Would You Vaccinate Your Newborn?

Good post SangriaRed

To anyone in doubt or on the fence, here's some basic logic to swing your decision, let's consider 2 possibilities:-

1. Vaccines do work (ignoring the safety side)

and

2. Vaccines don't work (ignoring the safety side)

If scenario 1 is correct and vaccines do work, then given that over 90% of the population receives vaccines, you'll be protected by the herd, so there is no need to receive any vaccines.

If scenario 2 is correct and vaccines don't work, then there's no point in having any vaccines anyway, as they are ineffective.

So either way, if you've got over 90% of the population being vaccinated, then you and your child don't need vaccines.

Now let's bring safety into this, $Billions have been paid out in vaccine damage over the years, so clearly they are not safe, but that doesn't even need to come into this as long as 'the herd' are receiving the vaccines.

Originally posted by SangriaRed
We're expecting our 3rd in March.
(yah it's early)
And I've thought about this as well>
I'm not anti vax, but I'm not pro-vax.

I think it's like so many other procedures and such, make an informed decision and realize that with every decision you make you are putting yourself and your child at risk.
Many things in a child's life presents a risk and it's a matter of working out how big the risk is.

Research it. Look up the main stream, look up the alternative and look up the medical facts.

I have a lot of questions but to be fair: no, we haven't had a major outbreak of measles, smallpox and such in many, many years.

Don't have a good answer for you, but wish you luck and hope you will keep us up to date.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


Unfortunately most people don't look into vaccines until it is too late, but it is our tragic loss that spurs us to be here now trying to help others who haven't been exposed to both sides of the story. Each time we share our message on here, lives will be saved.

reply to post by drbatstein


This thread has a great debunking of the video:

Debunked

Who he really was...

reply to post by winnar


And yet you continue with your sarcasm. Your lack of decorum is almost palpable. I am not here to blow up your ego-centric mind, which a formal debate will only bring satisfaction to. I do not debate those that deny science claims as the evidence on there side does not exist to begin with. The evidence has always and will always be with science not unaccredited nonsense like natural news. I do not know how to explain it anymore clearly, except that there is a large portion of science deniers growing in this world and it will end in a very bad way. For example; I am sure you have been vaccinated and you have turned out ok. So why would you reject a child a vaccine that has saved your life? Ask a pharmacist if they give there children vaccines, because they will know the drug interactions. I guarantee you that they do. Vaccines have dramatically helped children in Africa. Also, I did refute your claims, because your claims are rooted in natural news, which all of us know is not an accredited medical journal or valid source. It is simply nonsense. Do you not think that scientists have thought about this already? Do you think scientist are stupid? And why we take so many safety precautions with vaccine development? I will always trust science, before I trust what some average joe says on the street.

Dangers of Science Denialism:

Vaccine-autism claims, GMO "Frankenfood" bans, the herbal cure craze: All point to the public's growing fear (and, often, outright denial) of science and reason, says Michael Specter, a trend that spells disaster for human progress

Dangers 1

Childhood inoculations protect us against deadly infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough and polio. But they are also the source of near constant conflict — most recently in the Feb. 22 Supreme Court decision that ruled in favor of a vaccine manufacturer over the family of a disabled girl. In recent years, some parents, influenced by fringe activists who believe vaccinations cause autism, brain damage and other ailments, have begun to refuse them for their children. Dr. Paul Offit, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, has seen the consequences: preventable childhood deaths, community outbreaks of outdated diseases and misinformed, angry parents. In a conversation with TIME and in his recent book, Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All, Offit describes the origins of our squeamishness with inoculation and why we should fight against it. Read more: www.time.com...

TIME: Dangers

Could this be the case that breaks the hold that anti-vaccination idiocy has over certain sectors of our country? Janice D'Arcy reports at the Washington Post on the latest measles outbreak traced back to anti-vaccination fanatics, but this time, instead of an outbreak being traced back to a Whole Foods or a nursery school---the usual places where the kids of yuppie anti-vaxxers have a chance to expose and be exposed---the trail for this one leads back to the Super Bowl. Indiana has had 14 cases of measles since the game, and 13 of those have been confirmed as occurring in anti-vaccination families. The outbreak started with two infected people who went to the Super Bowl village, visited a few places, and thereby set off the mini-epidemic. As D'Arcy points out, if not for widespread vaccination, the numbers of exposed would have reached the hundreds of thousands.

SLATE: Dangers

Some of you may recall that this past April the anti-vaccine National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) ran an ad in New York City’s Times Square. The ad was made to basically do two things: 1) propagate falsehoods about vaccines, and 2) direct traffic to the NVIC website.

JREF

Anti-vaccine groups are still working hard to spread their scientifically-unsupported message to the masses, this time via an ad on a jumbotron in Times Square, New York City.

WIRED: Dangers

Originally posted by TheMythLives

This thread has a great debunking of the video:

Debunked

Who he really was...

I'm afraid that fact cannot be 'debunked', if you examine the full story you'll see the Washington Post are trying to spin it with lies. The Washington Post are the last people to be saving us from Big Pharma.

Originally posted by drbatstein
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

 

Unfortunately most people don't look into vaccines until it is too late, but it is our tragic loss that spurs us to be here now trying to help others who haven't been exposed to both sides of the story. Each time we share our message on here, lives will be saved.

edit on 6-8-2012 by drbatstein because: (no reason given)

Agreed. I generally try to avoid discussing it until something like this comes up. Then I feel the need to let folks know that they should do research. I try not to get rabid anti-vaccine, but I am very rabid "please research". If the medically community would get behind better education it would be a great thing.

Originally posted by TheMythLives
reply to post by drbatstein

 

This thread has a great debunking of the video:

Debunked

Who he really was...

"Manufacturing processes were changed"

- There were never any checks put into place for this

"no link has been shown between this vaccine and any increased incidence of cancer in those who received it"

- They never officially studied it, evidence like that is kept in-house, imagine how much compensation they'd have to pay out and how much money they'd lose from future vaccine sales.

"What's clear is that the polio vaccine saved many thousands of lives and prevented many more from being crippled by the disease."

- Polio comes from the vaccines, even Salk himself said so "Jonas Salk, inventor of the IPV, testified before a Senate subcommittee that nearly all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine." www.vaclib.org...

etc etc I could go on picking it apart all day, but I'm sure you're getting the idea

If I have children they will be non-vaxed, and l home schooled.

It's actually one of the most important topics I'm going to make sure my SO is okay with before filling her up regularly.

reply to post by TheMythLives


Again with your ad hominem attacks. No wonder you refuse to debate anything. I'm not even sure you know how.

reply to post by winnar


I am not sure if your badgering is necessary. There is no debate... Much like there is no reason to debate a person who does not believe in climate change. Much like there is no reason to debate literal creationism. Much like there is no reason to debate a holocaust denier. Much like there is no reason to debate if we went to the moon in 1969. There is no reason to debate this either. The debate has been over for sometime. It is finished. The truth is what it is. I will leave this thread with one final closing remark to shed some light into myself (Quote by Christopher Hitchens)

“Beware the irrational, however seductive. I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. It is thus that I so often state: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

For those who are pro vaccinations I do have a question. The reason we give puppies so many rounds of shots is that the mother dog's antibodies prevents vaccines from working properly in the young puppies. Does this not also apply to nursing human newborns? Could we not do many fewer shots if we waited until the child has developed an immune system of their own and then give vaccines for truly devastating diseases such as polio?

I personally vaccinate both kids and dogs minimally and using only one kind at a time. There is truly no reason to vaccinate a newborn that is not at risk for what essentially amounts to a lifestyle disease.

Originally posted by drbatstein

Originally posted by winnar
There seems to be a common misconception that mercury has been taken out of all vaccines. It hasnt been. Just most of them. Meanwhile they added other things that are just as bad if not worse.

Very good point, and it's also worth mentioning that it's now looking like Autism is in fact an autoimmune disease, it started to spiral out of control once the aborted fetus cellular debris was put into the vaccines, as our bodies are not just creating antibodies to the virus, but also to cells from the aborted fetus. Since the cells of the aborted fetus are so similar to our own cells, we can end up with antibodies which are fighting our own bodies, our immune system is then fighting us every day (this is known as an autoimmune disease). Vaccines cause many autoimmune diseases, such as Diabetes Type 1, MS and muscle-wasting diseases, but none of it gets tracked. You'd need to be tracking each person for at least 90 days post-vaccination for this to show up. The system deliberately doesn't track for this, as it's there by design to make big money from lifelong treatments. If we stop the vaccines, the future generations will be healthy and Big Pharma's profits won't be

Autism and Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: Lack of Consistent Evidence for an Association

This study was prompted by findings reported to the Institute of Medicine by Blaxill in July 2001, which showed increases in autism incidence in California in association with increases in the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines during the 1990s. To further examine the plausibility of this finding, this study took advantage of the cessation of thimerosal use in Denmark and Sweden in 1992 to conduct a before and after comparison of the incidence or case numbers of autism. In both countries, autism increases throughout the years 1987-1999, contrary to the decrease in autism that would be expected after 1992 if thimerosal exposure was related to autism. The increasing trend for autism is most notable in Denmark where the number of autism cases rises substantially even after the discontinuation of thimerosal use. The results were published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine (Aug 2003; 25(2):101-6).

Published in American Journal of Preventive Medicine, August 2003

booking my seat, thank you for posting op.
2nd


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by gluetrap

The claim that newborns tolerate vaccinations less well than older infants may be negated by the statement “It is absolutely impossible that newborns tolerate vaccinations less well than older infants,” which may be perceived as a strong and confident negation. A weaker risk negation may be expressed by the following statement: “It is extremely rare that newborns tolerate vaccinations less well than older infants.”

James Randi

The experts state that not only are infant vaccines safe, but they contain considerably less active molecules than before. In addition, a review of 1,200 articles conducted by the Institute of Medicine did not find any autoimmune side effect from vaccines - there is either no impact or that any relation to autoimmune conditions is not causative.

www.medicalnewstoday.com...

Remember also that we are differing with two different biologic bodies and thus have to account for that increase in shots. It is more technical then that, but that is the best that I can provide. Plus, it is also the type of vaccines and then it goes right back to the biology...

Originally posted by TheMythLives
reply to post by winnar

 

I am not sure if your badgering is necessary. There is no debate... Much like there is no reason to debate a person who does not believe in climate change. Much like there is no reason to debate literal creationism. Much like there is no reason to debate a holocaust denier. Much like there is no reason to debate if we went to the moon in 1969. There is no reason to debate this either. The debate has been over for sometime. It is finished. The truth is what it is. I will leave this thread with one final closing remark to shed some light into myself (Quote by Christopher Hitchens)

Ya youre one hell of a self-aggrandized writer/fighter/scholar. Declare whatever you believe to be the truth and run away. Tell me science to be law (when I can show you real science backing my statements too) even though science is constantly in a state of flux to begin with. I mean Newtonian physics is the end all be all right?

I'm glad you dont want to debate. I would destroy your illusion. I think most everyone can see what you are anyway.

Peace out.

Originally posted by TheMythLives
reply to post by gluetrap

 

The claim that newborns tolerate vaccinations less well than older infants may be negated by the statement “It is absolutely impossible that newborns tolerate vaccinations less well than older infants,” which may be perceived as a strong and confident negation. A weaker risk negation may be expressed by the following statement: “It is extremely rare that newborns tolerate vaccinations less well than older infants.”

James Randi

The experts state that not only are infant vaccines safe, but they contain considerably less active molecules than before. In addition, a review of 1,200 articles conducted by the Institute of Medicine did not find any autoimmune side effect from vaccines - there is either no impact or that any relation to autoimmune conditions is not causative.

www.medicalnewstoday.com...

Remember also that we are differing with two different biologic bodies and thus have to account for that increase in shots. It is more technical then that, but that is the best that I can provide. Plus, it is also the type of vaccines and then it goes right back to the biology...

Why are you even still posting?