Which vaccine is it?

QUOTE(bu2full @ Oct 10 2007, 09:50 PM) [snapback]445121[/snapback]
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?


I found This site interesting.

It basically says that all children 24 months and younger should be screened for autism.
Those with specific delays should then go through a secondary, more complete screening.

It didn't spsecifically answer your quesiton but what I interpretted from the info is that certain things should show up by 24 months. Dx of Autism can happen much later but I think that doesn't mean that they just developed it, just when they were finally diagnosed.

 

QUOTE(Ellen Barr @ Oct 11 2007, 08:52 AM) [snapback]445549[/snapback]
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.


I'm sure you ladies will laugh at me but I found this VERY basic childrne's site blood brain barrier helpful to explain what it is.

everything I have read is that it is unknown when it is fully deveoped but that they see evidence that by 9 days of age it is rapidly forming.

 

no one's laughing at you! That's an awesome site -- thanks

My MIL, the speech pathologist gave me that 5 years info. Not the most reliable, I guess. But, I do believe that there's consensus that it's still forming before the age of 3-5. It's hard to find anything not super-technical, so thanks again for that easy-to-understand link.

 

Wow! What a great thread this is! Great input coming from every direction! :good:

Ellen, when Nini posted, I asked some other people if they had better information than I did on the blood-brain barrier question. Thanks for the input. That answers the question as to why so many anti-vaccination people worry about this, even if the information is not completely accurate, it is clearly something that a significant portion of the population believes to be true, and something to think about.

Alison, thank you for those wonderful links!

Angie, thank you for trying to answer my questions. I won't argue with you that there is too much inappropriate influence from drug companies on governmental policy. I think that has been proven to be an issue, and hopefully people are aware of this and, as you have often suggested, do their research. I'm also not a fan of the drug rep visits to doctors and the financial incentives for pushing various drugs OR new vaccines. I recently left a pediatric practise over exactly this issue (too much pressure to have a new, and in my view, unnecessary, vaccine; provided free to the office as an incentive, while the office charges the patient). I completely understand your concerns in this area.

However, in my opinion, it is possible to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Just because our society has problems with power and money, does not mean that the essential benefits of the long-standing vaccines for deadly infectious diseases are bad. Secondly, although the government certainly is influenced by drug company money and jobs, they are not so influenced that they will allow something to go on which will, in the long run, cost them a great deal more. The drug companies money/job incentives can only take them so far (ie, approvals of new drugs in a timely manner/ policies which favor their products, etc), but will not induce the federal or state governments to endorse policies which would inflict known harms on the population, since the cost to the government in money, medical care, social relief, and pure citizen power, would be astronomical and suicidal for the government.

Another point I would like to make is your suggestion about doctors becoming more educated about vaccines (and drugs, I presume). WHile I agree with you that more education, coming from objective sources, can never be a bad thing, I do think you must take into account that a pediatrician has gone to college for an average of 8 years, specializing in medicine for at least 4 of them and in pediatrics for at least 2 of those. During that time, they learn about the human body and immunology exhaustively, constantly, repeatedly in both theory and practise. While a short seminar in a specific vaccine or drug would be completely inadequate for you or me to fully understand how it works and what the risks may be (assuming neither of us have a medical degree), I think a competent doctor only needs a short specific seminar to add the new drug or vaccine to his already accumulated knowledge about the immune system, drug interactions and so forth.

 

QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 11 2007, 09:01 AM) [snapback]445564[/snapback]
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.


Angie, I see what you are saying. I too dislike the financial incentives the Pharma comp give to docs. Doesn't seem right to me either.

I also agree what Renee is saying about how a seminar a doctor takes is different from laymen. I can relate when it comes to CEU's in my field.

I am wondering though, Angie, how do you know that all doctors don't take seminars that are unbiased (in addition to the ones that pharma give)? And how do you know that all doctors haven't taken classes on vaccines?

 

QUOTE(twoplustwo @ Oct 11 2007, 07:25 PM) [snapback]445981[/snapback]
I am wondering though, Angie, how do you know that all doctors don't take seminars that are unbiased (in addition to the ones that pharma give)? And how do you know that all doctors haven't taken classes on vaccines?


I didnt say all just the very mast majority do not. I havent talked to any doctor that has said they have taken a "vaccine course" b/c there just isnt one. Maybe an immunity type class but that would only graze the surface of vaccines. I would like to see a full course on vaccines with an instructor that isnt pressured by the gov't to say this or say that. But that will never happen, unfornuately. Pharma just has their hands in everything and no one "high" up is going to say anything negative.

