Vitamin A Protects Against Measles

originally posted by: theNLBS
Vitamin A helps to stop complications that can arise from the measles, like deafness or blindness.

He never says definitively that it protects you. Just that it might..then he adds "take it anyways to prevent complications."

No, that doctor didn't... but the WHO did. The quote from my original post:

In the case of pneumonia that is associated with measles, large doses of vitamin A have a clear protective effect

It also has clear protective effects against blindness and other secondary infections that present as complications, the main cause of death in measles patients, which has been reduced by half in the third world with mega doses of Vitamin A. The science is clear.

My question is: With all the talk about how effective and life-saving the measles vaccine is, with all the attendant statistics to prove such, why no mention of the valuable role of Vitamin A in these positive outcomes?

And, of course, what else are they mis-representing?

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

It's not fair to the kids, it's not fair to other kids, it's not fair to people who can't receive the shot, it's not fair to people that have compromised immune systems, and it's not fair on the rest of us that give you herd immunity by getting the shots and basically negating all the efforts and strides we've made in eradicating disease.

I'm one of those people with a compromised immune system. I've come close to death a couple times, and we've pretty much accepted that sooner or later, some virus or bug will get me and kill me. Measles, however, is not one of them, because I had measles as a child. Am I out of the woods just because I don't have to worry about measles? Nope. Am I going to do anything different than I have been to protect myself? Nope. Am I going to depend on the rest of the world to make sure I don't get sick? Nope. I will continue to take reasonable precautions and keep myself prepared to deal with whatever does come my way.

I live in a border state. Less than a month after Obama allowed all those illegal children into our state, my hubby caught the entero virus and passed it on to me. Everyone I knew was sick. It was bad. My daughter-in-law even had to go to the hospital. And ya know what? Because I was already well supplied with natural antivirals and vitamin supplements to start taking at the first sign of illness, I probably got off easier than everyone else who thought it was just a regular bug that would go away in a couple days.

There was absolutely no good reason for exposing the entire country to so many diseases. It was irresponsible at best, downright dangerous at worst. I'll reserve my wrath for the bureaucrats who screw everything up for their own self-serving purposes... not those who have learned (probably the hard way) that they cannot trust those same bureaucrats when they want to force chemicals and God-only-knows what else into our veins.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: FormOfTheLord
You do not have the right to infect me.

And you don't have the right to inject foreign substances into my body. Disease is natural. Vaccine free is natural. That's the real world. If you don't want to expose yourself to the many viruses and contagious diseases in the world, do what you gotta do. But until you can absolutely guarantee the health and safety of every single vaccine for every single person, then you are simply trying to inflict on others what you don't want yourself.

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Grimpachi


Disagree. Unless the person or the person(s) in their care are actually walled off from the rest of us. I consider it negligent to not vaccinate and still be walking around in public.

But it's okay to sicken/kill others by forcing injections of foreign chemicals into someone else's body? No. It's not. The day that you can guarantee that those vaccines will not harm anyone, I might change my mind. Until then, life is a crapshoot and I can guaran-dam-tee you that you will die sooner or later, with or without vaccines.

Should I only be charged with drunk driving if I hurt someone?

Making a conscious decision to drive while drunk and impaired is much different than being the victim of a disease that you did not create and did not choose to catch, whether one chose to vaccinate or not. (As you noted, even vaccinations aren't 100% effective.)

originally posted by: westcoast
So for everyone jumping on the anti-vaccine hater bandwagon...I didn't see ANYWHERE in the OP where they said anything against vaccines. Nor did they (or the quotes) say anything about taking vitamin A instead of the vaccine.

I am not familiar with the Ops stance on vaccines (maybe some of you are?), but I'm getting sick of all of the anger and hate towards people who don't believe in mandatory vaccines.

Thank you. I am not a strict anti-vaxxer, although there are some I will not get. My kids had all their vaccines... well, for the most part. I refused to give them the Hep vaccine, with their doctor's blessing. The chicken pox vaccine came out loooooong after they had chicken pox. Guardisil? No way! What I am very much against is anyone forcing anything into/onto another person. Period. There are too many variables and unknowns that can have seriously negative impacts on our long-term health. Plus, I don't trust those who would create, distribute, and enforce vaccinations.

Forced vaccination is not the answer. A system that can actually be trusted is what's needed, but we are a LONG, LONG ways from that.

Exactly. If we could trust Big Pharma and our government, this wouldn't be an issue. The PTB cannot be trusted.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Domo1

get those who are so adamant against vaccinations to do some real research, but even with that in mind you can't fix stupid so that is when court comes int play.

But they have. As did I. And we found lies, mis-truths and mis-representations. For reasons I do not understand, you are willing to blindly trust your health and your life in the hands of others... And for reasons you do not understand, I'm not.

Oh! And if I were on that jury... I'd exercise my right to jury nullification for even bringing such a tyrannical lawsuit into court.

a reply to: abe froman

You know what works better than that? Natural immunity created by contracting the virus that has statistically negligible amount of sever side effects or death (here in the U.S., at least).

Oh, and staying healthy.

originally posted by: Domo1
Unless the person or the person(s) in their care are actually walled off from the rest of us. I consider it negligent to not vaccinate and still be walking around in public.

In which movie are living your life...Minority Report? You can't assume something bad will happen just because someone isn't vaccinated--especially if you and the vast majority of the public are vaccinated.

You can call it negligence all you want--I call it nature. People get sick, immune systems fight it off and often create an immunity. Your precious vaccinations don't retain the same duration or level of immunity that a naturally occurring immunity does. Artificial immunity is an unnecessary thing pertaining to measles.

Have you even researched the trend of deaths/severe side effects of measles prior to the widespread use of the vaccination in the late 60s? It was already going down, while world population was on the rise. Measles, with modern health care and hygiene standards, is a statistically harmless virus. Don't subscribe to the emotional arguments and ignorant ramblings of people who don't do the research and crunch the official numbers--it can put you in a scary place, like thinking natural, unvaccinated people in the world should be quarantined.

Are you even listening to your argument?!?! Your stance, in all honesty, is a pretty concerning one.

originally posted by: Boadicea

And you don't have the right to inject foreign substances into my body. Disease is natural. Vaccine free is natural. That's the real world. If you don't want to expose yourself to the many viruses and contagious diseases in the world, do what you gotta do. But until you can absolutely guarantee the health and safety of every single vaccine for every single person, then you are simply trying to inflict on others what you don't want yourself.

Dying at 30 of old age is natural. A total lack of dental care is natural. Death from minor broken bones is natural.

Any sort of medical care at all is unnatural. Electric power is unnatural. Hot water in the morning is unnatural. Cooked food is unnatural.

So if you're going with "natural" vs "unnatural", give up your clothing, your car, your home, hot water, showers, cooked food, and get going with that sharp stick for your dinner.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: abe froman

You know what works better than that? Natural immunity created by contracting the virus...

Yep, nothing like a little polio, smallpox and tetanus to build that immunity.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: abe froman
You know what works even better?

Vaccination.

Hmmmm... one only needs vaccinations to prevent certain illnesses... one needs Vitamin A all day every day. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose Vitamin A.

Good thing I don't have to make that choice.

So you are able to give a child enough Vitamin A on a daily basis to prevent such? Ok so that stops your measles concern but now what about everything else? I have not problems with people not liking vaccines, I'm one of them. I would rather supplement with vitamins as well but there is a time and place for common sense. You can supplement and vaccinate at the same time.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: abe froman
You know what works better than that? Natural immunity created by contracting the virus...

Yep, nothing like a little polio, smallpox and tetanus to build that immunity.

Genius...we're talking about measles in this thread. Nice derailment, though. It almost worked, only it didn't almost work.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Genius...we're talking about measles in this thread. Nice derailment, though. It almost worked, only it didn't almost work.

But you're all for natural immunity, right? Surely you're consistent about that?

eta: And yeah, I suppose 0.2% total death rate in the US isn't bad, you know, and 0.025% or so having permanent neurological damage. Only a few hundred here and there. And hey, they're generally under 5, so it's not like you have a lot of time invested in them. Of course, the total numbers will climb as immunization stops, but it's not a big deal.

So, you're okey dokey with catching the 'natural' measles, mumps and rubella, proceeding to a full blown infection. But not ok with killed virus. Did I get that right?

a reply to: Grimpachi

The true cause is ma nature. See you in court.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Genius...we're talking about measles in this thread. Nice derailment, though. It almost worked, only it didn't almost work.

Pretty much everything he posts is trolling or stupid BS.

originally posted by :Boadicea
Exactly. If we could trust Big Pharma and our government, this wouldn't be an issue. The PTB cannot be trusted.

Resumes my reasons for being pro choice.

originally posted by: theMediator
Pretty much everything he posts is trolling or stupid BS.

Oh, I'd say it's probably past your level of understanding, but hey, point out the stupid BS or trolling for me.

That certainly wasn't, above.

Come, let us reason together.

How is it 'better' to catch the disease than to be injected with a killed or inactivated version? It's the same disease.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Genius...we're talking about measles in this thread. Nice derailment, though. It almost worked, only it didn't almost work.

But you're all for natural immunity, right? Surely you're consistent about that?

eta: And yeah, I suppose 0.2% total death rate in the US isn't bad, you know, and 0.025% or so having permanent neurological damage. Only a few hundred here and there. And hey, they're generally under 5, so it's not like you have a lot of time invested in them. Of course, the total numbers will climb as immunization stops, but it's not a big deal.

Damn, I bet those numbers are close to the number of children that are plaged with various disabilities following vaccines.

originally posted by: Bedlam
So, you're okey dokey with catching the 'natural' measles, mumps and rubella, proceeding to a full blown infection. But not ok with killed virus. Did I get that right?

All your posts are trolling. Did I get that right?

originally posted by: theMediator

All your posts are trolling. Did I get that right?

No, you didn't, unless by 'trolling', you mean they don't agree with you and have some sort of basis in fact. In that case, yeah.

eta: so, back to it. You are ok with catching the full blown disease by live virus, but for some reason you balk at killed or inactivated virus?

originally posted by: Bedlam
Oh, I'd say it's probably past your level of understanding,

Oh but I'm surprised you don't remember any of my posts. I think I've proven on numerous occasions that my level of understanding isn't something to be shamed about.

originally posted by: Bedlam
How is it 'better' to catch the disease than to be injected with a killed or inactivated version? It's the same disease.

That's such a bad straw man tactic, I mean look at you!
That's not how you debate a point.

originally posted by: theMediator
That's such a bad straw man tactic, I mean look at you!
That's not how you debate a point.

That's not a straw man. I'm asking you. Are you afraid to answer? It's really simple - I, 'theMediator', believe it's more natural or better to catch a full blown case of the live virus. yes/no

See, I'm trying to see what your reasoning is here. Your body's building immunity to the viral coat either way.