Anti-Vaccine Movement Causes The Worst Whooping Cough Epidemic In 70 Years

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

~♥Little Miss - posted on 07/27/2012

21,273

9

3058

Kelina, I read it as the disease is being allowed to mutate BECAUSE not enough people are vaccinating. Vaccinating would pretty much eliminate it, but since people aren't doing that, it is being spread and able to mutate. Also, the reason that 10-14 year olds are getting it, is because they are not getting their booster for it.

[deleted account]

I do vaccinate, but I find this article annoyingly aggressive. They don't like the anti-vax message being spread, but this is just the other extreme. I read The Vaccine Book by Dr. Sears and it in no way has "anti-vaccine nonsense." I actually found it to be a middle ground. He never says one way or the other and in fact the only vaccine that he actually said he was fine saying to skip was the flu shot. After doing our own research we have decided to vaccinate on a more spread out schedule.

LaRae - posted on 08/09/2012

11

0

0

Paula. I have read that article before. It has over 270 assertions in it, I counted. Wrapped up in that stockpile of assertions are misrepresentations and misunderstandings of the studies sited. I did my best to address the over arching themes of it here.

First it cites an another article and takes it out of context. Here is the article they cited. Read it before we go on.

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/...

Mercola says: "The article goes on to hype what are actually predictable pertussis (whooping cough) increases and promote the ineffective pertussis vaccine—basically giving the media their marching orders for this fall’s propaganda campaign, which centers on blaming increases in pertussis on parents who file non-medical exemptions for their kids, which is pure nonsense."

This is what the article actually said on the subject:

"We went to safer vaccine with fewer side effects but the duration of protection is not as good,” she said. Church adds that in Washington state, many parents have opted not to have their children vaccinated -- another factor that could affect the epidemic, although he said there is not data to demonstrate just how badly."

So the author of your article either is guilty of creating a straw man or lying.


Mercola "In fact, the study showed that 81 percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under the age of 18 occurred in those who were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine. Eleven percent had received at least one shot, but not the entire recommended series, and only eight percent of those stricken were unvaccinated. "

In an online conversation, a woman named Lisa offered the article, Mounting Evidence Shows Many Vaccines are Ineffective and Contribute to Rise of Outbreaks Caused by Mutated Viruses, by Dr. Joseph Mercola, to support her position that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. This very long article has over 270 assertions in it – I counted. By my count, there are 182 are made directly by the author and 89 quoted assertions. You can see how I broke up the assertions here. Obviously I will not be discussing all of the assertions but Mercola’s article will be the source for many future Vaccinate Monday posts.

In the section called, “Surprise! Whooping Cough Spreads Mainly through Vaccinated Populations”, Dr. Mercola attempts to support the assertion that the pertussis (Whooping Cough) vaccine is ineffective.

"In fact, the study showed that 81 percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under the age of 18 occurred in those who were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine. Eleven percent had received at least one shot, but not the entire recommended series, and only eight percent of those stricken were unvaccinated....So, as clearly evidenced in this study, the vaccine likely provides very little, if any, protection from the disease."

In this section he is referencing “Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak” in Oxford Journal’s Clinical Infectious Diseases by Maxwell A. Witt, Paul H. Katz, and David J. Witt. In the abstract, the authors explain that they believe an uptick in pertussis outbreaks amongst 8-12 year old fully vaccinated children indicates the whooping cough vaccine did not provide protection for as long as expected.


In 1997, the whooping cough vaccine, DtwP, was reformulated to address concerns about side effects and a new, less-reactive vaccine known as DtaP was rolled out. DtaP had the unexpected consequence of a shorter span of protection according to researchers in Australia.

Phily.com ran an article quoting one of the Austrailian researchers that found the reformulated vaccine did not last as long, Stephen Lambert, the lead researcher and Queensland Children’s Medical Research Institute of the University of Queensland. The researchers came to exactly the opposite conclusion than did Dr. Mercola about the reformulation and what the unexpected shortened span meant.

Lambert said, "Our findings don't change the fact that vaccinations remain the best way to prevent whooping cough.... Children who develop pertussis [whooping cough] despite being vaccinated have milder symptoms, reduced duration of illness and are less infectious to others than children who have not received their vaccines.”

As Lambert said, and against what Mercola asserted, that even with the surprise shortened length of protection, children who had been vaccinated were better off and still vaccines are still the most effective way to protect people from whooping cough.

According to the CDC, before a vaccine was widely used or available, pertussis killed 5,000 to 9,000 people in the United States each year. Now, the pertussis vaccine has reduced the annual number of deaths to less than 30. So the fact that it did not last as long does not mean it “provides very little, if any, protection from the disease”.

This is a common mistake or misdirection used by people trying to assert the anti-vaxx positions. I call it the wrong context fallacy. In the example above, Mercola says that this outbreak proves that the vaccine is ineffective as a whole. He examines the sick population, and fails to examine the healthy population. Even if 8 out of 10 people in the outbreak were vaccinated, we cannot know if it is effective or not until we see what percentage of vaccinated people get sick and compare those to the pre-vaccine numbers. If 8 out of 10 sick are vaccinated, but only 1% of vaccinated get sick and disease is down 99% in a society since before the vaccine, the vaccine is effective – even if the outbreaks are populated mostly by vaccinated people.

There seems to be an implied assertion in the quoted paragraph at the top of the article; if vaccines worked well, the unvaccinated should have represented a disproportionally high number of the infected. This implied assertion fails to recognize two facts, this number is not reflective of the numbers when the vaccine is in full effect, and the problem with the reformulation is that it does not last as long.

Hard numbers on the number of people who are not vaccinated are hard to come by. However, different media sources have it between 7%-15% of people are choosing to not vaccinate. We now know that those vaccinated in 1998 required a booster sooner because the vaccine wore off in 2010. That means everyone of that age group would have been almost equally vulnerable to the disease making the vaccination rate a moot consideration.

It also isn't a surprise that it was 8% anti-vaxxers, as anti-vaxxers are about 8% of the population. When the vaccine wore off, it left everyone equally protected, so the rate of infection would be proportional to the population as a whole.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/what...
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/ea...
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/ea...
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-...
http://vaccinenewsdaily.com/news/272058-...
http://www.philly.com/philly/health/Heal...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...



"For example, Infanrix... and Daptacel... have stated efficacies of 84% and 85% respectively. When less severe cough illness is included, however, the efficacies of these 2 vaccines decrease to 71% and 78% respectively. In addition, even these latter efficacies are likely inflated owing to investigator or parental compliance with the study protocol (observer bias)."

The doctor they are citing has a valid objection - however, it does not mean what you think it means.

Instead of saving 8.5/10 people from whooping cough, it only saves 7.8/10 from whooping cough. So that means it is highly effective at stopping 8/10 people from dying from whooping cough.



“Whooping Cough is Cyclical Disease”

In this section the author misunderstands or misrepresents the value of of the vaccine.

“In the early 1940s, there was an average of 175,000 cases of pertussis (whooping cough) per year, resulting in the deaths of 8,000 children annually.2 In 2002, 9,771 cases were reported.”

Now there are fewer than 30. So even if it goes in cycles, it is still much, much less than it used to be.

Trust me, no magic immunity occurred to make these numbers go down. That is all because most people are still responsible and get vaccinated.

Even if I could verify the effectiveness numbers in this section - and I can't - it is more reason for adults to get vaccinated and stay up to date, so as not to kill someone else's child.

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/parents/...

“Why “Cocooning” Vaccines Does Not Work”

In the article, the author mentions the work of: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/54... and yet again the author either lied about what the study means or misunderstood. In it, they say that in highly vaccinated populations it is not cost effective to use the cocoon method.