I interviewed a quite a few ped doctors before and after the girls were born (already had their's just researching ) I would interview them over the phone and when I asked if they took any courses that dealt with vaccines, all of them said "no" but I took a seminar in college. Of course put on by the pharmas....

ETA: And these were young and old doctors that I asked.... And as far as I can find, there isnt a seminar that is offered that isnt put on by the pharmas.

 

QUOTE
Pharma just has their hands in everything and no one "high" up is going to say anything negative.


Do you really believe this? Honestly, and giving it careful thought. Do you really believe that for a few thousand dollars in the pocket (or a few hundred thousand in an election campaign or even a few million in a presidential campaign) that drug companies can buy the silence and complicity of our elected officials to the extent that they would knowingly allow dangerous poisons to be injected into the children in their constituencies? HOnestly?

Angie, you've made many valid points here, but what bothers me is that you seem to have leaped from valid concerns to really serious accusations about the integrity and intelligence of not only every doctor in the western world but also of every arm of government in the western world as well. And, actually all over the world, since the consensus is virtually unanimous among medical practitioners and governments worldwide that vaccination programs save lives and do enormous good for children and communities. The unknown and known risks are constantly being monitored and studied and so far, the enormous benefits in saved lives and reduced misery due to serious or even disabling illness has far, far outweighed these poteintal risks.

Once again, I must ask you. Why do you believe that governments and doctors would go along with what you seem to see as a crooked under the table manipulation of money and drugs/poisons, using children as the guinea pigs? Do you really think that the tiny personal gain for individuals is enough incentive to foster a worldwide malicious plan to poison all babies and children? Do you not wonder about the subsequent cost in medical care, loss of population, deaths, disease, disability and so forth that these doctors and governments would then have to contend with? Don't you think, even a little bit, that maybe it is unreasonable...even for THEIR OWN SAKES...for government and doctors to let this happen? Even if they don't give a hoot about babies' health and parental concerns, it would be a disaster for them to poison the population, so why would they do it? :umm:

 

Angie, in order to respond to your "info" regarding doctor's education on vaccines, I asked my BIL, who is a doctor what education he has received on vaccines--since I wanted to post true info, not something I am guessing on. My BIL is very much AGAINST big pharma, has worked many fellowships in Africa along with his girlfriend who is also a doctor working for Doctors without boarders. Cindy's specialty is infectious diseases BTW.

Here is his response to my question about his education regarding vaccines. I am pasting his response verbatum:


Single seminar hosted by pharm companies: FALSE (it comes in bits and pieces as we learn about specific diseases). Dont get me wrong, there are seminars hosted by pharm companies but they are RARELY hosted with the push for vaccines. Most vaccines are not optional and their regimens are set. So, there is little they have to gain by hosting seminars. They stand little chance of selling more vaccines. When the new cervical Ca vaccine becomes standard of care for girls beginning age 9 or so, I think you will see the TV commercials disappear.

Smallpox being eradicated by hygiene: absolute nonsense. Highly contagious, with a lifecycle amendable to intervention plus a good antigen to target = vaccine eradication

In the 1970s pharm co's were given a special exemption from litigation by the gov to encourage vaccine development. This came after the swine flu scare. There is some truth in them being protected, but vaccine development and their costs are very high. Few even do it nowadays unless given incentives. Since the government dictates reimbursement for the majority of them (kids on Medicaid), it has been traditionally low, making new vaccine development and preserving the pipelines difficult for most companies to financially swallow.


Hope that helps.

 

Nifty, I have already answered your question....

and it is far more then a few hundred thousand

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=H04

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/indus.asp?Cmte=RPC

 

It wouldnt let me edit my above post but in the first link, the pharma companies is the dark green the "PAC"

 

Angie, did you even read what my BIL said?

 

QUOTE(sharongl @ Oct 13 2007, 01:48 AM) [snapback]448280[/snapback]
Angie, did you even read what my BIL said?


Yes......

 

Angie, forgive me if I seem to be hammering on the same point here, but I do not think you actually answered my question at all. I think this is a serious issue that ought to be addressed seriously and I really do want to understand where you are coming from. I asked- can you tell me what motive you think all doctors and all governments might have to poison their own populations? Do you really believe that there is a conspiracy to harm babies and children among pharmaceutical companies, doctors and governments?

No pharmaceutical company's "bribes" of campaign money or even jobs in a district would even come close to compensating the government for the billions in medical bills and disability costs if numerous children were being deliberately harmed by vaccines as you claim. Those figures (even 20 million) are but a drop in the bucket of the costs. You know yourself that one disabled or seriously ill child can rack up a million dollars in medical bills in one year or less. So 20 million from a drug company to a political party who hopes to form the government would not even offset a lifetime of medical costs to the state of even ONE injured child.

What you also seem to be saying is that you think doctors go to medical school and spend 8 years training to become doctors, taking the Hippocratic oath to do no harm to their patients...and then promptly march to the tune of pharmaceutical companies who give them a few free vaccine samples, all to promote vaccines which do not profit those companies at all. Would you sell out your principles in a heartbeat for a couple of bucks in your pocket? If not, then what makes you think all of those other people would?

Angie, it makes no sense. These people are not losers on the street who will take enormous risks to rob a stereo out of a car; these people have worked all their lives to get to that point (setting up a medical practise); do you seriously believe that the "vast majority" of them would immediately start a program of doing harm to babies for a few lousy Rx bucks in their pockets? I know at least 20 doctors personally and I can tell you, the big Rx bucks are not going to them; they get free samples of new drugs usually and occasionally are offered a free trip to somewhere to attend a conference. There is no motive here for "pushing" vaccines. Are you essentially accusing all doctors and all governments of deliberately harming babies and children for no actual true gain? You seem to be essentially saying they do it just for the heck of it!

Do you really think that Doctors without Borders would risk their lives every day trying to get into war-torn areas to vaccinate babies and children if they thought the vaccines were bad and would only harm the children? Do you honestly think that they would risk their own lives just to do this to babies and children? Do you think the WHO is sending doctors and nurses into the most strife-ridden parts of Africa (Somalia, Darfur, Sudan to name a few countries the doctors I know personally have been in the last 2 years) risking life and limb, to press onward in the quest to eradicate polio finally and fully from the globe as part of a twisted plan to cause harm and injury to those children?

I would honestly like you to consider thoughtfully and help me to understand what you really believe is going on. It will be more helpful to your own cause, as well, if you are clearer on what you believe to be the motives and reasons behind the vaccination program.

What do you believe is the motive of pharmaceutical companies for developing and "pushing" these vaccines? Vaccines are extremely expensive to develop, they are not profitable and they often cost the pharmaceutical companies a great deal in aggravation and inconvenience to develop and distribute them (especially as this campaign to discredit vaccination program grows and parents who are desperate for something to blame are launching lawsuits against them over autism or other developmental problems). Many pharmaceutical companies had to be given incentives by the government to fund research and develop vaccines for the good of the people, not the other way around!...and most of them look on vaccines as their good public relations money spent! Vaccines are usually money down the drain for drug companies; it is only to build their image as "good corporate citizens" and to be able to tell what good they do for society besides profiting off viagara and similar money makers, that induces drug companies to develop or produce vaccines in the first place. This is what Sharon's BIL was hinting at in his reply. Again, since there is no great financial incentive for the pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines, why do you think they continue to do so? Do you believe they, like the doctors and governments, simply do it for the heck of it, or worse, for some evil intention to poison millions of children?

I am truly not trying to put you on the spot here, but you have been so vocal about your distrust and disgust over vaccines, and you've made a lot of assertions that simply do not add up, and sometimes seem to be more anxious speculation than proven facts. I simply have to ask you if you have thought of all of these things and still conclude that doctors and governments are the hapless dupes of evil pharmaceutical companies and they routinely and blindly inject babies with poison for a few bucks in their pockets. And if you still come to that conclusion, why? What are the reasons for your belief that I am missing?

Another thought concerns me, too. If you really do believe this of doctors, how do you handle any other medical problems? How can you trust any medical practitioner if you are convinced that they would willingly harm your babies? That would seem to be a very serious problem to me.

 

QUOTE(Nifty @ Oct 13 2007, 06:07 PM) [snapback]448877[/snapback]
Do you really believe that there is a conspiracy to harm babies and children among pharmaceutical companies, doctors and governments?



Conspiracy....no but a lack of better judgement, maybe? Doctors know what the chemicals in vaccines can do to the human body. All I can say is start researching each ingrediant that is in all the vaccines and you will be very surprised. Most are known carcinogens, poisons, and neuro toxins.. Vaccines are not as simple as X disease in saline. Too bad they arent, b/c I think many non-vaxers would consider vaccines then. I think doctors/gov't/who ever else, turn a blind eye when it comes to the ingrediants in vaccines for who knows.

Here is a good site to get started on researching each ingrediant and what it is known for....http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_ingredients.htm

Nothing really to do with what I wrote about above, but I was just hunting around and found this. It is just a list of interesting articles related to vaccines...http://www.wnho.net/vaccinationnews.htm

 

QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 13 2007, 08:02 PM) [snapback]449172[/snapback]
Conspiracy....no but a lack of better judgement, maybe? Doctors know what the chemicals in vaccines can do to the human body. All I can say is start researching each ingrediant that is in all the vaccines and you will be very surprised. Most are known carcinogens, poisons, and neuro toxins.. Vaccines are not as simple as X disease in saline. Too bad they arent, b/c I think many non-vaxers would consider vaccines then. I think doctors/gov't/who ever else, turn a blind eye when it comes to the ingrediants in vaccines for who knows.

Here is a good site to get started on researching each ingrediant and what it is known for....http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_ingredients.htm


No, Angie, I don't think they turn a blind eye. They actually look at how much of each compound is present and know that it is a miniscule amount that is way less than our bodies form naturally. I remember taking an etimology (sp?) class in college, and they spoke of the allowable amount of insect parts present in our foods--especially grains. I think people would be apalled if they realized how much insect they eat on a daily baisis.

Despite what you may think, every doctor I know is highly intellegent, and does know what is in the vaccines. They also know the amounts are so small that they have no effect on the body. Here is a link to a CHOP-Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia webside about the formaldehyde that is present in vaccines. It is less that .2 mg (the highest possible amout) and an average 2 month old, who is 5 kg will naturally have 1.1 mg in their body. Formaldehyde is necessary in our bodies. As are many of the other elements that are in vaccines.
http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/...ic.jsp?id=75809

 

Yes, sharongl, I think they do. I didnt say doctors were not smart, but they arent gods like many on here think...

Frankly, I am exhausted by the back and forth of this thread, but to anyone reading this. Do your own homework. Learn for yourself. Dont take anyone's word for it, not mine, not another TS member, no one else, just your own. Ask a question and find the answer for yourself.

 

OK, I checked out your links. The first one was outdated when it was written. It was written in 2004--2 years after Themiserol was removed from vaccines, but used a 1997 Physicians Desk Reference as its source.

The second link, I found interesting, in that every anti-vaccination "article" was done by groups that are anti-vaccination to begin with. The only non-biased link I found said that there is no link between Thermiserol and autism. At the top it does say that the links are not endorsed by WHO.

 

I trust my BIL who has spent the past 10+ years of his life studying medicine. I trust my pediatrician who counts as his patients the children and grandchildren of my OB and RE. I also trust what I have read and researched over time. Because I believe the doctors in my life are doing their best to keep my children heathy, doesn't mean I haven't done any research. The CHOP article I linked has a ton of info explaining the perservatives in vaccines.

 

Well Angie, I think I can recognize a zealot when I meet one and I think I've met one in you. I don't think I'll waste any more hours trying to figure out what is worrying you. It's pretty clear to me that you don't want to have your beliefs altered by the facts. You worry about the "lack of better judgement" of millions of doctors worldwide who are trying to eradicate dangerous illnesses in children, and believe that you alone have discovered, through your "research" on anti-vax sites, evil plans which they (doctors) are too stupid and too ignorant and lacking in "better judgement" to see for themselves. In one stroke, you have accused millions of doctors worldwide of a cynical or stupid lack of care for their young patients. You seem to believe that millions of people worldwide are careless, thoughtless people who will willingly harm children. I'm sorry, but I think it's possible that someone lacks "better judgement" but I'm not sure if you can see that it might be yourself.

I wish you well, and I hope that no harm comes to your children because they are not vaccinated against easily preventable deadly childhood diseases. I also pray that no harm will come to any children with whom they come into contact through the years who are vulnerable to disease because of cancer or whatever and who will have no way of protecting themselves if your children pass those deadly diseases on to them. I hope with all my heart that you will never face a tragedy of your own doing because of your belief in your own superiority and your conviction that everyone else is stupid, on the take ($$) or gutlessly willing to "turn a blind eye" to the poisoning of children. I wish you could remember that every parent is as concerned about her children's welfare as you are and many of those parents happen to be doctors, researchers in government and pharmaceutical labs and government representatives. Often new mothers believe that they are the only people on earth who truly understand mother love and mother protection. Children are so often the victims of the crusades of parents. I hope that never happens to your children.

Good luck.

 

QUOTE(Nifty @ Oct 14 2007, 03:49 AM) [snapback]449410[/snapback]
Good luck.


You too....and dont worry about my kids, worry about your own.

 

QUOTE
dont worry about my kids, worry about your own.



Oh, I do, Angie. Some TSers are familiar with my personal experience of the narrow escape my Jessie had at age five due to unvaccinated kids starting a tiny outbreak at her school. Luckily, neither Jessie nor the other medically exempt child caught the measles (they had no contact with the infected children), but the three infected children (2 from one family) spent weeks in hospital. At least one of them, a 2 year old girl, will never be the same again. The brain damage she suffered will disable her for the rest of her life.

I worry all the time about the terrible danger that parental crusades against these tried and true vaccines will do to the safety and health of future generations of children. For nearly 40 years we had these horrible diseases almost beaten, but it is possible that we will be thrown back into deadly epidemics again. I most definitely do worry about my children and even more about my children's children.

I think angie7 and others provide us all with food for thought and do raise alarms about some of the issues out there, at least from the concerned parent's point of view. It is true that none of us should become complacent and too trusting. But I also think that parental concern can go very much astray. THe urge to protect our children is instinctive and powerful, but there are times when our lack of experience can make us miss the true threat completely.

I think there is a general anxiety we all feel as parents...that uneasy worry that "something" might go wrong or we might inadvertently miss something and cause harm to our children which is at the root of all these sorts of contraversies. Nini said something like "We might unknowingly do some harm" and I think this is a HUGE subliminal fear in every single one of us as we raise our innocent and totally dependent children.

The trouble with vaccines is that today's crop of parents has been so well-insulated from the very real threats of terrible childhood infectious disease, that they instead focus on the possibility of an unknown harm which may come from a vaccine. Most of today's parents literally have no experience of say a measles epidemic, and are also woefully uneducated about it. I think many of them give it no thought at all, and simply do not recognise the danger, because they have never faced it themselves. In other words, by refusing to vaccinate their babies against measles, polio, diptheria, pertussis, etc, they, in a sense, do unknowingly (yet with full knowledge available to them) expose their children to deadly risk. And worse, they expose other children to those risks as well.

What I am trying to say is, having had no experience with the terrible toll that measles, pertussis, diptheria or polio would take on an unimmunized population, anti-vax crusaders can persuade themselves that these diseases almost do not exist. They think that it is safe to ignore the greater KNOWN risk, while fussing about the tiny, but unknown risks. Like all human beings, these parents fear the unknown. However, contrary to what you'd expect from sensible human beings, they prefer to take the huge KNOWN risk (don't vaccinate and leave their children vulnerable to killer diseases) than to suffer the anxiety of any sort of unknown risk. It doesn't make much sense on the face of it, but when we factor in that vaccines have been in widespread use for nearly half a century, then you realize that at least one full generation (now having babies themselves) has never known these diseases, nor any outbreaks of them, and even their parents (40-50 year olds) likely never experienced a terrible epidemic with them.

In these circumstances, it is understandable that many people are in denial about the dangers of the diseases themselves, and have begun to look with suspicion at the vaccines as the next great bogeyman which might threaten their children. They hardly believe these diseases which they have never experienced exist, so they resent being told to vaccinate their children against them. I find it hard to excuse it, but I think I understand how it happens to good and conscientious parents.

 

Just cant let this go, huh? I am sorry to hear about your child, but glad everything is okay. Measles is scary, but if vaccines work, then why worry about your own child b/c they are "protected" and my own personal beliefs about vaccines is not the only reason my kids arent vaccinated. They have a medical reason for not being vaxed, my beliefs just happen to be against them as well. So my "crusade" isnt without my children's best interest at heart.

I think as parents it is our job to find all we can out about what goes into our children. If you are comfortable putting known toxins in your child, then go ahead. Me, along with many other people, do not like it. Most of us "radicals" as you like to call us, also do not give commercial food. We dont like filling our families stomachs with toxins put in foods to preserve them, or the pesticides used to spray fruit. We also dont like to fill our child's stomachs with growth hormones from meat and milk so that a a calf can become a cow faster. Not to mention the steriods and antibotics used on livestock and the many others that I have failed to mention. I guess we are "radicals" for not trusting our gov't with the food they supply us so we buy locally grown, organic food. Us "radicals", also are not pro-med kind of people. We use natural cures that work just as well as any gov't used drug, without the toxic effects.

"Radical" is rather a harse word to use on people who are more natural then you. We are a different breed of people that have given the lives that we lead alot of thought. We have put countless man hours researching everything to do with our lives. We do not want to poison our bodies, but cleanse them from the toxins in our world. We are not people that follow a path that the gov't has made for us b/c we as open-minded, independant, leaders have chosen to make our own path that we feel is the best choice for our family. You feel your decision is best, and we feel ours is the best. If vaccines work so well as you believe they do, then my unvaccinated children and the thousands of others like them, will not harm your children.

 

QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 14 2007, 05:05 PM) [snapback]450257[/snapback]
Measles is scary, but if vaccines work, then why worry about your own child b/c they are "protected".....

.......

.....You feel your decision is best, and we feel ours is the best. If vaccines work so well as you believe they do, then my unvaccinated children and the thousands of others like them, will not harm your children.

Do you even read other members' posts, when you debate the use of vaccines?????!!! <_< You were an active poster in a thread where Renée explained in detail that her child Jessie was NOT protected by vaccination (because of an anaphylactic allergic reaction), and she could have been seriously affected by an UNvaccinated child: here.

 

QUOTE
Most of us "radicals" as you like to call us,


QUOTE
"Radical" is rather a harse word to use on people who are more natural then you.


I don't want to beat a dead thread or anything, but what did you mean by this? Are you sure you are in the same conversation with the rest of us? :laughing:

 

QUOTE(Nifty @ Oct 15 2007, 02:00 AM) [snapback]450428[/snapback]
I don't want to beat a dead thread or anything, but what did you mean by this? Are you sure you are in the same conversation with the rest of us? :laughing:


You called me a "zealot", which means "radical", in case you didnt know what you were saying.

 

QUOTE(2gherkins @ Oct 15 2007, 01:45 AM) [snapback]450404[/snapback]
Do you even read other members' posts, when you debate the use of vaccines?????!!! <_< You were an active poster in a thread where Renée explained that her child Jessie was NOT protected by vaccination (because of an anaphylactic allergic reaction), and she could have been seriously affected by an UNvaccinated child: here.


Oh thats right, I am suppose to remember what I post on each and every one of my 600+ posts, and I am suppose to remember everyone's story....Geez what was I thinking

 

zealot

Main Entry:
zeal·ot
Pronunciation:
\ˈze-lət\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Late Latin zelotes, from Greek zēlōtēs, from zēlos
Date:
1537

1capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century a.d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine
2: a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan <a religious zealot>

fanatic

Main Entry:
fa·nat·ic
Pronunciation:
\fə-ˈna-tik\
Variant(s):
or fa·nat·i·cal Listen to the pronunciation of fanatical \-ti-kəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin fanaticus inspired by a deity, frenzied, from fanum temple — more at feast
Date:
1550

: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion <they're fanatic about politics>

radical

Main Entry:
1rad·i·cal
Pronunciation:
\ˈra-di-kəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin radic-, radix root — more at root
Date:
14th century

1: of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as a (1): of or growing from the root of a plant <radical tubers> (2): growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground <radical leaves> b: of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root c: of or relating to a mathematical root d: designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue <radical surgery> <radical mastectomy>
2: of or relating to the origin : fundamental
3 a: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>
4slang : excellent, cool
— rad·i·cal·ness noun

Renee didn't call you a "radical" she said you were fanatical about your views. One thing I know about Renee is that she knows what the dictionary meaning of words are and uses the proper word to describe her feelings. If she thought you were a radical, she would have called you that.

 

QUOTE
Oh thats right, I am suppose to remember what I post on each and every one of my 600+ posts, and I am suppose to remember everyone's story....Geez what was I thinking



Actually, you didn't have to remember, Renee even mentioned it in her post:


QUOTE
Luckily, neither Jessie nor the other medically exempt child caught the measles


I really don't understand why there is such a defensive tone to this thread. I have been reading it for the last few days and am suprised. Maybe it is because I am pro vaccination and pro meds. My son is actually on an ADHD drug. (Yes, gasp!) So I am not reading the posts like you are. But putting words into people's mouths is really not going to help matters.

 

QUOTE(Her Royal Jennyness @ Oct 15 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]451109[/snapback]
zealot
Renee didn't call you a "radical" she said you were fanatical about your views. One thing I know about Renee is that she knows what the dictionary meaning of words are and uses the proper word to describe her feelings. If she thought you were a radical, she would have called you that.


Another word for a fanatic, can be a radical. From dictonary.com:

zeal·ot /ˈzÉ›lÉ™t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[zel-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who shows zeal.
2. an excessively zealous person; fanatic.
3. (initial capital letter) a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.

I "subed" the word zealot for radical, but I do know what it means. A college education does go a long way, you know.

 

QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 15 2007, 04:33 PM) [snapback]451827[/snapback]
Another word for a fanatic, can be a radical. From dictonary.com:

zeal·ot /ˈzÉ›lÉ™t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[zel-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who shows zeal.
2. an excessively zealous person; fanatic.
3. (initial capital letter) a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.

I "subed" the word zealot for radical, but I do know what it means. A college education does go a long way, you know.

I apologize, I didn't know you were a radical warlike Jew. I assumed she meant fanatic. ardon: I also don't think you're dumb, I like debating with you. You give my brain a good workout.

 

Angie, I admire your understanding of words. However, please do not "sub" words for my word choices. I wrote "zealot" because I meant "zealot". I used zealot instead of fanatic because I think fanatic is too strong and has too many negative connotations, and I had no wish to offend. I also prefer the more picturesque sound of "zealot"; it conjures up an image of a well meaning and very intense individual who believes something very passionately, and is not swayed by rational arguments. I thought an old-fashioned word better reflected your own, self-professed "natural" ways than "fanatic" would, so I went with zealot. I'm a bit of a writer at heart.

I in no way meant "radical". I do not consider you a "radical" in the least. And yes, I thoroughly understand the meanings of these words. I know what radical means, and you are not really one, IMO. Hope this helps clarify things!

 

QUOTE(angie7 @ Oct 15 2007, 11:38 AM) [snapback]451023[/snapback]
Oh thats right, I am suppose to remember what I post on each and every one of my 600+ posts, and I am suppose to remember everyone's story....Geez what was I thinking


I don't think it is too much to ask to remember things like that, until this post I have rarely participated in a vaccine thread here on TS but I clearly remember the one where Renee explained her family's situation in regards to vaccines just from reading not participating. I would think someone who closely follows vaccine threads would also be able to remember.................I guess my view could also be a little tainted on this though since I have always taken great pains to try to read carefully and compose my posts carefully so I can remember the majority of the threads I post in..........umm I don't even know where I am right now ......but probably 28,000 posts!

Tif, I hope you are getting some information you find useful (even if it is close to months after your initial post )!

ETA: ughh grammar!!!

 

QUOTE(Nifty @ Oct 16 2007, 02:30 AM) [snapback]452263[/snapback]
Angie, I admire your understanding of words. However, please do not "sub" words for my word choices. I wrote "zealot" because I meant "zealot". I used zealot instead of fanatic because I think fanatic is too strong and has too many negative connotations, and I had no wish to offend. I also prefer the more picturesque sound of "zealot"; it conjures up an image of a well meaning and very intense individual who believes something very passionately, and is not swayed by rational arguments. I thought an old-fashioned word better reflected your own, self-professed "natural" ways than "fanatic" would, so I went with zealot. I'm a bit of a writer at heart.

I in no way meant "radical". I do not consider you a "radical" in the least. And yes, I thoroughly understand the meanings of these words. I know what radical means, and you are not really one, IMO. Hope this helps clarify things!


Thanks for the clarification. I apologize that I didnt recall you telling your story about your child. I did, however, remember after I read it. I belong to alot of sites, and vaccines is always a topic it seems, and it is easy to get them all confused.

 

THat's what I thought might have happened! :laughing: No problem! :icon_biggrin:

 

While I was pregnant, a co-worker(special ed teacher) chatted with me about this. Her best friend was actually doing research in other countries (India, Africa,etc). One of their theories was that ..........in more developed countries, like America, we have many more environmental factors that may be contributing to the increase in Autism. She mentioned something about : chemicals used in processed foods, microwave foods, cleaners, etc. Not sure if this has merrit or not.