posted
One of the polio vaccination versions is a live attenuated virus. 144 people, over nearly 20 years, where thousands and thousands are spared, is well within parameters. Anytime you give a live virus, you run the risk of an absolute minority not being able to fight it off because of an immune abnormality. I heard the numbers came down to something like 1 in 850,000. Admittedly it is horrible if you're that 1, but no therapy of any kind is perfect.
This is making mountains out of molehills. You can't call it a failure or unreliable if a tiny percentage has a bad reaction. More people than that die during surgery due to a bad reaction to anesthesia, but we don't demonize surgical practices.
This is the kind of data reporting that seriously hurts the credibility of the "natural", "alternative medicine" movements. This seems to be a harmful, continuous practice - complaining about a minority of bad reactions and that a therapy is evil if it isn't both 100% safe and effective (which NOTHING is), and then offering unproven alternatives which claim to be both of the above.
[ 07-02-2009, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Blackstone ]
Posts: 691 | From East coast, USA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
Blackstone,
My position remains unchanged. I do not want the government mandating my medical care.
If we can't have sensorship, if we can't discuss "certain" religions, if we must be politically correct and considerate in other aspects of our lives, then how on earth is it ok to force other issues like medical treatment down our throat?
Seems to me civil liberties only work to one side's advantage.
And don't tell me about the good of the masses. As I said originally, all who believe the vaccines are effective and safe should get them and then they will be unaffected by those of us who feel otherwise.
I'm only saying no vaccine for me. For all others I say do what you think best. What I don't want is someone forcing me to do what I do not think is best.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
emla999/Lyme
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 12606
posted
According to a recent study, children who get the flu vaccine are three times more likely to be hospitalized for the flu!!
Hoosiers51
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 15759
posted
Blackstone,
Even if the risk is "within parameters," if someone knows that something that will be administered to them may be lethal (or even just harmful), shouldn't they have the RIGHT to refuse it?
If it had never hurt anyone, maybe that argument has clout, but for me it is more an issue of PERSONAL (not group) rights.
It shouldn't be okay for someone to die from a vaccine that they tried to refuse, but was forced upon them by law. Even if it is very rare.
I understand that you are keeping in mind the rights of others, but you also can't trample on personal liberties in the process.
Someone should NOT be asked to ingest something potentially lethal, with the justification of, "but look at how many people you could be saving."
ALL states should allow opting out of vaccination for philosophical reasons. Some people may not be willing to make that sacrifice for others, even though the odds of death or injury may be low.
In your surgery example, the person is going into surgery to save his/her OWN life, and as far as I know, people have the right to refuse surgery, correct?
Posts: 4590 | From Midwest | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
emla999/lyme
Great articles. Thank you for that research.
I was reading an article yesterday about osteoarthritis and research is finding a link to hormone imbalance, enzyme depletion among other things that get out of balance in the body.
I commented to my husband, "How on earth has my mother managed to keep all her hormones, enzymes and other stuff in balance for 83 yrs. She has no illness whatsoever." He commented that neither of his parents had arthritis he and all his siblings do. His mother died at 98 and I remember looking at her hands and noting not a single deformed joint.
Two things we could think of that was different for them than for us.
1-Food. They had pesticides but they did not have fake food. TV dinners did not come into existence until the 60's and I remember my mother turning her nose up at anything boxed or frozen. She made all our meals from scratch.
2-Vaccines! Their generation was not vaccinated, but ours was. Could we be suffering the consequences of those vaccinations?
3-Both our moms believed in eating healthy balanced meals.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not dispute that personal liberties are important, but there is the old saying that "your personal freedoms stop when mine start" or something to that effect.
The example I was making before hand about surgery was nothing about freedoms, but rather the statistics posted by naturalnews.
The honest problem here is about herd immunity. The laws we have at current allow for objectors, and that is fine. However, they are generally predicated on the idea that for most participants in society, people will NOT object. As I said before, should enough people stop carrying the burden of immunity, herd immunity vanishes and that means that all of the non-immune individuals are now vulnerable.
