Vaccines again...,

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Conan The Usurper
Ok, let’s get down to brass tacks. Are unvaccinated children really healthier?

Here are the stats:

Stats? LOL it was a survey done by an antivaxx site with antivaxx famillies. They do not show where the data about vaccinated children comes from, no references, no evidence to back up the numbers they use as real data (which is not, all made up, hence no links to anything). This from the authors of the survey:

NOTE:The results presented here are not a formal study rather an informal piece of personal research.

Please note that only the health of entirely unvaccinated children was evaluated. 

What a joke. And you tell us to educate ourselves? What with? Made up data that makes the vaccinated V unvaccinated statistics you posted a complete lie?

What a joke.

Feel free to write to the author(s) and tell them about their lies, would be nice to see the answer.

A two-phase study evaluating the relationship between Thimerosal-containing vaccine administration and the risk for an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in the United States

"The present study provides new epidemiological evidence supporting an association between increasing organic-Hg exposure from Thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines and the subsequent risk of ASD diagnosis."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in influenza-related hospitalization in children: a case-control study.

"Using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for asthma status stratification, there was a significant association between hospitalization in asthmatic subjects and TIV (p = 0.001). TIV did not provide any protection against hospitalization in pediatric subjects, especially children with asthma. On the contrary, we found a threefold increased risk of hospitalization in subjects who did get the TIV vaccine. This may be a reflection not only of vaccine effectiveness but also the population of children who are more likely to get the vaccine."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: Conan The Usurper
"The present study provides new epidemiological evidence supporting an association between increasing organic-Hg exposure from Thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines and the subsequent risk of ASD diagnosis."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Have you read the study? It has so many limitations it does not prove anything:

- They only compared autism diagnosis numbers with adverse reactions recorded in Vaers. Do you know that Vaers is not confirmation of adverse reactions, it's only a record of reports, voluntary reports by people from all walks of life. Vaers is not confirmation of vaccines causing reactions, it's just a list of people's assumptions and beliefs.

- They did not evaluate other causes of Hg exposure, such as fish, dental fillings, environment, etc.

- They did not have the individual's medical information, such as knowing whether they had a regressive or non regressive ASD. Non regressive is associated with prenatal neurological damage which has nothing to do with children's vaccines.

- The study did not explore enough the timing and possible cumulative doses, which is a great weakness. And no other comorbidities or other chronic disorders were taken in account that may affect the conclusion of the study.

- All children's vaccines have been Thimerosal free since 1993, which makes your study completely valueless.

In summary: a poor study, superfluous, based on a list of assumptions about adverse reactions. This proves nothing.

originally posted by: Agartha
- They did not evaluate other causes of Hg exposure, such as fish, dental fillings, environment, etc.

A point I often make from my preferred perspective: I vaccinate my kids but I don't think parents who choose not to should be sanctioned in any sort of way.

The fact is, outside of the world of vaccines, other medications containing certain levels of any known toxins/neurotoxin are only prescribed for people who can safely use them.

Doctors don't prescribe certain medications to people with elevated liver enzymes because it might cause further damage or even kill them. Unless pediatricians can test ACCUMULATED levels of certain toxic adjuvants and ingredients (like mercury & aluminum) in patients, which come from exposure due to other sources -- BEFORE recommending certain vaccines -- then I think some correlation is rightfully concerning. Especially in light of the profit that is made from vaccinations and it's vulnerability to corrupt government control.

I don't think *nearly* every child is a candidate for a given vaccine, just like I know *nearly* every adult is not a candidate for every medication. Also, flu vaccines have thimerosal and they are recommended for children over age 6 months IIRC. Again, I vaccinate my kids...but I don't feel 100% confident I am not trading off on something else when I do. I am somewhat sympathetic to parents who don't want to vaccinate, even if I do. I don't know why it makes some people so angry.


ETA: For example, Brazil has a high level of aluminum in its environment...should children and pregnant women there that test for a high level of accumulated *environmental* aluminum be given vaccines with even the minimum *considered-safe* level of aluminum in them? NO.

I'm not sure anyone can argue that all vaccines are safe, in general.

And I am not buying any science-based argument that claims outside sources of neurotoxins/toxins should only be considered when ruling out vaccines as being unsafe. It should be a given that every patient is exposed to them elsewhere, too...like you said dental fillings, fish, environment!

Honestly, I feel like we had this discussion once about aluminum but you took the exact opposite position that other sources of toxins were irrelevant.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Agartha
- They did not evaluate other causes of Hg exposure, such as fish, dental fillings, environment, etc.

A point I often make from my preferred perspective: I vaccinate my kids but I don't think parents who choose not to should be sanctioned in any sort of way.

The fact is, outside of the world of vaccines, other medications containing certain levels of any known toxins/neurotoxin are only prescribed for people who can safely use them.

Doctors don't prescribe certain medications to people with elevated liver enzymes because it might cause further damage or even kill them. Unless pediatricians can test ACCUMULATED levels of certain toxic adjuvants and ingredients (like mercury & aluminum) in patients, which come from exposure due to other sources -- BEFORE recommending certain vaccines -- then I think some correlation is rightfully concerning. Especially in light of the profit that is made from vaccinations and it's vulnerability to corrupt government control.

I don't think *nearly* every child is a candidate for a given vaccine, just like I know *nearly* every adult is not a candidate for every medication. Also, flu vaccines have thimerosal and they are recommended for children over age 6 months IIRC. Again, I vaccinate my kids...but I don't feel 100% confident I am not trading off on something else when I do.

Actually flu vaccines don't have thimerosal. I don't know which one is the common one give in the US (have a look at the list here) but in the UK children receive a Nasal Flu vaccine (Fluenz Tetra) which does not contain thimerosal. The flu spray has been really succesfull and its pilot in 2014 to 2015, Public Health England found the following:

- 94% LESS influenza like illness consultation with GPs for children in primary school.
- 74% LESS emergency department attendance with respiratory problems for primary school aged children.
- 93% LESS hospital admissions with confirmed influenza for primary school children.
- 59% LESS adults consultations with GPs for influenza like illness.

Very efficient vaccine. ( Public Health England )

I am somewhat sympathetic to parents who don't want to vaccinate, even if I do. I don't know why it makes some people so angry.

Because, despite of what quacks say, herd immunity works when rate is above 95% and other people's children rely on our children to help them stay safe, for the following reasons (which I have posted on ATS before):

1) Vaccines (just like all drugs/contraception/etc) are not 100% effective, they are very effective, some more than others (on average they are between 90-100%).

2) Some children cannot be immunized, for various reasons, for example having severe allergies to a component, being too young, etc.

3) For some children vaccines will not work as effectively because of their immune system is weaker, for example some children with cancer, HIV etc.

The children in points 2 and 3 rely on our children to be vaccinated, because contagious diseases will have more difficulty reaching them if they are surrounded with people who are immune.

ETA: For example, Brazil has a high level of aluminum in its environment...should children and pregnant women there that test for a high level of accumulated *environmental* aluminum be given vaccines with even the minimum *considered-safe* level of aluminum in them? NO. I'm not sure anyone can argue that all vaccines are safe, in general.

And I am not buying any science-based argument that claims outside sources of neurotoxins/toxins should only be considered when ruling out vaccines as being unsafe. It should be a given that every patient is exposed to them elsewhere, too...like you said dental fillings, fish, environment!

Honestly, I feel like we had this discussion once about aluminum but you took the exact opposite position that other sources of toxins were irrelevant.

I'm sure it was not quite like that what I said to you, but if you can find that conversation please link it and we can have a look. I'm sure I have talked about the extremely low absorption rate of aluminum when it is both ingested or injected, how only a couple of vaccines have aluminum as an adjuvant, how low the dose in those vaccines are and how quickly it is excreted from the body by the kidneys.

But before we discuss your example, the children in Brazil, you need to find out at what dose aluminum is dangerous, its mechanisms and health effects + how much aluminum you have found children/people to have absorbed. Once you have those figures I'm happy to discuss it.

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

"The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. When nations were grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges (12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26), 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model. These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: MotherMayEye

ALL medications contain ingredients that above a specific dose are toxic.

So you think every child should have an invasive test in order to determine minute levels of "toxins" prior to vaccination?
That's feasible isn't it. I'd certainly be okay with my needle-phobic child having to have another needle (sarcasm) to show absolutely nothing.
The amounts of "toxins" such as aluminium SALTS and thimerasol (a mercury SALT) are absolutely microscopic and in no way would they increase even an elevated state by any significance whatsoever. So even if a person had an elevated level of "toxins" the minuscule amount in a vaccine would not make a difference to those levels. I doubt if you could even measure a difference before and after.

Only multidose flu vaccines contain thmerasol, the single dose ones don't.
Guess which are given to children? That's right, the single dose ones.
Quite often kids are given the intra-nasal flu vaccine which again, doesn't contain thimerasol.

"And I am not buying any science-based argument that claims outside sources of neurotoxins/toxins should only be considered when ruling out vaccines as being unsafe. It should be a given that every patient is exposed to them elsewhere, too...like you said dental fillings, fish, environment!"
So what arguments are you buying into then?
The ones you agree with it seems.

a reply to: Agartha

This is NOT my study.

It belongs to David A Geier,1 Brian S Hooker,2 Janet K Kern,1,3 Paul G King,4 Lisa K Sykes,4 and Mark R Geier corresponding author.

If you wanna argue, write to them. I will not have a discussion with the likes of you for this simple reason:

Even if i shove up a stake up your ass, you'd yell "it doesn't hurt! it doesn't hurt!" Even tho the witnesses would see your eyes popping out your skull and the blood dripping down your legs.

originally posted by: Conan The Usurper
This is NOT my study.
If you wanna argue, write to them. I will not have a discussion with the likes of you

hahaha you are kidding, right? Of course I know it's not your study, but you are posting them and thus with you I am trying to discuss them... this is how forums work, pal. You don't post links and expect people to contact the authors....

But you have just confirmed a suspicious of mine: you are just doing copy/paste without understanding a single word of what you are posting, hence you don't want to discuss the points I have raised in my two replies to you. If you did, you would be trying to debunk them.

This is a discussion forum, not a copy/paste competition.

Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers: Critical Analysis of the Evidence for Patient Benefit Underpinning Policies of Enforcement

"The four cRCTs underpinning policies of enforced HCW influenza vaccination attribute implausibly large reductions in patient risk to HCW vaccination, casting serious doubts on their validity. The impression that unvaccinated HCWs place their patients at great influenza peril is exaggerated. Instead, the HCW-attributable risk and vaccine-preventable fraction both remain unknown and the NNV to achieve patient benefit still requires better understanding. Although current scientific data are inadequate to support the ethical implementation of enforced HCW influenza vaccination, they do not refute approaches to support voluntary vaccination or other more broadly protective practices, such as staying home or masking when acutely ill."

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0163586

rising autism rates hearing.

www.youtube.com...

Please educate yourself before you inject poisons into your kids or adults for that matters.

on a more entertaining way;

Piers Morgan offered $1 million to take 1,000 vaccine shots - Alex Jones, Health Ranger

www.youtube.com...

Council for Vaccine Safety founder, Brandy Vaughn, joins the show to discuss what's really behind the push for mandatory vaccinations

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Raggedyman

I wish they made a vaccine for idiocy. Like when idiots claim a naturally occurring chemical in one's body is a killer.

Formaldehyde is also produced naturally in the human body. It is essential for the production of some basic biological materials, such as certain amino acids. Amino acids are necessary for important life processes as they are the building blocks of proteins in the body.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Raggedyman

I wish they made a vaccine for idiocy. Like when idiots claim a naturally occurring chemical in one's body is a killer.

Formaldehyde is also produced naturally in the human body. It is essential for the production of some basic biological materials, such as certain amino acids. Amino acids are necessary for important life processes as they are the building blocks of proteins in the body.

That's a very valid point
Hey, let's inject formaldehyde into a baby
Yippee

originally posted by: Agartha

But before we discuss your example, the children in Brazil, you need to find out at what dose aluminum is dangerous, its mechanisms and health effects + how much aluminum you have found children/people to have absorbed. Once you have those figures I'm happy to discuss it.

No, I don't. Just like I don't have to find out what dose of any medication is dangerous for any given person. Physicians are responsible for that.

What I can say is that everyone doesn't have an equal accumulated amount of aluminum in their systems. So to assume the amount in certain vaccines is safe for every single person is just illogical on its face.

If people want to be concerned about vaccines or don't want to vaccinate, I don't begrudge them their rights to do so.

a reply to: Pardon?

For me, the risk of the test outweighs the risk of not being vaccinated. So, I consent to vaccinating myself and my children. Others may feel differently and chose to do neither.

If you could declare that no one has ever suffered from aluminum toxicity and/or that the aluminum in certain vaccines does not accumulate, then you might have a point.

Honestly, I am not concerned with thimerosal in vaccines, but I am aware it is still used in the multi-dose flu vaccine.

Also, the FDA approves the multi-dose, thimerosal-containing flu vaccine for infants as young as 6 months old: Link

As to whether that's put into to practice commonly, I do not know. I don't think my own kids have ever gotten the multi-dose, but I've never asked when they had them.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Raggedyman

I wish they made a vaccine for idiocy. Like when idiots claim a naturally occurring chemical in one's body is a killer.

Formaldehyde is also produced naturally in the human body. It is essential for the production of some basic biological materials, such as certain amino acids. Amino acids are necessary for important life processes as they are the building blocks of proteins in the body.

That's a very valid point
Hey, let's inject formaldehyde into a baby
Yippee

Ever given a kid a pear to eat?

a reply to: Raggedyman

At what does is it toxic?

a reply to: GetHyped

I would imagine that is only determinable on a person-to-person basis. Some people have more accumulated formaldehyde in their systems than other people. So, a smaller dose might be toxic for some, while a larger dose may not be toxic to others.

I don't know why it's so unreasonable to suggest even a minute dose of anything toxic -- which can accumulate in a system -- might prove toxic for people that already have high accumulations of the toxic substance.

Actually, I know it's not unreasonable. What's unreasonable is the idea that every person must have the same opinion that vaccines are to be assumed completely safe for every single person and if you disagree or have serious apprehensions, you need to be called names and bullied to get in line.

My kids are vaccinated. If other parents don't want to vaccinate, I am just not that worried about it. If my kids were not candidates for vaccinations, I would protect them from others that could spread diseases -- even if vaccinations were mandatory, across the board. There aren't vaccines for everything...every flu virus, etc...

I feel as strongly about defending the freedom to choose not to vaccinate, as I do about my personal decision to vaccinate myself and my kids.