About childhood vaccines

[regeneratia]

On DieChecker:

Reported: Insulting.

"I thought you all were trying to keep the insults down.

Generally this fella is on my ignore." But, since it still shows up in my conversation and I have to ignore it yet again, with the word "paranoia" in blatant view, while I am sure this fella is not qualified to make that assessment, I went ahead and responded to the insult.

IF I had to choose between being herded in my perceptions like a farm animal (Moo, Baa, Arf) or being paranoid, I think I would choose paranoia as a cerebral decision, well-deliberated and founded on real assessments of the events that surround this country.

No idle mind with an idle insult is going to change how I feel. And honeys, I just do not have a cyber ego. I will tell it like a see it, however unpopular that telling is to the idle or manipulated or manipulating mind.

I sit here, happy, and secure in myself. Diechecker must falsely think he has the power to change that.

But I keep wondering, who is he really convincing with that adverb? Himself? Me? Or all others?

Anyone care to speculate on his motivations?

Edited July 14, 2011 by regeneratia

[regeneratia]

Oh good lord......give me a break.

Saying a clandestine military intelligence operation somehow equates to the government misuing vaccine campaigns isnt' even apples and oranges. It's more like apples and chainsaws.

If you abstract this questionable CIA practice from the whole questionable vaccine practice, as you are obviously doing regardless of the fact that it is rather a mental mistake to abstract, then I can see how you would think that.

I am reporting to you, as an RN with a spouse in pharmaceutical research, that this family will no longer take vaccines, other than immunotherapy for cancer. There will have to be another medical antic or senseless "Medical Necessity" to try if you need us as guinea pigs.

We didn't do the seriously untested vaccine for the swine flu. We will not be doing any more vaccines. Have I made myself clear, oh great abstractor?!

I don't drink fluoridated water either, dear. It appears paranoia is wide-spread:

"Last week, at a campaign event in Laconia, New Hampshire I spoke for several minutes about fluoridation with Dr. Paul, telling him about the EPA Union's call for a moratorium, the 2006 NRC report, the numerous I.Q. studies, the dental fluorosis epidemic, and the CDC's promotion of fluoridation, and asked him, "if elected President, would you allow the CDC, DHHS, or any federal agency to use tax dollars to promote water fluoridation?"

Dr. Ron Paul responded:

"The federal government should have zero...nothing to do with the promotion of fluoridation unless its on a military base...and hopefully there they would do the right thing. So no, federal fluoride promotion shouldn't exist, they shouldn't be telling you or anyone else what should happen because even though it was well intended at the time--I remember that I thought it was a bad principle because in a way it was massive treatment--and at the time everybody accepted the idea that fluoride was great and that you would never get a cavity and there was no downside, now there is a big question, that's why you don't want government doing these kinds of things. You or I should decide, someone should give us bottled water with fluoride, or we should have the ability to buy water with fluoride, but we should not have the federal government promoting fluoridation...sometimes their right, most of the time their wrong. They shouldn't have the authority to do this. Especially with the information out there now about fluoride, I would do my best to stop federal involvement with state and local fluoride decisions."

Ron Paul is a physician trained in obstetrics and gynecology and has been a U.S. Congressman representing the Houston area of Texas for over 20 years. He has run for President twice before, has multiple best selling books, and has a very large and loyal following across the United States. "

Edited July 14, 2011 by regeneratia

[Karlis]

When discussing whether vaccines can have negative health effects, exchanges often become heated, and that's when personal conflicts easily arise, as has happened in some posts here. People can have strong and often conflicting views and convictions, and that's understandable. If you disagree with another's views, feel free to express your thoughts against those views.

That said, denigrating posters for the views they hold is not acceptable on UM.

Karlis -- moderator team member

[Rafterman]

If you abstract this questionable CIA practice from the whole questionable vaccine practice, as you are obviously doing regardless of the fact that it is rather a mental mistake to abstract, then I can see how you would think that.

I am reporting to you, as an RN with a spouse in pharmaceutical research, that this family will no longer take vaccines, other than immunotherapy for cancer. There will have to be another medical antic or senseless "Medical Necessity" to try if you need us as guinea pigs.

We didn't do the seriously untested vaccine for the swine flu. We will not be doing any more vaccines. Have I made myself clear, oh great abstractor?!

I don't drink fluoridated water either, dear. It appears paranoia is wide-spread:

"Last week, at a campaign event in Laconia, New Hampshire I spoke for several minutes about fluoridation with Dr. Paul, telling him about the EPA Union's call for a moratorium, the 2006 NRC report, the numerous I.Q. studies, the dental fluorosis epidemic, and the CDC's promotion of fluoridation, and asked him, "if elected President, would you allow the CDC, DHHS, or any federal agency to use tax dollars to promote water fluoridation?"

Dr. Ron Paul responded:

"The federal government should have zero...nothing to do with the promotion of fluoridation unless its on a military base...and hopefully there they would do the right thing. So no, federal fluoride promotion shouldn't exist, they shouldn't be telling you or anyone else what should happen because even though it was well intended at the time--I remember that I thought it was a bad principle because in a way it was massive treatment--and at the time everybody accepted the idea that fluoride was great and that you would never get a cavity and there was no downside, now there is a big question, that's why you don't want government doing these kinds of things. You or I should decide, someone should give us bottled water with fluoride, or we should have the ability to buy water with fluoride, but we should not have the federal government promoting fluoridation...sometimes their right, most of the time their wrong. They shouldn't have the authority to do this. Especially with the information out there now about fluoride, I would do my best to stop federal involvement with state and local fluoride decisions."

Ron Paul is a physician trained in obstetrics and gynecology and has been a U.S. Congressman representing the Houston area of Texas for over 20 years. He has run for President twice before, has multiple best selling books, and has a very large and loyal following across the United States. "

You can make whatever decisions you want for your family. That's your business and frankly I don't care.

But it would be nice for you to provide some scientific evidence to support your claims rather than "Ron Paul said this" at a campaign event.

And again, you've shown no link to what the CIA did and the vaccine program in the United States. I'd be interested to see any evidence you might have that relate the two activities.

[Stellar]

US Intellegence services seeking the #1 wanted man on Earth did a fake vaccination to gather DNA evidence to confirm Bin Ladin's family was present, and you are going to swing that so that the government is use fake vaccines to what???.... kill us all? Gather all our DNA? For what purpose?

Well it shows that there's a precedent for US Intelligence services using vaccination programs for purposes other than people's health and wellbeing, no?

[+DieChecker]

On DieChecker:

Reported: Insulting.

"I thought you all were trying to keep the insults down.

Generally this fella is on my ignore." But, since it still shows up in my conversation and I have to ignore it yet again, with the word "paranoia" in blatant view, while I am sure this fella is not qualified to make that assessment, I went ahead and responded to the insult.

IF I had to choose between being herded in my perceptions like a farm animal (Moo, Baa, Arf) or being paranoid, I think I would choose paranoia as a cerebral decision, well-deliberated and founded on real assessments of the events that surround this country.

No idle mind with an idle insult is going to change how I feel. And honeys, I just do not have a cyber ego. I will tell it like a see it, however unpopular that telling is to the idle or manipulated or manipulating mind.

I sit here, happy, and secure in myself. Diechecker must falsely think he has the power to change that.

But I keep wondering, who is he really convincing with that adverb? Himself? Me? Or all others?

Anyone care to speculate on his motivations?

I apologize for the crack about Paranoia.

But, still I hold that comparing one incident that was to kill/capture the #1 wanted man on Earth and turn that event into a declaration that the US government is trying to kill us all is very weak.

The evidence that vaccines cause problems is just not there. It is circumstatial at best. And, with its Fad-ish popularity, it has caused actual documented damage that might otherwise have been avoided, and that is what I have a problem with.

To my thinking this is exactly like the Christians who do not go to the doctor, but only pray for God's healing. Even when they have a baby that is dying or in crippling pain because of a hernia or a simple gastro-intestinal illness, they will not seek medical help, thus allowing death and suffering that need not happen.

Question: What if you had 10 children in your family and 2 had Austism you suspected due to vaccines, and 3 died from childhood illnesses. Would you support immunizaton if it could be shown to be the lesser evil?

[Rafterman]

Well it shows that there's a precedent for US Intelligence services using vaccination programs for purposes other than people's health and wellbeing, no?

Unless your last name was Bin Laden, I don't think you have to worry about it.

[regeneratia]

You can make whatever decisions you want for your family. That's your business and frankly I don't care.

But it would be nice for you to provide some scientific evidence to support your claims rather than "Ron Paul said this" at a campaign event.

And again, you've shown no link to what the CIA did and the vaccine program in the United States. I'd be interested to see any evidence you might have that relate the two activities.

The scientific evidence can be found all over the internet. I suggest you start with google.

This family has ended all participation in vaccines. The Swine flu vaccine put into massive quantities of people, while there was then herd immunity, AND a serious lack of hard scientific data as to it's effectiveness. Regarding the herd immunity: swine flu was traveling this country for at least four to five months before it hit the news. Bush didn't do anything about it. Obama did, and too late. Reminding you, it was an election year. Our family had it before Obama did anything about it. So we are part of that herd immunity.

If you want links, find them yourself. I have no desire whatsoever to be found credible by someone other than myself and my loved ones. I simply do not play that silly game.

Edited July 16, 2011 by regeneratia

[regeneratia]

Unless your last name was Bin Laden, I don't think you have to worry about it.

Bin Laden has been dead for years.

[regeneratia]

Question: considering the many differing opinions, how should parents decide what's best for their children?

We did not vaccinate son with the second chickenpox vaccine because: 1. He had the first one. 2. He was exposed to the chickenpox 3 separate times by three different sets of kids, one set was from overseas. Son did not get it. Both my pharmaceutical scientist and myself, an RN, felt that his immune system is already super-ramped up for it, so there was no need for a second one. School Administration has not been taught about immunity so they continue to ask why. BUT, I have simply begun to carry my text books to those meetings and prove to them there is no need for a second one.

Our children have been vaccinated as far as they could go, up until the second Chickenpox vaccine. They will get no more vaccines, unless meningitis becomes more of a problem. That is one disease I do not want my children to get.

Edited July 16, 2011 by regeneratia

[Stellar]

Unless your last name was Bin Laden, I don't think you have to worry about it.

So, in other words, unless youre someone of interest to them.

[Rafterman]

The scientific evidence can be found all over the internet. I suggest you start with google.

This family has ended all participation in vaccines. The Swine flu vaccine put into massive quantities of people, while there was then herd immunity, AND a serious lack of hard scientific data as to it's effectiveness. Regarding the herd immunity: swine flu was traveling this country for at least four to five months before it hit the news. Bush didn't do anything about it. Obama did, and too late. Reminding you, it was an election year. Our family had it before Obama did anything about it. So we are part of that herd immunity.

If you want links, find them yourself. I have no desire whatsoever to be found credible by someone other than myself and my loved ones. I simply do not play that silly game.

And if I looked hard enough I can probably find that Lee Harvey Oswald and Bigfoot being involved in the vaccine plot as well.

But feel free to continue making your unsubstantiated claims - I'm sure your loved ones appreciate it.

Bin Laden has been dead for years.

The internet tell you and your loved ones that?

So, in other words, unless youre someone of interest to them.

Jealous that you're not?

[Tia]

Going back to when I was a child, I had all the vaccines that were offered. We would get letters from school to take home for our parents to sign and give their consent, and the vaccinations were done at school as well. I don't think it even occurred to them not to sign the forms.

Looking at it now as a parent, the only bad case I know of personally, happened to a distant family member. Her son had the whooping cough vaccine and within days after getting it he had a brain haemorrhage which has left him blind ever since. At the time there was a scare over the whooping cough vaccine but Dr's said it was safe. It might have been a coincidence, I don't know. All I know is a once healthy little boy has grown up never being able to see again and his parents blame the vaccine for it.

Hi Still Waters,

My eldest at 19 had a bad reaction to the whopping cough vaccine but was luckily left unscathed. Her doctor refused to give it to her anymore though. My second child was not so lucky he ended up in hospital having anphylaxis shock and we almost lost him. To this day he still suffers many conditions relating to the brain. His pead refused to give him the vaccine again. At the same time another person I knew child also had a bad reaction and literally lives in a bubble due to allergies, all after the whopping cough vaccine.

Pregnant with number 3 I researched both sides spoke to the special clinic about her chances of reacting and the doctor admitted to me with the family history they had no idea what would happen but bring her in. No way was I going to risk that. I now have a totally healthy 10yr old who has only had a couple of vaccines I believe are safe for her. I recently had to get every vaccine for my job and believe as adults our bodies are better able to accommodate them rather then the amount of different vaccines they pump into them at 2 months old.

A couple of years ago my daughter when she was in high school brought home permission slips for one of the vaccines and it was the first time I've ever seen it in writing stating that this vaccine can cause death and yes it was a government slip. By law before giving vaccines the side effects are meant to be given so parents can make their own decision. I do need to remind my daughter though at her age she really should get a Rubella shot, like I said as adults our bodies handle them better.

And no one please say my child has passed on a disease to a vaccinated child, my child have only had chicken pox caught from vaccinated children when she was at pre-school.

[Little Fish]

New Study Finds Direct Link Between Vaccines and Infant Mortality

the more vaccines, the higher infant mortality.

The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. When nations were grouped into five

different vaccine dose ranges (12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26), 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model. These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54772978/Infant-Mortality-Rates-Regress-w-Higher-No-of-Vaccine-Doses

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-study-finds-direct-link-between-vaccines-and-infant-mortality.html

Edited July 17, 2011 by Little Fish

[regeneratia]

And if I looked hard enough I can probably find that Lee Harvey Oswald and Bigfoot being involved in the vaccine plot as well.

But feel free to continue making your unsubstantiated claims - I'm sure your loved ones appreciate it.

The internet tell you and your loved ones that?

Jealous that you're not?

They are only unsubstantiated to you. I am happy with the knowledge I have. And I think perhaps there are people here who know more how to get to the truth, something you might not be able to find on your own.

I don't debate, dear. You will have to find that elsewhere. AND I will not provide links and direct you to a mind-set you should be setting for yourself, which is all really quite dependent on your mental skills and personal values. You are free! I have no way of knowing if you have freedom overload, or information overload or not. But for me, there is no such thing as freedom overload. I will NOT show you what sets my mind, but I can tell you it is not set on this board.

Edited July 17, 2011 by regeneratia

[regeneratia]

Mike Adams, at natural news, is an exceedingly good journalist. Sure he is slanted. But so are all other mainstream media outlets. Look at the Rupert scandal. The truth will not be found in papers and TV stations that man owns. But an agenda will be found there, that much is for sure.

He is not like the wimp ash people out there in the mainstream media who are scared cow-patty-less to write the real news. He is not like those who are driven by earning a paycheck, those money-grubbing people who can be manipulated into reflecting a world that is not there, and is not interested the welfare of their fellowman.

It really boils down to what slant you choose to read, for they are all slanted now.

I prefer natural news, Wikileaks and McClatchy, among others like IPS, CEPR, EPI, Reuters, Eurekalert, AlphaGalileo, The Guardian and so many more. I will always be a rebel. You will not be able to influence me in any manner.

Edited July 17, 2011 by regeneratia

[ShadowSot]

Mike Adams is a crap journalist, he's een caught with his pants down misrepresenting or lieing several times previously, most obviously when he stated a study on mice proved astrology.

Hey, a study done by a journalist and a fellow who got his degree via mail order.

That's likely to be full of solid understanding of epidemiology, and science, eh?

There are several years worth of data... why did they limit the parameters to only one year?

Why only look at the countries who's infant death rate is lower than the US, why not the ones where it is higher, specially as that would provide more useful information for better examination of causation.

Remember, correlation and causation are not always equal.

As usual, there are people who are more experienced with such studies than I am, and can disassemble them in much more detail.

Dr. David Gorski did so over on Science Based Medicine

[+DieChecker]

Pregnant with number 3 I researched both sides spoke to the special clinic about her chances of reacting and the doctor admitted to me with the family history they had no idea what would happen but bring her in. No way was I going to risk that. I now have a totally healthy 10yr old who has only had a couple of vaccines I believe are safe for her. I recently had to get every vaccine for my job and believe as adults our bodies are better able to accommodate them rather then the amount of different vaccines they pump into them at 2 months old.

A couple of years ago my daughter when she was in high school brought home permission slips for one of the vaccines and it was the first time I've ever seen it in writing stating that this vaccine can cause death and yes it was a government slip. By law before giving vaccines the side effects are meant to be given so parents can make their own decision. I do need to remind my daughter though at her age she really should get a Rubella shot, like I said as adults our bodies handle them better.

And no one please say my child has passed on a disease to a vaccinated child, my child have only had chicken pox caught from vaccinated children when she was at pre-school.

I can see your reluctance since your family has a History with vaccines, but did your research indicate it is a general health risk?

I'd also just point out that taking vitamins also has the possibility of death. Or getting your tonsils out, or even getting your hair colored. If you have a bad reaction to specific chemicals they use, your going to be in bad shape.

[+DieChecker]

New Study Finds Direct Link Between Vaccines and Infant Mortality

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-study-finds-direct-link-between-vaccines-and-infant-mortality.html

Hey Little Fish. I have to admit that the numbers in the article are very interesting.

For example, the two developed countries that require children be immunized with the least amount of vaccines, Japan and Sweden, also top the table for the lowest infant mortality rates.

Of the top ten developed countries with the lowest infant mortality rates, seven of the ten also appear in the top ten table of countries that administer the least vaccines.

Definately worth looking into. Could be a Tiger Talisman situation, where the two facts are not directly related, but then again... it could be.

[+DieChecker]

I don't debate, dear.

Usually, I have found that those who refuse to support their positions can't.

[Little Fish]

One thing has has not been shown is if all these people choosing not to vaccinate their kids have a lower incidence of Autism. I've seen articles claiming both that there is no change and that there is, but the data was not convincing either way yet.

one would think that is the obvious thing to do.

it is interesting that study has not been done.

I noticed recently pro-vaccine Paul Offit (makes millions from vaccines patents) state in a public online Q&A, that the reason they could not do vaccinated vs unvaccinated study was that it would be unethical to withhold vaccines in the name of experimentation.

think about that for a moment, does it make sense? no it doesn't.

from the other side of his mouth he is condeming people for not vaccinating their children, so if we have all these children that have not been vaccinated then the study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated can be done.

The Amish who do not vaccinate are said to have very little autism.

[Rafterman]

one would think that is the obvious thing to do.

it is interesting that study has not been done.

I noticed recently pro-vaccine Paul Offit (makes millions from vaccines patents) state in a public online Q&A, that the reason they could not do vaccinated vs unvaccinated study was that it would be unethical to withhold vaccines in the name of experimentation.

think about that for a moment, does it make sense? no it doesn't.

from the other side of his mouth he is condeming people for not vaccinating their children, so if we have all these children that have not been vaccinated then the study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated can be done.

The Amish who do not vaccinate are said to have very little autism.

Yes they do and no they don't.

http://autism.about.com/b/2008/04/23/do-the-amish-vaccinate-indeed-they-do-and-their-autism-rates-may-be-lower.htm

See the dangers of just regurgitating what you read on the internet without doing your own research?

[regeneratia]

Yes, well, that is your opinion. So glad you have one. But your motivations are not honorable. Revealing sources to you is not worth my time. I know you and how you play this discussion game. I don't respect your manner of debate.

I feel absolutely no need to support any position. I do not defend what I am thinking.

1. I have a right to think and speak my mind.

2. I merely plant seeds of thought that someone with a fertile mind will initiate and feed their curiosity, or or inspire their passion for knowledge. I don't think yours is one. In turn, others plant seeds of thought for me, that I will take and find information on my own, without help from anyone. Many valuable pieces of information have come from being on this board. For me, it is just a beginning. Then I go on and investigate it myself, off this board.

3. I put forth what I want, when I want. No one is allowed to make demands on my time. Most certainly NOT YOU.

4. I feel no need to help you boost your ego by senselessly debating you when you will never be convinced one way or another. You are here for sport. Or some other dishonorable motivation.

5. I do not debate for sport. Some here do. Not me.

6. I spend my time acting on a local level, in my world. AND believe me, I do take action!

Edited July 18, 2011 by regeneratia

[regeneratia]

Unless your last name was Bin Laden, I don't think you have to worry about it.

I am not at all sure that is true. The Swine flu was sorely untested. And there were campaigns in schools to vaccinate school children with a dubiously untested vaccine. We expressed the sentiment that our children not be vaccinated at all within the school system. That is a standing order. If we feel our children need vaccines, we will assess the vaccine, the data behind that vaccine and take our children to the Dr. to get that vaccine. But I doubt we do any more vaccines for our children.

Mental association:

Remember the rash of killings in Fort Hood, of soldiers killing their wives and sometimes then themselves?

http://www.google.com/search?q=Fort+Hood+wife+nurders&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Once the media died down on it, with alternative news site reporting that the Anthrax vaccine was the culprit or a major factor on those murder/suicides, the Armed Forces stopped using the Anthrax vaccine. That particular vaccine was not approved by the FDA following it's clinical trials and the processes of FDA approval. Yet the Armed Forces went ahead and used it. Why do you suppose that was? What was the real motivation for using it, and I mean the real motivation, not the official one. FYI, I no longer accept being lied to by our government, while we know those lies happen daily.

This was clearly an indication that the armed forces were willing to put into their own soldiers and citizens a questionable vaccine.

So today, there is a serious struggle to replace that demon unapproved Anthrax vaccine the military used on our "beloved" soldiers.

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110713_7432.php

Experimental Anthrax Vaccine Shows Three-Year Stability

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Anthrax seems to be a concern.

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110622_5077.php

FDA OKs Generic Anthrax-Fighting Antibiotic

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Obviously our military leaders are unconcerned about the health and welfare of The People. Thus, I am going to worry about it, even tho my name is not OBL. Tho I am positive that is what you want me to believe, that I will be unaffected by the vaccine scam the CIA used on people not in this country. Unlike you, I do not believe that CIA is respectful of the health and welfare of the USA citizens. I believe they're derisive towards the normal US Citizen, and with the intent to do us harm. I no longer believe that they act on our behalf, nor on the behalf of national security. I believe they merely act on the premise that they continue the existence of their agency, against anyone or everyone that jeopardizes them. I also believe that they act with other shady motivations that I am positive they won't admit to, even tho it doesn't involve national security or the health and welfare of The People.

AND BTW, OBL has been dead for years. The CIA knows this. Pakistan knows this. Most other countries knew it. Who really are they trying to fool here, regarding this topic? I mean, at some point, the layers of lies regarding OBL get to be pretty complex and contradictory.

Edited July 18, 2011 by regeneratia

[Little Fish]

Yes they do and no they don't.

http://autism.about.com/b/2008/04/23/do-the-amish-vaccinate-indeed-they-do-and-their-autism-rates-may-be-lower.htm

See the dangers of just regurgitating what you read on the internet without doing your own research?

i think you missed the central point

"one would think that is the obvious thing to do.

it is interesting that study has not been done.

I noticed recently pro-vaccine Paul Offit (makes millions from vaccines patents) state in a public online Q&A, that the reason they could not do vaccinated vs unvaccinated study was that it would be unethical to withhold vaccines in the name of experimentation.

think about that for a moment, does it make sense? no it doesn't.

from the other side of his mouth he is condeming people for not vaccinating their children, so if we have all these children that have not been vaccinated then the study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated can be done.

The Amish who do not vaccinate are said to have very little autism."