 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:08 pm  |
Aprile - I'd like to see you tell the parents of a four year old child with the meningococcal virus who has had to have both her hands and feet removed that "the body can heal itself".
A vaccine is in the pipeline for one of the most common strains (B) of this horrible disease - and it can't come soon enough IMO.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/immunise-meningococcal |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
 |
Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:52 pm |
| panoslydios wrote: |
How many vaccinations have you get Keliu?
|
I'm fully inoculated against all preventable diseases. Because I travel overseas, I'm also inoculated against Typhoid, Cholera, Smallpox, Hepatitis etc. etc.
My daughter recently had a baby and because there has been an outbreak of Whooping Cough here due to some people not vaccinating their children - it is advised that parents and grandparents get re-vaccinated. The new vaccine also covers Tetanus and because I had had a previous reaction all necessary precautions were taken with me - but I was fine.
If you don't wish to be vaccinated, I urge you to read up on all the diseases that have been eradicated from our modern world. The problem with not vaccinating is that you say it is your prerogative to make that decision - but your decision effects the safety of others - and that is irresponsible. This is why I feel so strongly about this topic. If it was a decision that effects you, and you only - fine. But it isn't. |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:19 pm |
| Quote: |
| I'm fully inoculated against all preventable diseases. Because I travel overseas, I'm also inoculated against Typhoid, Cholera, Smallpox, Hepatitis etc. etc. |
Thats suggest you have done a lot of damage to your body and brain
| Quote: |
| because there has been an outbreak of Whooping Cough here due to some people not vaccinating their children |
Most likely due to the toxic habits and diet of people in general aka disfunvtion of immune system
| Quote: |
| it is advised that parents and grandparents get re-vaccinated. The new vaccine also covers Tetanus and because I had had a previous reaction all necessary precautions were taken with me - but I was fine. |
Revaccinate!!!??WOW
| Quote: |
| If you don't wish to be vaccinated, I urge you to read up on all the diseases that have been eradicated from our modern world. The problem with not vaccinating is that you say it is your prerogative to make that decision - but your decision effects the safety of others - and that is irresponsible. |
Ok so according to you ,you are responsible to others if you vaccinate yourself with heavy metals  |
_________________
We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:20 pm |
| Just wondering if any of you vaccinate your pets - or are they unprotected? |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:21 pm |
Well Keliu - the story I previously shared about the six year old child (from my son's 1st grade class) who died from a horrible virus was vaccinated for meningococcal, yet she displayed all the symptoms of meningoccal disease, including the purple rash on her little legs. So you see, even though vaccinated it is entirely possible that she contracted a strain of the disease. But that is why I stress how important it is to have have a strong immune system. FWIW, I'm not totally against all vaccinations; I'm against the way they're administered in babies as combination vaccines and the preservatives used in them, such as mercury. In fact, I've had my own son vaccinated. I'm against over vaccinating and certainly using scare tactics to convince people into being vaccinated for something as benign as the flu when yes a healthy immune system should be able to fight it. Further the Tamiflu vaccine has NOT been proven to be 100% effective or even mildly impressive statistically.
According to British Medical Journal editor David Payne:
"Influenza drug oseltamivir has made billions of pounds for Roche, but why won't the company give patients and doctors access to the full clinical data? ... [Cochrane researcher Tom] Jefferson told the BMJ... the US Food and Drug Administration had described Tamiflu's effects as modest. 'Despite this, WHO and CDC have been extensively promoting the drug. WHO has made Tamiflu one of the essential drugs, so it sits next door to aspirin and penicillin, cortisone,' he said.
"The CDC has extensively recommended the use of Tamiflu, and, as you know, governments worldwide have stockpiled it on the advice, essentially, of WHO. 'We were trying to find out exactly what evidence these decisions were made on. So we asked questions, and we also asked WHO and CDC whether they'd seen our review and what their thoughts were.'
"Readers will see the kind of stonewalling that we got. Indeed, my correspondence with WHO shows that they didn't answer a single one of my questions. Politicians have ignored the problem and have not demanded accountability from their own decision makers, from regulators, and from industry."
Some might call this irresponsible, others call it deception. I think it's time we hold their feet to the fire.