How do we manage this herd immunity? What if your personal right to remain unprotected and uninfected impacts my personal right to be unprotected and uninfected? Should enough people reject the notion of protection, that's exactly what's going to happen. Of course this is not to say anything for the people who DO get protected by the protection isn't perfect. Sure, in a location where X illness is rare a 90% immunity is great, but if the chance of exposure rises, you're "rolling the dice" more often so to speak.
Lets say that a person joins a fictitious religion that both requires to proselytize face to face and to refuse medical treatment? Now what happens if this individual gets TB? Should this tuberculous missionary have the right to stand at the subway stop all day long, exposing people to a threat because of his personal religious beliefs?
As I said above, I have no problem with other options besides traditional vaccination if they are effective, up to and including quarantine. Would that be a sufficient compromise - forcefully quarantining those who were not immune? Some would call that an infringement of personal rights as well.
I don't believe vaccines are perfect or that every single person needs them regardless of circumstances, but what I do object to is the cavalier attitude displayed by some that "Well this is what I'm going to do, you had better protect yourself if you don't like it".
As I mentioned previously, the only reason that non-immune people have the luxury to not partake in some method of vaccination or prophylaxis and generally not be worried about infection, is because others have shouldered that risk and that burden to their body. I think we should respect the notion that the only reason this particular personal liberty is even feasible is because of a group sacrifice.
Posts: 691 | From East coast, USA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Vaccines are not the universal panacea and I feel they should be worked on to a much greater degree to ensure better safety (like for eg the preservatives they use) for the people that are taking the vaccine.
Some vaccines are probably too unsafe for an unacceptably high % of the population (Hep B maybe?)
I also feel that individuals should be better screened as to whether they are to be given vaccinations or not in order to really minimise the risks of adverse affects yet keep herd immunity high, so that in fact it remains possible for the very people who are not good candidates for vaccines to stay safe because others (the ones who are less likely to experience adverse reactions) have been vaccinated.
Nelly
Posts: 416 | From france | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
lymielauren28
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 13742
posted
Grandmother - yes I read it.
Blackstone - herd immunity goes right along with the herd mentality. Let me remind you that we are not cattle...
Lauren
-------------------- "The only way out is through" Posts: 1434 | From mississippi | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
Grandmother,
I did read it, but I have a bit of a problem with some of it.
For instance, mass killing us through vaccines? Wouldn't that become pretty obvious pretty quickly and the vaccinations would have to cease?
Now creating a ficticious pandemic to profit from everyone getting vaccinated? Yup. I can sure believe that one.
Putting vaccines on the market without adequately researching and testing them ahead of time? Oh yeah. Happens all the time.
Requiring vaccines for stupid things like Hep B for little kids? Yup. Already happening.
I have not heard back from Fox, CNN, Bill Moyer or Glenn Beck regarding the lawsuit filed by Jane Burgermeister.
I still can't believe the muzzle on the media is so great that no one is leaking this news. Especially if Obama is named.
Blackstone, I meant I would be quarrantined if I got the flu, not just because I refused the stupid, unproven, ineffective, possibly quite dangerous shot.
Have YOU read the articles posted by emla999?
Luvs
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
grandmother (me too :-))
Scroll back up the page and look for a post by emla999 where she/he has given us two links.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
D Bergy
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9984
posted
So what are the compelling reasons to get a Flu shot? I still have not seen any evidence presented that they protect an individual from the Flu. The evidence that I have seen, says they do not.
What other reason exists for doing this? Why are millions getting these every year?
Dan
Posts: 2924 | From Minnesota | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should make this clear as it seems to keep coming up: I do not believe that flu shots are necessary for most, not the least of which are people with compromised or overworked immune systems. There are too many strains of flu, its hard to predict which ones are going to be prevalent every year. For some individuals, like the vulnerable due to age or profession, it is probably a good idea. However for others, it is probably an unnecessary load on the system.
That said I have to break in here..
Lauren - Here is a simple explanation from the wiki about herd immunity - encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
"Herd immunity (or community immunity) describes a type of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a portion of the population (or herd) provides protection to unprotected individuals.[1] Herd immunity theory proposes that, in diseases passed from person-to-person, it is more difficult to maintain a chain of infection when large numbers of a population are immune. The more immune individuals present in a population, the lower the likelihood that a susceptible person will come into contact with an infected individual.[2]"
This is a theory that has been evident for quite some time and has been shown viable in epidemologic studies. Postulating that it has anything to do with "herd mentality" is erroneous. One is a verified scientific phenomena and the other is a sociological construct that affects how people are influenced to make decisions.
Posts: 691 | From East coast, USA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
lymielauren28
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 13742
posted
Blackstone, thank you for clarifying. That makes perfect sense...I just misunderstood your statement. On all the other issues we'll just have to agree to disagree
Lauren
-------------------- "The only way out is through" Posts: 1434 | From mississippi | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
emla999/Lyme
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 12606
posted
This thread made me think of Jock Doubleday's vaccine challenge.
Jock Doubleday will give $205,000 to the first U.S. licensed medical doctor or pharmaceutical company CEO that will publicly drink a mixture of standard vaccine additive ingredients.
This challenge has been going on for over 8 years now. And to my knowledge, no medical doctor or pharmaceutical company CEO has accepted Mr. Doubleday's vaccine challenge.
Posts: 1223 | From U.S.A | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
Aniek
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5374
posted
Just because a lawsuit is filed does not mean the claims made in the lawsuit have any merit whatsoever.
-------------------- "When there is pain, there are no words." - Toni Morrison Posts: 4711 | From Washington, DC | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Truthfinder
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8512
posted
I need to clear up one thing.....
Blackstone, you made one comment awhile back that was misleading:
**'' This seems to be a harmful, continuous practice - complaining about a minority of bad reactions and that a therapy is evil if it isn't both 100% safe and effective (which NOTHING is), and then offering unproven alternatives which claim to be both of the above .''**
I don't know where you saw that homeoprophylaxis is 100% effective - it isn't. Nobody here said it was. It can't be. There are people (and animals) who do not readily develop and retain antibodies to various diseases. This is not well understood. The same principle is true of homeopathic prevention - the information from the remedy just isn't retained well by some people.
The good news, though, is that even if a disease is acquired after `homeopathic vaccination', the illness is generally a mild version. Far fewer deaths occur as a result.
As to safety, homeopathics have a 200-year track record of safety. That doesn't mean negative reactions don't happen - they can and do. But you won't die from it, and you won't suffer irreparable harm from it. I consider that to be `safe' in comparison to traditional vaccinations.
Just wanted to clarify that point.
-------------------- Tracy .... Prayers for the Lyme Community - every day at 6 p.m. Pacific Time and 9 p.m. Eastern Time � just take a few moments to say a prayer wherever you are�. Posts: 2966 | From Colorado | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I agree that not everything is 100% - I've mentioned that before in respect to allopathic treatments too.
I wasn't specifically speaking about homeopathic vaccines/prophylaxis, but rather the "alternative medicine" community as a whole.
On the concept of homeopathy, I think it just needs a chance to prove itself. Take a conventional vaccine with marked effectiveness that provides a certain level of antibody response generally indicative of immunity , and check to see if the homeopathic version comes to the same end. If it does, it shows homeopathic vaccines are equally as effective. Effectiveness is what I care about in addition to safety, and that's something I've not seen demonstrated. The Cuba experiment is a good start, but its a long way from comprehensive.
What I was speaking about earlier was the tone of the set article, and many, many "alternative medicine" discussion groups, web sites, and "pushers". They vilify a certain thing or treatment, which is often used "conventionally" by many patients without issue.
Saying that a few hundred people got polio from a live attenuated virus, compared to hundreds of thousands that didn't in an effect to make the vaccine look bad, is pure and simple fear mongering. I see this time and time again.
"Because 1% of people have a bad reaction to X, X is not only bad, but WE SELL Y which is perfect, natural, costs 6 times as much as X and of course can't be covered by your insurance, but if you really value your health you're going to buy it" Of course, there are no controlled studies from independent sources about Y. Sometimes its even worse, when I find that "Life Health Institute" the supposed lab that certified this thing as so great, is OWNED by the same people who sell the product? Isn't that a conflict of interest?
At least homeopathy has protocols, standards, and organization, and I think there just needs to be more research done to show the benefits and limitations of the treatment - places where it is as good or better than allopathic treatment, and places where it lacks .
Thousands of sites and products don't have anything near that amount of legitimacy, and that was what I referred to.
Posts: 691 | From East coast, USA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
Vaccine May Be More Dangerous Than Swine Flu
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Truthfinder
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8512
posted
Regarding the lawsuit that was filed..... some of the claims seemed pretty far-fetched. And yet......
Then, I saw this and it gave a little credibility to some of the rumors about `FEMA camps'......
quote:Political opposition is not a hate crime washington examiner July 10, 2009
What's wrong with this picture? The federal government spends billions on homeland security, but apparently can't stop foreigners from illegally crossing the border or overstaying their visas. The Obama administration wants to bring violent terrorists captured overseas to the mainland and close the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay.
Yet in the latest bizarre twist, legislation quietly making its way through Congress would give the White House power to categorize political opponents as hate groups and even send Americans to detention centers on abandoned military bases.
Rep. Alcee Hastings - the impeached Florida judge Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled - introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states' rights, or a host of other issues.
In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, blasted the idea: "This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as 'extremists.'"
Another Hastings bill (HR 645) authorizes $360 million in 2009 and 2010 to set up "not fewer than six national emergency centers on military installations" capable of housing "a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster." But Section 2 (b) 4 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to use the camps "to meet other appropriate needs" - none of which are specified. This is the kind of blank check that Congress should never, ever sign.
It's not paranoid to be extremely wary of legislation that would give two unelected government officials power to legally declare someone a "domestic terrorist" and send them to a government-run camp.
After all, the federal government has done exactly this sort of thing before. During World War II, more than 120,000 law-abiding Japanese Americans were rounded up by the government and confined for four years in ten internment camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. Joy Kogawa chronicled the trauma her family experienced firsthand under FDR's executive order: "Families were made to move in two hours. Abandoned everything, leaving pets and possessions at gun point..."
It was wrong then, and it would be doubly wrong now should members of Congress somehow fail to learn from past mistakes.
-------------------- Tracy .... Prayers for the Lyme Community - every day at 6 p.m. Pacific Time and 9 p.m. Eastern Time � just take a few moments to say a prayer wherever you are�. Posts: 2966 | From Colorado | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackstone I'm not sure if you work in a science related field or not, but for someone that does when they read that study you posted they can realize it is what some call publication fraud.
The study in no way proves vaccines prevented the infection or that those that didn't get the vaccine were at a higher risk. Data was collected, only parts of the data were shared, and based on some what is shared it seems as though the results could have proved exactly the opposite (the kids that got vaccines actually got the infection more often). Because all they mention is 11% of all infection cases were from those that refused vaccination... there's another 89% they don't mention, and why they don't mention it?? Probably because more than 11% of that was attributed to those that were vaccinated which would prove the opposite of what the vaccine manufacturer wanted.
What the researcher then does is put assumptions and opinions in the conclusion rather than facts based on the data collected (which was selectively published or discarded). Corporations love this because it's not TECHNICALLY research fraud, and then they can simply reference the conclusion of "science based" research when they want to sell something.
This type of research fraud is everywhere in our health care system, it's the same thing IDSA does to hide the truth.
The real problem with vaccines is the general populations ignorance that our doctors don't actually vaccinate themselves or their families. The CDC released memos within the organization advising that everyone working there not vaccinate their kids. There have been numerous studies posted on other threads showing proving the ineffectiveness of vaccines. These studies had no motive for financial gain and were actually carried out according to scientific methods.
Posts: 499 | From Indiana | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and what it comes down to is that EVERYONE accuses the other guy of doing this. The "conventional" side says the "natural/alternative" side falsifies evidence in the exact same way - through publication fraud, shifty "research", cherry picking supporting evidence, and labs and studies paid to get a single result.
