DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Other Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/other-talk-9/)
-   -   Immunizing Children - Should it Still be Done? (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/other-talk/443135-immunizing-children-should-still-done.html)

Jadzia 07-06-06 11:29 PM


Originally Posted by movielib
By all means, we should stop vaccinating people because of
You are my favorite DVD Talk purveyor of junk science. :up:

Serious question: have you ever read the package insert from a vaccine before you have administered it to your child? Are you even aware of the ingredients?

Just checking. Most people put more research into the type of stroller they buy and they don't even question what they are injecting into their child's bloodstream. If you bought a new TV you'd probably at least read the instruction manual.

Doctors usually don't even show parents the package inserts. You have to ask to even read them and sometimes they won't show them o you. There is quite a lot of info there. about the ingredients as well known risks and side effects. And mind you this information is directly from the pharmaceutical company.

I think if more people actually read the ingredients and the side effects maybe they would not stop laughing at the people who have actually bothered to do basic research. if I bought a new TV I'd read the instruction manual. I think my child's health and future should be worth investing the time to research before I blindly shoot him up with whatever the drug companies have lobbied the CDC to include on their recommended vax schedule.

movielib 07-06-06 11:33 PM


Originally Posted by Jadzia
Measles is not dangerous in developed countries. That's why the CDC has to scaremonger using worldwide incidence and mortality rates when describing how "dangerous" measles is to children.

Even the WHO admits that measles itself doesn't kill children in Africa . . . that it's just an added assault on their already fragile immune systems.


The fact that you seem convinced that measles itself is so dangerous just proves to me you haven't researched the vaccines and the diseases they are supposed to protect us against. ;)

It's not so dangerous. A very small percentage of those who get measles die, even in developing countries. But for those with fragile health, measles can be the "straw that breaks the camel's back."

I think one should say "Measles is no longer (very) dangerous in developed countries." I wouldn't call 450 deaths a year (the pre-vaccination death rate in the U.S.) trivial. Sure it was a tiny percentage of those infected annually but those 450 deaths a year are now almost zero.

Do you deny the effectiveness of vaccinations in making polio (undeniably a disease that crippled and killed) practically a thing of the past? How about smallpox which was 100% wiped out by vaccination?

Rockmjd23 07-06-06 11:39 PM


Originally Posted by movielib
How about smallpox which was 100% wiped out by vaccination?

Don't worry, the anti-immunization crowd will bring that one back in no time. ;)

movielib 07-06-06 11:49 PM


Originally Posted by Jadzia
Serious question: have you ever read the package insert from a vaccine before you have administered it to your child? Are you even aware of the ingredients?

Just checking. Most people put more research into the type of stroller they buy and they don't even question what they are injecting into their child's bloodstream. If you bought a new TV you'd probably at least read the instruction manual.

Doctors usually don't even show parents the package inserts. You have to ask to even read them and sometimes they won't show them o you. There is quite a lot of info there. about the ingredients as well known risks and side effects. And mind you this information is directly from the pharmaceutical company.

I think if more people actually read the ingredients and the side effects maybe they would not stop laughing at the people who have actually bothered to do basic research. if I bought a new TV I'd read the instruction manual. I think my child's health and future should be worth investing the time to research before I blindly shoot him up with whatever the drug companies have lobbied the CDC to include on their recommended vax schedule.

Nobody denies that the vaccination itself does sometimes cause health problems or even death. All medications have side effects. A vital factor is in what percentage of people do these side effects occur? In the case of vaccinations and most medications, incidences of harmful side effects are low. Much lower than the bad effect they are trying to counter. If the cure were worse than the disease, it would be stupid to take the "cure."

I take Vytorin to keep my cholesterol down. Vytorin can cause muscle pain, weakness and/or liver problems. I have my liver enzymes checked regularly and my doctor asks me about muscle pain and weakness every time I see her. My liver enzymes have alway been fine and I have not suffered those other side effects either. The fact is that these side effects are extremely rare. I have received great benefit from Vytorin and if it were causing those extremely rare side effects I would stop taking it.

I understand that in the case of vaccinations the adverse effects can happen before anything can be done to stop them. But there is a cost-benefit analysis (in the health sense) to do here. The benefits of vaccinations far outweigh the possible health costs. There is simply no comparison. I don't have children but if I did I would not hesitate for one second in having them vaccinated.

Draven 07-06-06 11:57 PM


Originally Posted by Jadzia
I think my child's health and future should be worth investing the time to research before I blindly shoot him up with whatever the drug companies have lobbied the CDC to include on their recommended vax schedule.

You make it sound like I'm getting the kid's shots from a drone at Best Buy. I trust our pediatrician with the health of our children. She knows more than me and I trust her judgment on what we should do about our children's vaccinations.

Far more than I trust anything I read on DVD Talk or the internets anyway. Maybe you just need to find a better doctor.

Vibiana 07-07-06 08:27 AM


Originally Posted by Groucho
That's actually an interesting statistic (and one that makes me look a bit like an ass).

Is this increase just in recent years, or it actually up since before immunizations became commonplace?

I didn't mean to make anybody look like an ass. The mention of the infant mortality rate made me remember I had read this statistic recently.

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicato...=25&Country=US

As you will see from the bar chart on this page, the infant mortality rate in 1960 was 26 per 1,000 births. As of 2002, it hovered around 7 per 1,000. So it has steadily declined, but it still exceeds the mortality rate of other countries (the U.S. ranks 27th among developed countries, 85th overall) due to the fact that hospitals in other countries may not have (or utilize) the technology to deal with high-risk births.

iggystar 07-07-06 08:40 AM

Just wondering Jadzia, did you have your son immunized for any diseases or did you choose certain vaccinations? I find your viewpoint very interesting. Mainly, from what I've gathered here you wouldn't decide against such without some pretty good reasoning behind it (which I read in some of your replies)

I had my daughter get all the shots available, but I was pretty nervous about the DTP. I remember my brother being so ill after that one. He would be completely lethargic for days.

twikoff 07-07-06 09:04 AM


Originally Posted by Draven
You make it sound like I'm getting the kid's shots from a drone at Best Buy.

BB does shots now?
do you know where i can find a coupon, of if there are any rebate deals available?!?!?!

VinVega 07-07-06 09:18 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thimerosal_controversy


Trend analysis following introduction of more vaccines with thimerosal and the gradual abolishment of thimerosal in vaccines, starting a few years ago.[31][39][40]
Thiomersal is unnecessary for the immunological purpose of vaccination. Thimerosal is used in multi-dose vaccine vials in effort to reduce the likelihood of microbial contamination. The need for bacteriostatic agents like thimerosal can be avoided by using a single dose vial. Packaging as single-dose vials increases the cost of manufacturing, shipping, storing, and delivering vaccines and is blamed, at least in part, for intermittent shortages of vaccines in recent years.[41]

It has been assumed thimerosal has been removed from vaccines since 1999. However, some pharmaceutical companies did not receive regulatory approval for their thimerosal-free infant vaccines until 2003. Infant vaccines produced before 2003 may contain up to 25μg of thimerosal. These vaccines have not been recalled and it is possible they are still in use. They will not expire until 2006 at the earliest, 2008 at the latest.[42][43] Currently[citation needed] the adolescent and adult tetanus vaccine and certain influenza[citation needed] vaccines still contain thimerosal.
I am not advocating that you should not get your kids immunized (my kids are going to get their shots), but you should know the contents of what's being injected into them. If it's possible to have a Thimerosal free/reduced vaccine, I would choose that one over one that has a higher level of Thimerosal, just to be on the safe side.

There's some good reading in that link. It's pretty much straight down the middle and has a lot of good links if you want to read further.

Vibiana 07-07-06 10:28 AM


Originally Posted by twikoff
BB does shots now?
do you know where i can find a coupon, of if there are any rebate deals available?!?!?!

What the hell. Wal-Mart delivers babies, too. :D

Shazam 07-07-06 01:19 PM


Originally Posted by Jadzia
Measles is not dangerous in developed countries. That's why the CDC has to scaremonger using worldwide incidence and mortality rates when describing how "dangerous" measles is to children.

Spare me your pedantic illogical BS. Measles is not dangerous in developed countries because we're all immunized here in the land of excess. You know what would happen if we didn't get immunized to Measles here? Measles would come back within a generation.


The fact that you seem convinced that measles itself is so dangerous just proves to me you haven't researched the vaccines and the diseases they are supposed to protect us against. ;)
And you have?

You know what, you're a product of the media. You sit there, reading some BS article about the side effects of some drug, not realizing that they're talking about the very slight odds of getting something bad, and since it meshes with your view that anything you don't understand is bad and your paranoid conspiracy views that pharmaceutical companies are "out to get you", it simply reinforces your views.

Look, there are people who are allergic to oranges. Does that mean you shouldn't eat oranges? I'm allergic to shellfish. Does that mean you don't eat shellfish? How is that any different that your irrational fear of some chance of allergy to a product in a vaccine?

Your logic is so damned twisted, your fear of issues you don't understand so high it's a damned wonder you even step outside, what with all the toxins in air. Maybe I shouldn't tell you that the computer you're using is emitting all sorts of toxins, far worse than anything you'll find in a vaccine.

Take your head out of your utopian ass. Do you know what people were doing before vaccinations arrived? They were dying. Left right and centre. Of really horrible diseases like polio and measles and diptheria and cholera. Do you want that back? Do you remember when whole cities would shut down because there was a polio epidemic and the only thing people could do to prevent transmission was to stay home? Do you remember what an iron lung was? Do you remember when the average human mortality rate was 32?

Why don't you ever answer any questions about polio? Oh right, that's because you're totally wrong about immunizations.

Let me ask you another question: If vaccines came in a transport that caused no side effects in anyone, would you then let your children take them?

Mordred 07-07-06 02:13 PM


Originally Posted by Shazam
Spare me your pedantic illogical BS. Measles is not dangerous in developed countries because we're all immunized here in the land of excess. You know what would happen if we didn't get immunized to Measles here? Measles would come back within a generation.

While I think not getting vaccinces is a dangerous gamble, you seem to have missed her point. Correct me if I'm wrong Jadzia, but what she seems to be saying is that if your baby contract measles here in the US, there's very little chance they will die. It's not a deadly disease unless you have a suppresed immuno system making it not very dangerous in the Western world, but extremely dangerous in 3rd world countries where children are routinely undernourished and not in the best of health. All of which I whole heartedly agree with. I still think the MMR is in your child's best interests though.

Groucho 07-07-06 02:30 PM

Holy smokes, Shazam. You might want to consider taking it down a notch.

iggystar 07-07-06 02:33 PM


Originally Posted by Groucho
Holy smokes, Shazam. You might want to consider taking it down a notch.

Agreed. Calm down a little. Jadzia is not forcing you to make her decision your own.

mseang 07-08-06 02:14 AM

The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

There is fearmongering on both sides, remember just because you believe in something doex not mean that you are not also falling for fear mongering.

Keep this in mind if you do not have your child vaccinated. As more and more parents decide against vaccinations, these diseases will slowly begin to reappear, increasing your childrens chance for exposure and infection. You may think that all of these children that are vaccinated will possibly help protect your child, but this is not true. Vaccinations do not provide 100% protection from disease.

Sometimes children still contract some of these diseases, but the infection is minimized due to the built-up immunity. That will make these children also contagious to your child, exposing him or her to many more opportunities of contracting the disease.

While you have done research, I also hope you have done your math. There are risks on both sides, but at what time do the benefits of one outweigh the risks. In a time of superbugs and linited effectiveness of antibiotics (which will only get worse), make sure you do all of the research and math before a final decision is made.

If you think we are safe because we are a developed country in the western world, think again. We have third world areas right here in our own country, in Southern Texas, Mississippi, Louisianna, and other areas. These areas are breeding grounds for these diseases and they will make the jump to the developed areas.

Brain Stew 07-08-06 08:45 AM


Originally Posted by Jadzia
Horrible diseases? Like measles or mumps or chicken pox?

Good point. Just because science can only guarantee an extremely high percentage of success with vaccines means we shouldn't use them at all! I refuse to give any vaccination until everything is 100% safe and 100% effective and I am going to hold my breath until that happens.

Seriously even if the drugs were 70% safe (and they are way higher than that) they would be worth it.

Also, I like how you keep bringing up Chicken Pox, so far no one has said that the chicken pox vaccine is necessary. The menengitis, diptheria, rubella, polio (and even measles and mumps) vaccines are however.

mllefoo 07-08-06 09:07 AM

Go ahead and stop vaccinating. We have too many people on the planet anyway and it's high time disease thins out the herd a little bit.

Superboy 07-18-06 06:22 AM


Originally Posted by Jadzia
That's not exactly how it works. It is an ongoing process. The baby passes on the germs he is exposed to the mom via saliva while breastfeeding and her body actually produces autoimmune factors to fight the germs which are then put into her breastmilk about 6-8 hours later. I thought that was very cool when I learned that! I'd like to see "formula" do that.

Wow, really? how interesting that the human body has such interesting mechanisms behind it! did you know that when you get a cut that your body is already starting to repair itself, starting by clotting your blood and then slowly regenerating the skin? you even have an immune system to fight off potential infection! screw band-aids and rubbing alcohol, you're just a pawn in the mighty pharmaceutical industry fearmonger machine.


Originally Posted by Jadzia
I find that idea rather Big Brotherish and somewhat frightening. It would be like the state mandating gastric bypass for all obese people. Sure it would probably save many people's lives overall, but if you were one of the people who died from complications on the operating table that wouldn't make you feel better about being forced into surgery.

That's different. It's not like obesity is just floating around in the air and suddenly it hits you and there's no cure. There's something called restraint. And even if you should become obese, you can always go for diet and exercise. It's not so easy with viral/bacterial disease.


Originally Posted by mseang
There is fearmongering on both sides, remember just because you believe in something does not mean that you are not also falling for fear mongering.

I don't think there was a ton of fearmongering by the government when vaccines were introduced. I think the fact that people around you died from a horrific disease slowly and painfully was enough.


Originally Posted by movielib
I understand that in the case of vaccinations the adverse effects can happen before anything can be done to stop them. But there is a cost-benefit analysis (in the health sense) to do here. The benefits of vaccinations far outweigh the possible health costs. There is simply no comparison.

It's rational thinking like that that will be the end of you, Movielib.

gmather 07-18-06 08:37 AM

tbird,
I haven't read the entire thread, but wanted to throw my 2c into the mix. I don't have kids, so I'm not speaking from direct experience.
I worked with a guy about a year ago. He now has two kids. The first was taken for the immunizations. Within hours of one of the shots (I don't know which, but can find out if you want), the child developed severe fever and was rushed to the ER. I'm not sure of exactly all the particulars of the event, but suffice to say that the child was fine before the shot, but now has autism. I believe he is slowly coming out of it, after 4 or 5 years of being autistic. Draw your own conclusions. Too much of a coincidence for my liking.

Also, there was a show on a South African cable channel (called M-Net) a few years ago. It's a kind of 60 Minutes, called Carte Blanche in SA. They did a story on the whole Immunization/Autism debate. It made my skin crawl just knowing that it could be possible. Very interesting show.

Just my 2c.
Gary

movielib 07-18-06 09:33 AM


Originally Posted by gmather
tbird,
I haven't read the entire thread, but wanted to throw my 2c into the mix. I don't have kids, so I'm not speaking from direct experience.
I worked with a guy about a year ago. He now has two kids. The first was taken for the immunizations. Within hours of one of the shots (I don't know which, but can find out if you want), the child developed severe fever and was rushed to the ER. I'm not sure of exactly all the particulars of the event, but suffice to say that the child was fine before the shot, but now has autism. I believe he is slowly coming out of it, after 4 or 5 years of being autistic. Draw your own conclusions. Too much of a coincidence for my liking.

Also, there was a show on a South African cable channel (called M-Net) a few years ago. It's a kind of 60 Minutes, called Carte Blanche in SA. They did a story on the whole Immunization/Autism debate. It made my skin crawl just knowing that it could be possible. Very interesting show.

Just my 2c.
Gary

Correlation does not equal causation. Odd things happen. If the odds against something in particular happening to any particular person on any particular day are a billion to one, such things still happen to about six people a day somewhere.

The studies, over decades, have overwhelming shown there is no increase in autism from immunizations.

Deftones 07-18-06 09:40 AM


Originally Posted by mllefoo
Go ahead and stop vaccinating. We have too many people on the planet anyway and it's high time disease thins out the herd a little bit.

While I'd be inclined to agree with you, we're talking about kids here. I'm ok if adults get wiped out, just not kids. :lol:

gmather 07-18-06 09:41 AM

Movielib,

I agree. However, studies have shown that the rate of autism has increased in children over the last 10 or 20 years. There must be some underlying cause of this, even if it's not immunizations.
In a court of law, can a person not be convicted purely on circumstantial evidence? I'm not advocating the cessation of immunizations, merely that people need to be aware of potential side-effects, whether it be autism or some other ailment.

Vibiana 07-18-06 09:41 AM


Originally Posted by movielib
Correlation does not equal causation. Odd things happen. If the odds against something in particular happening to any particular person on any particular day are a billion to one, such things still happen to about six people a day somewhere.

The studies, over decades, have overwhelming shown there is no increase in autism from immunizations.

And even if there was, the number of children who developed autism after getting vaccinations would be miniscule compared to the number of children who would suffer through the diseases that the vaccinations guard against if they were not vaccinated. I agree that chicken pox is no killer, but measles, mumps, diphtheria and whooping cough can be.

movielib 07-18-06 10:18 AM


Originally Posted by gmather
Movielib,

I agree. However, studies have shown that the rate of autism has increased in children over the last 10 or 20 years. There must be some underlying cause of this, even if it's not immunizations.

Either autism has increased or we are becoming increasingly aware of it or the parameters for diagnosing autism have expanded. I've seen opinions that either or both of the latter two have happened. If autism (under a consistent definition) is increasing we should look for something else because immunizations have been studied to death and acquitted.


In a court of law, can a person not be convicted purely on circumstantial evidence?
Yes (and I hate the old chestnut, "You can't convict me, all you have is circumstantial evidence"). But the medical equivalent of that is not anectotal evidence (e.g. my wife's uncle's sister, my friend's kid) but studies with good methodology and enough subjects to give a statistical meaniningful result. That's been done in this case.


I'm not advocating the cessation of immunizations, merely that people need to be aware of potential side-effects, whether it be autism or some other ailment.
I totally agree. And I believe the medical establishment does also.

twikoff 07-18-06 10:26 AM


Originally Posted by movielib
Either autism has increased or we are becoming increasingly aware of it or the parameters for diagnosing autism have expanded.

ding ding ding


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 AM.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.