There are other studies that show the effectiveness of cocooning even though it is not cost effective.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...

“Also Confirmed: U.S. Varicella Vaccination Program is a Total Flop”

The author mentioned the results of this article and did summarize it correctly. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...

While it is interesting, I’m more interested in:

“Decline in Mortality Due to Varicella after Implementation of Varicella Vaccination in the United States” http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...

So the vaccine isn’t perfect but it did cut down deaths by over half. That’s pretty damned good.

"Ridiculous Claims about Herd Immunity Achieved by HPV Vaccine "

In this section, the author references http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beat... and http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/co...

In an amazing act of intellectual dishonesty the author both admonishes the study as faulty and then uses it as a claim about how ineffective vaccines are. The author has a legitimate gripe about the small sample size. However, a bad study confirming one side does not automatically give credit to the other side. I'll explain.

I do a study of 12 people and 100% of them are white. I conclude that 100% of earthlings are white. Bob Smith says, that is not a representative sample, the study is bad, therefore all people on earth are black.

We dismiss the study as not representative, not as evidence of the other side.

“What You Need to Know about "Herd Immunity"

In this, the author cites anti-vaxx authority after anti-vaxx authority and offers no evidence to support their position. Then they say things that a 12 year old could disarm.

“Pertussis vaccines have been used for about 50 to 60 years, and the organism has started to evolve to become vaccine resistant. I think this is not something that's really understood generally by the public: Vaccines do not confer the same type of immunity that natural exposure to the disease does." “

They are right – there is almost no risk of death from vaccines but there is high risk of death from pertussis. This is like saying seat belts are ineffective because you have to put them on every-time you drive and putting it on once isn’t enough.

“The fact that manmade vaccines cannot replicate the body's natural experience with the disease is one of the key points of contention between those who insist that mankind cannot live without mass use of multiple vaccines and those who believe that mankind's biological integrity will be severely compromised by their continued use.”

This is naturalistic fallacy. I’ll explain:

Lions are natural. They eat animals. Humans are animals. Nature knows best so I should be fed to a lion.

Just because it isn’t the same method, does not make it ineffective.

“... [I]s it better to protect children against infectious disease early in life through temporary immunity from a vaccine, or are they better off contracting certain contagious infections in childhood and attaining permanent immunity? Do vaccine complications ultimately cause more chronic illness and death than infectious diseases do? These questions essentially pit trust in human intervention against trust in nature and the natural order, which existed long before vaccines were created by man."

This is naturalistic fallacy again, an added begging the question fallacy, but this time it comes with the harsh undertone of let babies die. I prefer not to kill people, she prefers to let babies like Brie die. That is a monstrous position for a doctor to take.

She is essentially saying that it is ok to let millions of people die every year from preventable disease because that’s nature’s way.

“Vaccines Causing Dangerous Mutations”

First this author says that vaccines are ineffective to stop disease, then the author says they are so effective they cause mutations. They cite: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gerganakolev... which completely invalidates their point.

“But the suit also serves to remind that vaccines are essential to preventing disease and that any drop in their efficacy is likely to result in disease resurgence and endanger the public’s health.”

So pick one. Either vaccines are effective and Merck is being reckless or they are not effective and then it doesn’t matter what Merck does.

The author goes on to quote a source I cannot find and they don’t cite,

“V]accination led to a 40-fold enhancement of B. parapertussis colonization in the lungs of mice. Though the mechanism behind this increased colonization was not specifically elucidated, it is speculated to involve specific immune responses skewed or dampened by the acellular vaccine, including cytokine and antibody production during infection. Despite this vaccine being hugely effective against B. pertussis, which was once the primary childhood killer, these data suggest that the vaccine may be contributing to the observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the last decade by promoting B. parapertussis infection. “

Wait – re-read that first sentence. It says “of mice”. That’s right, mice. Not people. We start with mice in human heath studies, we don’t conclude with them. This is either an act of extreme dishonesty or of intellectual incapacity.

Then the author goes on to make uncited assertions I can’t confirm or even find the source for:

“In 2007, US health officials admitted that the pneumococcal vaccine had created superbugs that caused severe ear infections in children. Similarly bad news emerged about the hepatitis vaccine that same year, when immunologists discovered mutated vaccine-resistant viruses were causing disease . And in developing countries, even to this day, health officials are concerned that polio viruses in the vaccine may not only be mutating, but may be causing the very disease they are supposed to prevent"

I think the author may just be making it up. However, even if these are true, it doesn’t mean what it seems it means. Just because a disease mutates does not mean it is caused by a vaccine. Even if it did, that is an argument to vaccinate everyone faster, not to abandon vaccines. Vaccines are preventing death and illness. The anti-vaxxers mutating diseases makes it harder for responsible citizens to keep safe using vaccines.


http://www.who.int/immunization/topics/p...
http://www.plospathogens.org/article/inf...
http://www.aip.org/dbis/stories/2007/171...


“Live Virus Vaccines Combine to Create Completely NEW Virus”

In this section the author goes completely off script and talks about chicken viruses – not chicken pox, diseases in chickens and their vaccines.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...

Are you kidding me? While this is interesting, it is only a hypothetical issue in humans. It has yet to occur. How incredibly dishonest.

Jodi - posted on 08/18/2012

3,562

36

3907

Herd immunity is about having fewer hosts for the virus to jump to, and the theory is, it is less likely that it can find a host, and as a result, unlikely to survive. Each disease relies on a different level of herd immunity. Unfortunately whooping cough relies on a very high vaccination rate to reach herd immunity (from memory it was over 90%) because of its highly contagious nature.

Kelina - posted on 07/26/2012

2,018

9

235

One of the things I found interesting in this article was that there were several reasons given for the outbreak. One being that the vaccine booster is not lasting very long and another being that this increase suggests the bacteria that CAUSES pertussis is mutating. Yet they blame it on people not vaccinating. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/life... in the video he explains that diseases cycle, although not usually to this extent but every about 5 years they see an upswng in some disease or another. Also on here http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/whooping-coug... One of the comments they make I find interesting to say the least. "Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq says the disease is preventable and encourages parents to have their children vaccinated; however in New Brunswick, vaccinated children between the ages of 10 and 14 are where most of the whooping cough cases are being found." So to be honest I can't see how people not vaccinating is to blame.

241 Comments

View replies by

Jodi - posted on 07/01/2015

3,562

36

3907

Except that when you choose not to vaccinate, you actually are making a decision for others too.

April - posted on 06/24/2015

18

0

4

I think that if you (the parent) decide not to vaccine your child its fine and you should not be judged! Also I read the dumbest comments on how if you don't give your child the vaccinations then you are selfish!! Tat comment right there is ridiculous as it is ignorant! Having the vaccine don't mean your safe and don't mean you won't pass on whatever you have to others! Jesse this one wome with her stupid commwenrt saying *what if your child turns retarded or what if the child gives it to another* serious you might want to know what your talking about before making a comment like that ! Also enough with the judging of other parents! We all do shit different! We know nest for our children and if you feel that it is unnecessary to give your child a vaccine then don't! If you feel its necessary them go for it! Just make sure you reaseach shit before making a decision!

Crystal - posted on 08/16/2013

13

0

0

Really consider whether or not the Synagis (RSV) shot is beneficial to your preemie. Some information reports the shot has mice DNA in it... 24 hours after my son (born at 1lb with PH & CLD, Gtube) got the 1st round of the shot, his health deteriorated. It was the day before he was to be discharged home. In two days, my son was back on the ventilator and medically paralyzed due to his discomfort. My son will no longer be receiving the RSV shot.

