Vaccine Nation - A documentary on the danger of vaccines

[shesulsa]

I fear we are going to soon have a generation of children who start dying of measles, mumps etc. at an accelerated rate. The reason reason they have become so rare in the first place is due to vaccination. What would parents prefer a scientifically proven risk of death by measles by refusing vaccination or the anecdotal Autisim risk?

MOST autie parents I know are for safe immunization for their children.

My yet-to-be-acknowledged statement: I want my children to be safely vaccinated. Having watched my son seize and become ill following two rounds of vaccination, I pleaded for years for an immunologist or allergist to test my children to find out what my son (ergo, my daughter and possibly me) react to so we can avoid what we can't have and get what we can.

We have repeatedly received deaf ears, turned out with threats of calling CPS because I'm endangering my children and others as well.

How dare they? I *want* my children to be safe. Do you really think I want my kids - or any other sane, educated parent would want their kids - to die from measles, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, etcetera? Oh yes, we're all virus nazis who want to kill all the little children. :barf:

Here's hoping you *actually* *read* my *whole* post instead of dismissing what I wrote to "there's that whacky chick posting anti-vac nonsense again."

 

[shesulsa]

And let's just say it one more time, since no one wants to acknowledge this either ...

The vaccine companies testified before congress that they could not definitively state that vaccines do not cause "autism."

The vaccine companies said it.

 

[Archangel M]

What sort of "proof of safety" will be accepted?

If a company flatly states "this shot WILL NEVER cause Autism" they are opening themselves for HUGE possible liability (can we prove that global warming is man made?)..all they know is that the studies say it doesn't. Can you prove that baby food doesnt cause Autism? Never has never will? Of course they would say that...

The thimerosal debacle exacerbated this tendency, particularly when the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service issued a poorly worded statement in 1999 that said “current levels of thimerosal will not hurt children, but reducing those levels will make safe vaccines even safer.” In other words, there’s no scientific evidence whatsoever, but you never know.

“When science came out and said, ‘Uh-oh, there may be a risk,’ the stage was already set,” Kaufman says, noting that many parents felt it was irresponsible not to have doubts. “It was Pandora’s box.”

The result is that science must somehow prove a negative — that vaccines don’t cause autism — which is not how science typically works. Edward Jenner invented vaccination in 1796 with his smallpox inoculation; it would be 100 years before science, such as it was, understood why the vaccine worked, and it would be even longer before the specific cause of smallpox could be singled out. Until the cause of autism is discovered, scientists can establish only that vaccines are safe — and that threshold has already been met.

 

[Archangel M]

While I am no statistician, I would think that the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have been given with this preservative and the fact that autism hasn’t statistically grown or shown to be in parallel with the number of vaccinations given would be some form of evidence that the shot cant be shown to be the culprit. Especially since this presertive is no longer used in many vaccinations yet autism hasnt declined but is still consistant relative to vaccination with the preservative removed.

 

[shesulsa]

Look - the devil is in the details.

Again - there is no baseline to compare to prior to vaccination.

We don't even know what autism *is* let alone what it could be caused by, but we know what it mimmicks.

If you approach an animal and it lowers its tail, bares its teeth and backs away from you, what could you glean from that experience? Most likely that either the dog really doesn't like you (or something on you) or that the dog has had some kind of bad experience with a human like you before.

Hardly scientific, but fairly reliable.

If you vomit and get diarrhea immediately after consuming dairy products you're likely intolerant of or allergic to dairy - that or it could be a bad batch or maybe you've reached your lifetime dairy quotient.

Not a controlled, double-blind study conducted by independent researchers with no stake in the dairy industry, but a damn fine guess.

Let's look at it this way. You're a grown man. If you went to the doctor's office to get a tetanus shot, sat down, rolled up the sleeve, felt the needle go in and the next thing you know, you wake up on a respirator with your wife staring at you with tears running down her cheeks, you're burning up, everything sounds like it's either too far away or too close to be understood, you see everything in bubble-vision and you can't stand the feel of the socks on your feet or the ants on your skin (are there ants there?) and you can't keep focus even for two seconds, your pulse echoes in your head until you feel like you're going to go insane, and it keeps happening day after day after day ....

What exactly would you think?

Now ... let's say you recover, go home and feel a little weak and like you just can't shake off the whole experience when you find out you have to go back to the doctor for another shot. So you go, get the shot and guess what? Same thing happens again.

What exactly would you think then?

 

[shesulsa]

While I am no statistician, I would think that the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have been given with this preservative and the fact that autism hasn’t statistically grown or shown to be in parallel with the number of vaccinations given would be some form of evidence that the shot cant be shown to be the culprit. Especially since this presertive is no longer used in many vaccinations yet autism hasnt declined but is still flat relative to vaccination.

Watch the movie, Arch.

 

[shesulsa]

While I am no statistician, I would think that the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have been given with this preservative and the fact that autism hasn’t statistically grown or shown to be in parallel with the number of vaccinations given would be some form of evidence that the shot cant be shown to be the culprit. Especially since this presertive is no longer used in many vaccinations yet autism hasnt declined but is still consistant relative to vaccination with the preservative removed.

Thimersol is not the only toxin in vaccinations.

Did you know some vaccines are grown on aborted fetuses? Oh yes.

 

[Archangel M]

The risk:

The research was published in February 1998 in an article in The Lancet medical journal. It claimed that the families of eight out of 12 children attending a routine clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR for their autism, and said that problems came on within days of the jab.

...

Despite involving just a dozen children, the 1998 paper’s impact was extraordinary. After its publication, rates of inoculation fell from 92% to below 80%. Populations acquire “herd immunity” from measles when more than 95% of people have been vaccinated.

Last week official figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared with 56 in 1998. Two children have died of the disease.

And as fewer people get immunized, our herd immunity is placed at risk. So if my kids shot didnt "take" she is at higher risk because all the other people on whom it would have "taken" are now circulating around a DEADLY disease that we once had under control.

 

[Archangel M]

Thimersol is not the only toxin in vaccinations.

Did you know some vaccines are grown on aborted fetuses? Oh yes.

Methinks that people who want to see "toxins" in shots will see toxins in any formulation of a vaccination.

 

[Bruno@MT]

But I'm sure I should just sit down and shut up, even if the vaccine manufacturer DID testify in front of congress that they cannot say with certainty that vaccines don't cause autism.

They also cannot say with certainty that you will not be trampled by pink elephants in a tutu 24 hours after taking the vaccine.

It all depends on how the question is asked.

 

[shesulsa]

They also cannot say with certainty that you will not be trampled by pink elephants in a tutu 24 hours after taking the vaccine.

It all depends on how the question is asked.

Watch the movie (not all of which I agree with, btw), and see how you think the question is asked.

 

[Bruno@MT]

My yet-to-be-acknowledged statement: I want my children to be safely vaccinated. Having watched my son seize and become ill following two rounds of vaccination, I pleaded for years for an immunologist or allergist to test my children to find out what my son (ergo, my daughter and possibly me) react to so we can avoid what we can't have and get what we can.

Sorry if I ask a silly question. This is probably a misunderstanding on my part, but can't you just visit an immunologist and an allergist to see if you can find out what the problem is?

 

[shesulsa]

Sorry if I ask a silly question. This is probably a misunderstanding on my part, but can't you just visit an immunologist and an allergist to see if you can find out what the problem is?

Scroll up, dude.

Finding someone to do this today will be easier than it was when he was a child, but I'll have to travel to do it. I just received info for a doc at UW up by Seattle. I think there's another good one in Arizona and another in Texas, but I need their details.

 

[bluekey88]

Sorry if I ask a silly question. This is probably a misunderstanding on my part, but can't you just visit an immunologist and an allergist to see if you can find out what the problem is?

There is also the issue of insurance. A lot of this stuff isn't necessarily covered under normal plans...may be out of network and/or out of pocket. VERY expensive. Also, hard to find competent doctors to do the work as Shesulsa has pointed out.

 

[shesulsa]

There is also the issue of insurance. A lot of this stuff isn't necessarily covered under normal plans...may be out of network and/or out of pocket. VERY expensive. Also, hard to find competent doctors to do the work as Shesulsa has pointed out.

The local docs here who fleetingly considered broad-spectrum testing the three of us asked us if our insurance would pay for it. When we said we didn't know but that if insurance didn't we gladly would, that still was not enough.

 

[jks9199]

Looking at who paid for a study is a very valid part of critically assessing the study. After all, if someone's got a stake in selling a product, there's a damn good chance that they're going to find that it works/addresses the problem.

Autism is a very complex disorder, with a wide range of presentations. In some ways, it's almost a "we don't know what else to call it, so we'll label it" disorder. Because of this, it's very difficult to point to any one cause & effect relationship in autism.

Immunization is not 100% safe. It's pretty much an empiracally developed treatment method... and I'll agree that there's lots we don't know about the human immune system and how it works. But it's also not 100% safe to walk out the door each day. So far, for me, I'm generally a fan of innoculation. To me, the arguments are still in favor of it for myself and my son. I won't make the mistake I did this year again, and get two innoculations in a week without at least discussing it with the doctors, because I think that led to me getting sick...

 

[Makalakumu]

It would be enough for me if people acknowledged the risks involved, did what they could to minimize them, and vaccinated when appropriate. That doesn't happen because there is an attitude out there that presents these things as completely safe for everyone. That isn't the case.

I see where the attitude comes from. From the public health side, one wants to see as many people vaccinated as possible, so the misrepresentation persists. From the business side, the drug companies want to sell as many doses as they can to vaccinate as many people as possible, so the attitude persists.

With the revolving door of drug execs going into and out of government this unified purpose pretty much guides the research being done into these matters.

Imagine if a study showed that various immunologic side effects in a small amount of people would portray itself like autism when certain vaccines were administered? Even if the risks were very low, people would be scared ********.

 

[Xinglu]

I find it frustrating how (to some posters here at least) science is the final arbitrator on issues like global warming but it's a governmental/big pharma conspiracy when it's an issue like this. :shrug:

No conspiracy. It's all about the money. Pharmaceuticals and vaccinations make billions of dollars anything that threatens that is fought tooth and nail, even if it is valid and true.

 

[shesulsa]

It would be enough for me if people acknowledged the risks involved, did what they could to minimize them, and vaccinated when appropriate. That doesn't happen because there is an attitude out there that presents these things as completely safe for everyone. That isn't the case.

I see where the attitude comes from. From the public health side, one wants to see as many people vaccinated as possible, so the misrepresentation persists. From the business side, the drug companies want to sell as many doses as they can to vaccinate as many people as possible, so the attitude persists.

With the revolving door of drug execs going into and out of government this unified purpose pretty much guides the research being done into these matters.

Imagine if a study showed that various immunologic side effects in a small amount of people would portray itself like autism when certain vaccines were administered? Even if the risks were very low, people would be scared ********.

I'd be a little happier if they would just *acknowledge* they've been doing wrong...

... and if doctor's would *acknowledge* the fact that some children (and adults, even) are harmed by some vaccinations.

I'd be even happier if they addressed the medical needs of those harmed by vaccination.

I'd be happier than THAT if insurance companies would pay for the treatment of these problems.

I'd be peachy if we developed baseline testing for every infant and deliver it prior to any and all inoculation.

 

[Archangel M]

No conspiracy. It's all about the money. Pharmaceuticals and vaccinations make billions of dollars anything that threatens that is fought tooth and nail, even if it is valid and true.

Theres money behind every politically charged scientific issue.