Yep, absolutely successful. But is the outcome worthy of the cost? And the same could be asked of the current argument being debated against vacc. Sure, an increase disease will have some effect on population (have we accepted then, that vacc prevents disease and saves may lives? Enough to effect population?), but at what cost? And is that cost acceptable?
Yes, Lime, we will all age and we will all die. No one denies that we will. But we now have the medical knowledge, information and tools to prevent many deaths and prolong many lives. The aim of modern medicine is not to prolong life for ever and to avoid death indefinitely. The aim is to prevent premature death and increase quality of life. The decision of when to withdraw medical intervention is certainly a grey area and endlessly debated by individuals, the medical fraternity and ethicists. However, to suggest acceptance of a preventable disease epidemic in the interests of population control, is IMO ridiculous.
China probably wasn't the best example because of their one child policy... But India on the other hand does go someway to illustrate the thought process I was on...
I guess where my thinking is at at the moment really relates more to the western world. When we consider the argument against vaccination and modern medicine because it is preventing nature from natural population control, I think we also need to think back to the times in westernised countries when these things weren't around. For example, when you go back 100 years into our history the average woman would probably have had 5 or 6 children on average. It probably wasn't unusual for 2 or 3 of them to die before reaching adulthood because of diseases that are now preventable. So one could make the conclusion that in those times the average woman bore 2 to 3 surviving children. When you fast forward to modern times, where birth control is widely used the average family has something like 2.3 children, the vast majority of which survive as a result of modern medicine. Some of them may be the result of IVF, or prem babies who are saved, but overall the number of surviving children a woman has seems to be on a similar level. So one has to ask, is modern medicine (when you look at the whole scheme of things from vaccination to IVF to cancer treatment to birth control etc) really resulting in unsustainable population growth?
Then when you look at a country like India with a population in excess of 1.1 billion people, where disease that is preventable in western countries is wide spread and birth control use is low, their population growth is still unsustainable...
Not saying I have the answers, but I guess I am just challenging the premise. Like I said, I agree with what you are saying in principle, but when I think about it I can't help but question the application of it.
Thank you for the concession - I would hate for anyone to think I was commenting on the state of their particular smell, in either terms of good or bad via the internet.:
Here's one British Medical Journal entry you can easily access (it's more conversational than I like) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...df/9462310.pdf.
It should tide you over until I can find the actual study I was referring to, but you might just have to wait (I have an essay due on metaphysical philosophy in two days that I haven't really started... I've been too busy procrastinating here and I'm going to have to self-enforce a ban for a little while...)
But I do have this to leave you with (I can't post the whole study because of copyright).
This is not the only study that shows there is a link between autism and the immune system. Vaccines by their very purpose effect the immune system. While there might not be any studies (YET) that show a particular vaccine causes autism, no logical person could say that vaccination doesn't have an effect on autism because vaccines have an effect on the immune system.:
The study has already provided some intriguing leads. "We're finding that the immune system seems to function at a lower level in autism," says Hertz-Picciotto. "That's an important clue. It could mean that whatever causes autism also disrupts the immune system, or it could be that the immune system disrupts neural development so that something goes awry in laying down brain circuitry".
Tracing the Origins of Autism: A Spectrum of New Studies Author(s): Michael Szpir Source: Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 114, No. 7 (Jul., 2006), pp. A412-A418
While there is not one particular vaccine that can be picked on scientifically, I do have one I personally pick on and that is the Hep B vax (adding the others on top of this I would say was the snowball effect) and that is because it is made on yeast. While yeast is a natural product and occurs in the body, that doesn't make it safe in large amounts. The reason why yeast is in the body is to break it down when you die (the whole blotting after death is the yeast releasing gases as it destroys cells). Now there is a number of reasons why I think this vaccine is the biggest threat to a child who is more likely to have autism or any other type of disorder.
1. Autism, ADHD, food allergies etc. have skyrocketed in the last 20 years. Hep B vax was developed and started to be used in the 1980's - do the math.
2. 9 out of 10 children who are autistic are A-blood types (why no study is being done that I know of to investigate that particular stat is astounding to me - what's the use of collecting information but not doing anything with it??) Funny enough though, it has been shown in adults that yeast overgrowth effects A-blood types more than any other blood type, as in A-blood types are more likely to get thrush (yeast overgrowth) from taking antibiotics or going through menopause etc.
3. Yeast rips tiny holes in the gut allowing toxins into the blood stream that should be flushed down the toilet. Some of these toxins (some of which are similar in makeup to morphine or heroin) are the peptides created from the left over amino acids of wheat/gluten, milk, soy, eggs, nuts (does that list ringing bells??)
4. Addition** (I was looking for the ref so I could add it but I keep forgetting to save them). Anyway... studies have shown that immunisation has more of an effect on the male immune system than it does on the female immune system. While more and more girls are being diagnosed on the autistic spectrum etc. it is still mainly seen as a male disorder or that males are effected more.
5. We inject yeast into our little babies on their first day of life before they've had a chance to develop their immune system or build up any protective good bacteria/gut flora (not that it would matter because it's being injected straight into their bloodstream with no filtering). The reason why I think the polio vaccine was so effective (as in no new cases reported in years) was because it was live (as in real) and it was oral which meant it had to go through the gut and could be changed and filter the way the body needed it to.
While I'm not a big fan of the ingredients of other vaccinations, I think the general effect they have is made worse in a cascade effect of what the Hep B causes.
Not that I think compulsory vaccination is ever justifiable, until we find these things out for sure it's an oxymoron. How is not getting whooping cough or Hep B any better than getting autism or similar type disorders? I think there are worse things than death - I would consider being trapped in your own mind for a life time being one of them - and not only its effect on the individual but everyone around them - their carers, the community that has to pay for their therapies etc.
I would be really interested in seeing how the whooping cough stats have changed in the last five years in comparison to before that, seeing they changed the make up of the vaccine in late 2005 from a live virus to a synthetic one.:
I remember reading somewhere (again I didn't save it, because I was doing the research for myself and not expecting to have to present it) that the synthetic one had mutated to create two new strands of whooping cough and it was these strands that most people were becoming infected with - but it didn't give stats or make comparisons.
I am happy to shuffle off this mortal coil when the time is right, I have lived a good life. I do worry for my family though, so I do my best not to die generally!! I have seen people die in front of me, I'm not afraid of this. I have seen a lot of suffering though, and that is vastly different.:
I very much assume that you aren't a cruel person and that you have the very best of intentions.
I defy you to go to Africa and tell me that your happy to take on their disease burden. I defy you to look into someones eyes who is dying a painful and useless death of a preventable disease in a mud and grass hut and tell them that this is nature, its how it's always has been and will be.
I have been in that hut, and looked into those eyes. I would do anything to take that pain away.
Now I'm the emotional parent?
I'm interested in the Autism relationship, I will look into that further and I believe its likely that there is a relationship, but as I pointed out in an earlier post any massive increase in Autism or MS would be very obvious in population stats. You say there is a large increase in Autism and ADHD but I have heard reviews of studies (I rarely get time to read outside of my studies) that have good evidence of other factors that can easily account for the reported increase, namely reporting/diagnosis mechanisms and interesting and respected study that linked increasing urbanisation and distancing from nature to ADHD.:
A study was in Denmark from '91-'98 comparing Autism rates in MMR immunised vs non immunised children, a survey of 537,303 children. The results were that 0.92% of non immunised children were found to be diagnosed with autism but 0.83% of immunised children were found to be diagnosed with autism. Its a survey, so not incredibly compelling, but I have a list of studies with similar results in front of me and I'm happy to give references.
I concede that yeast can be nasty to your GI but I eat alot still, though I probably shouldn't
Immunising babies is a confusing subject, and It would be nice to see a different schedule for breast-fed and not breast-fed. Still I maintain my position that while imperfect vaccines are an improvement on none but still you seem intent on throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, and removing all vaccinations.
In America 1 in 93 boys are diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. That is a HUGE number. Do you really think that that number is only because of greater reporting and diagnosis, and not an increase in prevalence? Honestly...? I could use that logic with immunisations, that say any decreases in disease in recent decades are only because of better diagnosis and reporting as apposed to the estimations used before proper medical records were kept, but that's not convenient to your argument. But even if we were to put the more subjectively diagnosed psychological disorders aside, what about food allergies? Do you think there is only more of those because of reporting? There has been a definite increase in those.:
You seem to be really STUCK on the MMR vaccination. I have seem most of the studies you are most probably talking about, it doesn't change anything because I'm talking about the immune system in general, not a particular vaccine. With this study you mention, were they completely unvaccinated or was it only the MMR vaccine that separated the test groups? Because in order to do a proper study on MMR it would have to be the latter, so it is likely they still had had vaccines, just not the one for MMR. If someone has a compromised immune system it doesn't need to be a particular vaccine, it could be ANY that is that one that tips them over the edge.:
No. Actually, I'm the one doing the opposite. I'm taking the individual approach that doesn't look at a human being as a battery hen, and thinks we're all the same and have to follow all the same rules and schedules for the benefit of "everyone" else. I will not exchange one disaster for another in a wham bam thank you maam sausage factor logic. The risk/benefit ratio is different for everyone and their particular biology and their particular circumstances. For instance, if I lived on a farm I'd be far more inclined to consider giving my kids the tetanus vaccine because the risk/benefit ratio changes in comparison to a suburban house. But to do so: 1. They would need to be mobile. 2. I'd have their blood tested to check the state of their immune systems - if it was compromised I wouldn't vaccinate, but use avoidance methods instead. 3. If I went ahead I would make sure it was only a single vaccine (not a combo) and 4. I would be a diet nazi and make sure I was loading them with good bacteria, and good bacteria feeding foods.:
Remember this argument is about compulsory vaccination. I am presenting the idea that vaccines are not the begin all and end all of disease and risks to health. So far I haven't seen one parent whose child has been dramatically effected by vaccination say it should be compulsory; it's only those who have been lucky enough to not have to deal with that who seem to take this view. It's the "even though it might negatively effect you, you need to do it anyway so it doesn't negatively effect me" attitude. I don't judge what other people do with their kids - people make their own choices and they live with the consequences, but to ask another parent to live with certain consequences for our own convenience and philosophies is kinda narcissistic.
I think you're onto something there SAHD. IMO immunisation would come under the umbrella of distancing from nature, wouldn't you think? Nature would be letting the disease run it's natural course, although not a popular choice or easily accepted one.:
I also think that when it comes to Autism and ADHD that their causes are multi factual, with a high probability of immunisation being one of those factors in a lot of cases (as it is "distancing from nature"). It could well be because of one or more ingredients eg Thimerosal which I don't think is relevant in Australia as it's not in the MMR any more, but like Yeddi is trying to explain the way it alters the gut in general, which refers to all vaccines not just MMR.