It is a personal choice because each and every one of us mothers are given divine authority over our children. My son had a severe side affect to a vaccine; therefore, I refuse to consent to the Synagis shot which just happens to have mice DNA. I would have not consented to such in the first place if I was aware. Lesson Learned.

Emma - posted on 06/01/2013

84

0

1

My thoughts are, that each parent who does/doesnt take a vaccine, are acting in the way THEY feel is in the best interest of their child, 'THEIR' child, meaning, they do not have to vaccinate their child because it makes some mum 'angry' or because they should offer up their child like a sacrificial lamb for the greater good of others.

I'm sorry, but if you want to blindly follow govt orders and take all vaccines available to man, then that is your perogative, for those of us who dont want to do that, that too is our perogative, and thankfully, there is not a darn thing you can do about it.

Cecilia - posted on 02/15/2013

1,380

16

425

I did watch her video. Maybe it is just me, and maybe you're right i might be closed minded. I thought i was trying to be open minded. I find her research interesting at best. To me it is interesting, i'm not being sarcastic. I think she thinks she is doing the right thing. It just doesn't fully match up in my mind. It didn't just become clear to me.

"The vaccine manufacturers make a HUGE profit that they would lose if information got out as to how toxic they really are and people stopped using them. "

Okay maybe this is just me, but she figured out how to make them less toxic to the body. Right? So, why stop people from using a methods to get rid of the side affects? That to me is like saying they took down the Tylenol empire so no one will know immunizations give you a fever.

"When he says neurological disorders and learning delays, he's basically talking about autism because that's what autism is!"

First, autism is not a learning disorder.(http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/yourlife/...) And to clump them all together is careless. Nystagmus is also a neurological disorder and has nothing to do with immunizations. So to blame all neurological and learning delays on immunization is too basic of a generalization, to draw a conclusion on. Many neurological disorders are actually genetic.

As far as your daughter goes, I'm very glad it worked for you and that she is doing better.

Lya - posted on 02/15/2013

21

0

1

First, thanks for taking the time to watch the video. I hope you watched Dr. Natasha Campbell McBride's video, not just looked at her website. If you watch her presentation, everything becomes clear as to why our children are so sick.

"I looked into the whole GAPS thing. which btw she only has 4 testimonials... http://gapsdiet.com/Testimonials.html This part at the bottom of her own page on her own website cracks me up "Nothing on this site is intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. " I thought you said she could CURE it.. seems she doesn't agree with you."

She is legally not allowed to say that she can cure anything because she is not using conventional medical methods (even though her methods do work). She is using diet and supplements instead of drugs. You have to understand, the pharmaceutical companies have a huge lobby and they pay a lot of money to get government officials to not recognize any other type of healing modality but their way using drugs and vaccines. The vaccine manufacturers make a HUGE profit that they would lose if information got out as to how toxic they really are and people stopped using them. Just follow the money trail. It's all about money.

The GAPS diet does cure autism. I know because I didn't mention this before, but my daughter was diagnosed with autism too and she has been making AMAZING progress while on the GAPS diet. It's not just me, many, many other parents have had the same results.

"If i breastfeed i will pass on my own gut dysiosis. So hmm no matter what all children now have it!"

Ideally what Mom would do is heal her own gut dysbiosis before breast feeding, using diet and supplements. That way the baby doesn't have to get it. Even when a Mom has gut dysbiosis it is actually better to breast feed than formula anyway. That's the whole point of the GAPS diet- it's to heal the damage already done, by antibiotics, vaccines etc.

"I watched the video. it has nothing to do with Autism, instead it deals with a pediatrician saying he read a few things that other people wrote. It does not say shots other than MMR are link to autism either."

When he says neurological disorders and learning delays, he's basically talking about autism because that's what autism is!

You can be closed-minded to the information if you want to and you can believe all the medical professionals and government officials who have been manipulated, and bribed by the Pharmaceutical industry. That is your choice. But the truth is the truth. Even my daughter's pediatric neurologist who practices at a totally conventional medical hospital recognizes the diet-autism connection and prescribes for all her patients dietary modifications and supplements.

Cecilia - posted on 02/15/2013

1,380

16

425

I watched the video. it has nothing to do with Autism, instead it deals with a pediatrician saying he read a few things that other people wrote. It does not say shots other than MMR are link to autism either.

I looked into the whole GAPS thing. which btw she only has 4 testimonials... http://gapsdiet.com/Testimonials.html This part at the bottom of her own page on her own website cracks me up "Nothing on this site is intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. " I thought you said she could CURE it.. seems she doesn't agree with you.


"A Mom with gut dysbiosis can pass it to her baby through her breast milk." Okay so let me get this right, If i don't breastfeed the baby WILL get gut dysbiosis. If i breastfeed i will pass on my own gut dysiosis. So hmm no matter what all children now have it!

Lya - posted on 02/15/2013

21

0

1

"Actually, no-one truly knows what the cause of autism is, so I wish people would stop saying this causes it or that causes it. The FACT is, no-one knows for sure what causes it. There is no evidence at the moment to prove it one way or the other, so it is a pointless debate."

How can you be so sure? Please watch Dr. Natasha Campbell McBride. She KNOWS what causes autism and with that info she is able to recover autistic children in her medical practice. She also helps people know what to do to prevent autism.

http://vimeo.com/10507542

Lya - posted on 02/15/2013

21

0

1

Cecilia, I forgot to post another video by another medical professional who has done a lot of research on autism and treats autistic children in her practice. I suggest you watch her video first before even Dr. Palevsky's because she will clarify most of what I have been saying about how autism develops and what to do about it.

http://vimeo.com/10507542

Lya - posted on 02/15/2013

21

0

1

"I've only seen research that says MMR. If you have a link to otherwise i'd be interested in reading it. Please give medical sites."

When you say 'medical' sites, what exactly do you mean? I am assuming you mean mainstream medicine or the government sponsored medical associations? This is a tall order. I am sorry but I don't have the time to do all that research!

That being said there are plenty of medical professionals who have done a lot of their own research and have witnessed firsthand vaccine damage occurring and help recover autistic children and vaccine damaged children.

One such doctor is is Dr. Palevsky. Actually after seeing one of his lectures, it really helped convince me not to vaccinate my child (and I'm very happy I didn't).

Here's the first part of a 1 of 11 part series of an interview with him.



"Still explain to me how my child who was a baby and breastfed has autism?"

A Mom with gut dysbiosis can pass it to her baby through her breast milk.

"BTW i eat pretty healthy so go ahead and go on to say I caused it."

What do you mean be "eat healthy"? There are many theories on what eating healthy means. There are people who say being a vegan is healthy, some say eating Paleo is healthy. If you are mostly a vegetarian, I would say that is not eating healthy. People need to eat meat. I personally eat mostly a Paleo diet.

I am not trying to imply you "caused" your child to develop autism! I mean not intentionally at the very least! Unfortunately aspects our modern lifestyle causes the conditions which cause autism to develop. I believe each and every one of us has a certain degree of gut dysbiosis and unless we do something to change it, it's only going to get worse and the autism rate will continue to rise.

"Also if you want to say i caused it, how come out of 5 children i only passed it on to him?"

