|
|
 |
|
Getting On : Health
Vaccination?? | from Blondie_B78 - Tuesday, September 14, 2004
accessed 7627 times This question is mainly directed to all you parents out there. What is your view on conventional (in some countries compulsory) vaccination? Have you vaccinated your kids? If so, was it something you did automatically (ie. because everybody does it) or was it a topic you researched before making a decision either way? Was your decision influenced in any way, if at all, by the fact that most of us were not vaccinated as children (at least nobody I knew)? Of course, I would expect this to be based on something more than - "Dr Koger came to me and told me not to immunize" or "I don't need to as God will keep my kids from getting sick". Not knocking those who believe in God - I still believe in a higher power myself but don't agree with the "God will do everything for me" mentality. Is anybody into holistic medicine, homeopathy etc? And finally, are you happy with your decision? I have three kids and have opted not to vaccinate. In the country I live in vaccination is not compulsory and many people choose a Holistic/Alternative approach to medicine - using conventional medicine (vaccines, antibiotics, otc medicines etc.) as a last resort. So far my eldest (5yrs) has had chicken pox and rubella and my 3yr old has had measles (mild case but diagnosed by our family doc). The more serious "vaccine-preventable" diseases are either extremely rare or non-existant in this country so I feel that my childrens risk of infection or complications from these diseases is considerably smaller than the potential risks of side-effects (particularly long-term) of the vaccines themselves. In short, if it's not broken, don't fix it. :-)
Personally I think that the decision to vaccinate or not should be left to parents (not legislated by the government) and that parents should be provided with all available information so they can carefully weigh up the pros and cons, asses risks and make an informed decision. There are some who say that it's irresponsible to choose not to vaccinate as a certain percentage of the population must be vaccinated in order to achieve "herd immunity". When asked about potential risks/side effects (long or short term) of vaccines some doctors have replied "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...." Although in a cold context that statement makes sense, had that been said to me my motherly instincts would have forced me to tell the doc where to shove it... I will do my best to avoid placing the vulnerable at risk but I'm not responsible for the many - I'm responsible for my few..
My little sister has two children and they are both fully vaccinated. We obviously think differently on this subject but respect each others decisions - we are both trying to act in our childrens best interest. One of the hardest things about being a young parent is "knowing" that your are making the right (best) decisions - not just regarding ur kids heath but in every area. I guess what matters is that we try... |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from AnnaH
Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 10:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've heard there is a connection between vaccinations and autism. Does anyone know if that's true?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from exister
Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 14:40
 (Agree/Disagree?)
All of you hippies need to quit acting like Tom Cruise and pretending you know dick about dick. Paranoias like yours are responsible for the resurgence of Polio in parts of Africa. Quit acting like your dopey hippy parents and just fucking get the shots already!
Christ! Sometimes you people annoy me.
Love, me
P.S. I am vaccinated against Anthrax, so when the apocalyptic shit storm hits I'll be pointing and laughing while you break out in sores and drown in your own bodily fluids.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | |  From Oddman
Wednesday, December 27, 2006, 08:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
As far as I'm concerned, anything and everything is worth questioning. So far as I'm concerned, I have no problems with someone questioning whether it would be prudent for him to hack his prick off with a nail clipper (Though depending on his conclusions I may be concerned about his mental health.).
I'm not saying one shouldn't vaccinate their children, but I am disagreeing with the "it shouldn't be open for debate" and the "doctor must know" attitude. I certainly don't always trust doctors and medicine. Doctors work for profit, and more than often sell you stuff you don't need. On the one hand, my little sister spent half her life in the care of the best hospital in town, where she contracted MRSI, and died from failed unneccessary surgery. I believe the doctors cut her life short by at least 60% of what it should have been, all for a few extra bucks. On the other hand I know an African man in his 70's, smoked like a chimney his whole life, drinks at least 10 cups of substance full of caffein and sugar every day, has a greasy steak at least twice a week, has Jack neat every night, works 14 hour shifts almost every day, working on engines blowing the filthiest exhaust fumes you've ever seen. He's never been to a doctor, never takes any medicine, only uses homeopaths and sangomas (witch doctor) and he's healthier than I am. (He can lift forklift sleeves for a 20 ton forklift, and yes, he still has his odd night out with the ladies)
Modern medicine is by no means almighty or proven. Personally, I don't trust medicine. When I first went to Africa, I wasn't sure about the vaccine shots. Eventually I shot rabies, tetanus, HepB. I took Malaria tablets for the first three months I was there, and stopped buying them. But I made sure I read about vaccines and how they worked, and I was quite comfortable with those shots at the time. So if anybody has doubts, I say debate it. Question it. Doubt it. Discuss it. Draw your own conclusions. Don't trust anything for nothing.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From house1a
Wednesday, December 27, 2006, 10:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
In my opinion debating whether or not to give your young child vaccinations is the same as debating whether or not you should give your child an education, a safe home environment (i.e. outlet plugs, locked medicine cabinets, bleach and other cleaning products out of their reach etc...), the right nutrition, taking them to the doctor when the child has broken a bone or has pneumonia for example. These are examples of NECCESARRY courses of action, and are not open for debate, unless you want Child Protective Services at your door, in which case, they should be!!!!
I'm an open-minded person only to an extent! I have a serious problem with people making decisions for their children that could be very harmful to them. They should do research, but they should also use common sense, and although doctors are NOT all knowing by any means, and they do make mistakes, doctors throughout the world almost unanimously believe you SHOULD give your child vaccinations. They have saved countless lives, and improved the quality of life for millions of children.
My son has yet to have ANY childhood deseases. My husband (who was never in TF) had all the same vaccinations as my son and he also has been free of any childhood diseases. Me on the other hand, having not received vaccines, I have had chicken pox and measles, and god knows what else (seeing as I never went to the doctor when I was sick).
I’m done taking about this, because I will not be swayed. With all due respect, I choose to stand by the EDUCATED professionals on this subject.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Wednesday, December 27, 2006, 23:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
A very touchy subject, the responsibilities of parents, and the freedom the parents should have as far as how they raise a child.
I doubt many parents would dispute that their children should receive an adequate education. However, a goat-herder in Afghanistan may feel the use of an AK47, spotting green pastures, milking a goat, and inseminating a goat a higher priority than calculus or business law. One parent may feel it best to keep firearms out of a six year old's reach, whereas another parent may feel six is old enough to start handling an assault rifle. Different parents have different views on nutrition, healthcare, safety, education, faith, any of the things you've mentioned, and those you have not. There is no way to lay down the law and declare one road as the one and only straight and narrow. Different circumstances, cultures, and experiences lead parents to reach different conclusions as to "how" they fulfill their parental responsibilities. That's certainly not to say that "what's done in love" is always right. A parents faith and beliefs all too frequently result in tragedy and trauma to a child. I need not expound on this. There are certainly things I believe are wrong. They are wrong by my standards, and possibly by the standards of the majority of the first world populace. Yet they are right and just by the standards of others. The best way to further educate ourselves is to question the conclusions of those before us. There was a time when the world was flat, electricity was a mad man's dream, and a ill placed mole sentenced one to burn. It could very well be that what we now believe to be the one and only right way will in time, be an unthinkable and abhorrent part of human history, taught in classrooms only as the lowest point in our evolution.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Thursday, December 28, 2006, 01:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's nice to have the luxury of being intellectual about everything, Oddie, a luxury which is greatly reduced when you become a parent and the practical supercedes the theory, and the responsibility is awesome. As you said, it's a tricky balance. I had so many theories, but once your baby is born, you have to act, you have to decide, and if you fuck up, the consequences can be life or death.
I was always grateful growing up in The Family that my mother had the gust to take the tiny 'according to your faith' clause literally and insist that her children be fully immunised. That sure took a lot, to admit publicly that she didn't have the faith not to immunise her children, especially to stand up to my dad who was a total faith fanatic.
Well, I lived through just about every childhood disease ravaging my home, whooping cough, watching everyone else coughing up blood, mumps, watching everyone else swell up, and I didn't get any of them, and blessed my mother every time. The only childhood disease I ever had was chicken pox, because a vaccine was not available when I was a child.
(My mother did cave in however, when my younger sister nearly died of meningitis. My dad convinced her it was due to being immunised, so she stopped vaccinating subsequent children)
When my son was born, they vaccinate them on day one for Hep B, and all the rest a few days later. I was totally caught. I didn't want them poking a needle into my perfect newborn. But my ex, who is Indian, had seen two babies in his extended family contract childhood diseases due to not being immunised soon enough and end up paralysed, blind, deaf, and brain damaged. When he brought up all of that I remembered the children I had worked with in India who had been left deformed and crippled from polio, or deaf and blind from other childhood diseases. There is so much deformity and handicap in India, and I wonder if Europe was also like that before the small pox and then the other vaccines.
I was given a list of the possible side effects/ consequences of both having the immunisations and not having them, and the chance percentage of each happening.
I can't remember it all now, but it was overwhelmingly in favour of vaccinating. I felt as a responsible parent my choice was clear. I had him vaccinated according to the prescribed schedule, and guess what? He barely cried. He never had so much as an itchy lump or fever, let alone any other reaction. And he has certainly never had a childhood disease.
I have one more point...because most parents do vaccinate, that gives the minority the freedom to choose not to in relative safety. If a large percentage of parents chose not to vaccinate, not vaccinating could become very dangerous.
I'm not sure how far parent's rights should extend when it comes to their children's health and safety.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Thursday, December 28, 2006, 05:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
'It's nice to have the luxury of being intellectual about everything, Oddie, a luxury which is greatly reduced when you become a parent and the practical supercedes the theory, and the responsibility is awesome. As you said, it's a tricky balance. I had so many theories, but once your baby is born, you have to act, you have to decide, and if you fuck up, the consequences can be life or death.'
It's funny but my position is almost the opposite to the base you start out from - I think that the luxury of being deadset one way or the other is greatly reduced with parenthood, and all of a sudden it becomes impossible to blithely go along with whatever a health professional tells you. I would NEVER sit by passively and let my child become nothing more than the latest statistic in the grand machine of National Health, and when it comes to medicine I question EVERYTHING I am told, research for myself and weigh up scientific evidence (NOT just any old clap-trap by the latest quack), and THEN I make my own decision.
Maybe this has something to do with coming from a family with a medical background, where the medical profession is not viewed as an infallible authority worthy of unquestioning awe. The arrogance with which the medical profession typically operates offends me (though it is getting better and I have no personal complaints as regards how I have been treated) - In your case for example, why was information on vaccination not dealt with in your ante-natal appointments so that you would have had time to carefully consider your course of action? The presumption that of course you would be vaccinating your child, thus no forethought was necessary, really annoys me! No one should be expected to make medical decisions under pressure and without sufficient preparation, unless it is absolutely necessary.
As it happens, I do (for the most part) agree with you on the issue of vaccination, so I'm not going to offer any opposing argument to that just now (though there are some that surely command careful consideration). But I will say that as far as I'm concerned, as long as there is a majority uptake of immunisations, freedom of the minority to refuse the same should definitely be upheld. Even in the absence of majority uptake I would most likely still defend the indvidual's right to choice. I do not think that totalitarian control of health issues can ever be truly justified. However this is a highly contentious issue for me (always that tension between freedom vs. the greater good...) so I can't guarantee that my opinions would hold up to scrutiny.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, December 28, 2006, 02:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
No doubt it would be a different issue when the baby is in your arms as opposed to page 264 on your 10 year plan. A child grows every second, and you might feel it best to inoculate sooner than later, safe than sorry. I do agree parents have an obligation to protect their children's health and growth. But I don't neccessarily think vaccinating a child at birth is the best or only acceptable step in doing so. I don't trust all the vaccines that are out there. Some vaccines have not been in use long enough for us to rule out side effects, whereas I know I survived a number of childhood diseases without vaccination. I wouldn't wish my future children to suffer those diseases, but I'd be more comfortable inoculating them when they were a bit older, rather than at birth. That's a personal opinion.
As long as you did your due diligence before coming to your conclusion, I don't disagree or disapprove of your decision at all. That's a choice and decision only you could make. My objection all along has been in regards to the "Doctors must know because they are educated" attitude. I wouldn't trust a random stranger with a child, just because he's a certified teacher. (See also John Mark Karr. See also David Brandt Berg.) Likewise, I wouldn't trust a random stranger with health issues, just because he's had rich parents that weren't in a cult, therefore could afford to pay his way through med school. Whatever you do, don't buy anything for nothing. If you are going to trust anybody, be it your presidential hopeful, doctor, mechanic, janitor, question why you trust him/her first. "Because he's wearing the right uniform" is a sorry excuse for a reason. That white doctors coat could be a white lab coat for all you know, especially when it comes to modern medicine. I know I'm skeptic to the point of paranoia. If a mechanic tells me I've got a blown gasket, I want to see the gasket. If a cop tells me I missed a stop sign, I'm gonna walk back to make sure the sign was there. I'd rather blame myself for making the wrong call, than for making an uninformed call. There's less shoulda woulda coulda that way.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Thursday, December 28, 2006, 02:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
I understood your point was not about vaccination itself, but the need to question. I just lazily lumped all my thoughts on the subect into my response to you. Maybe I just like talking to you. :)
The only issue I have with what you said above was where you said, "I wouldn't trust a random stranger with health issues, just because he's had rich parents that weren't in a cult, therefore could afford to pay his way through med school" because I feel the need to point out that modern wisdom on vaccinating is not one doctor's theory, but a collective agreement by the majority of the medical professional community in practically every country. Not that we still don't need to arrive at our own conclusions.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, December 28, 2006, 03:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
rainy, 'collective agreement' has throughout history not only changed, but has in fact been later proven wrong. As a quote I've used a number of times says "To repeat what you have learned, requires education. To challenge it, requires intelligence." The fact that 'educated' people are so in agreement says more for the fact that they were taught the same thing, than for the accuracy of that specific content. While we may like to think that each person who promotes a specific position has reached that conclusion through their own critical analysis of all the facts, that is a naieve assessment, and is for the most part incorrect.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Blondie_B78
Wednesday, December 27, 2006, 22:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Two years since I posted this thread and still haven't changed my mind house1a. It's not a decision that I make lightly and I may one day change my mind.
I think that parents have a responsibility to not blindly accept what they are told by professionals in any community - medical or otherwise.
We have problems today with the overuse of antibiotics and drug resistant bacteria. Who prescribes the antibiotics? Don't get me wrong. Antibiotics save lives every day and I am 100% supportive of their proper use. I do make it a point thought to ask my our family doctor why he is perscribing antibiotics whenever he does.
Medical history is full of f**k ups. That's just the way it is with any profession. The mistakes allow us to progress. We and our children are the ones that live with the consequences of the medical professions successes and failures. I believe that a parent would be failing his/her children if they failed to ask questions, digest the information and make decisions - knowing that the buck stops here. Sometimes being a parent sucks.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Spring
Friday, September 17, 2004 - 14:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
I really struggled with the decision of whether or not to vaccinate my daughter. At first I just assumed that I would since that's what the doctors recommend (completely embracing modern medicine after having the faith approach crammed down my throat all my life) - but when the time came to have the immunizations done I thought that maybe I should do some research first.
I am not sold on the effectiveness of immunizations; my husband had all his shots growing up (his mother was a nurse) and he still contracted quite a few childhood diseases. On the other hand, I didn't get very many shots except for the ones mandated by the schools where I sporadically attended, and I had a relatively healthy childhood. I also don't like the idea of all the toxic components of vaccines (like mercury). I know the doctors say there are mercury/thimerosol free vaccines now, but actually the amounts are just so low that the vaccine manufacturers aren't required to list them.
On the other hand, I don't want my child to contract a childhood disease and be one of 1% of cases where something goes terribly wrong. What to do!?
In Canada - where I live - the recommendation is for the DPT shot at 2, 4, 6 & 12 months, and MMR at 12 and 18 months. They also want you to give your kids a hepatitis B shot, a chickenpox shot, and a few others.
In the end I decided to go ahead with the immunizations but to do them on my own schedule (2 months seems too young!). I postponed all the shots by 6 months. My daughter had reactions to the DPT shot the first time and for the first booster but was fine after that. She had no reaction to the MMR shot (which I was very worried about after all the links to autism, etc.). I tried to get the MMR shot in single components at differnet times but was told that the vaccines aren't manufactured singly anymore, only in combinations. I decided not to immunize against hepatitis B and am not going to give her the chickenpox shot for the time being. My thoughts on the chickenpox vaccine is that I'd rather my kids actually contract the disease when they're small, but if they get to be school age and still haven't caught it then I will probably immunize to avoid the problems associated with catching it when you're older.
It's interesting to know that a lot of other ex-ers have struggled with this decision as well - I thought it was just me! :)
(reply to this comment)
| from porceleindoll
Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 18:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Vaccinating my kids too was one of the biggest questions I had when leaving the cult. I did a lot of research, but it still feels like not nearly enough. When we move to the States I'm going to be caught in the dilemma as to whether I should or shouldn't vaccinate. In the country we are in, it hasn't been a requirement.
I've read the same things you mentioned below Blondie about the claims that vaccinations are what made the country free of disease, but research shows that the diseases were already on the decline before vaccinations were administered. I've read the same thing about polio vaccinations, as well as the fact that there are 2 strains of polio, and the vaccination only targets the less-common one, which means it was basically ineffective against the more prevalant strain of polio which was prevelant in the country at the time.
You have to realise too that in order for a vaccination to be effective you have to keep getting booster shots. If you don't, then your immunization wears off and you are susceptible to contracting the disease, usually later in life when your body is weaker against it. I feel the chicken pox vaccination is basically a waste as chicken pox is generally an easy illness to go through, then you are protected with immunity the rest of your life.
Mumps, german measles, and many other childhood diseases are actually not that bad to go through, and children usually make it fine. Cases when they wouldn't would probably be due to malnutrition, lack of vitamins and healthy food in their diets, lack of proper care and recovery during the illness.
My kids have all had chicken pox, my eldest has had mumps, and the doctor said that in many cases, if one sibling has it, the rest of the siblings receive immunization just through exposure.
I've read a few things about how immunizations are cultured, on hamster kidneys, using dead body parts, feces, as well as taking the actual virus from infected bodies to make the immunization. Sort of grosses me out.
I think that if you have a good diet and supplement it with vit. C and other necessary vitamins they may not get enough of through food alone, your kids stand a very good chance to withstand an attack of disease, or to come through it without complications or severe repercussions, and to actually heal faster.
I DO NOT recommend the CULT way of both not vaccinating, but not studying nor being properly prepared for an illness. If you choose not to vaccinate, then you must be ready to handle an illness if it were to be going around the neighborhood, or if your child were to contract it. You must also work on a daily basis to strengthen your child's immune system. Some things I'd recommend you always have on hand are:
Echinacea Root, Vitamin C, Tea-tree oil, Goldenseal herb, fresh garlic, empty capsules to fill at will
Other things are pure oregano and lemon oil, (essential oil, not an infused oil, and an oil that is certified for consumption), astralgus herb, and things like that. These are for boosting the immune system and increasing production of white blood cells.
If I have time I'll post a short article about alternative steps to take in times of illness.
Finally, my kids (ages 10,9,7) have never been immunized, and with 2 exceptions, they have never taken anti-biotics. We have been to the doctor once in the past year, when my son's eardrum ruptured from a cold. With one exception they haven't been sick for a year now. I give them a children's multi-vitamin almost daily, and 500mg of vit. C (chewable). I feel very fortunate and can see a difference in that their friends constantly have runny noses and are running to the doctor for something and taking medicine for something.
(reply to this comment)
| From Blondie_B78
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 15:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow, ur kids are so healthy! My kids are ages 5, 3 and 1wk. :-) They have generally been very healthy. They do eat pretty well (although I should limit the junk food more than I do) - lots of fresh fruit and vegies and take Vitamin C/ Echinacea and multi-vitamins daily. My 5yr old started school in June (June is also the beginning of our Winter) and since then the two older ones have had several coughs and colds. I had another baby last week and have had to keep her in my room for the most part as the other two have had a fever and been coughing and spluttering since the day I bought her home. :-/ They're over the fever now and seem to be getting better but if you have any suggestions of something I can do to give them a boost that would be great. :-)(reply to this comment) |
| | From porceleindoll
Friday, September 17, 2004, 14:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
My kids have been this healthy for the past year. Before that they got the normal colds going around, but I think I've been blessed with strong and healthy kids.
Someone below mentioned about not taking echinacea daily, I've read this too, doing it on a rotation, a few weeks on, few weeks off. I can't remember off-hand the reason why, but just that you shouldn't.
If you can add garlic to your kids' daily diet, and esp. now, that would help. There's a tea made my traditional medicinals or something like that called 'Throat Coat' which has licorice root and perhaps Slippery Elm, both good for soothing the throat and helping the body expel mucous. Cherry Bark cough syrups are also good for coughs.
If you can get some eucalyptus essential oil, you can make a chest rub with a base oil and a few drops of eucalyptus, the smell is soothing on the membranes, and the oil penetrating into the chest will feel good too.
Make sure your house is getting a lot of fresh air, and have some white vinegar on hand to mix with water and use as a disenfectant, keeping the house clean.
I make a garlic/honey/lemon juice cough syrup and administer it regularly through the day. Kids kind of smell like garlic, but it seems to help.
I've invested in several essential oils, this isn't cheap, but they last a long time--tea tree, eucaluyptus, cinnamon, clove, rosemary, oregano, thyme, lemon, some others--all of these are anti-viral and I use them esp. when a sickness is either going around or has gotten into the house.
Where I live it's popular for kids and adults to wear masks when sick, so I add a drop of eucalyptus or tea-tree oil to the mask so my kid is inhaling it for a few hours.
If you are interested in going the more natural route in healing, you should purchase some books, that would be the best idea.
One site in particular that I purchase stuff from and I feel I can recommend is herbalhealer.com, it's not an MLM, so the products are reasonably priced, the owner has done a lot of research and dedicated her life to natural healing. They have some good kids products, you may want to browse around. I buy their Sambucol syrup (actually made my a different company), kids chewables, and a few other things.
Remember that a fever is nature's way of curing the body. As long as it doesn't go too high and linger for too long then your children should be fine. You'll notice a pattern in that if your kids get a fever, they will probably get better quicker, but when they don't get a fever, the illness lingers longer.
And it's not God's punishment on us for any sins when our kids get sick, it's just life and part of it, I had to tell myself that a lot when we first left.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Blondie_B78
Friday, September 17, 2004, 16:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for the tips. Noticed the comment about Echinacea too. I have a few books at home (live very close to a great library :-) ) and so far the only warning I've found about Echinacea is not to use it if you have an auto-immune disorder. Echinacea is included in many supplements here so will call a Naturopath to find out how often we should be using it. I know some things can stimulate your immune system if used short term but will start to supress it if used for too long.
I use tea tree oil frequently and will try putting some on a mask for the kiddos today. Pretty sure I will have no luck whatsoever with getting a lemon/honey/garlic syrup into them. :-/ On the NDN board that you host I noticed that you (pretty sure it was you) said crushed garlic mixed with some olive oil can be absorbed dermally through the feet. How exactly does that work? My husband was horrified when I told him I might try it on the kids but, hey, if it works... :-)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Hippie Lady at the Organic Food Store
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 10:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm tickled pink that you would be suspicious of vaccines that have been developed, tested, and approved by the governement, and yet be so willing to rely on natural herbs like ehinacea, tea-tree oil and goldenseal, on which no testing has been done! Never mind that, we know that the ancestral wisdom is sound. But I would like to point out one very important thing you seem to be missing out on: Cherokee-hair tampons! Made from real Cherokee hair! They're so much better than all those artificial cotton and poly-fiber blended ones. Plus, an independent study of 2 Cherokee women showed that their hair was 1.5 times as absorbent as the leading hair-based tampon (which, we've been told, contain mexican hair!!). Blessed be!(reply to this comment) |
| | From porceleindoll
Friday, September 17, 2004, 14:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, it kind of tickles me pink too. But actually, just because the government hasn't done any testing on herbs it doesn't mean it hasn't been done.
Also, in other countries, such as Germany, France, China, holistic healing is very much a part of the culture, and even covered by insurance. Doctors offer both allopathic and alternative methods. Aromatherapy is very accepted, a herbal approach. I read that the Chinese view modern medicine as the quack because Chinese medicine has been around for 4,000 years and has been proved to work, whereas modern medicine has been around for a lot less, just a hundred or 2, and there have been many flaws in it.
I am not saying that to disprove modern medicine, I believe in the miracle of it, but I just don't run to it at the first sign of illness. I have visited the doctor on several occasions, at least to find out what's wrong, and I also tell many people to first get a check up, find out what's wrong, then research and make your choice as to how to go about healing.
I might have a few qualms about using a tampon made from women's hair though.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From moon beam
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 04:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was never vacinated as a child and certainly due to ubber hygenic conditions in which we lived in India, I remained fine. Though when I had the opportunity I did get done. I also felt fine allowing my son to recieve them as he progressed through school. There was a few years back an option for parents to give their children the MMR jab in single shots rather then the three together, after some research stated that it gave better results. (I'm not sure if it was available other than in the UK.) I agree that supplements are important especially when eating less then fresh foods. I have read a few times that things like st Johns wart and echinacea shouldn't be taken everyday over a long period of time,or from too young an age. Instead it should be taken 1mth on, 3mths off, due to the fact that they don't allow the body to form it's natural immunity, but I've never heard this about vaccinations. Tea tree is good for hair lice. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 19:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
German Measles (aka Rubella) is not that okay to go through. I know of three FGA females who were not immunized and later contracted this as teenagers during pregnancy. Rubella can damage the child you are carrying and in all three cases their disease resulted in brain damage in their baby.
Mumps, if a child is not vaccinated and reaches adulthood without having had the illness, can result in sterilization in men if they contract it. My father nearly died from this in his early 20’s (it did not effect his reproductive ability, which the jury is still out on as to whether this was good luck in his case).
Chickenpox can cause severe scarring in the skin of children if they have a severe case.
I don't know who your doctor is but if they said: "if one sibling has it, the rest of the siblings receive immunization just through exposure", that is simply not true. All my siblings contacted three certain childhood illnesses as children except me, and I caught them much later and much more severely.
You said "in order for a vaccination to be effective you have to keep getting booster shots". From everything I know, this is simply not true. For many childhood illnesses, a single shot is enough. For other vaccines such as tetanus and pertussistetanus and pertussis, the booster shot is a good idea.
Just because something grosses you out, doesn't mean it is not effective or medically sound.
Supplementing with vitamins is a good thing. Trusting the vitamins to protect your child against deadly viruses is not a good thing. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From porceleindoll
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 16:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I obviously didn't clarify that these illnesses are easier to endure and generally mild in childhood, but contracting them as a teen or older can have negative and even deadly side-effects.
But this is the responsibility of the parents and individuals involved, which is why getting shots or not is such a personal choice. I wonder if these girls had been informed and realised what could happen to their unborn child if they contracted GM during pregnancy, if their parents had passed on the knowledge and responsibility to them? If not, then this is the fault of the parents for not educating nor giving their child the right to choose when they turned adult, or even informing their child of the situation so their child would know of the dangers involved in case they were to contract the disease.
I also wonder if your father had been vaccinated against mumps or not? I am assuming not, which I also wonder as to why, because he didn't grow up in a cult and so was part of established society as a child. Did he realise the potential dangers of not being vaccinated and did he take proper care of himself and keep an eye out for the possiblity of coming in contact with mumps?
As for the length of how long a shot lasts, almost every place I have read so far about DPT, Hep, and smallpox vaccinations, they say the vaccination gives protection for 5-10 years and then must be redone every 10 years in order to keep protection up. I haven't yet looked into whooping cough, GM, chicken pox and others.
No, it's not a good idea to base your decision solely on the ingredients found in a shot. I personally prefer not to inject those types of substances into my body, just as I prefer not to eat sausage because it's mostly made up of garbage, etc. But a decision as to whether or not you should go through with vaccination should be based on a lot more than the ingredients.
As to receiving immunization just from contact with a disease, I'm sorry I didn't clarify this, the doctor said he has seen it happen in cases of mumps and siblings, he didn't say it happens in every instance in every disease. I cannot verify that my two younger kids have a natural immunity to the disease because I did not get a blood test for them.
But I think the idea makes sense in that a vaccination does the same thing, basically injecting a small amount of the virus into the body so that the body will react to it and form antibodies against it. I didn't research into his statement, but now I am interested in doing so and finding out if there is any information supporting it.
Supplementing with vitamins is a good thing, but it can't be the only thing you do, perhaps I didn't make that clear. A parent must research, read, and be informed about diseases. A parent must know how to react to an outbreak in the area, or school, a parent must know how to treat their child if they were to come down with an illness, and a parent must pass that education on to their child if they choose not to vaccinate so that their child can make their own choice when they become older, which is what I will do with my children.
But I personally cannot underestimate the medicinal power of both vitamins and herbs. It can't be a random shot-in-the-dark thing. Prevention is the best cure, and there is a lot you can do to build up the body beforehand so that in the event of a viral attack you will have stronger defenses to fight against it. You don't have to go through a deadly disease and suffer severe side-effects.
I myself have been fully vaccinated, and I admire my mother for doing this, simply because she stood up against the cult and did what she felt was right for her children despite the judgement and criticism she would receive. I have chosen not to vaccinate my children, but as they grow older they will be aware of this and I will ask them if they would rather be vaccinated and if so, I will take them to the clinic and get it done. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Blondie_B78
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 17:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Regarding aquiring passive immunity through contact with a disease. Women in NZ are routinely tested for Rubella (GM) at the beginning of a pregnancy. When pregnant with my first I tested negative for immunity. My baby was 6mths old when she came down with it. I didn't catch it (or did but it was so mild I didn't notice) but when tested for immunity during my 2nd and 3rd pregnancies I tested positive for immunity and had good levels of anti-bodies. I have always assumed that I aquired passive immunity through close contact with baby when she had the disease. ?? When my daughters reach adolesence I will have them both tested for Rubella and if they have no natural immunity will talk to them about vaccination.
Vaccine-induced immunity to Whooping Cough (Pertussis) wanes after about 5yrs. Whooping Cough is nasty but particularly dangerous in children less than 12mths old. I have a newborn and Spring is just starting (generally Spring and Summer are the seasons for Whooping Cough) so I have to be extra careful.
I'm not sure about the Chicken Pox vaccine. It's not routinely offered here so have never really looked into it. Chicken Pox is generally mild in children. It is another one that is best if women get before child-bearing age as if caught late in pregnancy can be dangerous for the baby - especially if a woman has it when she delivers. (reply to this comment) |
| | From porceleindoll
Friday, September 17, 2004, 14:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
I just read that German Measles is often really mild, so mild that you may not even realise you had it when in reality you did. I also have read that many cases of whooping cough (I forgot the percentage, but it was a sizeable number) are found in kids who have been vaccinated against it. But yes, whooping cough is esp. dangerous for younger children. Funny thing is that the vaccine is also especially dangerous for younger children. I read (this is not verified but is a speculation) that many more SIDS may be linked to the vaccination for whooping cough (I'm pretty sure it was that vaccination anyway).
I will probably do the same with my girls, as well as my son. Actually, when they get older I'll talk with them about what they want to do in regards to immunization.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Blondie_B78
Friday, September 17, 2004, 15:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Was surfing a site today with an interesting fact sheet on Whooping Cough - both the disease and the vaccine. It spelled out the risks of both clearly and I thought it was quite balanced. If ur interested the link is - WWW.909shot.com
A lot of "anti-vaccination" sites play down the risks of the actual disease and focus on proving that vaccines are unsafe much the same way as many medical sites hype up the risks of childhood diseases (talking about childhood diseases here not Polio etc.) in order to get parents to vaccinate. I'm sure both sides are well meaning. If you lost a child to an adverse reaction to a vaccine you would want to do everything in your power to make sure it didn't happen to another child just as you would if you lost your child to complications from a childhood disease. Because it is such an emotionally charged issue it takes a while to sift through everything and come to some semblance of an informed decision. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from Someone
Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 16:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have not been vaccinated, no shock there. Going to college in the US, I have been able to trick the system so far. But my graduate university is very strict about all the paperwork. You have to have proof of the disease, or proof of vaccination. I have not decided what to do yet. I've had every disease except polio, scarlet fever. Small pox is no longer a required vaccination, so I've excluded that.
It's not that I am against vaccinations, it's just that I don't want to be vaccinated for something I've already had. But of course being an exer, I have no proof of disease. It's really quite frustrating.
As for my children, I will definitely vaccinate them for everything except chicken pox. I am completely against the chicken pox virus vaccination. It's a relatively harmless disease, and once you get it, you're pretty vaccinated. The reason I'm against the vaccination is because everyone I know who received the vaccination as a child, got a very severe case of shingles as a teenager or adult. In some cases they had shingles more than once. Everyone I know who got the actual disease as a child has not yet gotten shingles. I know that doesn't really count as a scientific study, but several doctors I know agree with me that the vaccination not important like the others.
I don't know if people really realize how many children in TF died from measles. It was usually brushed off as something else.
(reply to this comment)
| From -
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 10:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
You don't have be vaccinated for something you already had to "prove" you are immune. You can take a titer (I think that's what it's called) to see if you have the antibodies in your blood. It's much better to do it this way for "proof" if you know you had the disease. I was not sure if I had had Rubella, so I had one done b/c my doctor warned me about the extreme dangers of contracting it during pregancy.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Scarlet Fever
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 04:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just a note on this disease - both my sister and I (along with about a hundred other kids, teens and young adults) contracted Scarlet Fever during my final months in the clut. Due to the close quarters we shared, the fever spread to almost every person under age 20 in the house.
Due to contracting this disease, unbeknownst to any of us (the first kid -a boy - was diagnosed, and so then the home decided that since they knew what it was they wouldn't "waste" our doctor contact on the rest of us) many of the females (I haven't been in contact with any males) have reproductive issues.
My daughter was born with a muscle disorder, and when her neurologists struggled to figure the cause and extensively interviewed me about my health history it all came clear -- I'd had Scarlet Fever!!
Since then, my sister has learned that she is unable to have children due to this sickness as well. (reply to this comment) |
| | From
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 09:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ah, i remember when a bunch of kids in the BTC caught Scarlet Fever... they thot i had it for a while but turned out i escaped. I remember hearing that the homes doctor contact said that if they didnt give them proper antibiotics he would report them to the authorities or something... for medical neglect. (reply to this comment) |
| | From venus_fly_trap
Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 18:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Be careful to read what the shot has in it. Some have very high levels of mercury and can cause some serious side effects such as autism. Although, this is not a finished study there has been shown a connection between the two. Not all children are affected by this. But the mercury levels in certain shots are very high. I work in a field with children suffering from certain types of autism and many point to vaccinations. Read and beware. Do an internet search. Good luck.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Blondie_B78
Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 17:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Couldn't you have a blood test to see which diseases you have immunity too?
About children in TF dying from measles, this is the first I've heard about it but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if there were. People died in TF from things they didn't need to due to lack of medical attention & common sense. Childhood diseases can have complications even though these are fairly rare. When they do occur prompt medical treatment is essential. My son had measles shortly after his 1st birthday. It was diagnosed by our doctor and, even though it was a mild case, I kept a good eye on him and would have taken him to the doc again at the first sign of any complications. (reply to this comment) |
| | from Nick
Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 08:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am a father and when my son was first born we struggled with the decision of vaccination based on some still lingering hang-ups from the group. (All based on no real theory other than “Grandpa said it’s bad”)
We did in the end get him vaccinated and now that I am a little more educated on the subject I am very glad that I did.
For a start the US and other developed nations are a much safer place today because of immunizations for dieses like smallpox and polio that used to wipe out children faster than HIV kills today. Because if immunizations we have all but wiped out some of the most feared killers of children 60 or 70 years ago. Look at countries that do not have standard immunization and look at the huge percentages of children dying from preventable dieses because of the lack of a simple shot.
The chances of your child contracting the disease from the immunization shot is lower than if they were to contract it in a school full of un-immunized children.
Although I do agree that the parent is the sole person responsible for the Childs welfare and health decisions, I do see and support the logic of the school system in not allowing a un-immunized child to attend school with my immunized child.
(reply to this comment)
| From porceleindoll
Friday, September 17, 2004, 14:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, I've read contradicting reports, that polio and smallpox were on the decline already before the immunizations were given out. I also read that a virus was transmitted to the nation through the polio vaccination (I believe it was the polio one), and while no final conclusion has been made on it, many doctors think the virus is linked to cancer, brain tumors, and other menacing diseases. I'll find the report and post the link.
Kids in other countries (you are probably thinking of Africa) are dying more from lack of a healthy diet and food than a shot. In those cases, where children cannot be brought up with the necessary conditions to ensure their good health, I think a vaccination should be administered. But even then, I've read stuff on pro-vaccination sites that says vaccines should be administered to already healthy kids, less chance of side-effects. How many reports are done on the side-effects and deaths caused by vaccinations done on children in Africa for instance. Probably not many.(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 17:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have no finalised take on this subject, if anything I am leaning much more to being for it, but I do hate the lack of logic in the following statement by Nick:
"I do see and support the logic of the school system in not allowing a un-immunized child to attend school with my immunized child. "
If immunizations work there is no danger to an immunized child from one not immunized!! They are either protected from the disease by the vaccination or it was pointless!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 08:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just because my child is immunized and has a higher and almost immune body to the disease that doesn't mean I want him running around with the carrier of it.
Also there are a lot of diseases that a child may not contract because of the immunization but that doesn’t stop him from being a temporary carrier and passing it on to others like myself or his mother. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Blondie_B78
Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 15:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was still in TF when my first child was born so, as embarrasing as it is to admit, my intial thoughts about vaccination were influenced by "Grandpa said it was bad" too. The midwife who cared for me throughout my pregnancy and until my baby was 6wks old was into Holistic medicine etc. and due to some negative personal experiences with conventional medicine told me about some of the risks of routine vaccination and other conventional treatments given to mothers and newborns. So that was what made me want to research the topic more.
When my daughter was nearly 6wks old I met a lady at the park whose friends baby had just died (SIDS) the day after being given the 6wk shots. This wasn't the first time I had heard of the possible connection between SIDS and vaccines so I decided to hold on vaccinating and investigate it more. I'm not saying that SIDS is caused by vaccines but it seems that there is considerable evidence that vaccines can be a trigger - kind of like the straw that breaks the camels back.
I've continued to read and research both sides of this debate on and off over the past five years and still am not comfortable enough with vaccines to feel safe about offering them to my kids.
You mentioned that "the US and other developed nations are a much safer place today because of immunizations for dieses like smallpox and polio that used to wipe out children faster than HIV kills today".
While it's possible that vaccination programs helped to cut back on these disease rates further many people in the medical community will admit that they were already in steep decline prior to mass vaccination. It makes me wonder how we know that the further decline (in developed countries) was solely due to vaccination or due to a better standard of living.
".....vaccine proponents would have us believe that vaccines have been largely responsible for controlling virtually all of the former epidemics of killer diseases in the U.S. With the exceptions cited above, the facts do not bear this out. According to the records of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, from 1911 to 1935 the four leading causes of childhood deaths from infectious diseases in the U.S. were diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945 the combined death rates from these causes had declined by 95 percent, before the implementation of mass immunization programs.(1) By far the greatest factors in this decline were sanitation through public health measures, improved nutrition, better housing with less crowded conditions and the introduction of antibiotics. Also, the virulence of microorganisms tends to become weakened or attenuated with the passage of time and serial passages through human hosts.(2) -
Dr. Buttram is a diplomat of the American Board of Environmental Medicine and a practicing physician in Quakertown, Pennsylvania. E-mail: hbuttram@woodmed.com"
There are similar statistics for other developed countries - ie. UK, Australia, New Zealand etc.
Fortunately for people like me the school system in NZ makes allowances for non-immunized children. My daughter started school this year and I just had to present a certificate from our GP explained that we had opted not to immunize. I don't feel that I am endangering other children at the school at all. The majority of them are immunized so assuming the the vaccines do offer immunity they should not catch anything from my daughter. She, on the other hand, can still catch some "vaccine preventable"diseases from them as there are some things you can be vaccinated for (thus hopefully having some immunity) but still carry.(reply to this comment) |
| | from Big Sister
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 23:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
My brother-in-law and my sister-in-law were both 25 years old with a one year old baby when they both contracted polio, a highly contagious sometimes fatal disease with no vaccine and no cure. They were hospitalized and quarantined for one year during which time their baby saw them smiling at him through the window from the hospital's third floor. (Baby was cared for by grandparents) When they were "well" they were both permanently disabled: my brother in law walked with braces and my sister in law had lost her ability to speak. A year later, a vaccine for polio was produced; too late for them to be vaccinated but not too late for their child. It was 1955.
Today, polio has completely disappeared from developing countries and world wide eradication is expected by 2005. I think we are forgetting how ghastly many of those almost extinct diseases were, and recently too. Not to say we should all just do as we are told, blindly, without research or understanding of risks and benefits. I myself found a great doctor (who, after all, I pay to advise me on all the stuff she knows expertly, and I do not) and followed her wise counsel. We vaccinated our children for everything except chickenpox, which they got "naturally".
As for my brother and sister-in-law, they lived happily ever after. Although he is still on crutches and she has almost no voice, and although they still suffer from post-polio syndrome, they both became university professors, published authors and had two very successful grown children and a happy marriage.
(reply to this comment)
| From Blondie_B78
Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 01:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
I hear what you are saying about some of these terrible diseases (polio being one of them). I am not totally "anti-vaccination" - in some cases and areas it is necessary - but am more for research and risk assesment. While there have been no cases of polio caused by a "wild virus" in my country (there was a case a couple years back where a mother caught Polio after her baby was given the vaccine)we do have a very high rate of Bacterial Meningitis which is an incredibly nasty disease with a high mortality rate, particularly amongst young children. A vaccine has just been developed for our particular strain and, although it's total effectiveness is still unknown, my hubby and I are considering giving it to our kids when it becomes available. I consider conventional vaccination a last resort ie. I would definitely vaccinate if there was a Small Pox (or Polio) epidemic in my city. There are alternatives to vaccination though that are effective, much safer and gentler on the body. Then there is also a lot that you can do to mantain and boost your immune system so that it's operating at it's peak.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Blondie_B78
Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 17:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
"The reason your children have such a low risk of contracting these diseases is because of vaccines in the first place. The reason many of the more harmful and lethal diseases are currently eradicated is because of the existance of such vaccines."
I think the above statements are debatable. As I posted earlier, in developed countries "vaccine preventable" diseases were in steep decline before mass vaccination programs probably due to a better standard of living, hygiene, nutrition etc.
The reason I choose not to vaccinate is because I am not convinced it is "the best and safest way to protect my children". I have concerns about the potential long term side effects of vaccines some of which are: auto-immune disorders, allergies, ADD, autism, SIDS (in infants), neurological disorders etc. There are an increasing number of medical professionals who are questioning the safety and neccesity of vaccines and in many countries vaccination is no longer compulsory. A lot more study and research is needed in this area. Until then I think parents have to carefully asses the risks and "choose their poison". Most of the big baddies are non-existant in NZ and I would prefer to risk my child getting mumps or measles now than getting something more serious in later life either caused directly by the vaccine or by the vaccine compromising their immune system. If I was to move to Africa or India the risks would be different and I might act differently.
It is always a possiblity that we could once again experience epidemics of old diseases like Polio and that due to mutation the Pathogen will no longer respond to the current vaccine. If that is the case though I imagine that we will all be at risk - vaccinated or unvaccinated - as it is unlikely the old vaccine will offer protection against a mutated disease. (reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 07:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
As someone who administered thousands of doses of the controversial Anthrax vaccine to servicemen in Korea, I will tell you what I told them: "Shut up and take the shot because Uncle Sam told you to!" :-P
Seriously though, you are a little too caught up in the "Fuck the Man" type of conspiracy theories that The Family perpetuates. If you actually objectively evaluated the statistics regarding disease and immunization you would almost certainly decide to immunize. Hiding behind vague statements like, "A lot more study and research is needed in this area" doesn't make your logic any stronger and really only serves as a smoke screen for your ideology and paranoia driven decisions. While there are in fact times to the tell The Man to go fuck himself, I don't think that vaccination time is one of them.
Oh and BTW, when the shit hits the fan and the civilized world is attacked with Anthrax, I will be one of the few left standing.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Blondie_B78
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 14:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Man, I'm so glad ur not my practice nurse. :-) I agree that my logic is far from rock solid. That's because there is still A LOT about the subject that I don't know and one of the reasons I find it helpful to research and discuss it with other people (both professionals and parents).
Was watching Dr Phil the other day (I'm normally not a Stay-at-home-mom but had a baby last week so got a bit more time on my hands than usual) and he said that "fear is a big influence in most of our decisions". I agree. Fear is definitely a big factor in my decision to not vaccinate at this point. In saying that, I want to make the best choice for my kids so will continue to research it. Am planning on taking up midwifery within the next couple years. The training required in NZ is much the same as Nursing so perhaps that will give me a different perspective on the issue - or not. We'll see. (reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 18:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
While I admire your attempt at chosing what you think is best for your kids, once again, your logic leaves much to be desired. If you knew anything about the medical field you'd know that hardly anything has as much global research behind it as vaccination. Vaccination is the number one reason for the eradication of most diseases and has been a true triumph of modern science and tecnology.
Since vaccines were first introduced, we have had generations to observe any of the "long term side effects" you are so worried about. They have been found to be absent or insignificant for the most part. The risk of not vaccinating your children is far greater and potentially more devastating than the risk of vaccinating them.
Better hygene and sanitation has mostly impacted diseases in which water is the vector. There are generally no vaccines for these diseases since they tend to be bacterial rather than viral. Just look at cholera or diptheria rates in the third world vs. developed countries. There is nothing proven more effective for diseases in which humans or animals are the vectors than vaccinations.
As far as pathogen mutations go, by eliminating or reducing possible vectors (ie. us by "arming" our immune systems) we eliminate the habitat for the organism, thus eliminating its replication. The greater access a pathogen population has to hosts or vectors, the greater the chance it will mutate. It's pretty simple really, nowhere to live...nowhere to reproduce...fewer mutations to pass on to the population because the population has been dramatically reduced. (I'm not talking about anti-biotics here as the opposite can often be true in that case).
Again, I think it's great that you are a concerned parent I just think that your concern is somewhat misguided. There are many other risks to your children's health that are far more serious than vaccination. Choose what you stress about otherwise you'll drive yourself crazy!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From porceleindoll
Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 18:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just a comment on your point about the global research done on vaccination:
You have to ask yourself in many cases of research exactly who is funding and paying or doing the research? I've read articles on this as well pointing to the research being funded by the vaccination companies themselves, as well as immunizations being pushed through that weren't properly researched or even tested, simply because of lobbying and politics.
If the research is done independently with no (especially financial) connections to the companies who will be producing the vaccination, then it can be trusted. But if there are (esp. financial) connections to the pharmaceutical industry, then the research must be taken into question as to objectivity.
Why isn't dandelion sold as a medicine and is only found on the supplement shelf? Because a medical company cannot control the production and marketing of dandelion, therefore they wouldn't make a profit from a natural herb that has many positive benefits and healing properties.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Blondie_B78
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 14:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Research funded by the Pharmaceutical industry does raise some ethical questions. I'm not suggesting that Pharmaceutical companies are churning out pure poison with no regard for consequences or human life etc. That wouldn't make sense as they would go out of business. It just makes you wonder if they cut corners to save money or deem certain things to be an "acceptable risk" that independant research would find unacceptable. ?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From frmrjoyish
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 08:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're definitely right about money playing a huge factor in what gets researched and what doesn't. That's life! However, it is in the drug companies best interest to make sure that they put a safe product out there. Nevermind the ridiculous pricing policies of US drug companies (don't even get me started on that) but overall drugs are expensive because they are hard to produce. They invest decades and millions of dollars in a new drug and all that can be wiped out with one death from their product or one lawsuit. The results of such research are thouroughly investigated by various government agencies and dangerous or ineffective drugs that may slip through the cracks are recalled regularly. A drug company does not have free reign to market and distribute a drug at will. No system is perfect but western medicine, esp. vaccinaitons, plays a huge role in the increased quality of life as well as in doubling the average life expectancy.
As far as herbs and botanicals go, there are many herbs that are used for medicine originated from or are still growing wild. Plant compounds and extracts are still essential ingredients in a majority of drugs despite new techniques for artificial synthesis (another reason to maintain healthy ecosystems). In fact, over 80% of the world medicates themselves using what we in the west would call "holistic" medicine. Dandilion may be underused, but there are countless other plants and herbs that make up the backbone of our global medicine cabinets.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From exister
Thursday, September 16, 2004, 14:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
In certain aspects "developed" is a misnomer when applied to the US.
Slightly on topic, I know you'll get a kick out of this one.
Bush: OB-GYNs Kept from 'Practicing Their Love'
Tue Sep 7, 2004 09:27 AM ET
POPLAR BLUFF, Mo. (Reuters) - President Bush offered an unexpected reason on Monday for cracking down on frivolous medical lawsuits: "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
The Republican president, long known for verbal and grammatical lapses, included the anecdote about obstetrician gynecologists in his stump speech attacking Democratic presidential rival Sen. John Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, a former trial lawyer.
At a rally of cheering supporters in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Bush made his usual pitch for limiting "frivolous lawsuits" that he said drive up the cost of health care and run doctors out of business.
But then he added, "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
Unfazed, Bush went on to deride his rivals as "pro-trial lawyer," and concluded, "I think you've got to make a choice. My opponent made his choice, and he put him on the ticket. I made my choice. I'm for medical liability reform now."(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 19:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
This way lies madness.
I suppose I am biased since I work in a paediatric hospital and research facility. I am a programmer, not a researcher or health care professional. However, I can tell you that the people I know and work with care deeply about the well being of children. Yes pharmacuetical companies do make a great deal of money off the products they sell, but these products also undergo an incredible amount of screening, testing and are subject to a very strict level of testing before they ever hit the market.
Vaccinations are not Thalidomide or Fen Phen. Children are frequently over medicated sometimes, but this is also not Ritalin or any other drug. What usually happens is that children are injected with a dead or benign form of the virus, in some sort of carrier (for the flu vaccination, it is egg yolk). This provokes a reaction from their own natural antibodies, which then immunizes them naturally against the disease.
If you are willing to let them contract this on their own to immunize them, why not ensure that they get a mild dose of the virus when they are young, rather than contacting a severe case when they are older and when there may be many more complications. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]