Which vaccine is it?

Discussion in 'General' started by Tif3, Aug 21, 2007.

  1. Tif3

    Tif3 Well-Known Member

    What is the vaccine that they "think" causes Autism? I was thinking it was the MMR but then I heard somewhere that some people think all of them.
    My dh and I were just talking about this. And I said I know where to find the answer!!! 8) So here I am.

    Tiffaney
     
  2. sharongl

    sharongl Well-Known Member

    Actually, research has shown no link between the MMR and autism. The "doctor" who caused all the furor with his paper has been refuted, and all the authors of it have recanted their opinion.
     
  3. Tif3

    Tif3 Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(sharongl @ Aug 21 2007, 08:36 PM) [snapback]374395[/snapback]
    Actually, research has shown no link between the MMR and autism. The "doctor" who caused all the furor with his paper has been refuted, and all the authors of it have recanted their opinion.


    I'm not saying it's true. ;) I was just wondering if it was the MMR shot they always were talking about.

    Tiffaney
     
  4. cricket1

    cricket1 Well-Known Member

    It was the MMR that was "thought" to cause or contribute to the problem, but it was tought to be the themerisol, which was a preservative that was used in the past. They used it when they had the shots in bulk and not individual "servings".

    Some feel there is "proof" of a link, othrs feel that it has been discredited, I read a theory that it was "possibly" related to the sheer number of shots given in such a short time span that some childrens systems are overwhelmed, especially if the immune system was weakened anyway, not that it is the "cause" but...

    So far my biggest thing is not getting any shots if their system is compromised in any way. Not because of the autism "scare" but because of other possible side effects if the immune system is not up to par.
     
  5. angie7

    angie7 Well-Known Member

    Most have said the MMR vaccine b/c this is given at 12 months and autism usually shows between 12-18 months of age. I use to believe this but after more research (I am always researching :)) I believe that perhaps autism does hold a genetic link and something, like a vaccine triggers it. Some children are born "different" from day one and later dx as high functioning autistic while others who developed normally until say 15 months and then one day, they are autistic. To me that sounds like something environmental such as a cocktail of ingrediants found in vaccines.

    I dont believe that any one vaccine causes problems. I believe that all of them, given in such a short amount of time, to such a small child who is still developing can cause many problems, not only autism. For instance, ashma, auto immune disorders such as ezema, seizure disorders, ADD/ADHD, behavioral problems, learning difficulties, diabetis, arthritus, etc. I think the last time I looked it was over 30 shots given by the time a child is 2 years old. It isnt so much the shots themselves, it is the ingrediants in them such as aluminum, formaldehyde, aborted fetal cells, thirmosal.

    For the thirmosal arguement, the FDA did remove the thirmosal from vaccines although it is still in them. 1. the old vaccines that contained them have not been removed from shelves so there are many out there still contain it 2. vaccines are still manufactured using thirmosal so it is there, only a smaller quanity then originally. I believe that all of these toxins, given so closely together builds up in the childs brain and body thus causing many different medical problems.

    ETA: All flu shots for children and adults still contain the original amount of thirmosal, it has not been removed from them.

    Just my .02 of course ;)
     
  6. laurabm

    laurabm New Member

    QUOTE(sharongl @ Aug 21 2007, 09:36 PM) [snapback]374395[/snapback]
    Actually, research has shown no link between the MMR and autism. The "doctor" who caused all the furor with his paper has been refuted, and all the authors of it have recanted their opinion.


    Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who found the possible link between MMR and autism, has not recanted his opinion of the paper he had published in the Lancet. He was not refuted; the Lancet said that he had received funding that should have been disclosed before they published his paper, and that is why they withdrew their support for the paper. (Some five years after they printed the paper- which is a little curious)
    The funding he didn't report had nothing to do with the findings of yeast and live measles virus in the intestines of children with autism that he treated.

    The MMR issue is separate from the thimerosal issue; MMR never had thimerosal as a preservative.

    Andrew Wakefield is still a licensed medical doctor; he now practices in the US instead of the UK. He is a regular doctor, there is no call for putting quotes around his title.
     
  7. 4kids4Cat

    4kids4Cat Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(lauram @ Oct 8 2007, 12:53 PM) [snapback]441097[/snapback]
    Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who found the possible link between MMR and autism, has not recanted his opinion of the paper he had published in the Lancet. He was not refuted; the Lancet said that he had received funding that should have been disclosed before they published his paper, and that is why they withdrew their support for the paper. (Some five years after they printed the paper- which is a little curious)
    The funding he didn't report had nothing to do with the findings of yeast and live measles virus in the intestines of children with autism that he treated.