You probably don't have a severe case of gut dysbiosis. It is probably relatively mild (compared to a Mom, for example, whose every child has autism). I know a Mom who has three children all with autism. She is a dentist. Anyway, most Mom's I have talked to who have one child with autism and the rest are neurotypical children have had something different happen during their pregnancies and labor than what happened with the autistic one. Mostly it has to do with taking antibiotics during the pregnancy or getting intravenous antibiotics during labor. I know one Mom who has one child with Asberger's and two neurotypical. She tested positive on the Strep B test only during her pregnancy with the one with autism and he is the only pregnancy during which she took antibiotics. Another mom I know has one autistic and one neurotypical child and she also tested positive during her pregnancy with the autistic one and had intravenous antibiotics during her whole labor. I also know some vegan/vegetarian Mom's with children with autism. I know one almost lifelong vegetarian Mom with a child with autism and she had an almost vegan pregnancy even though she did not take antibiotics. I also know another Mom with 4 neurotypical children and one with issues and sure enough, the pregnancy with the one with issues was the only pregnancy that she didn't eat meat! I also know another Mom with two normal children and one with issues. During the pregnancy, she traveled around the world while pregnant (personally I think the all that radiation from flying in planes combined with the stress of travel may have caused the one to be sucseptible. With the other pregnancies she relaxed more and stayed home.)

Jodi - posted on 02/13/2013

3,562

36

3907

Actually, no-one truly knows what the cause of autism is, so I wish people would stop saying this causes it or that causes it. The FACT is, no-one knows for sure what causes it. There is no evidence at the moment to prove it one way or the other, so it is a pointless debate.

Cecilia - posted on 02/13/2013

1,380

16

425

I've only seen research that says MMR. If you have a link to otherwise i'd be interested in reading it. Please give medical sites. i won't bother reading anything else.


"People get leaky guts from a lot of factors, poor nutrient deficient diets filled with processed carbs and sugars, overuse of antibiotics, formula feeding instead of breast feeding, steroid medications as well as vaccines."

Still explain to me how my child who was a baby and breastfed has autism? BTW i eat pretty healthy so go ahead and go on to say I caused it. (Really the last time i can even think of that i "ate out" was 3 years ago when we were visiting father in law and he ordered food, even then i got a salad.) I've taken antibiotics 3 times in my life. once was when i was a baby. He has only taken them once himself and that was 3 weeks ago. I find it amazing that we're saying it is immune when he has the best immune system of anyone i have met in my life. Seriously he does!! He had an infected bronchial cyst and by the time we went in for surgery his body fixed it all by itself. His doctor was stunned at how quickly he healed. He still did a biopsy to make sure though. He has never once had an ear infection. He has had a fever maybe 2 times his whole life. He's 13 BTW.

Also if you want to say i caused it, how come out of 5 children i only passed it on to him?

"There are many people in the medical community who say autism is an auto-immune disorder. I could go into more detail and site references but that is a whole 'nother discussion and I'd rather stick with the topic of vaccinations."

Okay how many are many? Either way feel free to post. I'm curious. Really i am. Because all the specialist he has seen, in the medical profession- seem to tell me differently. I'm willing to listen to another opinion as long as i said before it is truly medical and not some person online ranting. Correct me if i am wrong but it is still on topic and dealing with vaccinations.

Lya - posted on 02/13/2013

21

0

1

Cecilia "You know what I have noticed... That non-vax parents love to tell vax parents that we should stop doing it. That we are the problem. Yet 90% of the time vax parents tell non vaxxers, do what you want with your child."

Wait a minute, this post was started by pro vax people outraged that people don't vaccinate! It's the other way around!!!

"The truth is, unless I want to home school my kids need to be vaccinated."

That's not true, it's the LAW that in every state in the US people have the right to vaccinate or not and cannot be denied entrance into a public school. My child is not vaccinated and she attends public school. I just had to give them a vaccine exemption form for her and they didn't even raise an eyebrow. Any official who will not let an unvaccinated child into public school is a LAW BREAKER!

"does this go for everything? Even HPV? Cause i would rather deal with the consequences of a shot than to deal with chemo, radiation and possibly lack of fertility."

I would never treat cancer with chemo or radiation. There are tons of people who have recovered from cancer using natural remedies.

"Autism is not an immune-mediated disease. . ."

That is up for debate. There are many people in the medical community who say autism is an auto-immune disorder. I could go into more detail and site references but that is a whole 'nother discussion and I'd rather stick with the topic of vaccinations.

"And btw i have a child who had a smaller and broken up MMR vaccine . . . and he has aspergers . . . Love to hear how this works out in your brain if we are saying that the vaccine does it."

ALL vaccines contribute to the development of autism, not just the MMR vaccine. It's also cumulative, the more vaccines a small child gets, the greater the toxic load on the child's body and the deeper he can slip into autism. I am assuming you vaccinated your child with the other vaccines that came before starting with the Hepatitis B. In which case he would have already had damage from vaccines. The MMR vaccine is singled out most often because it is such a potent one (three diseases in one shot), lots of people have seen noticeable bad effects from it in their children and other reasons I won't go into now.

AND, anyway, I never said vaccines were the only cause of autism. They are only one of the triggers. The real cause of autism is malnutrition brought on by gut dysbiosis during critical parts of a child's brain development. Even an unvaccinated child can develop autism, HOWEVER, children with a compromised immunity (there's that strong versus weak immunity argument again!) will be more susceptible to developing autism from a vaccine. It could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

Most people reading these posts are probably unfamiliar with what gut dysbiosis is so I'll try to give as simple and quick of an explanation as possible. It basically means a leaky gut. People get leaky guts from a lot of factors, poor nutrient deficient diets filled with processed carbs and sugars, overuse of antibiotics, formula feeding instead of breast feeding, steroid medications as well as vaccines. But the autism susceptibility in a child really begins mostly with the child's Mom. If the child's Mom has gut dysbiosis (a leaky gut) that's what the baby is going to get. Where did Mom get her gut disbiosis? She was probably formula fed, probably took many courses of antibiotics during her lifetime which altered her gut flora, possibly been on the pill, which altered the hormonal balance of her body (which also contributes to gut dysbiosis), ate a Standard American diet all her life which is full of junk and maybe even took steroids for asthma or something else. Then when she is ready to have a baby, the baby inherits her leaky gut from her. That baby is then very vulnerable because they have a weak immune system from the get go. The baby then might get sick and the doctor prescribes a course (or a few courses of antibiotics) damaging that baby's gut flora, then gets vaccinated, eats a very poor processed food diet and then has a severely damaged digestive system which cannot absorb the nutrients from the food he/she eats and cannot detoxify properly so starts to accumulate more and more toxins in its body. The baby/young child must develop certain skills (like talking or social skills) during critical points in its development and if he/she is too toxic and malnourished he/she can't and autism begins.

Cecilia - posted on 02/12/2013

1,380

16

425

You know what I have noticed... That non-vax parents love to tell vax parents that we should stop doing it. That we are the problem. Yet 90% of the time vax parents tell non vaxxers, do what you want with your child.

The truth is, unless I want to home school my kids need to be vaccinated. Sorry i do not like the idea of anti-social, unable to cope with real life, home-schooled children. In my opinion that's how it ends up most of the time. I've met many home-schooled children and the truth is... they don't even know how to socialize. That to me is worse than any chickenpox or mumps.



Lya
"Sorry, but I would rather my child get the measles and treat it in a conscientious, intelligent manner"

does this go for everything? Even HPV? Cause i would rather deal with the consequences of a shot than to deal with chemo, radiation and possibly lack of fertility. Just saying!

Also, you see pharmaceutical companies as bad. Yet you will still allow them to give you chemicals to deal with the sickness after the fact correct?


As far as blaming MMR for autism-

Ok so here is an oxford study- http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48...

"Autism is not an immune-mediated disease. Unlike autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, there is no evidence of immune activation or inflammatory lesions in the CNS of people with autism [38]. In fact, current data suggest that genetic variation in neuronal circuitry that affects synaptic development might in part account for autistic behavior [39]. Thus, speculation that an exaggerated or inappropriate immune response to vaccina-tion precipitates autism is at variance with current scientific data that address the pathogenesis of autism."

