Just wanted to add.. they never did find out what was wrong with DS.
Printable View
Just wanted to add.. they never did find out what was wrong with DS.
Oh Emma. :hug: I was so afraid of that.:
Fwiw we do quarantine people straight off the plane if it is considered warranted. I had to wait on the tarmac for ages once when a guy on my flight got sick. He was taken off the plane by the quarantine folk so they could test him and then they double checked all our paperwork so they could contact us if they wanted.
Sorry, but what is the "real issues" by your definition? What is the chances of a young child getting Hep B if neither of their parents are infected? Do they use shared needles? Engage in sex? - I certainly hope not. I'm sorry, but the type of person who would make a comment like this, is the type of person that hasn't had to deal with the consequences directly. A friend of a friend, or I've seen in my work doesn't count.:
My daughter has autism. Do you know how much "real" research there is about autism? Not much! Most of it is antidotal - because someone has to pay for research and sadly it's normally only those with a vested financial interest who do - hence the reason why there's lots of research on the benefits of immunisation and not much on the benefits of not being immunised. Educated decision making doesn't ignore the fact that sanctioned research comes from a bias, it looks at the whole picture; it looks at and considers the patterns and experiences of the whole and what might not be publicly acknowledged - diethylstilbestrol was given to women and was "safe" for years before people couldn't ignore all the kids without arms or legs anymore too. While there might not be a lot of sanction research on autism, I can tell you this, there is LOTS of antidotal evidence (from multiple sources) that autism is possibly a microscopic yeast infection of the brain. This has been shown by how dramatically an autistic child's behaviour can change after being put on a yeast-free non-yeast-feeding diet. While there has been research regarding the gluten/casin free diet and autism, it showed it was only mildly beneficial to some kids. Seeing the gluten and casin peptides are only issues because of leaky gut (which is caused by yeast overgrowth), I'm not surprised it only had mild effect because it was treating a symptom not the cause. This is something I have seen personally, not only in my child, but it my friends children who have gone on to do similar diets after seeing the change in my DD. Yeast imbalances for certain people (especially those who are A blood types) can be potent and damaging. Guess what the Hep B vaccination is made on...? You guest it, yeast, injected directly into the blood stream before they're even a day old and have developed an immune system -awesome! A decision I made in ignorance that I now must fix through hard work, but it is fixing (they are considering taking my daughter off the spectrum her improvement has been that huge). It's easy to sing the praises of an immunisation like Hep B (which a baby has a ridiculously low chance of getting) if you don't have to deal with any other fall-out consequences. If it was your child that wouldn't look at you, if it was your child that you had to physically restrain to stop them hurting you, themselves or other people, if it was your child that got stuck in a loop like a skipped record and couldn't break themselves out, I'd guarantee you wouldn't be so quick to jab your kids with certain immunisations and judge others for not doing so either, because then it would be a "real issue" for you too.
MMR causes Autism, give me a break! Thats been disproven so many times in so many ways and the original 'research' well discredited.
Anecdote isn't research and if there is extremely strong research that goes against an anecdote that means its false.
This is what I mean, you can't run a health system that involves the health of billions relying on anecdotes from a few emotional parents. That is why we rely on science.
Anecdotes obscure the real issues.
Yep, I'm one of those emotional parents with a kid on the spectrum and it was ONE of the reasons I don't vacc. I also don't rely so much on science (and the so called scientific evidence) because you KNOW how flawed that is, don't you?
I always believed that vaccines should be compulsory, and that parents who did not vaccinate were selfish and risking the health of so many kids more than their own. I believed that, even when I saw my child withdraw before my eyes and cease all attempts at speech and eye contact. I believed it when the doctors starting mentioning the word "autism" to me. I believed it when we saw speech therapists, and had to use sign language to understand when my 2 and a half year old was hungry.
The day a chiropractor suggested the vaccines sometimes shock the body, and that she could undo the damage I thought she was crazy. Until 10 minutes after her first adjustment when my son spoke his first proper word. It was Dad. Within a week he spoke a sentence "shoes please dad". He quickly regained eye contact, stopped having violent tantrums, and is now a healthy almost 6 year old with communication skills exactly right for a boy his age.
Now I know my evidence is anecdotal, and that studies could disprove the link between too many vaccines at once and autism. However I also saw my child change twice, once following MMR and varicella, once following the chiropractor's adjustment. I do still believe that vaccines have a benefit for most children, but am choosing to partially vaccinate my children now, and on a delayed schedule. And believe me if anyone told me I "had to" vaccinate I would take it to every court in the land to allow me, the parent who knows my children best, the right to make informed decisions just like I have that right in every aspect of parenting.
Anecdotes of parents who WATCHED their children withdraw after being vaccinated? Anecdotes of parents who WATCHED their children go into anaphylactic shock after being vaccinated? Anecdotes of parents who were persecuted for months for choosing NOT to vaccinate, only to find out later that their child had a very serious disorder that went undiagnosed at birth, which causes most children to die before they are 2 because their bodies cannot fight the vaccinations? I am friends with people for the above 3 examples, and I take offence at the way you've brushed them off as 'a few emotional parents'.:
It is not just a few, and they are not 'emotional parents' - they are the ones who are with their children 24/7 and KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that their child changed after being vaccinated. Not agreeing that vaccinations can cause autism is one thing, but to come in here and tell everyone who does think so that they are just being emotional is offensive.
There is no JUST emotional, my children mean more to me than anything, if they were hurt in this way it would kill me inside.:
But to destroy the entire vaccination program because of anecdotes that go against the research? Maybe there is another reason for what you've seen?
Anaphalaxis isn't a good reason not to vaccinate either, the effects and stats are presented before immunisation and not shied away from.
I'm not saying destroy it, I'm saying don't make it compulsory for everyone, because there is evidence, anecdotal or not, that shows there are risks to it. Each parent deserves the right to research each vaccine and decide accordingly. For the government to swoop in and tell us we have to vaccinate is wrong IMO. Although if it happened, I guarantee there would be a surge in so-called 'anecdotal evidence', to the point where there would be no choice but to do the proper research, paid by somebody who DOESN'T have a vested interest in the outcome.
I wonder what would've happened 30 years ago if the government made Thalidomide compulsory in all pregnancies?
The problem is that if you don't vaccinate everyone then you might as well scrap the program and welcome all the diseases that we vaccinate against.
Thats the whole point of this thread. Its all or nothing.
Its unfair to compare Thalidomide and vaccines.
Shouldnt' we be addressing the reasons so many parents are uncomfortable about vaccinating (in full or at all)? It's not a tiny group of weirdos (the AVN notwithstanding), there are valid concerns about vaccinations and the scheduling of them. It would be far more constructive to work on alternatives to improve compliance, rather than simply telling parents to shut up and take it.
I don't think that vaccines should be compulsory and I definitely don't think that people should be told to shut up and take it, but declining rates of vaccination and the increase in deaths by preventable disease show that people don't understand the issue and that 'weirdos' like the AVN ARE affecting peoples choices.
I have never heard a good reason not to vaccinate on the commercial media but I see the AVN and people like them regularly.
How is it unfair? Thalidomide was touted as a cure all for morning sickness in pregnancy and GPs everywhere gave it to their pregnant patients as a preventative measure before proper testing was completed. When babies started being born missing limbs it was ignored, pushed to the side, blamed on environmental issues until the anecdotal evidence provided by emotional parents was too loud to ignore. And shock horror, they realised that Thalidomide was the problem.:
From where I'm sitting it's exactly the same scenario.
So following the same scenario idea: Wikipedia estimates 10-20,000 Thalidomide babies(though not babies now obviously), if Thalidomide cured a disease that killed millions of children would you take it and risk it? Would you take it if nausea killed babies? But it doesn't so its a bad comparison.
There is a lot of scientific research for and against vaccinating. A lot of research that never makes it outside of the lab that comissioned it because of what it shows and proves.
So the statement that there isn't research is a moot point, it is there, it is just never published or released.
I have seen confidential documents relating to other things (not vac related), that if the general public knew, would change the way people think, but as I signed confidentiality agreements prior to working there I cannot mention what I've seen.
So never say there is no research or documentation to back up a parent's belief that vaccinating had an impact on a major change in their child, because there probably is, just that we'll never get to see it.
If you didn't blow the whistle on something that affected the lives of that many people, Sopdet, because of an NDA... I can't even begin to describe how unethical that is!!!
To say that all the governments of the world are purposefully altering research and disease reporting statistics to hide massive increases in MS and Autism rates is farcical! The biggest coverup of our age to make a few $'s? Really? Seriously?
I agree that there are dangers in vaccination, and most of them are widely documented, by the government no less, but to bring in theories about black helicopters and the Illuminati isn't productive in the debate.
You obviously have a problem with reading and comprehension. Where did I say MMR? You're obviously not taking the time to read and give other people's posts the proper attention - must be too busy judging and working out how you're going to try and "correct" them.:
You also missed the point where scientific research must be funded - that's not anecdotal, it's fact. Just like history is written by the winners, science is funded by those with vested interests. To ignore that and not factor it into your reasoning is ridiculously unbalanced and/or naive. Granted, "emotional" parents have their own vested interests too. They are motivated by love to search for answers, to lift every rock, examine every clue without needing a financial or a career achievement incentive. Thing is, their results don't get media attention, it doesn't get published - it gets fobbed off in the same way you just fobbed off mine. I pray that you are fortunate enough to never have to deal with these issues and need to defend it against others with as little grace, tact and understanding as yourself.
You are right - you can't run a health system based purely on anecdotal evidence (and I'd like you to point out logically where anyone said that is should be - you know, because I'm the "emotional" one who is shooting off at the hip), but by the same logic that same health system shouldn't be able to force certain procedures based upon limited and biased research and their own agendas. There's a name for that - it's called fascism. The parents and children that do not immunise have just as much right to their autonomy as those who immunise. To try and remove that personal sovereignty over their own bodies by making something compulsory is to remove a basic human right. History has a way of repeating itself in different disguises. A similar attitude of being "for the greater good of society" was used to justify government sanctioned sterilisations of disabled children in Germany - the first step in a slippery slope that led to genocide and discrimination of anyone "different" in epic proportions. The attitude that it's okay to take away a person's autonomy I think is a far bigger risk and far deadlier than any disease.
BTW You still haven't answered what the real issues are...