    The MMR issue is separate from the thimerosal issue; MMR never had thimerosal as a preservative.

    Andrew Wakefield is still a licensed medical doctor; he now practices in the US instead of the UK. He is a regular doctor, there is no call for putting quotes around his title.

    See this link, in another thread.
     
  8. 4kids4Cat

    4kids4Cat Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(angie7 @ Aug 22 2007, 06:52 PM) [snapback]376096[/snapback]
    For the thirmosal arguement, the FDA did remove the thirmosal from vaccines although it is still in them. 1. the old vaccines that contained them have not been removed from shelves so there are many out there still contain it 2. vaccines are still manufactured using thirmosal so it is there, only a smaller quanity then originally. I believe that all of these toxins, given so closely together builds up in the childs brain and body thus causing many different medical problems.

    ETA: All flu shots for children and adults still contain the original amount of thirmosal, it has not been removed from them.

    Not true. See link to FDA table in this post.
     
  9. angie7

    angie7 Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(2gherkins @ Oct 8 2007, 11:41 PM) [snapback]441440[/snapback]
    Not true. See link to FDA table in this post.


    Actually it is true, I have already shown you the proof off the CDC sites and the vaccine manufactures themselves. All of which can be found in the post titled "Article in USA Today"

    Guess I can use this line on you now "posting blatant misinformation is not okay!" b/c I have already disputed, and provided you with proof to what I said above, is in fact correct. I guess if you dont like what it says, you just ignore it??

    ETA: the "proof" of what I posted in post #5

    http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/conce...-availfree.htm

    "Given the availability of vaccines that do not contain thimerosal as a preservative, the progress in developing such additional vaccines, and the absence of any recognized harm from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines, hepatitis B, DTaP, and Hib vaccines that contain thimerosal as a preservative can continue to be used in the routine infant schedule beginning at age 2 months along with monovalent or combination vaccines that do not contain thimerosal as a preservative."

    "With the exception of some influenza vaccines and tetanus-diphtheria (Td) vaccines (given to children age 7 and older), the last lots of recommended childhood vaccines which contained thimerosal as a preservative expired by early 2003."


    http://www.vaccineshoppe.com/US_PDF/..._4620_4.04.pdf --DTaP shot; TRIPEDIA vaccine package insert: by Aventis Pasteur

    "The vaccine is formulated without preservatives, but contains a trace amount of thimerosal [(mercury derivative), (≤ 0.3 μg mercury/dose)] from the
    manufacturing process. Each 0.5 mL dose also contains, by assay, not more than 0.170 mg of aluminum and not more than 100 μg
    (0.02%) of residual formaldehyde."


    http://www.vaccineshoppe.com/US_PDF/545_05_4045.pdf ; HIB vaccine; ACTHiB vaccine package insert: by Aventis Pasteur

    "Thimerosal (mercury derivative) 1:10,000 is added as a preservative to AvP DTP vaccine."
     
  10. 4kids4Cat

    4kids4Cat Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 8 2007, 05:02 PM) [snapback]441475[/snapback]
    Actually it is true, I have already shown you the proof off the CDC sites and the vaccine manufactures themselves. All of which can be found in the post titled "Article in USA Today"

    Guess I can use this line on you now "posting blatant misinformation is not okay!" b/c I have already disputed, and provided you with proof to what I said above, is in fact correct. I guess if you dont like what it says, you just ignore it??

    Oh, 'round and 'round we go. :rolleyes: No, you may not use that line on me. You have only disputed and provided (outdated) proof of isolated examples. I'm talking overall, everything in general, here. Many vaccines today, in 2007, do not have even trace amounts of thimerosal in them. And you posted yourself in the Article in USA today thread that the very last lots of vaccines with the larger amounts of thimerosal were completely gone well over four years ago. Why are you posting that CDC information from 2003 again?

    As far as your other two links are concerned, you have cited one manufacturer's (Aventis Pasteur) vaccine package insert. Is that supposed to represent all vaccines? BTW, do you know what year that link was posted? The Food and Drug Administration table (2005) shows vaccines from multiple manufacturers. There are Thimerosal-free vaccines that are commonplace:
    DTaP:
    -Infanrix (GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals); Free of thimerosal; Never contained more than a trace of thimerosal, approval date for thimerosal-free formulation 9/29/2000.
    -Daptacel (Sanofi Pasteur, Ltd); Free of thimerosal; Never contained Thimerosal.
    -Tripedia (Sanofi Pasteur, Inc); Trace(≤0.3 µg Hg/0.5mL dose), approval date for thimerosal-free formulation 03/07/01.

    Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate (Hib):
    -ActHIB (Sanofi Pasteur, SA), OmniHIB (GlaxoSmithKline); Free of thimerosal; Never contained Thimerosal.
    -PedvaxHIB (Merck & Co, Inc); Free of thimerosal, approval date for thimerosal-free formulation 08/99.
    -HibTITER, single dose (Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.); Free of thimerosal; Never contained Thimerosal

    Shall we go on???!

    More on reputation and importance of FDA.
     
  11. Ellen Barr

    Ellen Barr Well-Known Member

    I think it's safe to say that, for all intents and purposes, thimerosal is not a factor any more in the vaccination debate. YET the numbers of autism diagnosis continue to rise. So, it's something else.
     
  12. 4kids4Cat

    4kids4Cat Well-Known Member

    Thank you, Ellen, for the reality check. :)
    Actually, I was just reflecting on my evening, and I was wondering why I spent so much time and energy debating a point that was moot. :blink:
     
  13. angie7

    angie7 Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(2gherkins @ Oct 9 2007, 01:40 AM) [snapback]441654[/snapback]
    Oh, 'round and 'round we go. :rolleyes: No, you may not use that line on me. You have only disputed and provided (outdated) proof of isolated examples. I'm talking overall everything in general here. You posted yourself in the Article in USA today thread that the very last lots of vaccines with thimerosal were completely gone well over four years ago. Why are you posting that CDC information from 2003 again?


    It was removed from vaccines as a preservative but some still use it to manufactor the vaccines in, so some do still contain a small amount of thimerosal.

    Here are some recent ones for you then....

    www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf current as of Jan 2007....

    ETA: You will have to copy and paste the link above...
     
  14. 4kids4Cat

    4kids4Cat Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 9 2007, 08:49 AM) [snapback]442424[/snapback]
    It was removed from vaccines as a preservative but some still use it to manufactor the vaccines in, so some do still contain a small amount of thimerosal.

    Here are some recent ones for you then....

    www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf current as of Jan 2007....

    ETA: You will have to copy and paste the link above...

    Okay, so I see some Thimerosal (mostly trace) listed in a few of the many vaccines listed. 15 out of 49, in fact, and a number of those are intended for adults (influenza, rabies, encephalitis). So, what's your point? Completely Thimerosal-free vaccines are available for our children -- that's my point (and as Ellen pointed out, it doesn't matter anyway).

    You know, we really should be using our energies researching information that would help lead to a real understanding and cure for autism.
     
  15. Ellen Barr

    Ellen Barr Well-Known Member

    OK, Angie, lets assume that you are right. There is a little bit of thimerosal in vaccines. There used to be more. There used to be fewer cases of autism. Now there are more.

    Even if you added up the tiny amounts of thimerosal in the additional vaccines kids are now given, it wouldn't add up to the amount of thimerosal that used to be in one vaccination. So:

    More thimerosal = fewer cases
    Less thimerosal = more cases

    If the goal is to reduce the number of autism cases, should we, then, add more thimerosal back in to the vaccines?

    While I agree with you that thimerosal is not good and shouldn't be in vaccines, my point is that it's essentially a moot point if the bigger issue is autism. If the only issue is whether or not it's in vaccines, then fine, you are right, there is a tiny bit. But, I believe you are trying to make a bigger point. Right? Wrong?
     
  16. angie7

    angie7 Well-Known Member

    My point throughout all of this isnt that thimerosal causes autism. My point was that thimerosal is still in some vaccines by the manufactoring process....That was my point from the beginning. Who knows what causes autism. We all want answers to that question. Do I know that vaccines cause autism, no, do I think that vaccines may play a role in autism, yes. It isnt the thimerosal in vaccines b/c like you have mentioned above, it has been removed as a preservative from many vaccines given to children and the autism numbers are still rising. I believe what is most harmful to children is the sheer number of vaccines given to a child. 36 by the time the child is 6 years old. In my day (28 years ago), the total was 10 and autism was rarely seen. I dont believe it is b/c doctors are better able to dx it better now a days either.

    The only reason I kept this up isnt b/c I like to debate this topic b/c frankly it is like beating a dead horse. But 2gherkins failed to see that I was right about the thimerosal being used in a manufactured process so vaccines still do contain it small, but there none the less. That was all I was trying to say. Not anywhere on here did I say that thimerosal causes autism....
     