And btw i have a child who had a smaller and broken up MMR vaccine (meaning they had to produce a half dose of each the measles, the mumps and rubella and give it to him one at a time) and he has aspergers. He got these doses almost a year behind schedule, It takes awhile for them to special make these things for you. yet the low spectrum autism showed up exactly on cue to children who had shots on time. The other half doses were given AFTER the on set of the signs for aspergers. The aspergers didn't get any worse. .. Love to hear how this works out in your brain if we are saying that the vaccine does it.

Jodi - posted on 02/12/2013

3,562

36

3907

"So far EVERY pertussis outbreak caused by the "crazy non-vax people" has happened in a population of at least 80% fully vaccinated and at least 80% of the people who caught it were fully vaccinated. In most of them, it was closer to 90%. You're also statistically more likely to die from the vaccine than to even get the disease."

Firstly, I don't believe I, or anyone, has used the term "crazy non-vax people", so I don't think that is necessary. I don't believe you are crazy, I just don't agree with your argument.

Secondly, pertussis requires a high vaccination rate to prevent outbreaks. So when people are choosing not to vaccinate for reasons of a personal rather than medical nature (i.e. there is no medical reason not to vaccinate), you are providing potential hosts for the disease to continue finding ways to mutate.

Thirdly, let's say that everyone decided not to vaccinate because the vaccine was too risky. Believe me, pertussis would be the MORE risky option. So vaccines are not bad things. Yes, there are risks. But there are greater risks if we didn't have vaccination programs. I frequently pose this scenario in these debates, and not a single person has ever been able to respond, so I really do genuinely wonder at your views on this.

"OK. This is getting silly. Of course a yeast infection is a disease as an infection is a disease."

Okay, yes, I was in a rush this morning and was being interrupted continuously by the kids, so I lost track of half of my post before I posted, so yes, what I was trying to say is that all diseases are NOT equal. It is not a "disease" in the way that pertussis is a disease, in the way that E-Coli is a disease. You can't use it as an equal comparison.

"People like yourself, (and probably most people in the pro vax community), I imagine have a deathly fear of disease and feel totally helpless and frightened in the face of it and have no resources to help themselves. Enter the pharmaceutical companies which are more than happy to exploit and fan the flames of that fear. They make a huge profit in making people think that they are helpless and only they (the pharmaceutical companies) have the answers in a toxic drug or an injection of filled with mercury and animal parts and that that is the only thing that will save you from a certain death."

Actually, you know nothing about me. I am not accusing you of not doing your research, I am disagreeing with you that diet is going to prevent you catching chicken pox. It doesn't work that way. It may help your immune system FIGHT the disease, but it will not prevent you getting it. That's a simple medical fact. I also have no fear of illness and disease. Why do you make broad generalised statements like that about people you know nothing about? So far, you have made it clear you think people who vaccinate don't do their research, have fear of illness and disease, and are duped by pharmaceutical companies. How very insightful of you to make such assumptions. MY POINT is that these things are merely your opinions and not necessarily fact at all.

And there IS no mercury in ANY scheduled childhood vaccine where I live. And no, that is not just something that the pharmaceuticals tell us. It is fact and independently tested IN AUSTRALIA, where the pharmaceuticals have absolutely no political power and no influence over how and where it is tested (just covering that angle, because I am pre-empting that would be your next argument). I HAVE done my research and I simply disagree with you.

"Maybe we don't have much smallpox"

Can I suggest you haven't really done your research if you think "we don't have much smallpox"? Look it up ;) We don't actually have ANY because vaccines helped eliminate it. Without vaccines, it would not have been eliminated.

If you truly stand by your stance that diet will stop diseases, I invite you to eat a raw chicken tested for salmonella to test your theory ;)

Lya - posted on 02/12/2013

21

0

1

OK. This is getting silly. Of course a yeast infection is a disease as an infection is a disease.

From the dictionary:

yeast infection: a disease characterized by itching and irritation of the vagina, vulva, or other mucous membranes, with a yeasty-smelling discharge; also called candidiasis

infection: an infectious disease

I think what you are trying to say is that some diseases are potentially more harmful to the host than others.

I'm saying that diseases can be prevented from occurring and when they do occur they don't necessarily have to be deadly or especially harmful if one takes precautions: like builds a strong immunity, eats nutritiously and treats it mindfully. No, I would not deliberately eat raw chicken with salmonella, just like I would not deliberately drink poison or go out in the freezing cold with no coat on if I already had a cold. That's what I meant when I said being mindful.

I think really the difference between me and you is that I am not necessarily afraid of getting a disease because I have accumulated the knowledge and the experience of being able to treat it through diet and natural means that I am pretty confident I could deal with most health challenges for myself or my family or even just prevent them from occurring. Of course, the human body has limits. If someone shot me in the heart or poisoned me for example, there is a limit to what I can do.

People like yourself, (and probably most people in the pro vax community), I imagine have a deathly fear of disease and feel totally helpless and frightened in the face of it and have no resources to help themselves. Enter the pharmaceutical companies which are more than happy to exploit and fan the flames of that fear. They make a huge profit in making people think that they are helpless and only they (the pharmaceutical companies) have the answers in a toxic drug or an injection of filled with mercury and animal parts and that that is the only thing that will save you from a certain death.

I remember when my daughter had the ear infection, her pediatrician was trying to scare me into giving her antibiotics by saying that if I didn't give her antibiotics to treat the ear infection she would get meningitis because she was not vaccinated and could die! I remember thinking in my brain "Enough!" This person is trying to manipulate me through fear mongering and my instincts are telling me that the antibiotics were going to make her worse not better. So against my pediatrician's advise, I used a natural remedy on my daughter and it worked and she has never had an ear infection again and never got meningitis either!

Also, while we have all been taught that vaccination ended the world’s many deadly epidemics, an honest and careful review of original historical medical sources, publications and statistics from the past two hundred years reveals that infectious diseases declined 90 percent before mass vaccination was ever introduced. Many experts attribute the cessation of epidemic diseases not to mass vaccination, but to improvements in sanitation like moving human waste out of streets via plumbing systems; regularly cleaning streets and stables of horse manure and human waste; improving roads so that meats, vegetables and milk could be distributed in cities while still fresh; and upgrading water distribution systems to prevent bacterial contamination. Smallpox actually declined in countries around the world whether the population had been vaccinated or not. Maybe we don't have much smallpox or infectious diseases anymore, but I really believe that the injection of so much poison into our children in the form of vaccinations has contributed to the rise other diseases like autoimmune conditions, autism, ADHD, learning disabilities etc.

I still believe from the bottom of my heart that by being mindful, taking precautions and making sure you get the correct nutrition, and I will add practicing basic hygiene goes a long way in helping to prevent a disease from occurring or if it does the effects can be greatly minimized by again doing the above. Of course there are limits and circumstances one cannot prevent, but basically we have some control. We don't need or is it even preferable to inject poison into the veins of our babies and children.

Sally - posted on 02/12/2013

963

14

9

So far EVERY pertussis outbreak caused by the "crazy non-vax people" has happened in a population of at least 80% fully vaccinated and at least 80% of the people who caught it were fully vaccinated. In most of them, it was closer to 90%. You're also statistically more likely to die from the vaccine than to even get the disease.

Jodi - posted on 02/12/2013

3,562

36

3907

A disease is not a disease. Firstly, a yeast infection is not necessarily a "disease" it is an infection. A virus is not a bacteria, and some viruses are more deadly than others. Some bacteria are more deadly than others.

If you have so much faith in your natural immunity, I invite you to eat a raw salmonella filled chicken and see how you do with that. No? Why not? Would you eat raw meat tested positive for e-Coli? I'd say not. Why? Because it is a DEADLY bacteria and your DIET has NOTHING to do with whether you will die from it or not. All bacterial and viral infections are NOT created equal.

SOOOOOO, my POINT is that you can't compare a yeast infection or a bladder infection with smallpox, polio, and so on. They aren't equal. You can kid yourself that they are, but the very simple medical FACT is that they actually aren't.

Lya - posted on 02/12/2013

21

0

1

I am 44. I still don't understand your point. What we consider to be modern medicine is only about 100 years old. Antibiotics are only about 50 years old. If we needed modern medicine and drugs to overcome diseases no one of us would be here right now! Everyone would have died off as soon as they got any disease. Your body can get a disease and if you feed it good nutrition and treat it mindfully, the disease will pass, just like many diseases have done throughout the centuries. An illness is not a death sentence.

Lya - posted on 02/12/2013

21

0

1

I don't understand your point. A disease is a disease. Whether it's a bacteria, a virus, a yeast, they all happen due to poor immunity. Immunity is strengthened with good nutrition and no toxicity. By the way, my mother never took any medication for her shingles.

Jodi - posted on 02/12/2013

3,562

36

3907

A bladder or yeast infection isn't the chicken pox, polio, measles or meningitis..........

I am 43 years old and have also never had antibiotics for a yeast infection or bladder infection. You aren't unique. But natural remedies never cured chicken pox, measles, meningitis, polio, whooping cough.....

Comparing these with a bladder infection and yeast infection is not relevant.

Lya - posted on 02/12/2013

21

0

1

"Diet and nutrition has nothing to do with it when it comes to things like that. You can't just "develop" a natural immunity through diet and nutrition. It isn't a medical possibility."

How can you know that with such certainty? Where is the proof? I have personally observed diet, nutrition and natural remedies work countless times in my own life. It all started for me when I was in my late 20's and kept getting bladder infection after bladder infection. I was on so many courses of antibiotics that I developed a horrible chronic yeast infection. I knew the yeast infection developed from the antibiotics but how to stop the bladder infections first so I didn't have to take antibiotics? A person knowledgeable about herbs recommended an herbal remedy for the next time I had a bladder infection. I tried it and I have never needed antibiotics for a bladder infection ever again (not to mention, I hardly ever got them again anyway)! After that, I realized pretty quickly that what I ate (or didn't eat affected whether I got a yeast infection or not. That was my "Ah ha!" moment on the power of diet and natural remedies.

Like I said, if you are open enough, you would read "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration". It was written by a doctor who observed and studied countless situations where nutrition played a role in healing and used nutrition for healing in his own patients.

Jodi - posted on 02/12/2013

3,562

36

3907

"I never said I wouldn't drive my child in a car because of fear of a car accident, I meant people who are so frightened of their children dying from an infectious disease with the same logic should not drive their child in a car, because the risk of dying in a car accident is much higher than dying from an infectious disease."

Ok, my apologies ;) I misunderstood what you were saying. I seem to be doing a bit of that lately. I've just started back at work, so I think maybe my brain is malfunctioning, LOL.

"What one eats is very important to their state of health."

I never said that your diet and nutrition had nothing to do with your state of health, or even that it wasn't important. But, you can't gain natural immunity against these diseases through diet and nutrition. A healthy diet and nutrition may assist your immune system in FIGHTING the infection, but it isn't going to prevent you from being infected in the first place and it isn't going to "cure" the infection.

Lya - posted on 02/12/2013

21

0

1

"But given we are debating with someone who won't drive their children in a car because of the risk of dying in car accident, I will just wish you luck in life."

I never said I wouldn't drive my child in a car because of fear of a car accident, I meant people who are so frightened of their children dying from an infectious disease with the same logic should not drive their child in a car, because the risk of dying in a car accident is much higher than dying from an infectious disease.

"And my research (and education) has led me to understand that whether you get measles or chicken pox or even meningitis has nothing to do with what you eat, and can't be cured by natural remedies. It's not like a common cold. It simply doesn't work that way."

My research and personal experience has shown me otherwise. What one eats is very important to their state of health. If you are open enough, read "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration". I am sure after reading it you may reconsider.

Jodi - posted on 02/12/2013

3,562

36

3907

"What I believe happened is that due to my daughter's very strong immune system, she developed her own immunity toward chicken pox naturally"

Actually, that isn't possible. She simply got lucky. My children hardly ever get sick either. My son had chicken pox when he was 2 (there was not a vaccine back then). It had nothing to do with his diet (which was very healthy - no packaged crap), or any natural immunity or lack thereof. It happens. Diet and nutrition has nothing to do with it when it comes to things like that. You can't just "develop" a natural immunity through diet and nutrition. It isn't a medical possibility.

Lya - posted on 02/12/2013

21

0

1

Yes, she did touch my Mom and had direct physical contact with her. We had no idea my Mom had shingles at first until we went to the doctor. As I said earlier, we eat very healthily in my household, we also believe in nutrition and natural remedies so we don't just run to the doctor immediately with each ailment. What I believe happened is that due to my daughter's very strong immune system, she developed her own immunity toward chicken pox naturally, like the body was meant to. She was exposed to it, perhaps developed her own antibodies to it and just didn't have an outbreak. Like I said earlier, my daughter hardly ever gets sick or even breaks a fever. Almost every kid in her class had a terrible outbreak of the flu this winter. Obviously my daughter never had the flu shot and she never got the flu (nor did she get it last year or the year before.)

It is possible that it may not last that my daughter refuses to eat junk food. That is true and I have thought about it, however it is my belief that it is the most important in a child's early growing years that they eat as healthily as possible because an adult body is able to handle more abuse. For a child eating like crap in the early years will affect the foundation of their skeletal development, teeth, eyesight, etc. Currently my daughter has perfect eyesight and I am sure the fish oils I make sure to give her every day plays a part in that. She also takes a very good probiotic supplement as well and a mineral supplement every day. Good nutrition really works! I am also hoping she will learn from me the importance of eating real healthy food and carry that with her into her older years. I realize due to societal pressures and so much advertising it may not.

I absolutely CRINGE when I see a toddler eating candy, doughnuts, soda, pizza etc. I'm thinking to myself "Why? Don't these parents know better?" A baby and toddler cannot eat anything that an adult doesn't provide for them. Why give them that stuff in the first place? They wouldn't even be asking for it if they had never even tasted before! My daughter gets excited over things like fruit and roast beef! Sorry, but I don't get it. Most parents I am in contact with are college educated and know that it is junk food but they eat it and give it to their kids anyway. I don't say what I am thinking out loud so as not to offend anyone but I really don't get it. It is so obvious to me that part of the reason so many children nowadays have ADD/ADHD, autism, learning disabilities, asthma, eczema etc. is because of all the junk they start eating as soon as they can eat solid food. Adults of my generation never ate so much crap when we were that young and the kids of my generation did not have so many health problems as they do now! On a side note, also, me and pretty much everyone I know from my generation grew up with straight teeth and wore no braces. That is practically unheard of nowadays! Almost every adolescent has braces! Guess what, crooked teeth are due to poor skeletal development due to nutritional deficiencies! If you care to, please read "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Weston A. Price to understand why that is so.

Jodi - posted on 02/11/2013

3,562

36

3907

""My Mommy won't let me eat any junk food, I can only eat fruit and water for a snack".

