I'm no Dr, are vaccinations that bad?

[pimpdave]

Where did you get your medical degree?

Hollywood Upstairs Medical College

(seriously baby, he can prescribe anything he wants!)



(the coroner? he hates that guy!)

[DaGip]

I thought praying instead of going to the doc's was weird...

When I weighed in at about 500 lbs, I was beginning to get signs of diabetes. My feet were very swollen, my feet and ankles were starting to turn a purplish black color. My first reaction was,"Oh shit! I need to go to a doctor!"

But I didn't want to be stuck seeing a doctor for the rest of my life, because that is what would have happened. I would have went in to see a doctor, he would have just gave me some drugs, then he would have wanted to do a heart transplant or something...all the while my life would have been totally ruined financially while the doctor took my money and paid off his yacht and his condo in Tahiti!

I fixed my problem on my own...without a friggin' MD!

The only time I will go to an MD is if I need someone to sew a finger back on...otherwise, take my advice...take responsibility for your own health and stay far away from MDs!

[FabledIntegral]

Your idea of the immune system is highly misinformed; I suggest you take a basic biology class.

Even immune systems working at "optimal 100%" would still succumb to several different types of viruses, bacteria, and cancer.

This is simply because the immune system, half the time in situations of a deadly virus, doesn't know the virus is there. This is not because the immune system is working 100%, it's because the immune system has no way of recognizing the virus/whatever foreign agent is harming your body/etc in the first place. Therefore you can be as healthy as ever, yet something enters your body incognito and your immune system that would be able to perfectly fight it off IF it knew it was there instead gets sabotaged.

[Backglass]

Well, as I listen to free radio this morning, they're really reaming government vaccinations today. For containing things like Mercury, Silver Nitrate, and Aluminum. The UN seems to be attacking our government for it too...

99% of vaccines haven't had those things in them for over a decade. It's FUD. Why do people think that "The Government" is mandating vaccine ingredients anyway?

There are always wacko's who won't vaccinate their kids (I know a few and they home school. Coincidence?) and when those kids go off to college and get Measles/Polio/Etc, they will STILL find someone else to blame.

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.rense.com/general83/ozc.htm

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/app ... GECAROUSEL

Well, as I listen to free radio this morning, they're really reaming government vaccinations today. For containing things like Mercury, Silver Nitrate, and Aluminum. The UN seems to be attacking our government for it too...
I've been hearing more and more about people refusing to take them.... and lately big news corps have really been pushing the agenda with sob stories about kids who didn't get their vaccinations, and end up a lepper. And what about that polygamist group, whose kids were forced to take the vaccines?
Anyway, I could post a million more of these "no vaccines" articles..... but seriously, I'm no Dr...... so are they bad?

I did not read the entire thread, but this is a pretty serious issue.



Basically, vaccines, like most things DO carry some risk. When my son was vaccinated a few years ago, the information said that approximately 1 child dies for every 14,000 children vaccinated. There is a lower percentage chance but still pretty small of other problems ranging from blindness to mental retardation, etc. I don't remember the exact numbers on those, but it is still in the neighborhood of 1 per a few thousand at most. There also WAS a period when many vaccines carried mercury. The jury is still out on whether there was really enough mercury to have caused harm, BUT it was taken out several years ago.

Still, as a parent, many say "ANY risk is too great for MY child". BUT that is where the internet does an EXTREME disservice. Because, while those risks are absolutely real, the risk FROM THE DISEASE ITSELF IS FAR, FAR, FAR GREATER!!!!!

Small Pox is has over a 90% mortality rate. Look around at those over 50 and you will find the result of polio abound. Even something as "simple" as measles KILLED roughly 1 in every 250 kids who got the disease... that's not even counting those who went blind or deaf or both (Helen Keller being one famous example). Even so, because the risk was even greater for an adult, parents often sent their kids over to neighbors to get them intentionally infected. German measles, in particular, often cause unborn children to be born blind and/or deaf, if it does not kill them outright. .

Chilcken Pox is about the only vaccine that has a legitimate question. The problem with chicken pox is that while getting the disease generally limits your chance of getting chilken pox again (you CAN sometimes still contract it, but it is very unlikely to get it again when young), your chances of getting shingles when older INCREASE. No one really knows if this is true for the vaccine as well (because the vaccine is still new).

Gaurdisil, too, (for older girls) has questions. Those are particular. Even the flu vaccine is now recommended, but this is not as well established as the other vaccines. That is, an intelligent person might well legitimately decide against it.

Some people do have religious objections to vaccines. However, a lot of that is because of misunderstandings about what vaccines really are. It is not "medicine" per se. That is, it does not attack the disease. Instead, it gives you a very, very mild form of the disease-- a form without symptoms, a form that cannot actually give you the disease. In many cases (small pox in particular), the form is not even alive. Your body reacts to the vaccine as if it were infected, thus giving your body immunity to the disease. So, instead of working against your immune system like many medicines do, it actually works WITH your body ... more like homeopathic medicines are purported to do. (though in homeopathy, the amounts are so small they are virtually unmeasurable).


Anyway, so are vaccines 100% safe? NO, but they carry far less risk for a normal, healthy child than any of the diseases in question. The ONLY reason folks can even begin to think avoiding vaccinations is a good idea is because the vast majority of the population DOES get vaccinated. So, basically, when you don't get your child vaccinated or don't get vaccinated yourself, you are trusting the rest of society to protect your child.

Except, as recent news reports have shown, measles is not back in the United States BECAUSE folks are not vaccinating their kids.

Sadly, that means that those kids who really and truly CAN NOT get vaccinated -- those who have serious immune problems, allergies to certain things, etc. Those kids ARE now at risk.

So, the bottom line is that unless you have some specific conditions that your doctor will know about, or have some very strict religious beliefs, vaccines ARE a good idea.

PS even the Amish get vaccinated!

[Snorri1234]

Some people do have religious objections to vaccines. However, a lot of that is because of misunderstandings about what vaccines really are. It is not "medicine" per se. That is, it does not attack the disease. Instead, it gives you a very, very mild form of the disease-- a form without symptoms, a form that cannot actually give you the disease. In many cases (small pox in particular), the form is not even alive. Your body reacts to the vaccine as if it were infected, thus giving your body immunity to the disease. So, instead of working against your immune system like many medicines do, it actually works WITH your body ... more like homeopathic medicines are purported to do. (though in homeopathy, the amounts are so small they are virtually unmeasurable).

Indeed.

Also, general word to the rest of your post. I fully agree.

[jonesthecurl]

Player:if one can be christian and still sane, she is both. Bless her.

[gdeangel]

I saw something very intersting yesterday on Nova about epigenetics. From what I understand, you can have certain times in life during which a gene is working over time, so to speak, and becomes susceptible to markers being turned on or off that may persist at least two generations down the line. One of the examples use in the program was autism expressed in only 1 of 2 identical twins.

My view of most "empirics" is that there is usually some truth behind observations made in the front line once you peel away the biases and unique perspectives. Ignoring all the God mumbo jumbo, which is just frankly a cop out for "we thing somethings wrong, we don't understand it, and so we're going to hide behind and un-impeachable source, but still does not mean the position is not valid, the main issue is whether or not childhood vaccinations can give rise to autism.

It seems perfectly possible that a vaccine could affect the gene expression in a way that would give rise to autism or other behavioral disorders. So if I though there was a chance that the gene existed in my family, I would be inclined to attempt to get out of vaccinating my children (even if it meant crying God about it). Once you know that the gene is in the soup, it makes the classic "public health" argument that the probability of a complication x the population size << the magnitude of the public health benefit completely goes away and you have an obligation, I think, to your children, to assess whether they individually should be vaccinated.

I suspect in the long run all of this is going to head away from the traditional understanding of alergic reaction, as it manifests itself in as an acute immune system response to a harmless antigen and the macro-biological level, and instead we are going to be looking and alergic reaction as a complex set of macro-biological instincts that can be carried from generation to generation. One puzzling question today is why there is such a higher instance of food allergies among children today, at least in the US. While there are a few plausible theories out there, many are proposing that there is an acquired environmental element to developing allergies. I recall my old grandmother telling me as a child not to smell the dandelions because so-and-so cousin did that all the time, and she has hay fever. I laughed at her, but in the end she may turn out to have been correct.

I actually have an classic alergy to a specific form of tree pollen. And I can tell you exactly when the allergy was acquired. It was when I was about 8 and had a very bad cold... and it just happened to coincide with the time of year when a local tree was at the peak of pollen count. Every year after that infection, when the pollen count went up, the immune response followed.

Even though the actual white blood cells from the first infection were long gone, at an epigenetic level, the genes has "memorized" an antigen that it associated with my earlier infection. And, accordingly, whenever the antigen was present, the immune system responded as though the infection was again present, even though it wasn't.

It has also been postulated that mercury in ones fillings is associated with allergies. More bizarre than my example, it seems that the presence of the mercury can cause a shifting auto-immune response. That is to say, a person with mercury fillings might develop an allergy to Maple pollen. Years later, they move to a location with Dogwood pollen, and they develop an alergy to the dogwood pollen, or to a food.