  17. 4kids4Cat

    4kids4Cat Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 9 2007, 09:44 AM) [snapback]442542[/snapback]
    But 2gherkins failed to see that I was right about the thimerosal being used in a manufactured process so vaccines still do contain it.

    Failed to see? Absolutely not true.

    Yes, you can find some vaccines that do contain trace amounts of Thimerosal, as a result of the manufacturing process. What I am trying to make clear to everyone is that there are Thimerosal-free (zip, zilch, nada) vaccines - never had it, never will - available and commonplace in medical practice.
     
  18. sharongl

    sharongl Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 9 2007, 12:44 PM) [snapback]442542[/snapback]
    . In my day (28 years ago), the total was 10 and autism was rarely seen. I dont believe it is b/c doctors are better able to dx it better know a days. I went to a very large school, and there wasnt one student who "wasnt right" and if there was, they were a downs syndrome child.


    I have to disagree with this. Simply because you didn't see the kids that weren't "normal" doesn't mean they weren't there. Many schools will pay other districts to educate children who don't fit into the "normal" population, or they are in self-contained classes that have little to no contact with the general population. I can say that the defintion of autism has expanded greatly even since I was in grad school--for special ed, just over 10 years ago. Now some Learning Disabilities are considered to be under the Autism Spectrum. So, yes, a broader definition and more people being willing to look for help for their children is a huge part of the increase in numbers of children with autism.
     
  19. angie7

    angie7 Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(sharongl @ Oct 9 2007, 04:53 PM) [snapback]442561[/snapback]
    I have to disagree with this. Simply because you didn't see the kids that weren't "normal" doesn't mean they weren't there. Many schools will pay other districts to educate children who don't fit into the "normal" population, or they are in self-contained classes that have little to no contact with the general population. I can say that the defintion of autism has expanded greatly even since I was in grad school--for special ed, just over 10 years ago. Now some Learning Disabilities are considered to be under the Autism Spectrum. So, yes, a broader definition and more people being willing to look for help for their children is a huge part of the increase in numbers of children with autism.


    In my town, we didnt have a choice of "special" schools. The downs syndrome children all were taught in the same school. And maybe it is a "cop-out" to have such a broad spectrum of autism so that the child can be "labelled". My DH was told he had a learning disability and ADHD when he was a child. He was put on meds that pretty much turned him into a zombie. All of this happened after he had a bad reaction to a DTP shot, related, I dont know. Anyways, my very healthy, intelligent DH isnt by any means "slow" or does he have ADHD. He is a perfectly normal man that was a busy child. That's my point. I think the spectrem is too broad b/c they are classifing just about anything that isnt "normal" as autism. JMHO of course....
     
  20. 4lilmonkeys

    4lilmonkeys Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 9 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]442584[/snapback]
    I think the spectrem is too broad b/c they are classifing just about anything that isnt "normal" as autism. JMHO of course....


    The Autism Spectrum is "too broad?" What do you base that on exactly?
     
  21. twoplustwo

    twoplustwo Well-Known Member

    I know I am a bit slow with all this, just trying to keep up here.

    I do have a question though

    QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 9 2007, 09:44 AM) [snapback]442542[/snapback]
    My point was that thimerosal is still in some vaccines by the manufactoring process....That was my point from the beginning.

    It isnt the thimerosal in vaccines b/c like you have mentioned above, it has been removed as a preservative from many vaccines given to children and the autism numbers are still rising.


    So what is the point of pointing out that THermisol is still used in the process if you don't believe it is relelvant to the discussion of what is in vacine's that's may be contributing to autism? I just don't get it?
     
  22. Susanna+3

    Susanna+3 Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(sharongl @ Oct 9 2007, 04:53 PM) [snapback]442561[/snapback]
    I have to disagree with this. Simply because you didn't see the kids that weren't "normal" doesn't mean they weren't there. Many schools will pay other districts to educate children who don't fit into the "normal" population, or they are in self-contained classes that have little to no contact with the general population. I can say that the defintion of autism has expanded greatly even since I was in grad school--for special ed, just over 10 years ago. Now some Learning Disabilities are considered to be under the Autism Spectrum. So, yes, a broader definition and more people being willing to look for help for their children is a huge part of the increase in numbers of children with autism.


    Big Ditto here!!! We had a ton of inservices on autism while I was a teacher in the early 2000s... And one thing they taught us was that the definition had been redefined and expanded into a spectrum. So when they say more autism cases are being diagnosed I'd really like to know specifically which kinds... If severe autism has indeed increased that dramatically then it would be far more concerning then some of the other areas on this spectrum. Personally, I'm not convinced that there is one cause for all the disorders on the autism spectrum... I think they could be related but not necessarily all caused by the same "thing." I believe one thing the experts mentioned to us was that while the autism diagnoses seemed to go up dramatically in the late 70s and 80s the diagnoses of mentally retarded went down....simply put, kids were being misdiagnosed....or in the less severe cases of autism they weren't being diagnosed at all. This could account for some (perhaps not all) of the increase in cases of autism.
     
  23. momotwinsmom

    momotwinsmom Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(Ellen Barr @ Oct 8 2007, 11:25 PM) [snapback]441932[/snapback]
    I think it's safe to say that, for all intents and purposes, thimerosal is not a factor any more in the vaccination debate. YET the numbers of autism diagnosis continue to rise. So, it's something else.

    I completely agree with this.
     
  24. Her Royal Jennyness

    Her Royal Jennyness Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 9 2007, 11:03 AM) [snapback]442584[/snapback]
    In my town, we didnt have a choice of "special" schools. The downs syndrome children all were taught in the same school. And maybe it is a "cop-out" to have such a broad spectrum of autism so that the child can be "labelled". My DH was told he had a learning disability and ADHD when he was a child. He was put on meds that pretty much turned him into a zombie. All of this happened after he had a bad reaction to a DTP shot, related, I dont know. Anyways, my very healthy, intelligent DH isnt by any means "slow" or does he have ADHD. He is a perfectly normal man that was a busy child. That's my point. I think the spectrem is too broad b/c they are classifing just about anything that isnt "normal" as autism. JMHO of course....

    Sorry, this is a nit-pick. It's Down Syndrome, not Down's Syndrome. It's named after Dr. John Down who described it (and therefor made it possible for others to diagnose it).

    I don't think that vaccines cause autism, I truly don't. Prior to the last century (with it's gigantic advances in health care, sanitation and food preservation) people were just inundated with all sorts of germs, viruses, and bacteria.

    From the dawn of man until roughly the 1860's food preservation was a big gamble really. Your choices were salting, drying, brining and freezing (outside, in a specially built hut). Salting worked well, but made food unpalatable and could be very costly depending on where you lived, so it was not often used and usually only with fish. Drying was another method used, but your food was still susceptible to rot and mold. On a humid day all your dried fruit and meat could be ruined. Brining is basically storing something in salt water with maybe some vinegar added. (Pickles and sauerkraut are brined, for example.) Often people would use fresh saltwater for brining which they boil then cool (outside normally) before adding spices and pouring it over meat, veggies or fruit. It would then be stored in the basement, root cellar or outside in a loosely covered barrel or crock until used. Any scum that formed (a natural byproduct of bacteria) was spooned out and thrown away. Freezing was used where it was sufficiently cold in the winter, but your food was at the mercy of the elements. If it was warm enough one day that your food partially thawed, it would begin to rot. People often had no choice but to eat rotten food because that was all they had. There was no other food supply for them. They could cook the heck out of that funky smelling roast and hope they didn't get ill or starve. Canning (which was a miraculous life-saving thing) was not invented until the early 1800's but it did not become a wide-spread technology until the 1860's when they figured out how to mass produce canned food. It was initially used by Napoleon's Army to decrease that amount of soldiers dying from tainted food. Another thing was contaminated water supplies. There was often no way to know that water was contaminated until people started becoming ill or dying.

    Before the advent of covered sewers people would empty their chamber pots into the street where the urine and feces would (hopefully) flow into a large gutter that was in the center of the street in most large cities of the time. Smaller cities and towns would just have piles of human waste laying around until they were picked up by the dung collector. Children played in those streets, and since hand washing really only came into vogue in the Victorian era, you can bet those youngsters were literally covered in germs, live viruses and dangerous bacteria.

    How many parents today are worried that their child will contract Measles, Mumps or Polio? These were and continue to be dangerous deadly diseases that could kill or permanently cripple your child. Smallpox was the first thing that Europeans vaccinated against by rubbing cowpox virus (from the pustules on infected cows) into open wounds in the 1700's. The Chinese and Indians had been practicing their own form of inoculation from as early as 1000 BC. This procedure caused Smallpox infections to drop dramatically. Smallpox has been eradicated from the earth through vaccination. Just over 200 years ago this disease would kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. In fact it killed 60 million Europeans and 5 reigning monarchs in the 1700's alone. 1/3 of the people who contracted it became blind. Male infertility is another side effect of smallpox. People back then knew the horrors of Smallpox. Today the Smallpox virus has been eradicated and the only samples of Smallpox virus we have are kept in liquid nitrogen in the US and in Russia. This is a disease that was killing 2 million people a year as recently as the 1950's! Using this example alone convinces me that vaccines save lives.

    My point is that people have been wallowing in viruses and germs for centuries upon centuries upon centuries. I don't think a little bit of a virus injected into our kids is harmful, simply because we have evolved (or were designed ;)) to fight off viruses, bacteria and germs.
     
  25. angie7

    angie7 Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(Her Royal Jennyness @ Oct 9 2007, 06:57 PM) [snapback]442812[/snapback]
    My point is that people have been wallowing in viruses and germs for centuries upon centuries upon centuries. I don't think a little bit of a virus injected into our kids is harmful, simply because we have evolved (or were designed ;)) to fight off viruses, bacteria and germs.


    The problem with vaccines isnt the vaccine or the disease themselves but rather the dangerous and known toxins that are in each and every vaccine. Humans are not "made" to have such toxins injected directly into their system. Most toxins that humans encounter in a daily basis is filtered either through our breathing resources, digestive system, etc.

    As far as small pox, it has been a long time since I have looked into that one but there are other studies/references that claim good sanitation played a major role in small pox numbers dropping. To each your own...
     
  26. niftywriter

    niftywriter Well-Known Member

    QUOTE
    As far as small pox, it has been a long time since I have looked into that one but there are other studies/references that claim good sanitation played a major role in small pox numbers dropping. To each your own...


    This is immediately and easily disproven by the fact that smallpox has been eradicated worldwide, in spite of the fact that in the majority of the countries in the world, sanitation is utterly abysmal. Raw sewage in the streets and in the water supplies; children eating off dirt floors; malnutrition, starvation, filth, and lack of clean drinking/bathing water is epidemic for millions and millions of people worldwide. Yet smallpox has been eradicated. The lifestyles and sanitation conditions could not be more different between those of our affluent western world and that of most of the third world. Yet smallpox is gone in both places. The only common variable is the smallpox vaccine. Without a doubt, it is the vaccine which has driven smallpox from everywhere in the world, not just from the sanitary and well-fed west.

    Angie, I have to ask you again, since you did not answer in any meaningful way when I asked you this before. For what possible purpose do you believe that nearly every government and virtually every doctor on the planet enthusiastically endorses routine childhood vaccination to protect children from deadly childhood diseases? What do YOU think could be their motive? If what you say is true, that vaccines inject poisons into children's bloodstreams, then why don't you think the governments and doctors the world over have not put a swift stop to it? After decades of extensive research and study, doctors and governments concluded that vaccination is a wise and prudent course for our children. Why do you think they hold this opinion?
     
  27. Her Royal Jennyness

    Her Royal Jennyness Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 9 2007, 06:01 PM) [snapback]443217[/snapback]
    The problem with vaccines isnt the vaccine or the disease themselves but rather the dangerous and known toxins that are in each and every vaccine. Humans are not "made" to have such toxins injected directly into their system. Most toxins that humans encounter in a daily basis is filtered either through our breathing resources, digestive system, etc.

    Are you referring to formaldehyde, aluminum, phenol, acetone, alum, and glycerin? Do you actually even know how much there is of those chemicals in each vaccine? Do you know how much more of those chemicals we are exposed to just in everyday living than from a vaccine? Formaldehyde is an excellent example. More kids are exposed to formaldehyde from plywood, particle board and new carpet than they are from vaccines. I have to admit that I wished they did not use phenol. But phenol is one of the components of Asprin, I was surprised to learn that today.

    QUOTE
    As far as small pox, it has been a long time since I have looked into that one but there are other studies/references that claim good sanitation played a major role in small pox numbers dropping. To each your own...

    You honestly don't think it had anything to do with the aggressive smallpox vaccinations and quarantining that volunteers risked their lives to do? People washed their hands a lot and it went away all by itself? I find that really hard to believe. It would help if you had some kind of proof to back up your claims.
     
  28. angie7

    angie7 Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(Her Royal Jennyness @ Oct 10 2007, 01:29 AM) [snapback]443361[/snapback]
    Are you referring to formaldehyde, aluminum, phenol, acetone, alum, and glycerin? Do you actually even know how much there is of those chemicals in each vaccine? Do you know how much more of those chemicals we are exposed to just in everyday living than from a vaccine? Formaldehyde is an excellent example. More kids are exposed to formaldehyde from plywood, particle board and new carpet than they are from vaccines. I have to admit that I wished they did not use phenol. But phenol is one of the components of Asprin, I was surprised to learn that today.QUOTE





    QUOTE

    You honestly don't think it had anything to do with the aggressive smallpox vaccinations and quarantining that volunteers risked their lives to do? People washed their hands a lot and it went away all by itself? I find that really hard to believe. It would help if you had some kind of proof to back up your claims.

    And a few others, yes. Did you even read my post above? Their is a difference in ingesting and breathing in all of these toxins verses getting them jabbed into you. Your digestive system filters these toxins, breathing filters these toxins but injecting them doesnt. Your body has no way of filtering any of the above poisons. There is a HUGE difference between them.

    I was just merely stating that there are 2 sides of every story.....
     
  29. niftywriter

    niftywriter Well-Known Member

    I'm trying to understand what you mean here. Filtering in what way? In what way do you think there is a difference between the filtering of toxins in the environment (which are in far more abundance than the minute traces found in vaccines, as in every other thing our children are exposed to simply by being alive on this earth) through skin, lungs or digestive system. Do you mean that by being in the blood stream directly, there is more risk than if it goes first into the lungs and is then filtered (via the blood stream, by the way) out of the body? Or goes to the digestive tract and then intot he bloodstream there and then is excreted out of the body? How is it different when the toxins wind up in the blood stream in all cases, anyway?

    It is my understanding that the alleged "links" between the MMR vaccine or other vaccines and autism are supposed to be due to the delivery of mercury and other toxins to the vulnerable child's brain. Your insistence on a special threat posed by injection of vaccines into the bloodstream suggests to me that you share this belief. Please correct me if I am wrong. I really would like to understand what you are worried about.

    There is a well-documented anatomical protective system in the brain called the "blood-brain barrier". This defensive adaptation means that regular blood circulating in the body is not easily passed into the brain. This is the reason why chemotherapy is almost useless for people suffering from brain cancers. The chemo which is delivered by either pills or IV cannot get from the general circulatory system through the blood-brain barrier into the brain's blood supply.

    Because of the blood brain barrier, so-called "vaccine poisons" would also be blocked from the brain and therefore could not be the cause of brain disorders. Like toxins which enter the body via skin, breathing or food, the vaccine toxins are filtered out of the blood stream into the urine and excreted from the body, along with a lot of the viral material. A very tiny amount is used to produce the immunization effect already, but the body efficiently disposes of most of that, too. That is the reason why people who are not immunized against polio must not change the diapers of babies recently immunized using the live polio vaccine (which is rarely used now, because of the governments' and doctors' concerns about the adult unimmunized population).

    I'd like to repeat my earlier question. You obviously feel very strongly about this topic and are sincere in your beliefs. But why do you think virtually every government in the world, backed by nearly every doctor in the world would recommend vaccination programs against deadly childhood diseases if there is truly any reason for serious concern? Do you think the governments or doctors worldwide have some secret agenda to poison all of the children in the world? What possible motive do you believe so many people would have to do harm to so many other people? It is against doctors' code of ethics, against governmental duty and also against their own self-interest (a poisoned population requiring services, medical care and a lifetime of support is hardly the goal of any government, you'd have to agree).

    I hope you won't ignore my question for the third time. I would really like to understand where you are coming from.
     
  30. NINI H

    NINI H Well-Known Member

    I'm just reading and doing a lot of thinking about this subject lately. I thought I read that there are some vaccines that do pass through the brain-blood barrier. I don't know, maybe I miss read something? (Now I've got to look again ;)) Oh well. :)

    You know I truly think that the majority of Dr's really do believe they have our best interest at heart. But I also believe that we don't have all the answers in Medicine. We could be doing harm unknowingly. The medical community is still learning as is the public about all kinds of diseases and treatments for those diseases. We may have completely different ways of dealing w/ these diseases in 100 yrs. But isn't questioning the way discoveries are made?

    Just some thoughts :)
     
  31. niftywriter

    niftywriter Well-Known Member

    I agree with you whole-heartedly about medicine not having all the answers yet, Nini. Absolutely, I hope that we will have better ways to cope with disease and other medical conditions in 100 years than vaccines, chemotherapy and other current treatments. I would also say that the caution of angie7 and others is wise and warranted especially with newer vaccines. Every parent should do some research, using a variety of source from all sides of the issue (but please avoid the really radical sites on either side; they do nothing to further the debate and only frighten people and obscure the issues).

    Medicine is certainly a far from perfect application of science. However, right now, it's the best we have. Before vaccines, deadly childhood illnesses killed unacceptable millions of children worldwide every year. I think, because this generation has been almost completely shielded from these illnesses (thanks to vaccines!) that many of our younger moms and dads simply do not perceive that the horror that vaccines prevent is the known horror which will kill their child, while the possiblity of harm from a vaccine itself is the unknown factor, which has nevertheless been well-researched and felt to be a far lesser risk. That there is some risk of reactions is not denied by the medical community, but by and large, this risk is much smaller than the risk your child would face should he catch the diseases themselves.
     
  32. Her Royal Jennyness

    Her Royal Jennyness Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 10 2007, 06:26 PM) [snapback]444842[/snapback]
    And a few others, yes. Did you even read my post above? Their is a difference in ingesting and breathing in all of these toxins verses getting them jabbed into you. Your digestive system filters these toxins, breathing filters these toxins but injecting them doesnt. Your body has no way of filtering any of the above poisons. There is a HUGE difference between them.

    I was just merely stating that there are 2 sides of every story.....

    Yes, I did read your post. With the exception of airborne toxins sticking to your mucus membranes, they go straight into your bloodstream from your lungs. (Smoking leaps to mind, the lungs don't filter smoke or the toxins from that very well. All that nicotine gives you a buzz by going straight into the bloodstream.) Ingestion doesn't change the properties of toxins either, they end up in your bloodstream as well via your intestines. (Otherwise people couldn't be poisoned with ant killer for example.) The body does have a way to filter substances in the blood stream, the liver and kidneys. That is their job, they clean our blood. If we didn't have a way to filter our blood we would all die rather quickly.
     
  33. bu2full

    bu2full Well-Known Member

    I have to say Ladies you are doing a pretty good job of debating without being mean. Keep it up. Debates are great, being mean isn't. Ok, so you ladies obviously know a lot and do a lot of research. I was wondering if you know the latest (oldest) age autism would/could show up?
     
  34. Ellen Barr

    Ellen Barr Well-Known Member

    QUOTE
    There is a well-documented anatomical protective system in the brain called the "blood-brain barrier". This defensive adaptation means that regular blood circulating in the body is not easily passed into the brain. This is the reason why chemotherapy is almost useless for people suffering from brain cancers. The chemo which is delivered by either pills or IV cannot get from the general circulatory system through the blood-brain barrier into the brain's blood supply.


    Actually, the blood-brain barrier is not fully formed until age 5. Before that time, things flow freely between the blood stream and brain, which is why some people are so concerned about all the vaccinations required at such an early age.
     
  35. angie7

    angie7 Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(Nifty @ Oct 11 2007, 12:55 AM) [snapback]444887[/snapback]
    I'd like to repeat my earlier question. You obviously feel very strongly about this topic and are sincere in your beliefs. But why do you think virtually every government in the world, backed by nearly every doctor in the world would recommend vaccination programs against deadly childhood diseases if there is truly any reason for serious concern? Do you think the governments or doctors worldwide have some secret agenda to poison all of the children in the world? What possible motive do you believe so many people would have to do harm to so many other people? It is against doctors' code of ethics, against governmental duty and also against their own self-interest (a poisoned population requiring services, medical care and a lifetime of support is hardly the goal of any government, you'd have to agree).

    I hope you won't ignore my question for the third time. I would really like to understand where you are coming from.


    Nifty, I would love to answer your question if I felt I had an answer but I dont. There are too many variables for me to actually state an answer to you. I am not going to say it is based soley on $$ but I would feel much better about the gov't involvement in mass vaccinations if the pharma companies didnt have their hand in every politicians pocket, in major companies, etc. To me that seems sort of biased. Another thing I would like to say is that doctors are not given a class regarding vaccines. They are given a seminar, by the pharma companies that pretty much say "vaccines are good" and leave it at that. I would like to see doctors to get more education on vaccines then they currently do. Maybe a detailed class that goes over every aspect, honestly about vaccines from an instructor, not pharma themselves. Also doctors get extra $$ from the gov't for how many children/people they vaccinate. It just seems a little "off" to me.

    So like I said, I dont really have an answer for you, not a straight one anyway. I am NOT going to debate what I posted above with anyone.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
MMR Vaccine The Toddler Years(1-3) Apr 22, 2014
Rabies Vaccine General Jul 12, 2013
Flu vaccine General Jan 10, 2013
Flu vaccine..r your kids getting it? The Toddler Years(1-3) Oct 14, 2011
MMR Vaccine The Toddler Years(1-3) Oct 6, 2011

Share This Page