Just so you know, that won't last ;)

"When my elderly mother who lives with us had shingles, which is highly contagious, neither my daughter who is unvaccinated nor I ever even got the chicken pox!"

It is only contagious if you have DIRECT physical contact. It is not infectious in the air around you. And I am assuming you weren't silly enough to be directly touching the infection, or allowing your daughter to.

Jodi - posted on 02/11/2013

3,562

36

3907

"I bet if you yourself took the time to really research what's in vaccines and the anti vaccine argument, ditched the processed foods and ate healthier and (gasp!) tried a natural remedy the next time someone gets sick, you might just find that you yourself just might even question whether vaccines are really such a good idea or at least have a greater sympathy for those who choose not to vaccinate their children."

I've researched plenty, as have most of the women here. And my research (and education) has led me to understand that whether you get measles or chicken pox or even meningitis has nothing to do with what you eat, and can't be cured by natural remedies. It's not like a common cold. It simply doesn't work that way. I think YOU would be surprised to realise that most mothers who choose to VACCINATE their children ALSO go through a lot of consideration, discussion and research. No-one is stupid enough to say that there is zero risk with the vaccines. We realise that. BUT we also recognise the greater risk should these diseases become more common again. And without vaccines, that's exactly what would happen.

But given we are debating with someone who won't drive their children in a car because of the risk of dying in car accident, I will just wish you luck in life. May your children be able to get out in the real world somehow, and may your children be able to take some risks in life so that they are capable of growing into balanced adults.

Lya - posted on 02/11/2013

21

0

1

How can you tell someone to keep their child out of public places!?!? Again that's not your decision or your right. If you are so frightened that your vaccinated baby can get sick form an unvaccinated child, I think it would be up to you not to take your baby out to public places! And don't drive them in a car either. The risk of death by a car accident is much higher than dying from whooping cough or measles!

I think you would be very surprised to know that most parents who choose not to vaccinate their children do so under much deliberation and are willing to take a personal stand to do what they believe is right for the health of their children despite societal pressures telling them to do otherwise. They do not wake up one morning and say "Ha Ha! What can I do today to bring more pain and suffering to this world? I won't vaccinate my child so that they can give other children infectious diseases so that they will die!" No, most parents who decide not to vaccinate do so because they have seen first hand a family member's child deteriorate into autism after having received a vaccination, or seen a child have a seizure after a vaccination and then develop a lifelong seizure disorder, or seen a child develop severe eczema after a vaccination and/or like myself had the experience of debilitating arm paralysis after a flu shot. They have also researched the contents of vaccines like formaldahyde, aluminum, thimerosol, acetone, carbolic acid and mixes of blood, tissue and other substances from: monkey kidneys, chicken and duck embryos; dog, horse, rabbit, mouse and cow tissues and don't want that injected into their babies. They are also usually the type of people who more than likely choose breastfeeding over formula feeding and try to be as health conscious as possible because they believe that the best immunity toward disease is a healthy body and healthy immune system. For example, In my house, my child or myself do not eat any type of processed food filled with GMOs and high fructose corn syrup, artificial ingredients etc . . . We try to eat organic as much as possible, and grass-fed and pastured meats and eggs. My daughter NEVER eats candy, cookies, chips, fast food etc. She's knows that it is junk food. When she goes on play dates, she will say, "My Mommy won't let me eat any junk food, I can only eat fruit and water for a snack". Maybe that offends some people, but I don't care, I want my child to eat and be healthy and she is healthy and rarely gets sick! When my elderly mother who lives with us had shingles, which is highly contagious, neither my daughter who is unvaccinated nor I ever even got the chicken pox! (And no, no one at her school got the chicken pox either!) Also after having the experience of my daughter having an ear infection when she was a baby and being able to treat it naturally, with garlic mullein ear drops, despite my pediatrician pressuring me to give her antibiotics, I realized the power of natural healing and the importance of a healthy diet for a strong immunity. We are not at the mercy of unsuspecting germs attacking us, we can create our own healthy immunity through mindful living practices.

One more thing, there is absolutely no proof at all that an unvaccinated child is the cause of any child getting an infectious disease. Infectious diseases can develop in the vaccinated population. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated children frequent the same places. Who's to say where who picked up what germ?

By the way, I haven't had a flu shot for probably 20 years and I cannot even remember the last time I had the flu! And guess what? I eat very healthy.

I bet if you yourself took the time to really research what's in vaccines and the anti vaccine argument, ditched the processed foods and ate healthier and (gasp!) tried a natural remedy the next time someone gets sick, you might just find that you yourself just might even question whether vaccines are really such a good idea or at least have a greater sympathy for those who choose not to vaccinate their children.

Jodi - posted on 02/11/2013

3,562

36

3907

"That is not your decision or your right!"

No, and funnily enough, I actually never said it was. BUT it is every person's right to know whether your child is vaccinated or not and then to decide if they want their children around yours. There are some children who can't BE vaccinated because of illness, allergy or otherwise. This is WHY we need others vaccinated, because it protects those who can't be for whatever medical reason that may be. So you absolutely have the right to make that decision for your child. But you also have the responsibility to ensure your child doesn't get sick with these illnesses and spread them to those who can't make the choice to vaccinate for whatever reason. With your right comes responsibility. And unfortunately, many who decide not to vaccinate are not particularly responsible about it.

Jodi - posted on 02/11/2013

3,562

36

3907

"Jodi, she said can't."

Lol, so she did, thank you. It was very late at night when I posted. My apologies :)

[deleted account]

"And what I continuously fail to understand is why would anyone who believed in vaccinating and vaccinated their child would believe that their child was still at risk of getting the disease. Isn't the vaccination supposed to take care of that?" --Lya

Lya, children who are too young to be fully vaccinated are still at risk for getting the disease even if their parents do plan to vaccinate later. That is why parents who vaccinate are careful to keep unvaccinated toddlers and children away from their young children. There are two reasons:
1. I have explained before that an unvaccinated baby does not pose the same threat to others as an unvaccinated toddler or child because they are not touching hundreds of surfaces and objects, picking up and spreading germs. In human development, we reach a stage where we are capable of moving around independently and touching all of these different surfaces before we are mentally capable of understanding the logistics and consequences of spreading germs. If a toddler comes in contact with one of these infectious diseases, even if s/he is vaccinated, she can easily pass the disease onto the baby who is too young for vaccinations.
2. School aged children come in contact with literally hundreds of thousands of germs every day, and while most are vaccinated, many have little siblings at home who are not. If they come into contact with this disease at school, then come home and place the germs for it around their homes, their little siblings are then exposed to it and are powerless against it.

Children who are too young to be vaccinated are also too young in most cases to fight off most of these "non fatal diseases". Furthermore, just because some kids don't have a fatal case, many kids do. I lost a 6 year old cousin to the flu less than 2 years ago. It is NOT uncommon.

So I will not tell you to vaccinate your child if you do not want to--that is your choice. However, should you choose not to vaccinate, you need to keep your child OUT OF PUBLIC PLACES. I understand that there are children who cannot vaccinate due to allergens--heard immunity protects them, and it protects our babies from them--however when people are choosing not to vaccinate, the numbers fall out of balance and we are no longer protected in the way that we should be. If more than a very small percentage of the population is not vaccinated, you loose protection for both those who cannot vaccinate and those too young to vaccinate.

Lya - posted on 02/11/2013

21

0

1

Jodi, by your own admission, vaccines are not 100% safe. It is also clearly written on the vaccine packaging all the side effects associated with the vaccine. Regardless of what you may or not believe about the vaccine's efficacy and your opinions on the matter, who are you to dictate whether or not a mother wants to risk the risks of vaccinating, versus the risks of her child getting the disease? That is not your decision or your right!