For every supposedly scientific sounding article on an anti-vaccine site, there's one refuting it elsewhere. Everyone tries to poke holes in the other guy's research. It is bloody annoying for all those trying to find out the truth. Unfortunately, between hubris, money, and minds that are set in their ways, it becomes difficult.
I could spend the next few hours sourcing lots of positive vaccine articles just via googling, pubmed etc... would anyone here who espoused a contrary opinion really agree with them? I'm doubting it. Some would say "the sample is too small, they only tested on animals, there could have been other factors in play, they were conducted by a bad entity etc". If people believe something strong enough, nomatter the evidence to the contrary they'll always find a problem with it.
Sure, there are plenty of studies that seem to say vaccines don't work, but some (as I linked above the fearmongering natural news report, or many others) just aren't viable. This is just like how many vaccine production companies artificially represent their product's effectiveness.
I'm not saying that every vaccine is a wonderful panacea, or that they couldn't be improved. I'd love to see vaccines without artificial preservatives of any kind. I'm not saying there aren't corrupt individuals practicing corrupt science to get results to fill an agenda, but they are on BOTH sides. To put it succinctly, I doubt ALL entities involved.
[ 07-11-2009, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: Blackstone ]
Posts: 691 | From East coast, USA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how the crooks try to refute the credible research, it seems they usually pretend it doesn't exist. But the scientific method is simply the scientific method, it's straightfoward and simple enough and a scientist can read different studies and clearly tell what is legit and what isn't.
When the crooks try to "poke holes" in credible research they really don't poke any holes because the research is solid, they simply claim it doesn't exist or it was fraudulent, but can't point out why. They just make a broad BS statement since they know no one will actually look at the research anyway. However for example if you look at the research the connecticut attorney general found from IDSA you can see line by line the examples of research fraud and data manipulation, same thing as with these vaccine studies.
If you read the steps to the scientific method you'll see what I mean. Having experience performing research helps even more. If you're young and in college take a science course with serious labwork and this will become second nature to you in no time. Then when you go back and read different studies like this you'll just shake your head in amazement.
But of course the other side has a motive, it's the health of their patients and to uphold their oath. You can clearly follow the numbers and realize they have no financial motive or an intention to hurt anyone whereas the corrupt side clearly does. And if lawyers end up investigating they usually find out bribes were paid.
Try to learn more about all this if you can so you can have an understanding more so than an opinion. Because it's clear you notice certain things aren't right.
Posts: 499 | From Indiana | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
emla999/Lyme
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 12606
posted
Here's a rather interesting website about vaccines.
posted
Good site, thanks for showing that. I try to give people information and they just think i'm nuts. So that site helps out by laying out so much proof.
Posts: 499 | From Indiana | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
Truthfinder
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8512
posted
Yes, thanks Emla999 - looks like the site is brand new.
-------------------- Tracy .... Prayers for the Lyme Community - every day at 6 p.m. Pacific Time and 9 p.m. Eastern Time � just take a few moments to say a prayer wherever you are�. Posts: 2966 | From Colorado | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
emla999/Lyme
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 12606
posted
Legal immunity set for swine flu vaccine makers.
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
Legal immunity? Just perfect!
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Truthfinder
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8512
posted
Yep. Perfect. Just like the rest of the medical profession, the drug companies will get paid whether the vaccine is a success or not. Win or lose, they still win.
Sorry, but I'll pass on this vaccine (and most others). I believe the risk from the vaccine is far greater than the risk of the flu, and as far as I know, it's still my right to make that decision.
-------------------- Tracy .... Prayers for the Lyme Community - every day at 6 p.m. Pacific Time and 9 p.m. Eastern Time � just take a few moments to say a prayer wherever you are�. Posts: 2966 | From Colorado | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if they somehow do try and force us to take it, I'm running for the border. Better to be Canadian or Mexican, than crippled.
Posts: 499 | From Indiana | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic