Child Immunizations

[Katia]

I have been giving alot of thought lately to the issue of child immmunizations. This past year or so, my daughter has undergone some testing due to the fact that her speech is delayed. She is extremely intelligent, at barely 5 she can read every single one of the Dr. Seuss' books with ease. She also has an amazingly developed imagination. She just has some trouble expressing herself at times. I wanted to rule out any possible learning disabilities or problem with her hearing, etc. so this is why we had the testing. At one point they decided they wanted to test her for autism. I did alot of research on autism at the time, and I discovered the fact that 10 years ago, one out of every 10,000 children were diagnosed as being autistic. This year, it is one out of every 186 children. Then I discovered that there is a possible link between the Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccine and autism. Could it be that the vaccine we are giving our children to ensure their health stands a chance of actually stumping some part of their social growth?

Luckily, it seems my daughter will only be needing some speech therapy, and is having her tonsils removed to relieve some of the fluid in her ear drums. But this whole issue has really got me thinking about if I should bring her in for future vaccines, or any other children I may have one day for that matter. Medicine is a business, and I can't help but doubt a source that is trying to make themselves money. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? What are your thoughts on immunizing your children or future children?

[hemrud]

There are some helpful articles at lewrockwell.com, written by a doctor on this subject. Briefly put boys are at higher danger but in general most of the doctors who are admiting to the problem suggest limited/few or no vaccines till the child is 2 years old and their brain is fully developed. We are doing very limited vaccinations for our daughter, the MMR is one to defiantely postpone till later as is the at birth hepatitas unless the parents have it.
China is now experiencing the same horrific results with the large number of vaccines given to infants, regardless of the preservative used. I believe the CDC reccomends this schedule in the USA because they are trying to hold back epidemics from large numbers of third world illegal immigrants with little to no previous health care. Otherwise the need for vaccines for diseases like whooping cough would be unnecessary as they were eradicated generations ago here, but have now reappeared. Hope this helps. PM me and I can give you some direct links and book titles to check out.

[texas heathen]

Katia,
Vac are so bad for young children, You are in SoCal right ? Most states have an exemption process. My children are unvaccinated and un circumcised( my son) to hell with there Pharmaceutical lobbyist and Judaic practices!!
The Vaccine thing is covered pretty well by Motherhood mag I think, we must all make informed choices for our children they are the bearers of the torch.
FFF
Clif AOR

[aud_friggsdottir]

Katia,
Vac are so bad for young children, You are in SoCal right ? Most states have an exemption process. My children are unvaccinated and un circumcised( my son) to hell with there Pharmaceutical lobbyist and Judaic practices!!
The Vaccine thing is covered pretty well by Motherhood mag I think, we must all make informed choices for our children they are the bearers of the torch.
FFF
Clif AOR


Oh Clif...man after my own heart!! :D

I am vehemently against vaccines as well. But I didn't get wise and educate myself until my 5th child. I read books, websites, questioned doctors, checked the VAERS site and then woke up all my children at 5 in the morning to apologise for doing such a thing to them. Since, I have written extensively on the subject. Also, my 5th and 6th children are not vaccinated. And, yes, my older children do have some "issues" that I believe are from vaccines, especially since there is no family history on either side of the problems. Hakon has never visited the doctor (besides for weight and growth checks) for illness. He has never tasted tylenol or any other allopathic medicine...and he has never been ill beyond the occasional cold.

With that said...Parents do what they think is best for their children. I don't "look down" on those that vaccinate, but I do highly suggest that one educates one's self regarding the whole issue both pro and con.

Katia, you have Sigrdrifa right? It is covered in several of their issues. I am sure if you email them they will give you more info :). They have book, medical, website references for all their articles regarding the subject.

As an side bar... In PA, 3 Amish children have been infected with polio. Guess what kind, the vaccine mutated strain of polio!!! They probably were exposed via an recently vaccinated individual or a carrier that was vaccinated with the live virus. The paper had the nerve to say it was because they weren't vaccinated...instead of placing blame on the pharm company that created a "new strain" of polio.

[Canuck]

I'm glad my parents didn't force me to get vaccinated, I don't trust the pharmeceutical companies and I don't think I ever will. In my opinion vaccination is right up there with circumcision and needless tonsil and appendix removal.

[texas heathen]

Some good vaccine info here http://www.909shot.com/Default.htm just browsed through it so can not vouch for everything, My Ex has a lot of books on the subject though will have to get some of the titles.
FFF
Clif AOR

[Katia]

What a great response! Well, if I wasn't convinced before, I surely am now. And I would appreciate those book titles whenever you have a chance, texas heathen!

To take this topic a step further, if you decide to leave your child unvaccinated, won't you run into trouble while registering them for school? Isn't that required?

[Canuck]

All the more reason to homeschool. :D

[texas heathen]

Some states allow philosophical, most allow religious ( which can be defined in different ways by different states) usually if you can use one of those exemptions the school will have you sign a waver and ask you to pull the kids out if there is an out break. Be very careful of some school districts who tend to do things for your own good ( some schools have a vaccine day for the poor and have pulled kids out of class for shots who were not supposed to be, only heard of this once though). here is a good book , http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556432151/102-3160520-4249732?v=glance I did not read the reviews but it was one of the one my Ex found to be the best.
FFF
Clif AOR

[aud_friggsdottir]

Some good vaccine info here http://www.909shot.com/Default.htm just browsed through it so can not vouch for everything, My Ex has a lot of books on the subject though will have to get some of the titles.
FFF
Clif AOR

This is an excellent website with links to several other great websites. The woman who runs it (can't think of her name offhand) was the consumer advocate that sat on the FDA approval board for vaccines. She has a very keen understanding of how vaccines go through the "review" process that she say is in fact an approval process with no real scrutinous review at all.

I highly recommend their e-newsletter.

As for school, I believe every state has religious exemptions. If not I would find out what you need to do to get it. Religious beliefs are a protected class under the constitution and deserves equal access to publicly funded services which includes education. In otherwords they cannot discriminate against someone based on strongly held religious beliefs.

But as Canuck said....good reason to homeschool :D!

FFF
Kathy

[freya3]

Katia,

I am so glad that you have brought this discussion up! I knew there was a reason I joined this site :)

I have a 14 month old and I am 15 weeks pregnant, and I recently started researching the "need" for vaccines myself and ran across the possible link to vaccines and autism too. My 1 year old has her current shots, but my husband and I are trying to figure out which ones we want and don't want for our coming child.

We are both in the medical field and have decided that the new baby will not get the Hepatitis B vaccine, that they give in the hospital, and if it is a boy, not to circumcise it (the look I got from the OB when I said no :eek: ).

I will post the sites I have looked at and will look into the ones you guys have posted already. We plan on homeschooling our kids, so I don't know how much of a problem it will be for us.

Take care, Carla
www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/autism/default.htm
www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm

[Canuck]

and if it is a boy, not to circumcise it (the look I got from the OB when I said no ).


I'm appauled that it's still legal, unescesary surgury on infants? We live in one messed up world.

[freya3]

It is, and it is done daily like an assembly line. I remember when I was in school they would have an assigned time where they brought all the little boys into a room and the Md would strap them onto a table, give them no anesthesia or numbing meds and just cut. It was so bad...

We are going to have to be careful, cause saying no is rare. There have been cases where the parents said no to circumcision and they were anyway. My husabnd will kill whoever does that to our child!

[Katia]

freya3.. Thank you for your input!! And that is so cool that you are pregnant, too.. We can be online belly buddies ;) !

[beowulf]

My wife and I recently received flu vaccinations so hopefully our 5 mo. old won't get it from us at least.

[skalagrim]

Looking at the other posts, I suspect my position will be a bit unpopular. I am not convinced that vaccines are harmful.

If you think about it, the rise in autism to epidemic levels has only been in the past 10 years or so; but most of the vaccines under consideration here have been in use for much longer than 10 years; and mercury-based preservatives have been used in vaccines since the 1930's - for example, the vaccines that wiped smallpox from the face of the earth - and there was no corresponding rise in autism at that time.

I realize that many people think they are harmful - either due to their mechanism of action or due to the preservatives used; but most current vaccines do NOT use the mercury-based preservative, and the mechanism of action of most vaccines is inherently natural.

According to the FDA: "Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine (see Table 1). A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women. Some vaccines such as Td, which is indicated for older children (> 7 years of age) and adults, are also now available in formulations that are free of thimerosal or contain only trace amounts. Vaccines with trace amounts of thimerosal contain 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose."

Thus, there should be no appreciable risk from the preservative in a vaccine if the parent makes sure the pediatrician knows to use non-mercury vaccines. 1 microgram of mercury will NOT hurt anyone - you get more than that from just ordinary drinking water or eating fish. Remember - mercury is a natural mineral, just like arsenic - and as such will naturally find its way into the food chain in small amounts. I'm not saying to go eat some - just that 1 microgram is safe.

As far as the mechanism of action of vaccines - most of the vaccines used in childhood today are the same tried-and-true vaccines - produced in the same way - as the ones I received as a child. These are all produced using the same basic mechanisms as the smallpox and polio vaccines - i.e. using either dead or attenuated/weakened versions of the viruses that cause the disease. This causes the body to develop antibodies for the disease so when the real-deal comes down the pike, the body is ready.

Certain more modern vaccines, in order to increase their safety, use different mechanisms - e.g. using just certain activator proteins, without the disease organism itself.

Any risk from most vaccines outside the obvious - i.e. in attenuated versions you could actually get the disease - has not been quantified, in my opinion. The only vaccines I'm aware of that present a risk of side-effects OTHER than those associated with the disease for which you are getting vaccinated is the flu vaccine. The flu vaccine, because it isn't produced in the same way as other vaccines and is tracking a mutating virus, presents unusual and often fatal risks that cannot be entirely predicted. (This is why pharmaceutical companies want to be freed from liability in exchange for making flu vaccines. The swine flu vaccine had devastating effects and if the pharmaceutical industry had been liable, they'd be out of business.)

But we aren't discussing flu vaccines here - but rather the standard childhood vaccinations. In that case, I am simply not convinced that the vaccines in their current incarnation present a significant risk of harm. Some - such as the polio vaccine - are actually safer today than when we were young. When we were young, polio vaccines used attenuated virus; whereas today they use a dead virus. The plus side is that the vaccine is safer, the downside is that more boosters are required to convey effective protection.

Against this, we must weigh the fact that, for the first time in decades, due to - naturally - unlimited third-world immigration, the U.S. is now seeing outbreaks of measles. Our respective governments are not about to do anything to stem the tide of third-world immigration, so this problem will only get worse.

Many of these diseases - such as diptheria - are truly horrible to behold.

It is my opinion, for now, that vaccination is a good idea since the risk of contracting deadly infectious diseases without them will, in the not too distant future, exceed any risk from the vaccine itself due to the unmonitored nature of the streams of humanity that enter our spaces.

A reasonably prudent position, I would think, would be to delay vaccinations until age 2 as was mentioned earlier - but then, actually get them!

I would hate to find myself in the position of explaining to my ex-wife why her one and only daughter died from a 100% preventable illness.

I am vaccinated as well. In fact, having served in the military and spent some time in the third-world, I have received way more vaccinations than the average person. I wouldn't advocate something I haven't done myself.

[Zelda]

Thank you for posting an alternative view. I struggled somewhat with the question of vaccines for my child. I'm a bit of an "older" parent so I realize the benefits of vaccines. I had friends in school who had suffered from polio and I well remember I was one of the first to receive the polio vaccine in a sugar cube at a community gathering in the school gym. I had a brother almost die of the measles. Whooping cough is now making a come-back in my home state - I remember as a child my mom running the steaming hot shower, holding my other brother in there so he could breathe between "whoops." I think sometimes we become complacent about the dangers of various contagious illnesses, so that needs to be taken into account too in making decisions about vaccinations. My concern is that they keep adding more and more and I begin to wonder if they know the interactions between them very well. There is a lot of information out there pro and con and everyone has to make their individual choice. Sometimes a bit of history should also be considered. I don't think all modern medicine is a bad thing. Zelda

[freya3]

I agree with you guys on the fact that all medicine is not bad...

And, yes, with all the immigration(legal and illegal) that has made diseases in our country once again present(but that is another topic... :mad:), I am finding that I am probably going to HAVE to vaccinate this child due in April as I have my 15 month old. My parents have always commented on how much better she has done than myself, so the vaccines are better that way. I just wonder sometimes how much is REALLY necessary.

Nice to hear 2 sides :)

[texas heathen]

Skalagrim, Zelda,
Though I may disagree I would never tell you what to do with your children. From your post Skalagrim you are very informed and are satisfied with your decision. That is great if only half the parents in the world cared enough to actually read the warnings on the *****.
The medical field gives a lot of miss information and often scold you for asking to many questions. With the Dr's receiving bonuses from the pharmaceutical industries for pushing there particular brand you should always question and research , thankfully we have the Internet now a days to research things.
FFF
Clif AOR

[aud_friggsdottir]

Hail Skalagrim!

I just want to add...I do not think that vaccines are the cause of all our woes, but rather a combination of an unhealthy environment where toxins are in EVERYTHING!! I think we have more of a chance of being damaged by vaccines and other toxic chemicals then the diseases they prevent. I have written extensively on it, so I don't particularly feel the need to go into it here, but I do want to ask...would you want to explain to your wife why your only child died or was permanently disabled from a vaccine? The statistics that are 90% UNDERreported (CDC stat) are staggering regarding vaccine reactions (VAERS--governmental body/system that tracks vaccine reactions). I will take my chances with diseases that, in reality, only harm those that are unhealthy and go untreated. Of course that is my opinion...

I think it is a highly personal decision, but I also encourage parents to think with their heads and not buy into the hysteria that the AMA, AAP, Pediatricians, etc...weave...whom also have a vested monetary interest in maintaining a 98% vaccinated society.

FFF
Kathy

Edit: Mercury at one microgram CAN hurt a little infant that has and _*unknown*_ allergy. Especially, when it is being shot directly into the blood stream bypassing all the natural barriers that are set up for true immunity. Also, it is more than just mercury...formaldehyde, aluminum, antibiotics, animal dna, etc... etc... Please don't downplay dangers.

[skalagrim]

Hail to you, Zelda, Clif, Freya3 and Kathy!

Like so many things we have to deal with today, decisions are difficult; especially in an atmosphere where the information necessary to make a good decision is misrepresented because of the collaboration of numerous special interests in government and industry, as well as people who have biases in various directions due to philosophy. This problem applies to decisions pertaining not just to vaccines, but has become so pervasive that it affects even decisions that should be mundane.

So I can understand why differences of opinions would exist. Above all, I believe that every parent has a nature-imposed duty to children to make the best possible decisions on their behalf. What exactly would constitute a "best possible" decision, though, will often be different for different parents based upon not just differences in the information (and disinformation) we've been exposed to - but also our own different experiences. So I would never jump up and down and insist that a parent *must* vaccinate a child. I totally realize that we are by necessity working in an imperfect information environment in which clear answers aren't as forthcoming as would be optimal if we could actually trust the people who are supposed to provide us with answers.

There is another side to this vaccination debate, as well, that sounds cold and callous - but I haven't heard brought up and I don't think should be neglected.

Many of the diseases that we currently vaccinate against are truly horrible diseases that often left their victims scarred for life, paralyzed, or debilitated in some other way when the victim wasn't outright killed. Some people recovered fully, or for some reason never contracted the disease at all.

This process - of essentially killing or severely reducing the reproductive viability of people with inadequate natural immune systems to fight a plethora of diseases - had the net affect over the years of creating a population descended from the survivors of disease who thus had heightened, albeit imperfect, *natural* immunity to these diseases. In other words, before Pasteur ushered in the age of vaccines, we were developing - through an admittedly harsh form of eugenics via death-penalty by disease - a net stronger Folk.

For the past 100 years or so, through vaccinations, we have stopped this process and as a result the culling of the less immunologically fit has stopped. As a result, the people of today are less immunologically strong than the people of 100 years ago.

We cannot be guaranteed to always have the technology for effective vaccinations readily available since such technology, to work on a large scale, requires a large industrial base that could be paralyzed due to numerous acts of either Man or Nature. (In its more primitive forms, vaccines could be produced using turn-of-the-twentieth-century technology - but only on a very small scale.)

An argument could therefore be made that by using vaccinations for the past 100 years AND for the foreseeable future; a day will come when the long term use of those vaccinations - that prevented so many deaths along the way - would have the ultimate net effect of causing the extinction of the human species or some subset thereof.

From this perspective, it is better to avoid vaccinations entirely - perhaps even outlaw them - and let the chips fall where they may.

Obviously, I don't subscribe entirely to that school of thought for a lot of reasons; though it raises, I believe, some valid concerns about vaccinations that we need to plan for. The problem is that I see no medical literature that indicates anyone is devoting much effort to solving that conundrum. Ideally parents shouldn't have to sacrifice their children to painful death to achieve the higher goal of a healthier humanity in the long run - there has to be a way of resolving that. In the meantime, I make use of vaccinations because the diseases they protect against are the "known" and very real to me, while the uncertain future is the "unknown" and thus less real. (though both are, objectively, equally real - of course - it's just that one exists with a higher degree of certainty.)

Meanwhile, I think Kathy and others bring up valid points about the safety of vaccines in particular, but also medicines in general.

I am not a doctor - but one of my degrees is in chemistry which probably explains my thought process. I don't mean to demean the medical profession - for it is largely an honorable one - but the simple fact is that medicine is still in its infancy. Our scientists are, to be fair, learning a lot more as time goes on - but in large areas - *important* areas pertaining to human health - they are still operating on guesswork.

With many medicines - we discovered their use by accident or inherited them from folk medicine - we really can only theorize as to how they work. Looking at any medicine, you can see lists of potential side-effects that range all the way from simple headaches to sudden death. Even the most advanced techniques for designing or finding ***** do not predict these outcomes - which is why all kinds of tests are required. The very fact that we cannot predict these side effects, and must instead discover them through experimentation on humans, proves that our scientific understanding of these materials and the way they work with the human body is inadequate in the extreme.

So even using the most pure of medical materials entirely free of all contamination - the medical material itself can be harmful in ways that nobody can predict except through the use of human guinea pigs and the law of averages. Sort of high-tech Russian Roulette. This is why, in the United States, more people die from adverse drug reactions or getting the wrong ***** or the wrong dosages of ***** than from *all firearm violence combined.* This is something to consider and lends powerful credence to your arguments, Kathy. After all, if people drop dead from heart attacks from pain killing ***** - ***** that aren't supposed to interact from the heart at all - why would vaccines be any safer?

In a perfect system where all such matters were fully disclosed to an informed public, people could at least make rational decisions. The matter is complicated and corrupted by the fact that the commercial enterprises that make medicines who are ostensibly regulated and controlled by government are - in actuality - in an alliance with government. The motives of both enterprises - profit and power respectively - are incompatible with even the short term best interests of the public, much less the long term; and antithetical to the most basic requirement of rational decisionmaking: dissemination of unbiased factual information.

This is because an entity whose business is the accumulation of power for its own sake and depositing that power in the hands of the undeserving - government; can NOT effectively regulate an entity whose business is profit - pharmaceutical companies - since the profit becomes money - and money is the life-blood of electoral politics and the foundation of political power. Thus, government and pharmaceutical companies will, rather than acting as checks and balances upon each other; act instead as an unholy alliance in collusion against the best interests of the people.

It is for this reason that many of the concerns that I have read - concerns with adulterants, deadly preservatives and so forth - make sense; when such concerns wouldn't even exist in an honest system. But we DON'T have an honest system. It is within many of our lifetimes that the U.S. government deliberately infected African Americans with syphilis without their knowledge or consent just to watch the progress of the disease. And that's just the tip of a very sick and twisted iceberg devoid of even the most basic ethical constraints. When the government says that a vaccine is safe or free from dangerous adulterants - it just lacks credibility. How many times have any of our respective governments lied to us that we know about? Dozens? Hundreds? And how many times that we DON'T know about? Inestimable. Government and industry are just not sources of information that can be trusted. They have a very poor track record.

While the foregoing problem is really sociopolitical and thus outside our sphere of discussion; it explains why, even though my opinion on the specific matter of vaccines differs from that of Freya3 and Kathy, I can completely understand - and respect - their own opinions on the matter.

Childhood vaccinations were largely invented before the advent of the unholy alliance between pharmaceutical companies and government regulators. The earlier ones - like smallpox and tetanus - came about before the regulatory mechanisms even existed, and were developed by honorable people - such as Pasteur - who truly acted out of both a quest for knowledge and a desire to help people. The diphtheria vaccine (made by combining the toxin produced by the diphtheria bacterium with an antitoxin) was developed in the early 1920's by von Behring. These vaccines were brought forth in an era of intense skepticism during which problems with them could in no way have been concealed.

It is because of the integrity and scientific rigorousness of the individuals who invented these particular vaccines, along with their track record of saving lives, that causes me to consider them to be worthwhile. It is hard to forget the story of the first applications of the Pasteur's rabbies vaccine. (Microbiology was a hobby of mine, a rather passionate one, when I was a kid.)

That notwithstanding, the fact remains that there are dangers even with these well-known and long-tested vaccines. Even in their earliest production, these vaccines were often produced through the use of non-human animals - such as horses or pigs. (As they still are!) As a result, they could incorporate a certain amount of the organic material of these animals in their material - and so a human who was sensitive to the proteins of a horse or pig could have an adverse reaction. This is especially because, as Kathy points out, vaccines of this sort bypass the stomach and its multiple defenses that would reduce the foreign proteins into harmless constituent amino acids. Instead, they go directly into the body. So a person who could eat horse or pork perfectly fine could still have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Many modern vaccines use eggs as a medium with similar problems.

(The nature of viruses, unlike bacteria, is that they require a living tissue in which to grow and multiply. Most bacteria can grow on stuff like agar-agar or even boiled potato. That's because they contain their own reproductive mechanisms and are thus self-sufficient. Just give them food and warmth, and they take right off. Viruses, on the other hand, are not reproductively self sufficient and actually need to hijack the reproductive mechanisms inside living cells in order to replicate. That is why vaccines for viruses are made using living horses, pigs, eggs, and so on. Many are made today in gizmos called bioreactors that use either serum from animals or specialty media that contain no actual blood serum but consist instead of monkey-kidney cells (for example) suspended in a medium made from plant material. The problem is, there's no getting around the use of *some* kind of living cell if you want to grow a virus, and the use of non-human cells has quite a few advantages I won't go into here.)

And that is not the only risk. Even with the exact same substance, people have different reactions and different degrees of reaction due to differences in genetics, lifestyle, and so forth. As a result, a foreign protein - such as inactivated diphtheria toxin - that might have no affect whatsoever on one person could be quite harmful to another.

So - in the case of my daughter - I made the calculation this way.

Her likelihood of adverse reactions to vaccines would, in large measure, be based upon her genetics. Nobody on either side of her family going all the way out to second cousins and all the way to grandparents has had any known adverse reaction to a vaccine or to any of the animals used in the manufacture of vaccines. Nobody on either side of her family has demonstrated unusual sensitivity to other pharmaceuticals, including antibiotics. So while adverse reactions aren't *impossible*, their likelihood is less than that of the population at large. This is bolstered by the fact that most members of the family on both sides have been immunized like crazy due to military service.

The vaccinations in question are not (generally) exotic; i.e. typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria, polio, measles, etc. They are well-known; and have a long track record - some of them for as long as 100 years. Many were developed by well respected people with a history of dedication and personal integrity.

The likelihood of exposure to these disease organisms is becoming greater and greater due to immigration of all sorts; plus her likelihood of having sufficient natural immunity is decreased because the three generations before her were vaccinated - increasing her risk of death or serious disability if she were to contract any of these diseases. Notwithstanding the argument that perhaps a person with insufficient natural immunity *should* die for the long-term good of the genepool; that idea is repellent to me. I'm not Abraham and if I had been Abraham I would have told Yahweh to stuff it when he told me to sacrifice Isaac.

Thus, she is vaccinated and came through it all okay. I DO know that many people don't have her luck in that respect; and I DO see significant (and often compelling) arguments for the other side; so I don't dispute people who decide differently!

The fact is, with so many unknowns, it is quite possible for my decision to be incorrect - and I'm cognizant of that. I admire the enormous effort and research that Kathy (and others like her) have put into this effort, that will ultimately help all of us make the best possible decisions on such difficult matters.

[freya3]

Wow, AWESOME post Skalagrim!

For me, I am going to vaccinate my children because, yes I have researched enough to know that they are generally safe.

But you are right about the medical efficacy of the pharmaceutical comps and govt regulations. My husband is a Neurology resident and I am a nurse, and we don't know a lot about the regulations invovled, but are suspicious @ times...

I just feel this world has come to a feeling of "if you are sick, there's a pill to cure it" mentality. And with companies developing ***** to make you better FOR A PROFIT, you might want to look @ other avenues before popping that pill or taking that shot...

[aud_friggsdottir]

Skalagrim,

I am not going to argue here on this subject. Some of the facts you purport are incorrect, but I don't have the time to discuss it.

You seem a reasonable person and my first 4 kids have been vaccinated, but when I found out about what they were, how they were made, and how they are stabilized and their colored history as well as the misinformation about how they have "saved" people...I refuse to do it again.

Wyrd, I was going to bring up the natural "thinning the herd" that disease and wars are supposed to do and we are circumventing Mother Jorth or at least trying...where is this taking us? I didn't simply because it is yet another can of worms I don't have time to defend.

At anyrate, I just want people to know that they need to research BOTH sides, independently and ignore their doctors. Frankly, people in the medical community don't even know how things are made or done...they merely parrot the "accepted truths". People need to look at whole health and maintain a healthy existence (mind, body, and soul) instead of looking for saviors in pills, shots and hospitals/doctors offices.

FFF
Kathy

[Schwarzesonne]

I was going to bring up the natural "thinning the herd" that disease and wars are supposed to do and we are circumventing Mother Jorth or at least trying...where is this taking us? I didn't simply because it is yet another can of worms I don't have time to defend.

Personally I wouldn’t worry too much about that. Nerthus (Jorð) has always managed to be on top of these things one way or another. You know what they say about her: she knows all but says nothing…

At anyrate, I just want people to know that they need to research BOTH sides, independently and ignore their doctors. Frankly, people in the medical community don't even know how things are made or done...they merely parrot the "accepted truths". People need to look at whole health and maintain a healthy existence (mind, body, and soul) instead of looking for saviors in pills, shots and hospitals/doctors offices. [/QUOTE]

Wise words indeed!

[skalagrim]

Indeed - it is one of those topics where the sheer quantity of information (and misinformation) could get beyond the ability of people to even read, much less evaluate!

I think mankind is a unique creature in that it has a history of trying to circumvent the laws of cause and effect, the laws of Nature, or Nerthus in one way or another. In many cases, this has been self deception more than anything else; and deception of any sort always ends badly because - ultimately - commandment of nature, to paraphrase a wise man, requires obedience to nature as a prerequisite.

I use the term "nature" here rather simplistically, of course, as a term meant to incorporate within it certain core tenets of our common faith - for example, the mechanism by which Layers placed in the well of Wyrd transit the World Tree and rain down upon us again as present events.

If you think about it, the reason why deception never works in the long run is because if I say that I have performed a certain act, but an entirely different act has been performed - it is that different act that is layered within the well and thus percolates to the top to be rained down. Present events then reveal that the actual predecessor event was different from what I claimed.

Any attempt to circumvent nature's laws ultimately fails for the same reasons.

At the same time, much progress is made through the understanding of those laws; and as our understanding is enhanced over time, our ability to deal with these issues will be increased. The problem we run into that scares me is that science often finds itself the handmaiden of politics - whether it be the creation of nerve gasses, denial of various facts, or whatever horrible nastiness serves the politicians at the moment. Integrity among scientists - as among other groups - is often compromised by hard currency - to the detriment of posterity. (This has been the case throughout much of recorded history, so isn't exactly a newsflash. Just the details change.)

This creates a circumstance such that when Nerthus re-asserts her primacy; the instance may be quite unpleasant - and often for people who had no knowledge or control over such matters. Naturally, I understand at an intellectual level that this re-assertion is - in the grander scheme of things - good and necessary. A part of life. But that won't make matters - such as large scale death due to lack of natural immunity - pleasant.

So Steve is right - Nerthus always manages to be on top of these things - to put things right. Maybe it is worthwhile to consider ways to give her ... a little less work to do and thus soften the blow when it inevitably comes .... and this can be done by perfecting our knowledge of nature so we can more effectively work within its laws ...

[Katia]

This has been an interesting thread for me to read through as I have been having to deal with this issue extensively these past few days. My daughter's preschool informed me that her shot record is needing updating within 10 days, so I have been doing some research on the shots she still needs by the medical standards. She needed her Tetanus shot and her MMR booster. I have been doing some research and from what I've read the Tetanus doesn't seem too invasive, but the MMR is making me nervous due to the fact that my daughter already has certain small autistic tendencies and not nearly enough research has been done to extinct the correlation between the two, not to my expectations anyway! So I have been calling around to the County Health Department and her doctor's office to find out if there is a form I need to fill out to deny this shot so she can keep going to preschool. Well I just can't believe the degree of unprofessionalism and judgement I have had to endure these past few days. A receptionist at her pediatrician's office told me she was going to suggest the doctor drop her as a patient just for my CONSIDERING not giving her a vaccine, a woman at the Health Department said that she had half a mind to call DHR to report me as an abuseful mother! This has been a terribly stressful time for me. How dare they judge me like this and dare call me a bad mother. I would be willing to bet that neither of these individuals have read 1 book or done any amount of considerable research on vaccines and how they are made, and what effects they have on a small child's developing mind. Yet I am the bad mother. What complete ignorant fools, to just trust what a capitalist society tells them they need to believe! We are in control of our bodies, and it's about time we stopped being ignorant consumers the way ALL companies (INCLUDING pharmaceutical companies!) want us to be so they can squeeze every last dime out of us and our insurance companies.

[aud_friggsdottir]

This has been an interesting thread for me to read through as I have been having to deal with this issue extensively these past few days. My daughter's preschool informed me that her shot record is needing updating within 10 days, so I have been doing some research on the shots she still needs by the medical standards. She needed her Tetanus shot and her MMR booster. I have been doing some research and from what I've read the Tetanus doesn't seem too invasive, but the MMR is making me nervous due to the fact that my daughter already has certain small autistic tendencies and not nearly enough research has been done to extinct the correlation between the two, not to my expectations anyway! So I have been calling around to the County Health Department and her doctor's office to find out if there is a form I need to fill out to deny this shot so she can keep going to preschool. Well I just can't believe the degree of unprofessionalism and judgement I have had to endure these past few days. A receptionist at her pediatrician's office told me she was going to suggest the doctor drop her as a patient just for my CONSIDERING not giving her a vaccine, a woman at the Health Department said that she had half a mind to call DHR to report me as an abuseful mother! This has been a terribly stressful time for me. How dare they judge me like this and dare call me a bad mother. I would be willing to bet that neither of these individuals have read 1 book or done any amount of considerable research on vaccines and how they are made, and what effects they have on a small child's developing mind. Yet I am the bad mother. What complete ignorant fools, to just trust what a capitalist society tells them they need to believe! We are in control of our bodies, and it's about time we stopped being ignorant consumers the way ALL companies (INCLUDING pharmaceutical companies!) want us to be so they can squeeze every last dime out of us and our insurance companies.

Which state are you in? There should be a religious exemption. In the states on this side of the country, there is the exemption on the back of the immunization card that you sign. It should be available from the preschool.

Those bastards, how dare they call you and abusive mother for caring about what you shoot into your daughter. If you need help finding out pm me. Also, you can email the National Vaccine Information Center through their website (www.909shot.com) as a matter of fact here is the exemptions for every state: http://www.909shot.com/state-site/state-exemptions.htm

Also with your daughters issues you may be able to get a medical exemption....but doctors tend to be jerks... The doctor that wants to drop you...you should tell that nurse that he will not get a dime more of your money and that you will tell every person you meet to not visit that doctor because he refused to treat your daughter because of your beliefs.
:swinghamm

Nothing infuriates me more than pompous doctors who think its their way or the highway.

Anyway...if you need me you know where to find me :D

[aud_friggsdottir]

Personally I wouldn’t worry too much about that. Nerthus (Jorð) has always managed to be on top of these things one way or another. You know what they say about her: she knows all but says nothing…


Too true...!

FFF
Kathy

[Schwarzesonne]

A receptionist at her pediatrician's office told me she was going to suggest the doctor drop her as a patient just for my CONSIDERING not giving her a vaccine

Maybe you also ought to be considering a different doctor. More often than not a doctor and his/her staff are more-or-less on the same page when it comes to issues such as immunizations, abortions, drug use/abuse, euthanasia, elective surgery, &c. Chances are good that if this is the receptionist’s attitude, than the doctor’s won’t be all that different.


a woman at the Health Department said that she had half a mind to call DHR to report me as an abuseful mother!

This woman sounds like a prime target for a lawsuit!


What complete ignorant fools, to just trust what a capitalist society tells them they need to believe! We are in control of our bodies, and it's about time we stopped being ignorant consumers the way ALL companies (INCLUDING pharmaceutical companies!) want us to be so they can squeeze every last dime out of us and our insurance companies.

Here, here!

It’s crazy some of the things that Americans and others have taken as “truth” because some corporation wants us to believe that it is so! All one has to do is to consider the controversies about fluoride…! I won’t even get into it. :shrug:

Ii just think that it’s good to know that there are parents out there who love their kids so much, and are so dedicated to the kids’ welfare, that they’ll do some research and, when it’s warranted, will fight the “big guys”!

[freya3]

So I have been calling around to the County Health Department and her doctor's office to find out if there is a form I need to fill out to deny this shot so she can keep going to preschool. Well I just can't believe the degree of unprofessionalism and judgement I have had to endure these past few days. A receptionist at her pediatrician's office told me she was going to suggest the doctor drop her as a patient just for my CONSIDERING not giving her a vaccine, a woman at the Health Department said that she had half a mind to call DHR to report me as an abuseful mother! This has been a terribly stressful time for me. How dare they judge me like this and dare call me a bad mother. I would be willing to bet that neither of these individuals have read 1 book or done any amount of considerable research on vaccines and how they are made, and what effects they have on a small child's developing mind. Yet I am the bad mother. What complete ignorant fools, to just trust what a capitalist society tells them they need to believe! We are in control of our bodies, and it's about time we stopped being ignorant consumers the way ALL companies (INCLUDING pharmaceutical companies!) want us to be so they can squeeze every last dime out of us and our insurance companies.

I am sorry that you are having to deal w/the ignorant fools of the health system. Dealing with the ones you did have not read a book(they probably do not even have enough education to know what you were talking about). BUT, not all doctors are jerks(I am married to one and he is NOT a pill pusher or swayed by drug reps). Sounds to me like your doctor is in kahoots w/the pharmaceutical company which happens A LOT more than anyone knows(believe me :( ...) Pediatricians are the WORST! Check with your state regulations, you might be able to keep your daughter from needing the MMR with her possible autism. And, there are laws in healthcare covering people's religious beliefs that might protect her as well. Good luck...

[aud_friggsdottir]

BUT, not all doctors are jerks(I am married to one and he is NOT a pill pusher or swayed by drug reps).

ACK! I am sorry!! Didn't mean to insinuate your hubby is a jerk!!! I was refering to those that don't think anything is connected to vaccines...:)

Again...sorry.
FFF
Kathy

[Katia]

Thanks for your support guys... I am in Alabama, not entirely by choice mind you! It's just where I need to be right now... I tell ya, living in the South is like being in a different country. The mindset here is so different....

My daughter isn't autistic, but she shares certain behavioural traits as autistic kids do. Her speech is delayed (though improving ever since we found out she had continous fluid in her ear drums and we got tubes put in there), and she is a bit obsessive with certain things. We are working on her quirks, and I wouldn't change a thing about her - she is the sweetest kid I have ever met! But I certainly don't want to do anything that might set her progress back.

Thanks for the link Kathy.. It looks like I have to try to find a doctor that will agree with me and have him fill out some form that needs to be submitted to a judge.... Have I said I hate living in the South in the past 5 minutes? LOL!

[aud_friggsdottir]

Have I said I hate living in the South in the past 5 minutes? LOL!

Well you know where we live and you know you are welcome :D!

FFF
Kathy

[freya3]

No offense taken, Kathy ;)

Just to let you know that there are some good guys out there too :)

Carla

[aud_friggsdottir]

No offense taken, Kathy ;)

Just to let you know that there are some good guys out there too :)

Carla

Oh yes :) I have had good doctors in the past. My mom is an RN of 30 years and she lived in our area for a long time, so I would ask her, whom she thought was the best....if an RN says the doctor is good, it is a good bet he/she is a good doctor. Especially, since she is very skeptical and basically just like me :).

Glad, no offense taken :).

FFF
Kathy

[freya3]

I'm a nurse too, but I am semi-retired or you could say I have a new career(MOM) that I find much more fulfilling!

Thanks for the comment about RN's knowing who is and isn't good in the medical profession ;) I feel I have helped train my hubby to be a good doctor, and not to fall into the trap the money makers in health care set!

[skalagrim]

Thinking about the requirement that kids who attend schools get vaccinated - something occurred to me.

In our ancestral environment, we never took every person from age 5 to age 18, put them all in one building so that if any one of them contracted a disease, they would pretty much all be guaranteed to get it. While such circumstances may have prevailed among other peoples, they did NOT prevail in pre-Christian Europe.

The fact is, in the environment of our evolution, circumstances prevailed - particularly in winter when the nasty bugs tend to hit - that hampered mobility enough that lack of mobility would restrict the spread of disease. (This was also a factor limiting the spread of diphtheria in the early days in New England.)

Now we come along and decide that the best way to educate children is the very unnatural circumstance of dumping hundreds - or even thousands of them - all together in a single complex so that if a single one of them comes down with a highly contagious disease - the whole school is exposed within a day.

(Sounds kind of stupid to me, especially in an era where we know maniacs are busy developing biological weaponry. Such bioweapons would have long incubation periods during which the victims were unknowingly contagious.)

Anyway - the necessity of mass vaccination (an unnatural act) flows from the unnatural way we congregate kids. The ultimate solution to the problem is to eliminate the root cause and stop congregating kids as though they were cattle. You can't make vaccinations optional, and then throw thousands of kids - many of them illegal immigrants in whose lands these diseases are endemic - into close proximity with each other. It would be a disaster.

If you think about it, an unnatural act is like telling a lie. When you tell a lie, at some point, to keep it from being revealed, you have to tell another lie or else undo the first one.

In that instance, you really have no third option.

And this is where the requirement for vaccinations comes from.

I'm not saying I like it - I'm just saying that the requirement flows inevitably from the circumstance; and the only real options are to accept the requirement, or get rid of/avoid the circumstance.

Of course - a sympathetic doctor might get your child out of this; which is a sort of short-term solution because that won't do anything about the millions of kids out there whose parents are deeply concerned about vaccinations. To truly solve a problem, you have to pull it out by the roots.

As you know - I favor vaccination (generally, with some caveats) - but I do NOT favor forcing a parent to act against her best judgment. Millions of parents are forced to do that though, and its a shame.

[aud_friggsdottir]

One of the many reasons I home school (more because academically schools are substandard and only lend to creating factory workers of tomorrow, but THAT is another thread)...also, exposure to an illness does not necessarily mean you will get it...there are no guarantees with illnesses. Pasteur on his death bed...said there was no such thing as germs...basically recanting his whole theory, not that I believe there is no germs, but I also know that it is the internal battlefield (immune system) that must be strong...not elliminating the dreaded germs.

FFF
Kathy

[hrolf]

Thinking about the requirement that kids who attend schools get vaccinated - something occurred to me.

In our ancestral environment, we never took every person from age 5 to age 18, put them all in one building so that if any one of them contracted a disease, they would pretty much all be guaranteed to get it. While such circumstances may have prevailed among other peoples, they did NOT prevail in pre-Christian Europe.

The fact is, in the environment of our evolution, circumstances prevailed - particularly in winter when the nasty bugs tend to hit - that hampered mobility enough that lack of mobility would restrict the spread of disease. (This was also a factor limiting the spread of diphtheria in the early days in New England.)

Now we come along and decide that the best way to educate children is the very unnatural circumstance of dumping hundreds - or even thousands of them - all together in a single complex so that if a single one of them comes down with a highly contagious disease - the whole school is exposed within a day.

(Sounds kind of stupid to me, especially in an era where we know maniacs are busy developing biological weaponry. Such bioweapons would have long incubation periods during which the victims were unknowingly contagious.)

Anyway - the necessity of mass vaccination (an unnatural act) flows from the unnatural way we congregate kids. The ultimate solution to the problem is to eliminate the root cause and stop congregating kids as though they were cattle. You can't make vaccinations optional, and then throw thousands of kids - many of them illegal immigrants in whose lands these diseases are endemic - into close proximity with each other. It would be a disaster.

If you think about it, an unnatural act is like telling a lie. When you tell a lie, at some point, to keep it from being revealed, you have to tell another lie or else undo the first one.

In that instance, you really have no third option.

And this is where the requirement for vaccinations comes from.

I'm not saying I like it - I'm just saying that the requirement flows inevitably from the circumstance; and the only real options are to accept the requirement, or get rid of/avoid the circumstance.

Of course - a sympathetic doctor might get your child out of this; which is a sort of short-term solution because that won't do anything about the millions of kids out there whose parents are deeply concerned about vaccinations. To truly solve a problem, you have to pull it out by the roots.

As you know - I favor vaccination (generally, with some caveats) - but I do NOT favor forcing a parent to act against her best judgment. Millions of parents are forced to do that though, and its a shame.

That is a wise observation, and a very good point. I had never thought of it like that. The system is not likely to change though, as they tend to favor the efficiency of having thousands of kids in one building.

[hemrud]

Not sure where you are in the south, which I love by the way, but I would ask around for a doctor more open to your' views, we actually found our "understanding" doctor in a small practice in a very small community nearby! Its great never more than 1 or 2 people waiting, a far cry from the assembly line doctor we directed to after birth.
I just want to add that most of the info I have read say that the autism link isnt necessarily the thermysil but the sheer volumn of vaccines given now in so short a time. When I was a kid there were 3 shots and we usually had them later on (after 2) now you get one at birth Hep B. Now unless the parents are positive for hep B how is an infant going to contract it, so why give it in a western society? The nuero surgeon I spoke with said he believed the massive number of shots given now caused/triggered problems with brain development. He agrees that on a societal level large numbers of vaccines make sense short term but not for individuals or for long term specie survival. The new chicken pox vaccine is a good example as in a generation or so many will have lost much of the inherited resistance to small pox. Not to mention the possibility of vaccinated persons contracting chicken pox later in life (after the vaccine has diminished) which carries a much greater risk.
He suggested little or no vaccines till after 2 years then spacing the shots out and avoiding the triple shots like MMR as thats obviously 3 vaccines at once. Boys have a higher chance of having serious problems/autism from present day vaccine schedules.
I tend to agree with this approach, the autism spike didnt occur with vaccines but with the recent schedule of large numbers of vaccines in a very short time on still developing babies. The exact same thing has happened in china when they went to a western shot schedule, with or without thermysil preservative.

[pinlighter]

That is a wise observation, and a very good point. I had never thought of it like that. The system is not likely to change though, as they tend to favor the efficiency of having thousands of kids in one building.



I'll second that. Fundamentally health comes from living as much as possible in accord with our evolved nature. Mass schooling is a hideously bad idea for a multitude of reasons, including this.

[freya3]

One of the many reasons I home school (more because academically schools are substandard and only lend to creating factory workers of tomorrow, but THAT is another thread)...also, exposure to an illness does not necessarily mean you will get it...there are no guarantees with illnesses. Pasteur on his death bed...said there was no such thing as germs...basically recanting his whole theory, not that I believe there is no germs, but I also know that it is the internal battlefield (immune system) that must be strong...not elliminating the dreaded germs.

FFF
Kathy

Reason number 1 for the homeschool decision I made a long time ago. NO ONE should force me to do anything to my child...

I have decided to let my child get some vaccines when it is born in April, however it will not get the Hep B vaccine @ birth. My daughter who is 15 months didn't get the flu vaccine either.

Also, there are laws that are in place protecting a person's religious rights to accept or refuse healthcare. Jehovah's witnesses will not take blood or blood products, so why can't a parent refuse a child's vaccine? Just a thought...

[skalagrim]

On Jehovah's Witnesses ...

Up until the early 1950's; many Jehovah's Witnesses DID refuse vaccinations because they were made with human blood. However, sometime in the 1953-1955 timeframe, their religious hierarchy adopted a neutral stance on the matter - just in time for the real mass vaccinations to occur. So Jehovah's Witnesses get vaccinations.

The Catholic Church also issued a decree on the MMR vaccine particularly because the Rubella (German Measles) part of the vaccine is made in a bioreactor that uses tissue cultures taken from aborted babies. As you know, the Catholic Church isn't a supporter of abortion. But their decree stated that Catholics should go ahead and get the vaccines while pressuring manufacturers to seek an alternative to tissue from aborted babies. Their reason for saying that Catholics should get the vaccine is that Rubella particularly wreaks havoc with pregnant women, causing not only spontaneous abortion, but horrible birth defects including blindness, mental retardation, etc. In the opinion of the now-Pope (the edict was issued by Ratzinger before he was elevated), the (moral)harm that would come from failure to vaccinate against Rubella was greater than the (moral)harm that would come from getting the vaccine.

There are some differences in legal theory between an individual's right to refuse a transfusion, and his right to refuse a vaccination. In refusing to accept a transfusion, the direct physical harm he may create is limited only to his own physical body. In refusing to accept vaccination, he makes himself a potential carrier of infection capable of inflicting harm on others. (I realize this legal differentiation has been considerably weakened in recent years by the way our government actually goes out of its way to protect the ability of carriers of certain diseases - such as HIV - to infect other people anonymously; but HIV, at least, is not airborne and thus requires particular affirmative behavior in order to be contracted.)

There is also a point, even for Jehovah's Witnesses, where - by legal doctrine - the State has an obligation to act in place of the parents if the decision being made by the parents on the basis of their religion contradicts the commonly held wisdom of the day and could reasonably be construed to put a child at inordinate risk. So while an adult Jehovah's Witness does have the right to refuse a transfusion for himself, he does NOT have the right to refuse it on behalf of a minor-age son or daughter.

Since the overwhelmingly held medical opinions regarding vaccination are supportive of the practice (at least today), a parent is at a significant disadvantage in refusing certain vaccinations on behalf of a child. Some vaccinations - like hepatitis - are optional and can be refused, while others are absolutely required and getting around them would be difficult. In essence, the state asserts that it has a right to require your child to be vaccinated - for the child's own good. As long as standard medical orthodoxy supports the practice, parents trying to avoid vaccinations will not be standing on strong legal ground.

Homeschooling is the best bet on a number of fronts!

[freya3]

On Jehovah's Witnesses ...


There is also a point, even for Jehovah's Witnesses, where - by legal doctrine - the State has an obligation to act in place of the parents if the decision being made by the parents on the basis of their religion contradicts the commonly held wisdom of the day and could reasonably be construed to put a child at inordinate risk. So while an adult Jehovah's Witness does have the right to refuse a transfusion for himself, he does NOT have the right to refuse it on behalf of a minor-age son or daughter.

Since the overwhelmingly held medical opinions regarding vaccination are supportive of the practice (at least today), a parent is at a significant disadvantage in refusing certain vaccinations on behalf of a child. Some vaccinations - like hepatitis - are optional and can be refused, while others are absolutely required and getting around them would be difficult. In essence, the state asserts that it has a right to require your child to be vaccinated - for the child's own good. As long as standard medical orthodoxy supports the practice, parents trying to avoid vaccinations will not be standing on strong legal ground.



I was afraid of that...I have never been a peds nurse, but I know at least in AL and KY, the state CAN overturn a parent's wish to refuse treatment if they feel the parent is harming the child.