Most of the diseases for which there are vaccinations, are not usually fatal. We have perhaps mostly eradicated infectious diseases, however there is a rise in autism, learning disabilities and auto-immune conditions like asthma. This is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about. Sorry, but I would rather my child get the measles and treat it in a conscientious, intelligent manner that to have a lifelong debilitating condition like autism. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the Italian court's decision or not, obviously a higher court found enough evidence (after I am sure a lengthy investigation) to support a vaccine - autism connection, so again it is not up to you to decide whether a mother wants her child to risk getting autism or an infectious disease.

And what I continuously fail to understand is why would anyone who believed in vaccinating and vaccinated their child would believe that their child was still at risk of getting the disease. Isn't the vaccination supposed to take care of that?

Jodi - posted on 02/10/2013

3,562

36

3907

Uh, Stefanie, you can't "get" downs syndrome from a vaccination. Whoever told you that has rocks in their head. Downs syndrome is something you are either born with or not, it is a GENETIC disorder. I think you need to do your research a little better.

Cecilia - posted on 02/10/2013

1,380

16

425

i don't know why whopping cough is out more to be honest. I do know in most cases the parents spread it to the child.So instead of choosing whether or not to vac my child, i vaccinated myself again. I had my husband redo his also.

Stefanie - posted on 02/10/2013

67

2

9

omg you cant get down syndrom or autism or any of these thing from vac but you can get a whole lot lofv bad things from not like whooping cough polo an other stuff we dont want to go back to ugg

Jodi - posted on 02/03/2013

3,562

36

3907

That is one case in how many million. Not every child (or even CLOSE to every child, in fact, very few) who has autism can claim it as a result of inflammation of the brain as a result of vaccines. It is extremely rare. So a single case in Italy is still not proof that vaccines cause autism. Clearly this PARTICULAR child had a reaction that was able to be proven medically. I do notice that the article was not clear on the breadth of evidence presented by the plaintiff, so I don't think we should form judgements on that alone. It is also clear that this article has been written in a biased manner.

Those who support vaccines recognise there IS no such things as a 100% safe vaccine. That's a no-brainer. There is also no such thing as a 100% safe medication, and yet we continue to be okay with supporting this. That is not up for debate. I give you this thought:

"It is true that the MMR vaccine can cause brain problems — a response called encephalitis — in one child in a million given the shot.
But the measles illness causes encephalitis 1,000 times more frequently, and one child in 3,000 dies of measles if they catch it."

Lucy - posted on 01/28/2013

158

0

5

"And actually, at 100% vaccination, there would not be enough hosts for a virus to mutate. Some vaccines, herd immunity is higher than others, but whooping cough has mutated because there is sufficient opportunity to mutate. It needs a fairly high percentage of the population to be vaccinated in order for it to be effective. "

So let's say the whole world gets vaccinated against Whooping Cough from the day they are born, and let's be generous to the vaccine and say that it's 90% effective. That still leaves 10% of 7 Billion people i.e. 700 Million people, as hosts for virus mutation. Still think that's not sufficient opportunity to mutate?

Jodi - posted on 01/24/2013

3,562

36

3907

And actually, at 100% vaccination, there would not be enough hosts for a virus to mutate. Some vaccines, herd immunity is higher than others, but whooping cough has mutated because there is sufficient opportunity to mutate. It needs a fairly high percentage of the population to be vaccinated in order for it to be effective. People like you who perpetuate myths continue to kill children.

Lucy - posted on 01/24/2013

158

0

5

Jodi "Lucy, do you understand HOW vaccines mutate?"

I'm assuming you mean viruses not vaccines, why would a virus need an unvaccinated host to mutate? Each vaccine is only effective in a % of people, this is why they talk of 'herd immunity', so even with a 100% vaccination rate there would still be new mutations.

Jodi - posted on 01/24/2013

3,562

36

3907

Lucy, do you understand HOW vaccines mutate? First they need an unvaccinated host.......

Lucy - posted on 01/24/2013

158

0

5

It's a new strain of Whooping Cough, but it's thought that it's being caused by vaccines

Deadly New Pertussis Strain Linked with Whooping Cough Vaccine
http://current.com/community/93983472_de...

"a majority of those who contract the disease are vaccinated"

"Our current pertussis epidemic is caused by a deadly new strain of Bordetella pertussis bacterium (ptxP3) and its emergence is directly connected to the whooping cough vaccine."

"The Mooi report focuses on the virulence of the new whooping cough strain and makes a direct association with the vaccine. It points out that the strain was first isolated in the United States in 1984, and that the virulent ptxP3 strains have been replacing the vaccines’ ptxP1 strains. They also note that the greater prevalence of whooping cough in older age groups (that is, adolescents and adults) is directly related to the new ptxP3 strains.

This may explain why whooping cough rates are sky high in those who have been vaccinated — bacteria are adapting to the vaccine and mutating, much like antibiotic resistant superbugs, becoming more pronounced and lethal. The dangers of this new mutation include a 10-fold increase of illness and death."

Julie - posted on 08/26/2012

126

21

7

As a side note, I think sometimes this disparity between lay terms and scientific nomenclature causes misunderstandings such as "herd immunity [theory] is a myth". It is a theory based on empirical observations ranging from historical, epidemiological and mathematical perspectives and has so far been repeatedly validated and well-documented. In short, there is a large body of evidence to support the theory.

Julie - posted on 08/25/2012

126

21

7

It depends on which definition of theory you mean. A scientific theory is a testable, explanatory proposal based on empirical observations of natural phenomena, eg. the theory of evolution, Big Bang theory, Gravitational theory, Laws of Thermodynamics... I would hardly say they are simply derived from the thoughts and biased sides of the writer, or only occur when studies are not properly completed. Darwin took 15 years to publish On The Origin of Species and did not work alone to form his evolutionary theory. His methods were meticulous and his theory -which as a scientist he expected to be tested and improved upon over time- almost 200 years later, still hold up to scientific scrutiny. However it will still be referred to as a theory because that's how the scientific method works- it will remain open to testing/scrutiny no matter how many times its validity has been 'proven'. Unfortunately some people hear the word "theory" and assume the lay definition of 'guess', 'assumption' or use the terms 'hypothesis' and 'theory' interchangeably.



I suspect you and Kelina (and I) are generally on the same page but are articulating things differently.

Momma (MeMe) - posted on 08/24/2012

76

0

1

Ah, yes, that sounds better. Statistical data is from true, scientific studies (typically). Theories and opinion are not studies, they are simply derived from the thoughts and biased sides of the writer. Theories, are just that, they are what occurs when studies are not properly completed, IMO. I am not sold on theories and/or opinion, either. Since, they have yet to be proven as fact. If they, however, went and did some face value studies and actually worked some numbers, then sure. I may read further. ;)



I also agree, that no study should ever be taken at face value. That is why it is called research. You do as much reading as you possibly can and then take multiple sources to come to a census for your decision. Often, it is when multiple sources, have much of the same result, that you can be fairly safe with saying, those studies are legitimate.

Kelina - posted on 08/24/2012

2,018

9

235

maybe I should rephrase that then. I won't take any study at face value. Does that sound better? Julie's right there are too many studies out there that have been done wrong/badly, and there are studies that disprove pretty much every study ever done lol. I read something a while back about studies done and how they can easily be flawed, even the best of the best study methods can get different results if done in another test group or have flawed results if done in too small a test group etc. So actually taking one study at face value without looking at others would just be plain dumb. Also I think most of my links have had statistical data not study data. Numbers comfort me far more than theories and opinions.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms