Vaccines

cbyrd

trowel wrote: »

I thought this study might be of interest - reports that those who developed measles as children are protected from allergies later in life.
This has been shown in other similar studies and lends support to childhood illnesses having a protective role to play in the development of the immune system.

http://www.elsevier.es/es/node/2047580

One theory of why there is much more asthma, excema and allergic tendencies around nowadays is that our bodys immune system is not being 'stimulated' through the normal exposure to germs/bugs/viruses.

Hmmm how would this explain the allergies i have then to many things?? Plaster adhesive, paracetamol, a random spice, and milder though painful to jewellery and perfumes?? It's not a good enough reason not to vaccinate.. my eldest daughter showed an allergy to paracetamol before she had the mmr . . as did my second girl.. i have 2 younger brothers who have an allergy to plaster adhesive and so does my mother.. my mother was never vaccinated or had measles and my brothers were vaccinated.
Allergies are really random.. they can occur at any stage of life and disappear again as quickly..
Measles is not just a childhood disease that will come and go again like a cold or flu, it has major and life long effects that can range from blindness deafness brain damage and even death. Even the chickenpox can have serious side effects if it gets into the internal organs. it can permanently damage and even kill.
If you were not vaccinated and come into contact with mumps and develop it, as a male it can render you infertile.. or when you take that year out trip to south america why bother getting your jabs??
these are facts that are proven.. a random unproven study into 'maybe' there's a link, doesn't convince me...at some point we have to admit that vaccinations have radically improved the life quality of millions, otherwise they wouldn't still be very much a part of childhood.

Stark

quozl wrote: »

They also link to a much larger danish study of 547 910 children where the results of this study were not consistent with the hypothesis that measles could prevent allergic diseases.

Ooh look at you with your factor 100000 larger sample size. You'll be tossing out double blinded randomised studies next.

trowel

It is clearly a very divided issue and many questions have yet to be answered.
There is simply too many variables to get reliable information on the long term effects of vaccines on health (over a lifetime that is). However we do know that some of the ingredients contained within a vaccine are toxic and perhaps (like food) its worth looking at some of the ingredients we intend on putting in our bodies. Perhaps even 'shop around' for less toxic brands?
http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/qv/dtap.html

It is also worth noting that vaccination does not imply protection especially in mutating disease strains (flu vaccine for instance is relatively ineffective).

and that children who are vaccinated can also be silent carriers (transmitting disease)
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm

trowel

One theory of why there is much more asthma, excema and allergic tendencies around nowadays is that our bodys immune system is not being 'stimulated' through the normal exposure to germs/bugs/viruses.

F.A. wrote: »

This is nonsense. In the GDR, vaccinations were mandatory, yet allergies were significantly less prominent there then in West-Germany. This is well-documented and clearly contradicts the theory presented above.

I'm not sure what you mean. How does the GDR example contradict this theory?
I'm saying that conditions in the environment (exposure) helps develop and maintain normal immunological responses to common allergens. Conditions in the West would have meant greater sanitation compared to GDR where allergies were less prevalent. If i'm not mistaken, the incidence of allergies in children born in the east since unification has climbed to those seen in the west.
Perhaps you could provide reference to the study to clarify?

F.A.

trowel wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean. How does the GDR example contradict this theory?
I'm saying that conditions in the environment (exposure) helps develop and maintain normal immunological responses to common allergens. Conditions in the West would have meant greater sanitation compared to GDR where allergies were less prevalent. If i'm not mistaken, the incidence of allergies in children born in the east since unification has climbed to those seen in the west.
Perhaps you could provide reference to the study to clarify?

This is a discussion about vaccinations. Referring to "normal exposure to germs/bugs/viruses" in such a thread certainly implies that not going through the so-called childhood diseases could relate to higher allergy rates. I have debunked this. If you're talking about general exposure to germs other than said diseases, you may have a point, but then I fail to see the relevance to this particular topic about pros/cons of vaccinations.

Secondly, yes, allergies are now just as common in the East as they were/are in the West. However, the rising numbers coincided with falling numbers of vaccinations, which I'd consider further proof that vaccinations do not increase the risk of allergies. If anything, the statistics indicate that the opposite is the case.

And since you asked for a study, here you go.

trowel

F.A. wrote: »

This is a discussion about vaccinations. Referring to "normal exposure to germs/bugs/viruses" in such a thread certainly implies that not going through the so-called childhood diseases could relate to higher allergy rates. I have debunked this. If you're talking about general exposure to germs other than said diseases, you may have a point, but then I fail to see the relevance to this particular topic about pros/cons of vaccinations.

Secondly, yes, allergies are now just as common in the East as they were/are in the West. However, the rising numbers coincided with falling numbers of vaccinations, which I'd consider further proof that vaccinations do not increase the risk of allergies. If anything, the statistics indicate that the opposite is the case.

And since you asked for a study, here you go.

You are saying you have debunked a theory based on what?
Where have seen proof that reducing a childs exposure to antigens reduces their incidence of allergies.
I'm not sure where you are seeing proof in this study that reduced innoculations increase allergic tendency either. Can you show how you arrived at this conclusion?

In fact, exposing hyper-allergic individuals to controlled amounts of the allergen (for example dust mites, pollen) looks to be a promising treatment in preliminary studies. This recent article in the IT explains it well i think:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2011/0428/1224295611910.html

F.A.

You have presented a theory according to which the lack of exposure to certain germs leads to allergies. Since this discussion is about vaccinations, your point can only be relevant if you mean to say that according to this (very often presented) theory, not going through certain diseases because of vaccinations leads to allergies. Your earlier posts about Measles jabs leading to allergies leads me to believe that this is indeed what you mean.

If that were the case, people in the GDR who underwent mandatory vaccinations would have suffered significantly more from allergies. This is not the case. Thus, the theory is debunked.

I really cannot make this any easier to understand. Maybe you'd do well to actually read the article I presented.

And btw, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever new about allergen immunotherapy ("exposing hyper-allergic individuals to controlled amounts of the allergen"). What you mean by promising "preliminary studies" is beyond me. It's been a pretty standard treatment for a long time now.

trowel

F.A. wrote: »

You have presented a theory according to which the lack of exposure to certain germs leads to allergies. Since this discussion is about vaccinations, your point can only be relevant if you mean to say that according to this (very often presented) theory, not going through certain diseases because of vaccinations leads to allergies. Your earlier posts about Measles jabs leading to allergies leads me to believe that this is indeed what you mean.

If that were the case, people in the GDR who underwent mandatory vaccinations would have suffered significantly more from allergies. This is not the case. Thus, the theory is debunked.

I really cannot make this any easier to understand. Maybe you'd do well to actually read the article I presented.

And btw, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever new about allergen immunotherapy ("exposing hyper-allergic individuals to controlled amounts of the allergen"). What you mean by promising "preliminary studies" is beyond me. It's been a pretty standard treatment for a long time now.

This paper you cite does not debunk the hygiene hypothesis, but actually the epidemiological figures from this example support it. Perhaps you should read the original study yourself (what you have given is a review article which discusses benefits of vaccination).
I also mentioned the protective effect of childhood diseases on the future development of other illness, because this is relevant to the discussion.
People have a right to decide what is best for themselves and their children as their carers. The decision, as i see it, is not an easy one to make because much of the discussion becomes fear-driven and emotive and this can quickly cloud judgement. There are also questions which do not yet have answers.

That is why, in my opinion, more research is needed, and why reserving judgement is a basic human right.

F.A.

trowel wrote: »

This paper you cite does not debunk the hygiene hypothesis, but actually the epidemiological figures from this example support it.

Who mentioned the hygiene hypothesis? I am talking about allergies.

Perhaps you should read the original study yourself (what you have given is a review article which discusses benefits of vaccination).

Let me spell it out once again. The theory you presented implied a correlation between vaccinations and allergies. This scientific review debunks this theory.

I also mentioned the protective effect of childhood diseases on the future development of other illness, because this is relevant to the discussion.

But not to the point I was making.

People have a right to decide what is best for themselves and their children as their carers. The decision, as i see it, is not an easy one to make because much of the discussion becomes fear-driven and emotive and this can quickly cloud judgement. There are also questions which do not yet have answers. That is why, in my opinion, more research is needed, and why reserving judgement is a basic human right.

That's lovely, but I wasn't disputing that.

Now, I think most people here have understood the truly simple logic behind my point. If some cannot follow, I won't be of any more help.

trowel

F.A. wrote: »

Who mentioned the hygiene hypothesis? I am talking about allergies.

You said quite clearly in response to my post (please look back) that you had debunked the theory in question. This theory is very much about allergies - the hygiene hypothesis - so perhaps it would be wise to think before you post assertions or contradict someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trowel
One theory of why there is much more asthma, excema and allergic tendencies around nowadays is that our bodys immune system is not being 'stimulated' through the normal exposure to germs/bugs/viruses.

F.A. wrote: »

This is nonsense.

Well no it's not. In fact it's quite well established. Your 'paper' helped demonstrate that, as have many epidemiological studies comparing developing and industrialised nations.

Let me spell it out once again. The theory you presented implied a correlation between vaccinations and allergies. This scientific review debunks this theory.

I think you have misunderstood. The theory does not make any correlation between vaccination and allergies, but shows that the over-sanitisation of the environment of living systems such as the human body can lead to abnormal immune response at a later date.
That is not the same as saying that vaccination causes allergies.
You merely wish this to be the case because you have a fixed stance on the safety of vaccinations and find it easy to throw safety reviews into the mix.


Now, I think most people here have understood the truly simple logic behind my point. If some cannot follow, I won't be of any more help.

Your help in clearing up the confusion is greatly appreciated

mr.mickels

New Study: Vaccinated Children Have 2 to 5 Times More Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children

I am pleased I refuse vaccines for my family. This study involved 8000 unvaccinated children. Those who have been manipulated by the Pharma industry and their doctors to accept vaccines won't like this.

http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/10/14/big-study-vaccinated-kids-2-5-more-diseases-than-unvaccinated/

Squiggler

I wasn't vaccinated. A vaccinated (MMR) child in my school contracted the measles from the vaccine and gave them to all of us (vaccinated and unvaccinated alike) in primary school, the gp who administered the injections said that was quite common.

F.A.

mr.mickels wrote: »

New Study: Vaccinated Children Have 2 to 5 Times More Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children

I am pleased I refuse vaccines for my family. This study involved 8000 unvaccinated children. Those who have been manipulated by the Pharma industry and their doctors to accept vaccines won't like this.

http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/10/14/big-study-vaccinated-kids-2-5-more-diseases-than-unvaccinated/

I quote from this "study":

The data was collected from parents with vaccine-free children via an internet questionnaire by vaccineinjury.info and Andreas Bachmair, a German classical homeopathic practitioner.

I stopped reading there. How can a website called "vaccineinjury.info" in any way, shape or form, be considered independent and unbiased? And a "homeopathic practitioner"?? I am not sure whether to laugh or to cry, so I just shake my head instead. Have you any idea of what this nonsense called homeopathy actually entails? And that's leaving aside the fact that this "study" was done via internet questionnaire... Seriously?

I realise now, however, that arguing with you in favour of vaccines is a total waste of time, so all I can do is to - sincerely - wish you and your family the best of luck dealing with serious illnesses and their longtime effects, though I expect you'll successfully piggyback on all those who put their trust into proper, scientific research and vaccinate themselves and their children.

OldNotWIse

mr.mickels wrote: »

New Study: Vaccinated Children Have 2 to 5 Times More Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children

I am pleased I refuse vaccines for my family. This study involved 8000 unvaccinated children. Those who have been manipulated by the Pharma industry and their doctors to accept vaccines won't like this.

http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/10/14/big-study-vaccinated-kids-2-5-more-diseases-than-unvaccinated/

Parents who decided to protect their children from harmful diseases have not been manipulated by the pharma industry, any more than those who decide not to protect their children have been manipulated by the anti vaccine brigade.

OldNotWIse

F.A. wrote: »

I quote from this "study":



I stopped reading there. How can a website called "vaccineinjury.info" in any way, shape or form, be considered independent and unbiased? And a "homeopathic practitioner"?? I am not sure whether to laugh or to cry, so I just shake my head instead. Have you any idea of what this nonsense called homeopathy actually entails? And that's leaving aside the fact that this "study" was done via internet questionnaire... Seriously?

I realise now, however, that arguing with you in favour of vaccines is a total waste of time, so all I can do is to - sincerely - wish you and your family the best of luck dealing with serious illnesses and their longtime effects, though I expect you'll successfully piggyback on all those who put their trust into proper, scientific research and vaccinate themselves and their children.

Well said. I actually went out with somebody before who claimed to be a homeopath and it was practically bet into them at "college" to be anti vacc (in fact they were anti everything for the sake of it), believing mroe in the power of sugar and water than proper medicine.

The only time I ever use sugar and water medicinally is after a night out - it's called Lucozade.

mr.mickels

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Parents who decided to protect their children from harmful diseases have not been manipulated by the pharma industry, any more than those who decide not to protect their children have been manipulated by the anti vaccine brigade.

Total rubbish and a complete misunderstanding of what good health means.

OldNotWIse

mr.mickels wrote: »

Total rubbish and a complete misunderstanding of what good health means.

total rubbish how exactly? Are you just going to throw around meaningless accusations or would you like to actually substantiate your claims?

mr.mickels

OldNotWIse wrote: »

total rubbish how exactly? Are you just going to throw around meaningless accusations or would you like to actually substantiate your claims?

Substantiate my claims!!! I don't feel any need to, you have a prejudiced idea based on ignorance, and tarring everyone with the same brush is blinkered.
First off I can't speak for everyone who refuses vaccines but I can say that those I know whom have refused, which is quite a few, have all given it very serious thought, aren't part of any brigade, and were quite slow to go against the advice of the local GPs etc. It is total rubbish to say I and those like me were manipulated by anyone. It is broadly true to say that those who have decided to decline the offer of vaccinations are alot more educated on the subject of vaccines and general good health than those who submit to vaccines.
I could also add that many I know whom have submitted to vaccines (and in all honesty are less healthy than I am, more susceptible to flu, colds etc) have strongly attempted to manipulate me and my wife to subject ourselves and our very healthy daughter to unnecessary vaccines.

Stark

mr.mickels wrote: »

I could also add that many I know whom have submitted to vaccines (and in all honesty are less healthy than I am, more susceptible to flu, colds etc) have strongly attempted to manipulate me and my wife to subject ourselves and our very healthy daughter to unnecessary vaccines.

Never had the flu in my life and I've had all the vaccines that I needed growing up. Anecdotal evidence is worthless. I'm healthy because I exercise and eat fruit and vegetables not because my parents refused first world medical care for me growing up. I'd like to see the clinical evidence you have for believing vaccines are harmful.

There have been over 200 cases of measles alone in this country this year despite it being an easily preventable disease (2000 cases of mumps). I can't believe parents willingly allow innocent children to be infected with the disease. And all based on one health scare back in 1998 that arose from an isolated case of medical misconduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy). I wouldn't neglect my dog in such a manner.

Moonbeam

We seem to be going around in circles here and I understand it is a subject which both sides feel very strongly about.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but please can you please back claims up with some sort of evidence or show what you are basing it on rather then insisting because it never happened to you or yours then it must be true etc.

Thanks

mr.mickels

Another article on vaccinations some may find of interest.

ALL the Vaccines Are Contaminated - Every Last One of Them

"The chief, if not the sole, cause of the monstrous increase in cancer has been vaccination" - Dr. Robert Bell, once Vice President International Society for Cancer Research at the British Cancer Hospital
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november292011/vaccines-contaminated-se.php

http://tinyurl.com/bnzhr2e

mr.mickels

Squiggler wrote: »

I wasn't vaccinated. A vaccinated (MMR) child in my school contracted the measles from the vaccine and gave them to all of us (vaccinated and unvaccinated alike) in primary school, the gp who administered the injections said that was quite common.

You will find many examples of Polio outbreaks being blamed on the Polio Vaccine itself, and the man who designed the Polio Vaccine, Robert Salk, himself admitted the best chance to get polio was through the vaccine. Most people don't realise that Polio cases increased after the Salk vaccine was introduced. A large vaccine trial in 1955 showed a total failure of the Salk vaccine to protect against poliomyelitis. During a 1959 epidemic in Massachusetts, 77.5% of the paralytic cases had received three or more doses of the inactivated vaccine.
In 1956 with the infamous Francis Field Trials they discovered large numbers of children contracted polio after receiving the vaccine. Instead of removing the vaccine from the market, they decided to exclude from the statistics all cases of polio that occurred within 30 days after vaccination on the pretext that such cases were “pre-existing”.

http://www.naturalnews.com/032854_SV40_polio_vaccines.html

Squiggler

Squiggler wrote: »

I wasn't vaccinated. A vaccinated (MMR) child in my school contracted the measles from the vaccine and gave them to all of us (vaccinated and unvaccinated alike) in primary school, the gp who administered the injections said that was quite common.

It isn't quite common. The attenuated measles vaccine can cause mild symptoms of the condition, but this is not common. It's even less common for that to be passed on, and if it is, it will almost never be passed on to someone who has been vaccinated. What can be common, though, is that a small percentage of people who have been vaccinated can subsequently contract measles - for the simple reason that the vaccination isn't 100% effective. That's why vaccination programmes include more than one dose. Typically, one-dose measles vaccinations have an effectiveness rate of about 90%, rising to more or less 99% for a two-dose regime.

mr.mickels

mr.mickels wrote: »

You will find many examples of Polio outbreaks being blamed on the Polio Vaccine itself....

No you won't - not in the real world at any rate. I'm sure this fabrication was debunked earlier in this thread.


EDIT: Yep, in post 27, back in late October.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056408174&page=2

OldNotWIse

mr.mickels wrote: »

Substantiate my claims!!! I don't feel any need to, you have a prejudiced idea based on ignorance, and tarring everyone with the same brush is blinkered.
First off I can't speak for everyone who refuses vaccines but I can say that those I know whom have refused, which is quite a few, have all given it very serious thought, aren't part of any brigade, and were quite slow to go against the advice of the local GPs etc. It is total rubbish to say I and those like me were manipulated by anyone. It is broadly true to say that those who have decided to decline the offer of vaccinations are alot more educated on the subject of vaccines and general good health than those who submit to vaccines.
I could also add that many I know whom have submitted to vaccines (and in all honesty are less healthy than I am, more susceptible to flu, colds etc) have strongly attempted to manipulate me and my wife to subject ourselves and our very healthy daughter to unnecessary vaccines.

you dont feel you need to substantiate your claims? Or you cannot substantiate your claims? For the purposes of the discussion you would be advised to substantiate claims you make, especially sweeping ones.

TheBunk1

mr.mickels wrote: »

Another article on vaccinations some may find of interest.

ALL the Vaccines Are Contaminated - Every Last One of Them

"The chief, if not the sole, cause of the monstrous increase in cancer has been vaccination" - Dr. Robert Bell, once Vice President International Society for Cancer Research at the British Cancer Hospital
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november292011/vaccines-contaminated-se.php

http://tinyurl.com/bnzhr2e

There is so much wrong with that linked article, I don't know where to start. I only had to read about 6 lines to realise that it is utter rubbish. They seem to think cancer is some sort of transmissible disease and also refer to cancer as a virus!

A quick search of "British Cancer Hospital" returns ONE link; to the article linked above, while "the International Society for Cancer Research" doesn't even seem to have a website. The main references to this are from equally ridiculous sites and conspiracy theorists.

You need to stop spreading misinformation, by using sources such as these as credible references. Vaccination is a serious issue and I believe parents should make, what they believe is the correct choice for their children, IF they are given the correct information regarding risk factors and side effects.

Articles like those above and YouTube videos are not the way to do this.

January

OldNotWIse wrote: »

you dont feel you need to substantiate your claims? Or you cannot substantiate your claims? For the purposes of the discussion you would be advised to substantiate claims you make, especially sweeping ones.

Mod Note:
A moderator has already commented on the thread asking people to support their claims with evidence. If you have a problem with a post, please report it and a mod will deal with it.

Thank you.

trowel

“The tendency of a mass vaccination program is to herd people. People are not cattle or sheep. They should not be herded. A mass vaccination program carries a built-in temptation to oversimplify the problem; to exaggerate the benefits; to minimize or completely ignore the hazards; to discourage or silence scholarly, thoughtful and cautious opposition; to create an urgency where none exists; to whip up an enthusiasm among citizens that can carry with it the seeds of impatience, if not intolerance; to extend the concept of the police power of the state in quarantine far beyond its proper limitation; to assume simplicity when there is actually great complexity; to continue to support a vaccine long after it has been discredited;… to ridicule honest and informed consent."

Statement from Clinton R. Miller, Intensive Immunization Programs, May 15th and 16th, 1962. Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives, 87th congress, second session on H.R. 10541.

TheBunk1

mr.mickels wrote: »

New Study: Vaccinated Children Have 2 to 5 Times More Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children

I am pleased I refuse vaccines for my family. This study involved 8000 unvaccinated children. Those who have been manipulated by the Pharma industry and their doctors to accept vaccines won't like this.

http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/10/14/big-study-vaccinated-kids-2-5-more-diseases-than-unvaccinated/

That is not a study. It's a survey. And an extremely biased on at that. A study should be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

"The only other bias in this study may include the fact that parents of unvaccinated children are obviously concerned about the health risks of vaccines, and are more likely to make other healthier choices such as feeding their children a much better diet and using more natural remedies and using fewer pharmaceuticals"

Absolute rubbish.

cbyrd

It would be interesting to see how many of the people commenting have had measles mumps rubella meningitis or polio? i've had 3 of them, this is why i chose to vaccinate my children.
Even the chicken pox, which is not thought to be serious, can be very dangerous to some people

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Chickenpox/Pages/Complications.aspx

I've had rubella and have hearing loss and impaired sight in my left eye.. this will get worse
http://www.deafblindireland.org/index.php/eng/Useful-Links-Information/What-is-Rubella

Most otherwise healthy children recover from measles just fine. In 20 to 30 percent of measles cases, the child will develop some kind of complication, like diarrhea or an ear infection.

Measles can have serious complications in a small percentage of cases.. what if your child was in that small percentage??

http://www.babycenter.com/0_measles_1417820.bc?page=2#articlesection4

Other less likely but possible difficulties include pneumonia, meningitis, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), and — very rarely — other serious brain complications. Complications are more likely in children younger than 5 years old and adults 20 and older.

Mumps while not as serious can cause infertility in men..
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=43#44

Vaccinations are a personal choice but until you have suffered a lifetime of the complications that the disease's bring, as i have, you don't really have the full information of what you could potentially put your child through.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.. but damaging another's health for that opinion is just silly. vague unsubstantiated vaccine side effects to known disease side effects.. i know what i choose