This suggests that the mercury, a known toxin, may be substituting for the infection in my example, and the allergic trigger is analogous to the tree pollen. Because the mercury is continuously present, but released into the body in bursts throughout the breakdown of the filling, it is possible for the toxin to trigger memorization of multiple allergic antigens. So, for example, if the immune program reads like this: toxin looks like that glob with some mercury receptor cites and maple pollen receptor cites (even though the mercury and the maple pollen are separate molecules floating around in your system), it produced the immune response that is associated with that antigen. If the immune program found mercury and no maple, it thought there was something new attacking you, and tried to glob onto a more complex shape, and eventually built in a "recognition" capability keyed on another innocuous stand in for the mercury - i.e., dogwood pollen.

If you a pragmatic vaccine designer, you might deliberately exploit this characteristic of mercury by including it in your vaccine. The quantity and toxicity of the mercury itself is not what will harm you, but a failure of perception by the immune systems chemistry may create harmful epigenetic markers. The question then becomes, if those epigenetic markers don't end up pointing at the virus cells that are included in the vaccine, what will they point to?

But suppose you are dealing with a baby with the very early stages of immuno-memory (precisely when immunization is given). It is also likely that the child is not being actually exposed to lots of germs. Maybe you are just being introduced to a new food. Possible result = food allergy. What if you are just being introduced to a new chemical used in brain development, and the chemical hasn't had a chance to be cataloged by the imuno memory as something that belongs in the body? That chemical might look to the immuno memory just the same way a piece of maple pollen might look, or a virus receptor cite might look. And the result would be an auto-immune disease that might not kill you, but merely deprive you of certain hormones that are released during different periods of cellular development. And that sounds like something that could very well lead to autism.

[Juan_Bottom]

Any truth to this?
How Governmental Vaccine Policies Made Cancer Contagious
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=60496&start=30

Autism rates have risen so dramatically, what could the cauze be?

Strife over shots: Should our kids play together?
Divided on vaccines, parents are polarized on the playground sidelines
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26269069/

[Backglass]

Autism rates have risen so dramatically, what could the cauze be?

Racism and Genital Warts are also on the rise. What else could it be but Vaccines?

Seriously...This is a hot button of mine.

Thimerisol (mercury) has not been used for over a decade in the common childhood vaccines, YET Autism has risen during the perioud. The reason people jump to this conclusion is because Autism generally shows itself between ages 2-3...right about the time kids are getting vaccines. There is zero correlation between vaccines and autism other than this coincidence.

[pimpdave]

Autism rates have risen so dramatically, what could the cauze be?

Racism and Genital Warts are also on the rise. What else could it be but Vaccines?

Seriously...This is a hot button of mine.

Thimerisol (mercury) has not been used for over a decade in the common childhood vaccines, YET Autism has risen during the perioud. The reason people jump to this conclusion is because Autism generally shows itself between ages 2-3...right about the time kids are getting vaccines. There is zero correlation between vaccines and autism other than this coincidence.

I forget the date of his appearance, but RFK Jr. was on The Daily Show awhile back. Probably over a year ago, and was discussing this topic (which hits close to home for Jon Stewart, as his son is autistic). He would have had all kinds of resources regarding this issue, and I'm not sure it's so simple as you make it out to be. I'm pretty sure it isn't the vaccinations themselves, but ones that get tainted, or are improperly stored, leading the whole thing to getting hinky. However, I'm not a physician or an expert of any kind. I'm just curious to know the whole story.

If I can find anything about it, I'll post here. But it's certainly not something so cut and dried as vaccinations=bad or the converse. Instead I'm pretty sure it has to do with not using expired medications, making sure your doctor isn't a quack and making sure that the FDA does their job.

[gdeangel]

Autism rates have risen so dramatically, what could the cauze be?

Racism and Genital Warts are also on the rise. What else could it be but Vaccines?

Seriously...This is a hot button of mine.

Thimerisol (mercury) has not been used for over a decade in the common childhood vaccines, YET Autism has risen during the perioud. The reason people jump to this conclusion is because Autism generally shows itself between ages 2-3...right about the time kids are getting vaccines. There is zero correlation between vaccines and autism other than this coincidence.

Read my post. It doesn't matter whether its mercury or some other immuno trigger agent that is used in the vaccine. It is at least conceivable given the current science that you end up triggering unintended immuno memory by the vaccination process for children, AND the science is shaping up to show that it can be something that gets passed inter-generationally, such that you would really see it kick in when both parents have been subjected to immunization in their lifetimes.

And as to the incidence studies, we all talk about how rolling 15-50 and having 4 left over is statistically very unlikely based dice rolls, but that doesn't mean that when it does happen, after millions and millions of trials, there is not causation. I.e., even though it is not very high probability that you can take down 50 units and lose only 9, when that happens, very few would say that the cause of that is something other than the dice (e.g., someone hacked the system). And even when it starts happening a lot, people will question the accuracy of the statistical model of the dice (i.e., the algorithm result diverges from the ideal distribution), but hardly anyone seriously suggests that the dice are not the CAUSE of the outcome.

Yes, other things are going on in the age of 2-3 with children who develop autism, but if it can emerge in one of two identical twins, with identical genes, then it has to be either purely environmental or epigenetic, and we know that the latter is in fact affected by conditions in the cells. That includes things as simple as diet, and some propose that tightly controlled diet can mitigate autism effect, but certainly something - anything - injected into the blood stream, could trigger similar pathways. So don't be so dismissive of the science. Because only asking the scientific question will lead to figuring out how to give the vaccines while truly minimizing the risk not only to the "public health" but also the individual/family that will be personally and monumentally affected by a negative outcome.

[PLAYER57832]

Any truth to this?
How Governmental Vaccine Policies Made Cancer Contagious
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=60496&start=30

Autism rates have risen so dramatically, what could the cauze be?

Strife over shots: Should our kids play together?
Divided on vaccines, parents are polarized on the playground sidelines
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26269069/

I tried to find that website, but could not. However, based on the title I would say it is garbage. Cancer is caused by many things including genetic weaknesses, exposure to various environmental (chemical) influences, and even lifestyle behaviors such as how much exercise one gets. Vaccines? So far down the list of possibilities as to be negligible. Also, again, you have to compare the risks FROM vaccines to the risk of the DISEASE, not just the risk without vaccine (and no disease). Any doctor will fully acknowledge that some kids DIE from vaccines... again, the data I got said roughly 1 in 14,000 kids. Every time it happens, they come a step closer to discovering reasons why to hopefully prevent future occurrences. BUT, the risk of dying from the diseases themselves is MUCH, MUCH greater. THAT is the truth that must be considered.

AS for Autism --- "Autism" itself is really not one disease or problem. It is a group of many different problems that have been more or less grouped by the general public, and to some extent psychologists because they don't have any other real label to apply.

Many causes have been suggested. A few cases have some sort of auditory processing problem. There is (or was) a clinic in Europe that had some success by dealing with kid's hearing. In a very few cases, it can be the result of extreme abuse. Mostly, no one really know why and that means that parents are left grasping for all kinds of straws in attempts to find "answers".

The "link" to vaccines is the result of 2 things. First, folks relying on anecdotal evidence. That is, one mother will talk to another and say "gee, my kid became autistic 3 weeks after being vaccinated".... another mother then says "gee, my kid was diagnosed a month after ... " etc, etc. The problem? It is similar to the old joke "where is the most dangerous place? "... answer " bed, because more people die in bed!. " (or "the hospital") Is it true? Probably, but in this case we know that beds are not the cause of people dying, just where people go when they are very, very sick.

In the case of autism, there are certain types of autism that either evidence or are triggered about the time/age that kids generally get vaccinated. Gdeangel referred to this, though I disagree somewhat with part of his explanation. One of the major problems (and sorry, I cannot remember the name) is a latent problem that is triggered by a fever. Often kids do get a mild fever with vaccinations (one reason they advise you to give your children acetaminophen aka "Tylenol", before coming in for vaccinations and continuing for a day or so after. In most kids ... no biggie,even if you forget the Tylenol. BUT, in a few kids the fever can be the trigger that results in one of the autistic problems.

Are there other possibilities? No one knows for sure. So far, the evidence is not showing. When folks really sit down and LOOK at the data, they find that there is no real correlation between vaccinations and onset of autism. It is just that parents are so desperately grasping for ANY answer that they latch on to even the loosest of threads as possibilities. Because so many parents are convinced, a recent study has been constructed to find out, once and for all, if there IS any kind of link. M<y suspicions? That the fever trigger is real in a few cases (though remember, fevers can come from almost anything ... and it is possible that not having a fever won't keep those kids with this genetic problem from showing these symptoms) , a few more kids have real and true allergies, but there are no other links.

Anyway, the bottom line is this ... if you have CLOSE, BLOOD RELATIVES, that have shown problems with vaccinations (allergic reactions, etc.), then by all means talk to your doctor and see what your DOCTOR (or several doctors) recommend(s). ELSE, look in the faces of a mother who has just been told her child has polio. Talk to your neighbors who are old enough to remember the days before vaccinations, talk to your doctor about what you perceive as the risks. DO NOT, under ANY circumstances rely on the many websites that put forward all sorts of theories about how "harmful" vaccines are without giving an HONEST appraisal of the risks from the diseases themselves.


Measles was gone from the US just a few years ago. Now it is suddenly reappearing, particularly out west. Why? BECAUSE PARENTS ARE NOT VACCINATING THEIR KIDS. Over 200 kids have DIED this YEAR ALONE from measles! Compare that to the numbers that are even suspected of having gotten autism because of vaccinations.

[PLAYER57832]

My story:

I am one of the parents who had to decide whether to have my child vaccinated when the vaccines still contained some mercury and alternatives were not yet universal. Did I think about it? Of course! But, not long. I thought back to the year before when I worked alongside one of the last people in our county to have contracted Polio.

He was one of the fortunate few who was actually "cured". Polio, we now know, never really goes away. One side grows progressively weaker ... other issues. But, my point is not to talk about how bad polio is. My point is to talk about what it really and truly means when you say you won't vaccinate your kids because you are afraid of the risks.

You want to REALLY protect your kids? Don't use antibiotics unless really and truly necessary. When you DO use them, FINISH THE BOTTLE!

Do NOT buy soaps and detergents with "antibacterial" agents added. They do NOT actually provide more protection. They sometimes help extend the life of certain products, but simply sealing bottles, drying sponges thoroughly between uses, etc. does even more.

AND let your kids go out and GET DIRTY in real DIRT! The immune responses Gdeangle talked about? The REAL truth is that kids have immune systems that need "boosts". The evidence on this IS still somewhat sketchy, but MUCH more conclusive than on the autism-vaccine link... kids NEED to get a certain number of illness when young. (normal, HEALTHY kids, that is .... TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR!!!). The evidence linking autism to vaccines is essentially non-existent. The link between keeping kids in almost sterile environments in increases in allergies and other problems, on the other hand, is more and more conclusive. The theory is that when kids don't get the normal colds and such, their immune system looks for other things to attack ... ergo allergies. Is this link PROVEN? NO! But, think about it. And think about how folks lived even in your parent's generations, never mind your grandparent's.

[gdeangel]

He was one of the fortunate few who was actually "cured". Polio, we now know, never really goes away. One side grows progressively weaker ... other issues. But, my point is not to talk about how bad polio is. My point is to talk about what it really and truly means when you say you won't vaccinate your kids because you are afraid of the risks.

I also have an uncle who had childhood polio. He was a twin. The two brothers went into business together in paving, and both are still going into their 70's now after having full lives. He walks with the limp and has a stiff shoulder. Other than that, he looks like the bulldozer he drives, and I'd certainly trade 70 years of his life for 70 years unable to think because something short circuited my brain.

Do NOT buy soaps and detergents with "antibacterial" agents added. They do NOT actually provide more protection. They sometimes help extend the life of certain products, but simply sealing bottles, drying sponges thoroughly between uses, etc. does even more.

This notion has been proved wrong. The antibacterial properties in the soaps and detergents are not acting in the same way that internally taken antibiotics work. Notice that no one has probably had an experience where they switched to anti-bacterial soaps and their kids started getting sick.

AND let your kids go out and GET DIRTY in real DIRT! The immune responses Gdeangle talked about? The REAL truth is that kids have immune systems that need "boosts". The evidence on this IS still somewhat sketchy, but MUCH more conclusive than on the autism-vaccine link... kids NEED to get a certain number of illness when young. (normal, HEALTHY kids, that is .... TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR!!!). The evidence linking autism to vaccines is essentially non-existent. The link between keeping kids in almost sterile environments in increases in allergies and other problems, on the other hand, is more and more conclusive. The theory is that when kids don't get the normal colds and such, their immune system looks for other things to attack ... ergo allergies. Is this link PROVEN? NO! But, think about it. And think about how folks lived even in your parent's generations, never mind your grandparent's.

Although I agree, it is consistent with the idea the in the programing stages of the immuno-memory, the bio-chemical processes at work at the epigenetic level are quite complex and diverse. At some point, we are likely to discover that Alzheimer disease is also an epigenetic screw up based on something environmental that builds up over a lifetime to eventually cause the breakdown in a critical gene that impacts neurological process. Does that have anything to do with vaccines being safe? Probably NO. But it does suggest that there are pathways that vaccines and other environmental stressors act on to inadvertently compromise the function of immune and other psychological traits.

[Snorri1234]

He was one of the fortunate few who was actually "cured". Polio, we now know, never really goes away. One side grows progressively weaker ... other issues. But, my point is not to talk about how bad polio is. My point is to talk about what it really and truly means when you say you won't vaccinate your kids because you are afraid of the risks.

I also have an uncle who had childhood polio. He was a twin. The two brothers went into business together in paving, and both are still going into their 70's now after having full lives. He walks with the limp and has a stiff shoulder. Other than that, he looks like the bulldozer he drives, and I'd certainly trade 70 years of his life for 70 years unable to think because something short circuited my brain.

Well good for you. I'd rather not have my kids be unable to walk forever on the slim chance that vaccins magically give you autism.

[Neoteny]

long and interesting posts

While the possibility of epigenetic and immunologic sources for autism and other disorders are not difficult to imagine, the current evidence indicates that there is no link between vaccines and autism. So we should continue doing what we think is best for our kids based on what we have, and it's difficult to justify putting the children at risk to measles, or whatever, based on conjecture or a couple of isolated cases. In the future, people may look back on us and say, "these guys were idiots. They gave their children autism." But I really doubt it, because even if it is the case, we have nothing to say for it. Additionally, if it turns out that the smallpox vaccines give rise to Alzheimer's, what would we say about the people who eliminated (a whole new discussion... have any of you met someone who is slightly paranoid that we haven't eliminated smallpox?) smallpox? They weren't stupid, and acted to the best of their ability with the knowledge they had, even if we now have to deal with the consequences.

[gdeangel]

That sounds certainly practical. My daughter was vaccinated. I did observe that there were certain developmental anomalies in her speech and socialization skills that had me thinking there might be presentations of Atsberger. However one year later and a different preschool, and they are basically hard to even detect a trace of.

I also had a neighbor whose child was "diagnosed" with autism. He was communicative, to the extent that I could comprehend based on his combined context, gestures, and verbal responses to leading questions (as is generally the normal interaction with a 2 y.o.), and it seems to have been determined to be ear/hearing related indeed. At age 4 he had ear tubes, and as a result now has improved in his speech. From a 10,000 ft. level, it might have looked like presentations of Autism, but there were distinguishable behaviors that seem to, in retrospect, vindicate the alternate diagnosis.

I think the most important thing to take away from this is that statistically insignificant correlations do not mean no correlation exists. It can be the product of the statistical model being just wrong, or also there can be noise in the data, etc. etc. One of the problems is that people who take on this issue normally start out with a monolithic view: I don't want it because of religion (complete garbage argument IMHO), or, alternatively, we've got to have it for the greater good of public health, yadda yadda. Frankly, I wouldn't trust those type of folks to run statistical analysis for me about feeding arsenic to my dog (yes, I believe they actually do treat heart worms with arsenic FYI). It's like putting George Bush and Dick Cheney in charge of determining whether there are WMD's in Iraq.

And, where some value can be had from recognition of the reality is that, rather than hiding behind the guise of religion, we should let parents make the decision freely because it may very well be the case that vaccination after the development of a mature immune system would have many of the benefits of containing the possibility of widespread disease resurgence, not posing as great a risk to overwhelming the infantile immune system.

[Neoteny]

That sounds certainly practical. My daughter was vaccinated. I did observe that there were certain developmental anomalies in her speech and socialization skills that had me thinking there might be presentations of Atsberger. However one year later and a different preschool, and they are basically hard to even detect a trace of.

I also had a neighbor whose child was "diagnosed" with autism. He was communicative, to the extent that I could comprehend based on his combined context, gestures, and verbal responses to leading questions (as is generally the normal interaction with a 2 y.o.), and it seems to have been determined to be ear/hearing related indeed. At age 4 he had ear tubes, and as a result now has improved in his speech. From a 10,000 ft. level, it might have looked like presentations of Autism, but there were distinguishable behaviors that seem to, in retrospect, vindicate the alternate diagnosis.

I think the most important thing to take away from this is that statistically insignificant correlations do not mean no correlation exists. It can be the product of the statistical model being just wrong, or also there can be noise in the data, etc. etc. One of the problems is that people who take on this issue normally start out with a monolithic view: I don't want it because of religion (complete garbage argument IMHO), or, alternatively, we've got to have it for the greater good of public health, yadda yadda. Frankly, I wouldn't trust those type of folks to run statistical analysis for me about feeding arsenic to my dog (yes, I believe they actually do treat heart worms with arsenic FYI). It's like putting George Bush and Dick Cheney in charge of determining whether there are WMD's in Iraq.

And, where some value can be had from recognition of the reality is that, rather than hiding behind the guise of religion, we should let parents make the decision freely because it may very well be the case that vaccination after the development of a mature immune system would have many of the benefits of containing the possibility of widespread disease resurgence, not posing as great a risk to overwhelming the infantile immune system.

Actually, I believe you're right that arsenic-based compounds are used to treat heartworms. My dog actually survived two consecutive treatments for the worms when we first got her. It's rather amazing she's alive. No negative effects that I've noticed (aside from a weak heart, of course).

There is always the risk of skewed statistics, but it's difficult to make a cut-and-dry statement like "parents should have the say on if their children get vaccinated." If a child isn't vaccinated against hpv and then later develops cervical cancer because of it, then a case for abuse would not be difficult to justify. And, not to beat a dead horse, if parents had refused to vaccinate their children against smallpox (for whatever reason, religion, ignorance, whatever), what now?

[gdeangel]

There is always the risk of skewed statistics, but it's difficult to make a cut-and-dry statement like "parents should have the say on if their children get vaccinated." If a child isn't vaccinated against hpv and then later develops cervical cancer because of it, then a case for abuse would not be difficult to justify.

I'm not so sure it's abuse in any sense. First, the issue with HPV vaccine is that it has to be administered before a woman becomes exposed, which only happens with sexual activity. For a parent to say to a child that they are not to be sexually active until they can support themselves (i.e., 18 or emancipation), which I'm not saying is right or wrong, but that rule combined with consistent decisions premised on respect for that rule, is hardly abuse. Maybe naivete, but not abuse.

And, not to beat a dead horse, if parents had refused to vaccinate their children against smallpox (for whatever reason, religion, ignorance, whatever), what now?

Well, maybe at a "public health" level, we would have developed a natural immunity to it.

[Neoteny]

There is always the risk of skewed statistics, but it's difficult to make a cut-and-dry statement like "parents should have the say on if their children get vaccinated." If a child isn't vaccinated against hpv and then later develops cervical cancer because of it, then a case for abuse would not be difficult to justify.

I'm not so sure it's abuse in any sense. First, the issue with HPV vaccine is that it has to be administered before a woman becomes exposed, which only happens with sexual activity. For a parent to say to a child that they are not to be sexually active until they can support themselves (i.e., 18 or emancipation), which I'm not saying is right or wrong, but that rule combined with consistent decisions premised on respect for that rule, is hardly abuse. Maybe naivete, but not abuse.

Eh, but if her parents had vaccinated her, she wouldn't have gotten cancer. Directly.

And, not to beat a dead horse, if parents had refused to vaccinate their children against smallpox (for whatever reason, religion, ignorance, whatever), what now?

Well, maybe at a "public health" level, we would have developed a natural immunity to it.

Just like AIDS.

[PLAYER57832]

He was one of the fortunate few who was actually "cured". Polio, we now know, never really goes away. One side grows progressively weaker ... other issues. But, my point is not to talk about how bad polio is. My point is to talk about what it really and truly means when you say you won't vaccinate your kids because you are afraid of the risks.

I also have an uncle who had childhood polio. He was a twin. The two brothers went into business together in paving, and both are still going into their 70's now after having full lives. He walks with the limp and has a stiff shoulder. Other than that, he looks like the bulldozer he drives, and I'd certainly trade 70 years of his life for 70 years unable to think because something short circuited my brain.

Did you bother to ask your uncle? Did you happen to ask him how many of his classmates and such did NOT survive? Did NOT have such wonderful lives? And the data so far has not supported a link to autism, despite what many websites try to claim.

Do NOT buy soaps and detergents with "antibacterial" agents added. They do NOT actually provide more protection. They sometimes help extend the life of certain products, but simply sealing bottles, drying sponges thoroughly between uses, etc. does even more.

This notion has been proved wrong. The antibacterial properties in the soaps and detergents are not acting in the same way that internally taken antibiotics work. Notice that no one has probably had an experience where they switched to anti-bacterial soaps and their kids started getting sick.

Wrong on both counts. Yes, the antibiotics that operate in soap are different than those used internally ... and each antibiotic taken internally is different from each other antibiotic taken internally. The point DOES apply. No, using antibiotic soaps may not pass on resistance to e coli or other internal bacteria ( a common way for resistance to be transfered, though not the only way), BUT it DOES produce more resistant germs in general AND potentially causes immune problems in young children particularly.

Further, my biggest point is that they don't do any BETTER (contrary to what many people think) ... and why would anyone want to be exposed to unnecessary and essentially useless antibiotics that might be harmful. The risk of not taking a vaccine -- pretty high. The risk of not using regular soap instead of antibacterial soap ... very low. THAT is the differance.

AND let your kids go out and GET DIRTY in real DIRT! The immune responses Gdeangle talked about? The REAL truth is that kids have immune systems that need "boosts". The evidence on this IS still somewhat sketchy, but MUCH more conclusive than on the autism-vaccine link... kids NEED to get a certain number of illness when young. (normal, HEALTHY kids, that is .... TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR!!!). The evidence linking autism to vaccines is essentially non-existent. The link between keeping kids in almost sterile environments in increases in allergies and other problems, on the other hand, is more and more conclusive. The theory is that when kids don't get the normal colds and such, their immune system looks for other things to attack ... ergo allergies. Is this link PROVEN? NO! But, think about it. And think about how folks lived even in your parent's generations, never mind your grandparent's.

Although I agree, it is consistent with the idea the in the programing stages of the immuno-memory, the bio-chemical processes at work at the epigenetic level are quite complex and diverse.

This is much more direct, not epigenetic. When children are young, their immune systems go through stages just like many other things. Getting sick is a natural part of the normal child's development, just like falling when walking. You CAN protect your kids too much.

At some point, we are likely to discover that Alzheimer disease is also an epigenetic screw up based on something environmental that builds up over a lifetime to eventually cause the breakdown in a critical gene that impacts neurological process. Does that have anything to do with vaccines being safe? Probably NO. But it does suggest that there are pathways that vaccines and other environmental stressors act on to inadvertently compromise the function of immune and other psychological traits.

This is more likely a description of what happens in some (not all) cancers, but yes, it is irrelevant to the vaccine issue.

The bottom line for vaccines is like most things .... will it do more harm than good. NO answer is free of problems. That is illusion. And the issue I have with most of these "the system is against us"/"science has it wrong" websites is that they only want to look at part of the question.

[Neoteny]

Do NOT buy soaps and detergents with "antibacterial" agents added. They do NOT actually provide more protection. They sometimes help extend the life of certain products, but simply sealing bottles, drying sponges thoroughly between uses, etc. does even more.

This notion has been proved wrong. The antibacterial properties in the soaps and detergents are not acting in the same way that internally taken antibiotics work. Notice that no one has probably had an experience where they switched to anti-bacterial soaps and their kids started getting sick.

Wrong on both counts. Yes, the antibiotics that operate in soap are different than those used internally ... and each antibiotic taken internally is different from each other antibiotic taken internally. The point DOES apply. No, using antibiotic soaps may not pass on resistance to e coli or other internal bacteria ( a common way for resistance to be transfered, though not the only way), BUT it DOES produce more resistant germs in general AND potentially causes immune problems in young children particularly.

A recent professor of mine instructed us that the long-term risks from using antibacterial soap are currently believed to be negligible to nonexistant. I haven't kept up with the cutting edge literature on that kind of thing, but that's my two cents in this discussion.

[PLAYER57832]

Do NOT buy soaps and detergents with "antibacterial" agents added. They do NOT actually provide more protection. They sometimes help extend the life of certain products, but simply sealing bottles, drying sponges thoroughly between uses, etc. does even more.

This notion has been proved wrong. The antibacterial properties in the soaps and detergents are not acting in the same way that internally taken antibiotics work. Notice that no one has probably had an experience where they switched to anti-bacterial soaps and their kids started getting sick.

Wrong on both counts. Yes, the antibiotics that operate in soap are different than those used internally ... and each antibiotic taken internally is different from each other antibiotic taken internally. The point DOES apply. No, using antibiotic soaps may not pass on resistance to e coli or other internal bacteria ( a common way for resistance to be transfered, though not the only way), BUT it DOES produce more resistant germs in general AND potentially causes immune problems in young children particularly.

A recent professor of mine instructed us that the long-term risks from using antibacterial soap are currently believed to be negligible to nonexistant. I haven't kept up with the cutting edge literature on that kind of thing, but that's my two cents in this discussion.

The potential harm is low, but the benefits are zero...

[Neoteny]

Do NOT buy soaps and detergents with "antibacterial" agents added. They do NOT actually provide more protection. They sometimes help extend the life of certain products, but simply sealing bottles, drying sponges thoroughly between uses, etc. does even more.

This notion has been proved wrong. The antibacterial properties in the soaps and detergents are not acting in the same way that internally taken antibiotics work. Notice that no one has probably had an experience where they switched to anti-bacterial soaps and their kids started getting sick.

Wrong on both counts. Yes, the antibiotics that operate in soap are different than those used internally ... and each antibiotic taken internally is different from each other antibiotic taken internally. The point DOES apply. No, using antibiotic soaps may not pass on resistance to e coli or other internal bacteria ( a common way for resistance to be transfered, though not the only way), BUT it DOES produce more resistant germs in general AND potentially causes immune problems in young children particularly.

A recent professor of mine instructed us that the long-term risks from using antibacterial soap are currently believed to be negligible to nonexistant. I haven't kept up with the cutting edge literature on that kind of thing, but that's my two cents in this discussion.

The potential harm is low, but the benefits are zero...

Eh, I disagree. I take my food prep very seriously. Proper cooking is most important, but for foods that don't get cooked, I'd prefer to have some antibacterial soap around.

After all, fecal-oral transmission is the main cause of entero-diarrheal infections...