~Aprile  |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:32 pm |
| Keliu wrote: |
| Just wondering if any of you vaccinate your pets - or are they unprotected? |
I have here 4 cats that they are living in Nature.
No vaccinating but i dont touch them and dont let them enter inside the house.
They just live in the garden and eat  |
_________________
We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:59 pm |
| aprile wrote: |
Well Keliu - the story I previously shared about the six year old child (from my son's 1st grade class) who died from a horrible virus was vaccinated for meningococcal, yet she displayed all the symptoms of meningoccal disease, including the purple rash on her little legs. So you see, even though vaccinated it is entirely possible that she contracted a strain of the disease. |
She was probably vaccinated against Meningococcal C - up until recently there was no vaccine for Meningococcal B. So that is why I'm saying that it will be to everyone's benefit to be vaccinated against the B strain as soon as it is available.
I do think it's interesting though that all this negativity always comes from the US. Vaccination programmes take place around the entire world yet it's only the US that sees them as a government plot. I think what's taking place in the US at the moment explains allot. And it's not good. |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:01 pm |
| panoslydios wrote: |
I have here 4 cats that they are living in Nature.
No vaccinating but i dont touch them and dont let them enter inside the house.
They just live in the garden and eat |
You should not be an animal owner. You should not have a pet if you can't love and comfort it and have them as a part of your life. |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:04 pm |
| Keliu wrote: |
| panoslydios wrote: |
How many vaccinations have you get Keliu?
|
I'm fully inoculated against all preventable diseases. Because I travel overseas, I'm also inoculated against Typhoid, Cholera, Smallpox, Hepatitis etc. etc.
My daughter recently had a baby and because there has been an outbreak of Whooping Cough here due to some people not vaccinating their children - it is advised that parents and grandparents get re-vaccinated. The new vaccine also covers Tetanus and because I had had a previous reaction all necessary precautions were taken with me - but I was fine.
If you don't wish to be vaccinated, I urge you to read up on all the diseases that have been eradicated from our modern world. The problem with not vaccinating is that you say it is your prerogative to make that decision - but your decision effects the safety of others - and that is irresponsible. This is why I feel so strongly about this topic. If it was a decision that effects you, and you only - fine. But it isn't. |
Here's an article that discusses the big Whooping Cough Hoak:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/17/pertussis-vaccine-for-whooping-cough-effects.aspx |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:10 pm |
| Keliu wrote: |
| panoslydios wrote: |
I have here 4 cats that they are living in Nature.
No vaccinating but i dont touch them and dont let them enter inside the house.
They just live in the garden and eat |
You should not be an animal owner. You should not have a pet if you can't love and comfort it and have them as a part of your life. |
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
I let them be in Nature just like they are meant to be there.You know,i let them breathe fresh air that human being is being deprived during his sleep
They hunt for mice ,they mate in their own natural clock time.I dont see anything wrong in that.
Wish i could be so natural like them. |
_________________
We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:32 pm |
If my own doctor tells me there's an outbreak of Whooping Cough in our community, I believe him and take his advice. I'm not taking the advice of Dr. Mercola - a man who regularly appears on QuackWatch and regularly receives warnings from the FDA.
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:45 pm |
| aprile wrote: |
| Lacy - Agreed, I'm sure breast and other cancers existed long before the industrial revolution. However, I am making the direct coerelation between the alarming rise in breast cancer rates from 1960 of 1 in 20 to 1 in 7 in 2012. You can't deny that all of the things I mentioned, including increasing promotion of mammography to younger women where the breast is tightly compressed and radiated on an annual basis. How could you? |
This is an older post from you which I wanted to address. I don't know where you get your information from or even what population that statistic applies to, but according to the American Cancer Society:
The breast cancer incidence rate began to decline in 2000 after peaking at 142 per 100,000 women in 1999. The dramatic decrease of almost 7% from 2002 to 2003 has been attributed to reductions in the use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), previously known as hormone replacement therapy, following the publication of results from the Women’s Health Initiative in 2002. From 2004-2008, the most recent five years for which data are available, breast cancer incidence rates were stable.
Since 2004, in situ breast cancer incidence rates have been stable in white women and increasing in African American women by 2.0% per year.
Death rates for breast cancer have steadily decreased in women since 1990, with larger decreases in younger women; from 2004 to 2008, rates decreased 3.1% per year in women younger than 50 and 2.1% per year in women 50 and older. The decrease in breast cancer death rates represents progress in earlier detection, improved treatment, and possibly decreased incidence.
The 5-year relative survival rate for female breast cancer patients has improved from 63% in the early 1960s to 90% today. The 5-year relative survival for women diagnosed with localized breast cancer (cancer that has not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside the breast) is 99%; if the cancer has spread to nearby lymph nodes (regional stage) or distant lymph nodes or organs (distant stage), the survival rate falls to 84% or 23%, respectively. For all stages combined, relative survival rates at 10 and 15 years after diagnosis are 82% and 77%, respectively. Caution should be used when interpreting long-term survival rates because they represent patients who were diagnosed many years ago and do not reflect recent advances in detection and treatment. For example, 15-year relative survival is based on patients diagnosed as early as 1990.
So yes, I am going to argue with you. The incidence rate is down overall; death rates have fallen; the 5-year survival rate is increasing (according to most recent statistics available for the US in this document analysis).
http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-031941.pdf
| aprile wrote: |
| Lacy - much of the information you post comes from sources that certain members do not trust. Others are certainly entitled to that opinion. Further, history has shown us that we have been deceived and lied to again and again by the very sources that you deem as credible. Studies are often skewed, evidence presented about epidemics are often true scaremongering tactics to get more people vaccinated and on and on. That's really the crux of the matter here. Your quote below is quite amusing in that context because those of us who do present the other side, do have credible sources, yet you and others discount those sources. |
Yep, I quote the most respected and recognized sources available, usually American but occassionally Canadian, European or Australian. I will sometimes cite well-written articles published online, since they are easier for the average person to comprehend. You don't usually link to sources for your alternative views, so I have no idea where your ideas come from most of the time. If people keep discounting your sources of information, perhaps you should re-evaluate what you are reading. I realize that you have a deep mistrust of the medical establishment (doctors, researchers, pharmaceutical companies), your government, and all organizations or associations that have been established to further research into medical issues such as cancer. You also prescribe to various conspiracy theories which appear to be on both a national and international level.
Anyway, you are correct - everyone is entitled to an opinion, but no one is allowed to invent facts to justify their opinion, nor should anyone close their eyes to information that doesn't support their opinion. And admit it, in the real world some opinions are better than others - they are well-informed, based on credible evidence/information and are well thought-out, logical and rational.
| aprile wrote: |
| Even breast cancer survival rate statistics after tamoxifen use have been skewed because many times these women later die of other causes, i.e., uterine cancer. To prove my point about how statistics are skewed is a very enlightening article which appeared in the NY Times. |
The risk of uterine cancer from Tamoxifen chemotherapy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment is well known, and has been for decades. You can dramatically prevent the recurrence of breast tumors or metastisis but increase the risk for uterine cancer - it's a recognized trade-off. That increased risk doesn't mean uterine cancer is 100% guaranteed though. In fact, uterine cancer resulting from Tamoxifen use is quite rare (but not impossible).
http://www.acog.org/Resources%20And%20Publications/Committee%20Opinions/Committee%20on%20Gynecologic%20Practice/Tamoxifen%20and%20Uterine%20Cancer.aspx
The risk of developing endometrial cancer from tamoxifen is small -- about 1 in 500. Women taking tamoxifen must balance this risk against the value of this drug in treating and preventing breast cancer. This is an issue women may want to discuss with their doctors. If you are taking tamoxifen, you should have yearly gynecologic exams and should be sure to report any abnormal bleeding, as this could be a sign of endometrial cancer.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/endometrialcancer/detailedguide/endometrial-uterine-cancer-risk-factors
(Yes, I know, not a credible source of information in your eyes). |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:59 pm |
Ah QuackWatch... another well respected organization run by Stephen Barrett, formerly of Pennsylvania and ex- M.D.
| Quote: |
It is common knowledge that Stephen Barrett has been Officially Declared by the US Court System, in a PUBLISHED Appeals Court Decision (NCAHF v King Bio), to be "Biased, and unworthy of credibility."
