Do Not Get Vaccinated!

Off Topic
141

[quote]OTS1 wrote:
nik133 wrote:
Ok great thanks, you are clearly an expert. Now go back to my previous post watch the videos and answer my question relating to autism and why its so rampant in kids who get the vaccine and why in people who don’t get it hardly have any cases within their community (In the Amish community 4 in 22000 have autism 3 of which got the vaccine and 1 that lives near a power plant)?

I am willing to accept your statistics as valid, as I have no reason to dismiss them.

The amish don’t drink. The amish don’t do drugs. The amish eat mostly natural foods. They are exposed to high levels of sawdust. Who knows? If this reasoning holds true, then its obvious that eating gifilte fish while pregnant is the cause of Tay-Sachs disease. Do you know how rare Tay-Sachs is in the non-gifilte eating population?

Nearly all victims of breast cancer in the united states drank apple juice at some point in their lives. The statistical link is obvious.

Basic logic should be involved in this discussion.

I’m also going to make a value judgement here: I’d prefer an increase in autism within a population than a polio/measles/rubella/smallpox (eradicated through innoculation)/dyptheria/hepatitis outbreak, or as was the case before vaccinations: constant oubreaks and “burns” through the population.[/quote]

I’m going with the saw dust theory.

You should write a book on it, make a fortune, theres a thread full of dirt clods right here who will eat it up.

5mg of saw dust per day, OR ELSE YOU GET AUTISM.

142

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
I’m pretty sure those Autistic kids are just faking it.

lol what autism kids? there are no autism kids related to vaccines.[/quote]

They’re all faking it.

143

[quote]on edge wrote:
Those who get the vaccine are much, much more at risk of contracting shingles later in life. Shingles is a much bigger threat than chicken pox.

Michael570 wrote:
Considering the vaccine was introduced ~20 years ago, I would like to humbly call bullshit on your claim.

Thank you.

on edge wrote:
Well, you’re wrong. You have to get boosters every few years, if you forget, you’re vulnerable to the virus. Most people, when they hit their 20’s, stop going for regular checkups and thus are likely to fall behind on their shots.
[/quote]

Shingles and chickenpox are caused the the same virus. If you’re not vaccinated, you’re vulnerable to the virus. How does forgetting boosters and becoming vulnerable to the virus increase your risk of shingles more than someone that does not get vaccinated? What’s the difference?

Shingles typically flares up in ages 50-70. The vaccine is 20 years old and mostly given to children. Where’s your evidence that it increases shingles risk later in life?

144

[quote]lou21 wrote:
on edge wrote:
When my wife was pregnant with our first child we researched the issue in depth to make our decision. This was eight years ago, so my memory is faded on details, however, I do remember thinking that the pro-vaccine materials we read were quite pathetic. I could go through most of them point by point and tear them apart. I do remember one point, almost verbatim, and it was, something to the effect “when a problem is discovered with a vaccine it gets pulled from the market”.

Well, thats nice but they can’t pull it from a little babies body. Once it goes in there’s no going back. With further research I learned that statement is not entirely true. When they learned of the egg allergy problem with some vaccines, they changed the processing methods for future productions. They didn’t pull the old ones from the market - the ones that still contained the egg proteins. It turned out my son is allergic to eggs and they were (at the time) still using the old vaccine in our area.

In the end, my wife and I chose not to get any vaccines for our children. The one we were tempted to get is the one for Meningitis. That is one nasty bug and it’s prevalent enough to be a concern. An intelligent poster, earlier in this thread, said they would seriously consider the MMR vaccine. I don’t agree. I don’t see any of the those three as being much of a risk. Rubella is just a bad rash as far as I remember.

Some other points I remember not sitting well with me; By age 2 something like 32 vaccines are recommended by the AMA. That strikes me as such overkill (no pun intended, but I like it) as to indicate an industry that can’t be trusted. The Chicken Pox Vaccine is ludicrous. It’s not very strong so it needs to be repeated every 7 years, verses if you just get it, you have nearly a lifetime immunity. Those who get the vaccine are much, much more at risk of contracting shingles later in life. Shingles is a much bigger threat than chicken pox.

OK I have to write something here. This thread has been seriously raising my blood pressure. “Rubella is just a bad rash” Please please please do some more research on what the Rubella is and what it does to unborn children if the mother is infected. This used to be rather more common than it is now…

As for mumps (one of the other diseases covered by the MMR) is your child a boy or a girl? If it’s a boy I hope he thanks you if he contracts mumps whilst at university (rather a common occurence now in the UK since the herd immunity dropped due to the MMR fiasco). This can cause rather extreme consequences for a boy. Like you not having any grandchildren…

All in all I give you a fail for your research project and am sorry for your child.

(I will agree about chickenpox though- don’t parents usually try to make sure their children get that disease to prevent the risk of shingles later on?)

As for the guy saying he’ll get vacinated if the disease becomes resistant…
[/quote]

I referred to it as population immunity, but I was trying to convey the idea of herd immunity earlier and the danger this uptick in the anti-vaccination represents.

Frankly, when I hear someone is anti-vaccination I treat it as a red flag that their reasoning skills are suspect.

145

Reading threads like this is honestly the hardest thing a person can do. Nothing is more tiring than reading a bunch of relatively uneducated, uninundated, and SEVERELY OPINIONATED people bicker back and forth about things that A) they can’t change and B) know damn near nothing about ANYTHING barring anecdotal experiences.

Anti-vaccine doctors are quacks
Pro-vaccine doctors are Big Bad Pharma out to get you

Youtube and wikipedia aren’t credible sources.
Peer reviewed studies, not only biased on who writes and funds them, are subject to downright inaccuraces and falce claims.

All evidence is correlational not causational.
All evidence is to be believed without question, as long as it’s written on real gosh darn paper.

Here’s the bottom line, if you believe in the efficacy of vaccines, get them, if not, don’t. MAKE UP YOUR OWN GODDAMN MIND. Go read the Red Queen if you want to talk abot the pros and cons of vaccine usage. Although the book might not say anything DIRECTY about it, here’s the moral YOU CAN’T WIN. Vaccinations help you, yet make the virus stronger, however if you keep the virus weak, you suffer, get over it and do what you decide.

This internet posturing and arguing, (which would be more accurately called, internet-pick-apart-one-aspect-of-what-a-person-says-to-descredit-their-entire-point), is goddamn pointless and would be better utilized by doing ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS. In summary, (and this could be applied to what I would estimate at 97% of ALL these forums topics), please SHUT THE FUCK UP.

146

Vaccinations do not make viruses stronger… sigh.

Besides, all you need is sawdust.

147

So doing a little research: thimerisol isn’t in the north american and european vaccines. Its now packaged in single use vials which do not require the substance.

You can all take the tin-foil off now.

Sawdust.

148

Do you have any good sawdust recipes? Can I buy it at any grocery store or should I go with a specialty brand?

149

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
on edge wrote:
Those who get the vaccine are much, much more at risk of contracting shingles later in life. Shingles is a much bigger threat than chicken pox.

Michael570 wrote:
Considering the vaccine was introduced ~20 years ago, I would like to humbly call bullshit on your claim.

Thank you.

on edge wrote:
Well, you’re wrong. You have to get boosters every few years, if you forget, you’re vulnerable to the virus. Most people, when they hit their 20’s, stop going for regular checkups and thus are likely to fall behind on their shots.

Shingles and chickenpox are caused the the same virus. If you’re not vaccinated, you’re vulnerable to the virus. How does forgetting boosters and becoming vulnerable to the virus increase your risk of shingles more than someone that does not get vaccinated? What’s the difference?

Shingles typically flares up in ages 50-70. The vaccine is 20 years old and mostly given to children. Where’s your evidence that it increases shingles risk later in life?[/quote]

If you’re not vaccinated AND YOU GET CHICKEN POX as a child you have stronger immunity than if you get the vaccine. I have no evidence but it seems logical that if you have a stronger immunity you are less likely to get shingles later inlife. Someone above, I think Lordcliff, claims Shingles is a reactivation of the dormant virus. If that is the only source of Shingles then I am wrong. If Shingles can be contracted from a first infection (not contracting as a child but as an adult), not just a reactivation, than I believe I am right.

150

[quote]OTS1 wrote:
Vaccinations do not make viruses stronger… sigh.

Besides, all you need is sawdust.

[/quote]

i litrally have no idea what the sawdust comment is about, but vaccines do make viruses stronger, not in the sense that if you have a vaccine you will get a worse infection later on, but in that they, vaccines, provide a a driving evolutionary force for the viruses to become more virulent due to a lack of viable hosts

151

I went and did a little research, just a few random looks, nothing too in depth. We talked about Rubella. I claimed it is nothing more than a bad rash and someone responded it can be deadly to unborn babies. This is true, it is devastating if a pregnant mother gets it. So one would think it’s a no brainer to get immunized for this disease. After all, we can all take a tiny risk if it will save babies lives, right?

According to the CDC the only risk for getting the immunization is 1 in 6 of getting a fever and one in twenty of getting a rash or swelling of the glands. There’s only a 1 in 3000 chance of having seizures. One in 4 will have stiffness or joint pain. One in 30,000 chance of a bleeding disorder.

And, “serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine. But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. These include:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage”

So, like I said, it’s a no brainer, we can risk the tiny chance of brain damage for our children if it will save babies lives, right?

Wrong. It turns out Rubella has been eradicated from the United States and it’s quite rare in the rest of the world. There is virtually a zero risk of a pregnant woman contracting this disease in this country. The CDC says most people who get the MMR vaccine don’t have any problems with it. I took all those numbers off their website and I see enough 1 in 4’s and 1 in 6’s there to now most people do have adverse side effects and on a rare occasion they are devastating. Keep in mind most adverse side effects go unreported and some maybe unquantifiable. Who knows what kind of IQ points could be getting shaved due to these vaccines.

152

[quote]on edge wrote:
I went and did a little research, just a few random looks, nothing too in depth. We talked about Rubella. I claimed it is nothing more than a bad rash and someone responded it can be deadly to unborn babies. This is true, it is devastating if a pregnant mother gets it. So one would think it’s a no brainer to get immunized for this disease. After all, we can all take a tiny risk if it will save babies lives, right?

According to the CDC the only risk for getting the immunization is 1 in 6 of getting a fever and one in twenty of getting a rash or swelling of the glands. There’s only a 1 in 3000 chance of having seizures. One in 4 will have stiffness or joint pain. One in 30,000 chance of a bleeding disorder.

And, “serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine. But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. These include:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage”

So, like I said, it’s a no brainer, we can risk the tiny chance of brain damage for our children if it will save babies lives, right?

Wrong. It turns out Rubella has been eradicated from the United States and it’s quite rare in the rest of the world. There is virtually a zero risk of a pregnant woman contracting this disease in this country. The CDC says most people who get the MMR vaccine don’t have any problems with it. I took all those numbers off their website and I see enough 1 in 4’s and 1 in 6’s there to now most people do have adverse side effects and on a rare occasion they are devastating. Keep in mind most adverse side effects go unreported and some maybe unquantifiable. Who knows what kind of IQ points could be getting shaved due to these vaccines.[/quote]

A disease was eradicated? Really? How the hell did they accomplish that?

http://www.polioeradication.org/disease.asp

153

[quote]on edge wrote:
I went and did a little research, just a few random looks, nothing too in depth. We talked about Rubella. I claimed it is nothing more than a bad rash and someone responded it can be deadly to unborn babies. This is true, it is devastating if a pregnant mother gets it. So one would think it’s a no brainer to get immunized for this disease. After all, we can all take a tiny risk if it will save babies lives, right?

According to the CDC the only risk for getting the immunization is 1 in 6 of getting a fever and one in twenty of getting a rash or swelling of the glands. There’s only a 1 in 3000 chance of having seizures. One in 4 will have stiffness or joint pain. One in 30,000 chance of a bleeding disorder.

And, “serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine. But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. These include:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage”

So, like I said, it’s a no brainer, we can risk the tiny chance of brain damage for our children if it will save babies lives, right?

Wrong. It turns out Rubella has been eradicated from the United States and it’s quite rare in the rest of the world. There is virtually a zero risk of a pregnant woman contracting this disease in this country. The CDC says most people who get the MMR vaccine don’t have any problems with it. I took all those numbers off their website and I see enough 1 in 4’s and 1 in 6’s there to now most people do have adverse side effects and on a rare occasion they are devastating. Keep in mind most adverse side effects go unreported and some maybe unquantifiable. Who knows what kind of IQ points could be getting shaved due to these vaccines.[/quote]

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt14-rubella.htm#5

Ok, there is a difference eradicated and not endemic, and the cdc says it’s not endemic. This does not mean a person has no chance of getting the disease, simply that vaccinations over the years have had a huge impact in reducing the prevalence.

Stopping the vaccinations now, when there are still actual endemic areas around the world? I suppose we don’t have to worry about immigration, air travel, etc…

Why quit before we’re done all over the whole world. If it was actually eradicated from this planet, then I would say stop giving it, like they did with smallpox.

That is until someone loses one of the vials.

154

[quote]Lordcliff wrote:

Why quit before we’re done all over the whole world. If it was actually eradicated from this planet, then I would say stop giving it, like they did with smallpox.

That is until someone loses one of the vials.[/quote]

Why do they keep this shit anyway? Is there really some sort of scientific gain to be had that justifies the risk?

155

[quote]on edge wrote:
I went and did a little research, just a few random looks, nothing too in depth. We talked about Rubella. I claimed it is nothing more than a bad rash and someone responded it can be deadly to unborn babies. This is true, it is devastating if a pregnant mother gets it. So one would think it’s a no brainer to get immunized for this disease. After all, we can all take a tiny risk if it will save babies lives, right?

According to the CDC the only risk for getting the immunization is 1 in 6 of getting a fever and one in twenty of getting a rash or swelling of the glands. There’s only a 1 in 3000 chance of having seizures. One in 4 will have stiffness or joint pain. One in 30,000 chance of a bleeding disorder.

And, “serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine. But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. These include:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage”

So, like I said, it’s a no brainer, we can risk the tiny chance of brain damage for our children if it will save babies lives, right?

Wrong. It turns out Rubella has been eradicated from the United States and it’s quite rare in the rest of the world. There is virtually a zero risk of a pregnant woman contracting this disease in this country. The CDC says most people who get the MMR vaccine don’t have any problems with it. I took all those numbers off their website and I see enough 1 in 4’s and 1 in 6’s there to now most people do have adverse side effects and on a rare occasion they are devastating. Keep in mind most adverse side effects go unreported and some maybe unquantifiable. Who knows what kind of IQ points could be getting shaved due to these vaccines.[/quote]

Yes fine great arguements. BUT lets try a little thought experiment here. We stop vaccinating for Rubella now. No problems will occur for many years (20-30 probably). Everything is sweet. Then someone who hasn’t been vaccinated travels to some dump in the third world. He/she gets infected and comes home. The disease would spread thoughout the under 30 population. We see lots of deformed children born. Of course this won’t be a (huge NB loss of herd immunity) problem for any of us. Or for our children (they will just get the ‘mild’ rash- and maybe some infertility for the guys if we include mumps) but their children’s generation will be severly affected.

Of course the situation with Mumps in the UK has been rather accelerated having happened in a ten year period.

If you really don’t want MMR for your children then at least get your children the three seperate vaccines that we were given as children.

156

[quote]pstruhar7786 wrote:
Reading threads like this is honestly the hardest thing a person can do. Nothing is more tiring than reading a bunch of relatively uneducated, uninundated, and SEVERELY OPINIONATED people bicker back and forth about things that A) they can’t change and B) know damn near nothing about ANYTHING barring anecdotal experiences.

Anti-vaccine doctors are quacks
Pro-vaccine doctors are Big Bad Pharma out to get you

Youtube and wikipedia aren’t credible sources.
Peer reviewed studies, not only biased on who writes and funds them, are subject to downright inaccuraces and falce claims.

All evidence is correlational not causational.
All evidence is to be believed without question, as long as it’s written on real gosh darn paper.

Here’s the bottom line, if you believe in the efficacy of vaccines, get them, if not, don’t. MAKE UP YOUR OWN GODDAMN MIND. Go read the Red Queen if you want to talk abot the pros and cons of vaccine usage. Although the book might not say anything DIRECTY about it, here’s the moral YOU CAN’T WIN. Vaccinations help you, yet make the virus stronger, however if you keep the virus weak, you suffer, get over it and do what you decide.

This internet posturing and arguing, (which would be more accurately called, internet-pick-apart-one-aspect-of-what-a-person-says-to-descredit-their-entire-point), is goddamn pointless and would be better utilized by doing ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS. In summary, (and this could be applied to what I would estimate at 97% of ALL these forums topics), please SHUT THE FUCK UP. [/quote]

stamp of goodness.

157

[quote]lou21 wrote:
on edge wrote:
I went and did a little research, just a few random looks, nothing too in depth. We talked about Rubella. I claimed it is nothing more than a bad rash and someone responded it can be deadly to unborn babies. This is true, it is devastating if a pregnant mother gets it. So one would think it’s a no brainer to get immunized for this disease. After all, we can all take a tiny risk if it will save babies lives, right?

According to the CDC the only risk for getting the immunization is 1 in 6 of getting a fever and one in twenty of getting a rash or swelling of the glands. There’s only a 1 in 3000 chance of having seizures. One in 4 will have stiffness or joint pain. One in 30,000 chance of a bleeding disorder.

And, “serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine. But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. These include:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage”

So, like I said, it’s a no brainer, we can risk the tiny chance of brain damage for our children if it will save babies lives, right?

Wrong. It turns out Rubella has been eradicated from the United States and it’s quite rare in the rest of the world. There is virtually a zero risk of a pregnant woman contracting this disease in this country. The CDC says most people who get the MMR vaccine don’t have any problems with it. I took all those numbers off their website and I see enough 1 in 4’s and 1 in 6’s there to now most people do have adverse side effects and on a rare occasion they are devastating. Keep in mind most adverse side effects go unreported and some maybe unquantifiable. Who knows what kind of IQ points could be getting shaved due to these vaccines.

Yes fine great arguements. BUT lets try a little thought experiment here. We stop vaccinating for Rubella now. No problems will occur for many years (20-30 probably). Everything is sweet. Then someone who hasn’t been vaccinated travels to some dump in the third world. He/she gets infected and comes home. The disease would spread thoughout the under 30 population. We see lots of deformed children born. Of course this won’t be a (huge NB loss of herd immunity) problem for any of us. Or for our children (they will just get the ‘mild’ rash- and maybe some infertility for the guys if we include mumps) but their children’s generation will be severly affected.

Of course the situation with Mumps in the UK has been rather accelerated having happened in a ten year period.

If you really don’t want MMR for your children then at least get your children the three seperate vaccines that we were given as children.[/quote]

I’m not saying vaccines aren’t good for populations. I think they are. My approach is “what is best for my children” and my conclusion is it’s probably safer for them to not get vaccinated. As I stated earlier, the one vaccine I’m up in the air about is the Meningococcal vaccine.