What that statement means, in layman's terms, simply, is that it is common knowledge that OFFICIALLY - NOTHING HE SAYS CAN BE LEGALLY RELIED UPON.
Frequently, unethical attorneys use Barrett's writings to discredit victims in a courtroom, or administrative hearing, situation. This activity is, literally, a "Fraud on the Court" and should be dealt with in the harshest manner possible - including a request for Sanctions and a complaint to the local Bar Association against the attorney's license to practice law.
Should the attorney using Barrett's writings, be an employee of a government agency, acting in that capacity, then this activity is cause for discipline, including termination. Use this situation to stop any, and all, proceedings, and make the "use of Barrett" the issue immediately. Every government agency has an internal investigative branch - go there immediately and file a complaint against the employee, and the employee's supervisor. Also, file a complaint to the local Bar Association against the attorney's license to practice law.
Sometimes, but not as often as before, journalists quote Barrett. This activity constitutes outright libel, every time, and is actionable immediately. Start by filing a formal complaint to the top Editor or Publisher of the media.
"Quackbusting" - is a Profitable Business...
Frankly, "quackbusting" is a profitable industry, and Stephen Barrett plays it to the hilt.
In a Canadian lawsuit (see below) Barrett admitted to the following:
"The sole purpose of the activities of Barrett & Baratz are to discredit and cause damage and harm to health care practitioners, businesses that make alternative health therapies or products available, and advocates of non-allopathic therapies and health freedom."
Stephen Barrett testifies for money. He claims he's an "expert" in virtually everything. Those "expert witness" fees seem to be a significant part of Barrett's existence.
In a California Court case, former Barrett peer, and fellow Board Member of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), William Jarvis PhD, testified, under oath, that Stephen Barrett and Robert Baratz conspired to use the NCAHF, without Board permission, as a Plaintiff in over 40 cases in California, where Barrett and Baratz were to testify as "expert witnesses," and get expert witness fees. The NCAHF Board was never consulted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:54 pm |
Such a poorly researched report by Dr. Mercola, and his references are highly suspect. For a more accurate and balanced article, you can read this:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-problem-of-waning-pertussis-immunity/
The most important fact (that Mercola didn't even address) was the age of whooping cough outbreak children and the vaccine schedule (hence level of immunity), as noted here:
It should be noted that in all age groups, the attack rate in the unvaccinated and undervaccinated groups were higher than in the fully vaccinated group, but that this difference only reached statistical significance in the 13-18 year group, where the attack rate was nearly five times higher in the unvaccinated/undervaccinated group. Moreover, when taken as a whole, the attack rate was also statistically significantly higher in unvaccinated/undervaccinated children from ages 2 to 18. In other words, the vaccine works, but there is a period (age 10-12) during which there appears to be a hole in the coverage, such that waning immunity after the last dose results in decreased protection, protection that is reactivated by the booster dose at 12 years. Indeed, there was a very strong correlation between the interval between onset of pertussis and last acellular pertussis vaccine dose, with the interval peaking at 11 years. The authors conclude:
In the case of the recent California epidemic, it appears that the effectiveness of the current vaccine schedule, when paired with the imperfect vaccination rate, may be insufficient to prevent an epidemic. Earlier vaccine booster doses may be required to provide adequate herd immunity, absent an increase in vaccination rate, efficacy, or durability. Earlier booster doses could prevent immunity from waning, and address disease in the 8-12 age group.
In other words, this study doesn’t show that the vaccine doesn’t work. Rather, it suggests that immunity from the vaccine wanes sooner than expected, that this region of California doesn’t have a high enough vaccine uptake rate to prevent epidemics, and that the vaccination schedule should probably be changed to provide earlier boosters in order to protect older children and teenagers.
Yes, a problem may exist with vaccination of children for whooping cough. The medical profession is aware of it and is looking at the data to correct (or at least explain) the problem. The solution may be as simple as adjusting the schedule and providing earlier booster shots to ensure full protection.
What has Mercola done to fix the problem? |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:38 am |
Flu is certainly NOT a " benign" infection, some of its after effects are appalling Encephalitis for one is dreadful and can be terminal.Also, Encephalitis Lethargica( another one) as well is also dreadful.
Prevention is Better than cure as this is viral and there is No cure once contracted.
Bring on the vaccinations!!!! |
_________________
46 got (PMD,Caci,QuasarMD,Tria , skin spatula) Using, environ , myfawnie serums, lacsal, retinol, GHk probably more but too embarrased to say |
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:45 am |
| combo vaccines were developed Because they act synergistically and singly were not as effective,they are therefore better! |
_________________
46 got (PMD,Caci,QuasarMD,Tria , skin spatula) Using, environ , myfawnie serums, lacsal, retinol, GHk probably more but too embarrased to say |
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:20 am |
| 10Sylvia5 wrote: |
Flu is certainly NOT a " benign" infection, some of its after effects are appalling Encephalitis for one is dreadful and can be terminal.Also, Encephalitis Lethargica( another one) as well is also dreadful.
Prevention is Better than cure as this is viral and there is No cure once contracted.
Bring on the vaccinations!!!! |
In Australia flue vaccine is free for those over 65 and others in high risk groups. As far as I am aware, everyone takes advantage of this programme (both my parents and my husband's parents certainly did) and I haven't heard of anyone assuming it to be a government conspiracy. In fact, I think that hypothesis would be considered laughable here.
Furthermore, research has shown that the vaccine is also useful in preventing heart attacks in the middle-aged.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-22/flu-vaccine-reduces-heart-attack-risk2c-study-finds/4904588 |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:24 am |
As it is in the Uk too.
I get it ( heart issues) my DH gets it(asthma) and
one of the Minxes ( also heart issues)
None of us since we have had it have got the Flu . |
_________________
46 got (PMD,Caci,QuasarMD,Tria , skin spatula) Using, environ , myfawnie serums, lacsal, retinol, GHk probably more but too embarrased to say |
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:28 am |
| 10Sylvia5 wrote: |
| combo vaccines were developed Because they act synergistically and singly were not as effective,they are therefore better! |
Tell that to the parents of an infant who just received a combo vaccination and then noticed a distinct *change* in that child. That comment is pure pharmceutical rhetoric. I realize I cannot convince any of you to rethink your stance anymore than you can convince me to change mine.
If you want to think the body is designed to become a chemical wasteland so be it. It certainly coincides with the thinking of the vast majority of the medical community today. Thank God for the many alternative, naturopathic, homeopathic doctors who provide us with those options. Where would we be otherwise?
The divine nature of the human body is built upon a foundation of a strong immune system, not an overload of vaccines and pharmaceuticals. When the toxic overload reaches its breaking point, the body breaks down. How many of you can deny that you know of someone who had been over-medicated by their own physician? Thankfully, we are beginning to see a shift occuring in the thinking of many in the U.S. who are sick and tired of being sick and tired. I feel confident that in the future, healing medicinals will replace toxic, barbaric procedures. The time is coming... Also, it's not only Dr. Mercola who agrees with this way of thinking. There are many more forward-thinking doctors who are standing up and voicing their opinions and their desire for a change. ~ Aprile |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:45 am |
Homeopathy, oh dear! these formulations have been diluted Past Avogadros Number, leaving absolutely No actives in the sugar water that is left!
Fine if you want to treat yourself and yours with sugar water, but please don't persuade others that it will be anything other than just sugar water Now that is not Pharma rhetoric but Science!!! |
_________________
46 got (PMD,Caci,QuasarMD,Tria , skin spatula) Using, environ , myfawnie serums, lacsal, retinol, GHk probably more but too embarrased to say |
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:23 am |
I am in total agreement with April. Why use a sledgehammer to do a job when a kinder tool will work ?
We all know people who've had cancers and have been treated with chemo, radiation, the whole shebang. Some suffered for years of continuous treatment. They died horrible deaths.
Even when their cancer had spread throughout their bodies, they were still offered more chemo. These people ranged from young adults to people in their 50s.
Every single one of these people had been followed by their doctors all their lives.
When someone is feeling under the weather, they go to their doctor expecting a pill, instead of examining their lifestyle, eating habits and toxic environment including cleansers, insecticides, cosmetics.
A person can be 600 pounds and still expect the doctor do deal with his problem.
You can take your chemo, radiation, vaccines if that's what you want.
Myself, I want to help my body to function efficiently as it was designed. I don't want a treatment that will suck all energy from my body and make me wish for death. I'm odd, I know, but luckily I have free choice, as you do also. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:11 pm |
There are differences IMO to consider between prevention and cure. Yes, we all understand the difference.
HPV is completely preventable by way of personal actions and choice.
Measles, mumps, smallpox... Not so much. If you're in the vicinity of these diseases, you are at risk for death... diseases that have no cure. Diseases that come on quickly and kill quickly. There is no screening for these diseases with a cure standing by. There is no exposure to these diseases with a 90-95% rate of clearing on it's own.
Comparing Polio to HPV is ridiculous. If you have HPV, and I sit next to you... I'm not gonna catch it. Same as HIV.
As you can see, drug recalls are done often http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/DrugRecalls/
It's a reality there have been devastating drugs on the market for an extreme amount of time, before it was finally decided they caused too much damage. FDA approval is not infallible.
http://247wallst.com/investing/2010/12/10/the-ten-worst-drug-recalls-in-the-history-of-the-fda/2/
Lacy, I find your post about the first case of H1N1 interesting... and how it was the healthier people who succumbed to the disease... you go further to talk about auto immune. I wonder if there is any connection to the escalating numbers of people with auto immune and the increased numbers of vaccines issued in years past compared to today.
If, for example, you are susceptible to auto immune, and you don't know it... What happens when you challenge the body with 3 or 4 vaccines at once. You would never get Measles, Mumps AND rubella on the same day. Why vaccinate at the same time? Some say for the synergy. So, that sounds exponentially potent. If you hyper respond, do you suddenly start attacking your own body?
Because of auto immune running rampant in my family I stretched out every single shot schedule. And of course, when fluid pushed through my son's soft spot post DPaT as a "normal" result (twice)... His pedi recommended we stop the shot for fear of future neurological damage. Brains are pretty dang important.
I know many people whose MD's make the clear distinction for vaccine injury.
We're talking about women who are in fact having extreme highly correlated devastating life altering problems immediately following this vaccine. Women, who are described by family and friends as otherwise completely healthy, active, with no family history of anything scary.
http://www.sanevax.org
Victims are adding their stories regularly. People with a name, a photograph, and location.
You can discount their stories as unimportant or statistically insignificant... Most of them express feeling completely uninformed of any potential risk. That's not right. Period. |
_________________
Claudia of FlexEffect... 43, fair skin, occasional breakout, Using ECO FROG (my own=disclaimer), and TrueScience (I also sell this)... Happy with that...Come visit on FB! |
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:04 pm |
My mother had a horrible reaction to the flu vaccine. In my work we were requested to get a flue vaccine - they would cover the costs. I said no. I did not get any kind of flu - Some of the others who got the shot did. A flu vaccine is a guesstimate based on the previous year(s). They have no way of predicting how valid it will be for the present years virus. It's inexact science. If at all possible I prefer to develop antibodies naturally and work toward that end - working with my immune system.
That said, my children all had basic childhood vaccines. My neighbor chose not to. Her children are strong, happy and thriving. That doesn't mean I would change what I did, nor does it mean I think she's a fool for her decision. There is no 'right' or wrong necessarily although I would not want to live in a world where polio or whooping cough were a somewhat normal thing.
Also, I cannot compare a Polio vaccine to chemotherapy tx.
The best answer is to be informed and to know what your doing and why you are making the choices you are. I stated earlier that Andrew Weil - Harvard-trained said that we will one day recognize that chemo treatments are barbaric and Keliu I think it was, disagreed with this well-renowned speaker and educated man's evaluation but that's her perogative to agree or disagree with the value of chemotherapy. Dr. Weil's reasons are varied and his arguments against are powerful: this from a man who knows all sides of medicine - both western and alternative. I have listened to his arguments - he is a fabulous speaker. Who's to say those who have a good outcome from chemo wouldn't have it anyway? Or would have a good outcome if they made some serious lifestyle revisions to start with. Do we really know?
I've seen the devastation to people - ruining the last years of their life with chemo and there are families who say if they had to do it all again, they would say no to chemo and maybe even radiation. Have you seen people with all their teeth pulled in preparation for radiation tx? It's horrifying sad. And then the treatment doesn't work and they die anyway after having lived a few years in a way noone would ever wish to live. I've also seen people come through chemo relatively happy - yet even those who come through are changed in some way due to the devastation to the tissues. Lack of libido, hair different, physical symptoms - very cold all the time, reduced immune response. The outcomes are as varied as the cancer and the people being treated.
How do I know? - I volunteer at hospice and volunteer at nursing homes on some Sundays. I know several oncologists whom I respect. They are following the accepted protocol, they are doing what they are taught, but it doesn't mean they themselves don't question some of the treatment. It's all they have based on their profession. I've learned to enjoy research but I also recognize the risks with believing any of it wholeheartedly until it withstands a true test of time and outcome. Everything is a theory until something else comes along. |
_________________
Enjoying dermalogica with my ASG and Pico toner ** Disclosure: I was a participant without remuneration in promotional videos for Ageless Secret Gold and the Neurotris Pico Emmy event. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:47 pm |
| aprile wrote: |
| FWIW, I'm not totally against all vaccinations; I'm against the way they're administered in babies as combination vaccines and the preservatives used in them, such as mercury. In fact, I've had my own son vaccinated. I'm against over vaccinating and certainly using scare tactics to convince people into being vaccinated for something as benign as the flu when yes a healthy immune system should be able to fight it. |
Combination vaccines have been studied to death; there is no ethical way to compare them (with a clinical trial) to the individual administration of each component of the combo vaccine, or by altering the currently recommended vaccine schedule. Do you understand that Aprile? While you may think (or may have read on some dodgy website which told you) that individual vaccines are safer than combos, there is nothing to back up that assertion. It is, at best, an untested hypothesis. While it may be safer (who knows?) it most definitely is riskier, since infants/children will be extending the time that they remain unvaccinated for some serious diseases. It is highly unethical to conduct clinical trials in which some subjects (in this case infants and young children) are deliberately exposed to a known, high-risk situation ... can you wrap your head around that concept (ethical considerations)? No ethics committee in the world would allow a clinical trial would expose children to an increased risk of death.
There is no mercury in any vaccine; there never has been. I think what you mean is thimerosal, which is a compound that contains mercury, but I realize now that I should never try to read your mind (since your thinking processes are so foreign to my own). Thimerosal contains a form of mercury called ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is broken down and excreted much more rapidly than methylmercury (which is a different form of mercury) . Therefore, ethylmercury (the type of mercury found in the influenza vaccine) is much less likely than methylmercury (the type of mercury in the environment) to accumulate in the body and cause harm. When thimerosal enters the body, it breaks down to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate, which are easily eliminated. Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines do not, and never did, contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal.
In 1999, as a precautionary measure, the U.S. Public Health Service recommended removing thimerosal as a preservative from vaccines to reduce mercury-exposure among infants as much as possible. Today, except for some flu vaccines in multi-dose vials, no recommended childhood vaccines contain thimerosal as a preservative. (If you are concerned about thimerosal, Flu vaccine in single-dose vials are available, and they do not contain thimerosal). In all other recommended childhood vaccines, no thimerosal is present, or the amount of thimerosal is close to zero (the only childhood vaccines today that have trace amounts of thimerosal are one DTaP and one DTaP-Hib combination vaccine). The childhood vaccines that used to contain thimerosal as a preservative are now put into single-dose vials, so no preservative is needed. In the past, the vaccines were put into multi-dose vials, which could become contaminated when new needles were used to get vaccine out of the vial for each dose. No reputable scientific studies have found an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Thimersol was developed in the 1930s and is used (or has been used) as a preservative in many injectible medications/vaccines and has an excellent safety and preservative record.
You have proven yourself to be a veritable fount of misinformation. Please expand your education on medical issues to include reliable sources of information, such as the CDC or FDA; at least that would give you a more balanced perspective and would make your posts more accurate. Here's a start:
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228 |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
| Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:01 pm |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
