More Parents Refusing Vaccines For Kids

Originally posted by Jenna
I would think that court rulings would be rather reliable seeing as how I would imagine they probably had experts saying there wasn't a link. Do you have information from someone with reliable credentials saying there definitely is a link? I ask because I have never heard of anyone who works in medicine or science that isn't out to make a buck off of distraught parents saying there definitely is one.

No, the court is not there to do research and decide things like this conclusively. The court is there to judge whether someone is responsible or not. As far as I know it's ongoing still, but the best thing to go on is the rise of autism rates among vaccinated children, and the strange script-like scenario of the child getting sick and then being "weird" after.

But sure, here's a guy with credentials for ya if you're interested: Link

Not pasting a quote because there's just too much to post.

Originally posted by Sara1
I find it somewhat offensive that you'd downplay the situation as just "a child that is difficult to handle", implying the parents/caregivers are just lazy bastards. Sure, the cases and severity varies. But over here it's a great financial expense which is difficult to live up to. He needs physical therapy, he unintentionally destroys things which need to be replaced frequently, and so on. I care for him a lot, he's so much younger than me but already taller than me, which makes it that much more difficult that I have to bathe him. I will have to have him live with me and take care of him until either he or I die. Btw because of his condition he also has a shorter life expectancy so I'm depressedly expecting to outlive him, love the guy.

I didn't downplay anything, nor did I imply the parents/caregivers are just lazy. Try to read what I write instead of adding in things I don't say, if I thought parents of autistic children were lazy I would just come out and say so. Parents who don't like how their children behave and decide they want them on meds to calm them down because it must be ADD, now they are lazy. (And before you read into that one no I don't think all parents whose kids are diagnosed with ADD are like that. But some are. Some kids really do have ADD, but there are many who are zombified when there is nothing wrong with them.)

Children with autism can be difficult to handle, which is why I phrased it the way I did. I have taken care of my cousin several times and it was difficult enough when he was four or five, so I'd imagine that it doesn't get any easier as an autistic child grows older. I could have said it can be a nightmare, but I assumed that that would be insensitive so I didn't. I am sorry that this happened to your brother, I truly am. But you are seeing things in my post that simply are not there.


Edit to add: Judges aren't experts. People who testify in court about whether or not there is a link would be the experts I was referring to. And if you will go back and read this post from page one and follow the second link, the case has been decided and they ruled there wasn't an established link.

Thank you for the link, off to do some reading now.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by Jenna]

Oh no, not another vaccine thread!

Before injecting your new born with some toxic, immune crippling cocktail, here are 3 simple questions to research (and that doesn't mean 'ask your local health care practitioner'!)

Q1. Has this vaccine been proven to actually work?
A1. Almost certainly not.

There is very little compelling scientific evidence, if any, that vaccines do anything to prevent disease. There is however, lots and lots of evidence that they promote and cause disease, sometimes the very disease they are supposed to prevent.

Q2. Is this vaccine actually necessary?
A2. Almost certainly not.

Many vaccines are supposed to immunise against diseases which are now virtually non-existent in the western world.

Add to that, much research points to the necessity of NATURALLY contracting childhood illnesses to both strengthen the immune system and prevent other illnesses at a later date.

The best, and maybe only real, protection against illness is a strong immune system. Immune systems are strengthened far more effectively by good diet, clean water and healthy living, not regular toxic cocktail injections.

Q3. Is this vaccine harmless or at least proven safe.
A3. Almost certainly not.

Vaccines are regularly and routinely 'pulled from production' or 'recalled' due to ineffectiveness, toxic reactions or contamination.

Even the US government has an active vaccination damage compensation scheme (VICP) which lists the 'currently admitted' harmful side effects of mass vaccinations.

The list includes death.

2006 During National Infant Immunization week, statistics are released that show to date, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has paid $1.2 billion to families who have proven that their children suffer permanent disabilities or have died from a vaccine reaction. Less than 25 percent of families who apply through VICP ever get compensated. Many more families never apply for compensation since they do not recognize the symptoms of vaccine damage.

www.ddponline.org...


What about that old favorite the MMR?

After three years of study, a Medical Working Group representing 180 Swiss medical doctors specializing in general medicine, internal medicine and pediatrics published an article in the Spring 1992 Journal of Anthroposophic Medicine entitled "The Immunization Campaign Against Measles, Mumps and Rubella, Coercion Leading to Uncertainy: Medical Objections to a Continued MMR Immunization Campaign in Switzerland," concluding that mandatory, mass vaccination with MMR vaccine is ineffective and dangerous

What's interesting about the MMR is that the majority of research and studies are now designed around the toxicity and dangers of the jab, particularly the autism link.

In the malaise, we seem to have forgotten that the diseases were already all but gone when the vaccines were developed and there is no proof, as far as I am aware, that the vaccinations did or do anything beneficial at all!


OK. So are there any alternatives?
Yes, there are many.

Are these alternatives effective?
Yes. Time tested, documented, reproducible, reliable results.

Are there safe alternatives?
Absolutely.

Are they affordable?
They cost a fraction of the price of the pharmaceuticals.


Now, for the pro-vaccine camp, I issue my usual challenge.

Please provide some cogent, convincing evidence that the vaccines which which we are routinely injecting into babies and children, are effective, necessary and safe.

In over 60 pages of vaccine threads here on ATS, only ONE member has managed to provide evidence that ONE new vaccine was shown in ONE study to be effective.

This being the new oral HRV that replaced the one before it, which was 'removed from service' due to it's embarassing side effect of killing people (as was its predecessor, and its predecessor's predecessor and ...)

Unfortunately, the study also suggested a link between the vaccine and death from pneumonia!

Mostly, the vaccine believers simply revert to "Well I remember the hospital wards full of polio victims... you don't see those now do you" - ergo, vaccines worked. Errm, well, you don't see wards full of scarlet fever victims anymore either, yet a vaccine for that disease was never introduced.

Measles, a typical case, was all but gone (99+%) from the various countries that kept records BEFORE the vaccine was introduced. Graphs showing actual figures from government bodies such as CDC and their equivalents in Europe and Down-Under, are featured on many anti-vax websites. whale.to...

Vaccine manufacturers are reaping the benefits of general improvements in health, brought about by access to clean water, sewage systems, improved nutrition, hygiene, transportation systems and education. It's the engineers we need to be crediting, not big-pharma.

So if what I have posted here is even half true, why are we so globally and universally misinformed about vaccines?

Like most similar questions posed here on ATS, I believe the answer is clear if you follow the money trail.

Pasteur managed to vaccinate sheep in his lab against anthrax, yet the mystery around exactly how he did it seems to remain and the experiment fails to be reliably recreated. Now US taxpayers are footing a $877 million to Vaxgen to try to do the same thing against a rare disease that Pasteur with his 2 lab technicians and his somewhat limited resources at the farm of Pouilly-le-Fort in 1881 successfully immunized ungulates against over 100 years ago. Where's the sense in that, unless of course you are a Vaxgen shareholder?

The lies, fear mongering, obfuscation, hidden agendas and just plain arrogant ignorance are so widespread throughout the 'vaccination industry', that it has become a near impossible task for an 'aware' individual to make a fully informed decision, so it is far safer to simply 'say no' especially when safe and proven alternatives are abundant and easily accessible and applicable.

Both inoculation and vaccine campaigns have always been fraught with politics and financial interests. Despite the fact that inoculation was outlawed by the British Parliament in 1840, in 1853 The Compulsory Vaccination Act in England was passed by Parliament and every parent was required to have their baby vaccinated within 3 months of birth or face a fine of 20 shillings.

In modern times, we face similar threats that our children won’t be admitted to school unless they are jabbed with the hepatitis B vaccine (a rare syndrome) and whose safety data we have yet to see. The school nurse and Public Health Department, or school admittance policies, should not be used to threaten you that you cannot enroll your kid, based on the madness surrounding the possibility that your 5-year-old will transmit a sexual, or needle-borne, or blood-product-transmitted “syndrome” (that has a 99% or greater spontaneous resolution rate in otherwise healthy individuals), to someone else's 5 year old.

Currently, parents are being threatened that their daughters have a 70% chance of acquiring cervical cancer unless they fork over $300.00 dollars for a series of 3 HPV shots.

For those that would actually like to do a bit of research before flaming me, here is a good start:

www.ddponline.org...

It's a long read, but I promise if you take the time, you'll never look at a vaccination syringe the same way again!


[edit on 17/2/09 by RogerT]

reply to post by Jenna


You didn't necessarily mean it that way I know, but I meant it can be interpreted that way, it depends on how the person said it blablah. I spose I'm taking it personally at times and being unnecessarily defensive. I should probably start distancing myself from this thread because it just is a personal issue to me. I've pretty much said all I have to say anyway I think, I'd just start repeating myself.

But my point about the courts is that sure even if they do have experts who put doubt on the case that's still far from conclusive. All that's needed is some doubt, and there's plenty, for a court to decide against a case. Basically saying "court rules there's no autism vaccine link" is still pretty far from "there's no autism vaccine link", it's more like "court couldn't find enough to rule in favour of autism link".

It's just worrying, the way the rates are skyrocketing, like a true epidemic. I can't blame parents for not wanting to risk it.

Originally posted by Ron Paul Girl
If you travel to a 3rd world country, do you expect the inhabitants to be vaccinated, or do you vaccinate yourself to protect yourself from diseases?

Yes, I expect they will have had all sorts of nasty stuff stuck into them, some of it as part of big-pharma science experimentation, maybe eugenics, some of it by well-meaning but ultimately unaware care workers.

No, I don't vaccinate myself. I have become acutely aware that vaccination does not protect from disease, a healthy immune system does, so I take steps to support and bolster my immunity. It works very well

Originally posted by Ron Paul Girl

Actually, I have read that as much as 30% of the population has a natural immunity to flu viruses, so we should count ourselves fortunate. This is, during the pandemic of 1919, there were people that could help the sick and not get the flu themselves, no matter how much they were exposed to it.

Yes that's absolutely accurate.

Surprisingly for some, even during the most horrific and widespread pandemics and plagues, MOST people did NOT die

Vaccines = money.

If you have a good enough immune system, from a balanced diet and excercise, you have a hard time coming down with just about anything.

The fact that laws require parents to get their kids vaccinated disgusts me hugely, considering how there is a growing amount of anecdotal evidence showing that these shots can cause all sorts of problems. That's a great boon to the skeptics about the subject, they'll crow all day about how it's just circumstantial. Well it can only remain so as long as there are no official investigations, and there wont be.

Originally posted by Jenna But there has not been a link between autism and vaccines that has been proven. The evidence that says there is one simply does not exist.

Proven to whose satisfaction? Parents know what they see, they don't need the kind of proof that the vaccine industry demands.

As for no 'evidence' existing - come on, are you really saying that with your hand on your heart?!?

Even on this thread parents have shared their evidence.

If you want some 'scientific' stuff, start here: whale.to... and if you exhaust that and still think there is NO EVIDENCE, I'll provide another few hundred sources.

reply to post by Lazyninja


But vaccines can also be a big help. Without them smallpox and polio would as common as the flu.

reply to post by TheBeast


The human race has managed magnificently to avoid extinction at the hands of diseases up until this point. The old adage that prevention is better than cure, is largely true. But if it means injecting stuff like mercury into your kids, well I think it's better to be safe than sorry in that instance.

I had whooping cough, flu, measles, and all that good stuff that kids get. I didn't have to go to school, which was a huge bonus, and I didn't die from it either.

reply to post by Lazyninja

Well sure, the human race has been able to survive for thousands of years without vaccines. But we've also survived without anesthesia. But I don't think that people want to get rid of that either.

Just because something has a harmful affect on .0001 percent of the population doesn't mean we should get rid of it.

Originally posted by TheBeast
reply to post by Lazyninja

 

But vaccines can also be a big help. Without them smallpox and polio would as common as the flu.

Please make at least a little effort to provide some evidence!

What, you expect everyone to accept your opinion as fact?

reply to post by RogerT


I believe that the scientific community is a better source of information than a concerned parent. That may sound harsh, and if so I apologize, but the fact is I would trust studies over anecdotal evidence on just about anything.

Thiomersal Controversy
The scientific consensus—including scientific and medical bodies such as the Institute of Medicine and World Health Organization as well as governmental agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC—rejects any role for thiomersal in autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders. Multiple lines of scientific evidence have been cited to support this conclusion: for example, the clinical symptoms of mercury poisoning differ significantly from those of autism. Most conclusively, eight major studies (as of 2008) examined the effect of reductions or removal of thiomersal from vaccines. All eight demonstrated that autism rates failed to decline despite removal of thiomersal, arguing strongly against a causative role.

Further evidence of the position of the scientific consensus includes the rejection of a causal link between thimerosal and autism by the main scientific and medical professional bodies including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Medical Toxicology, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the National Academy of Sciences, the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the European Medicines Agency.

Also, it's worth pointing out for those who don't know there is a difference between toxic Methyl mercury and the Ethyl mercury that WAS in vaccines up until they stopped putting it in the vaccines starting in 1999-2000. Any vaccines manufactured since then have trace amounts at most and regardless it is not the toxic stuff that causes them to warn pregnant women not to eat certain fish.

Something is causing autism, but it's not the vaccines.

reply to post by Jenna


No Jenna, you are not digging deep enough.

We did the Ethyl/Methyl thing last year here on ATS. Are you referring to the blood/brain barrier differences? Do you know what I'm talking about?

Unfortunately my post history doesn't allow me to reach back that far otherwise I'd post the peer reviewed study for you that debunked the statement you quoted regarding ethyl/methyl ...

If you think the WHO, CDC or any of those 'official' gubt bodies is going to go against big-pharma on this one, then you should probably do a bit of digging in that direction too.

edit to add: I take it from your post that you didn't bother to follow the link I offered??


[edit on 17/2/09 by RogerT]

Originally posted by Unit541
I think you are a little confused. Do you know how vaccines work? When you are vaccinated against a disease, you DO get the disease, it's in the vaccine.

That is NOT how modern vaccines work, you're confusing them with inoculations (variolation). Back in the days they would infect people with cowpox so they wouldn't contract (the much deadlier) smallpox. Modern vaccines on the other hand contain either killed microorganisms (flu, cholera ...) or attenuated virus particles (e.g. measles or rubella). There are some other kinds of vaccines, but none of them makes you get the disease.

The thiomersal issue is no longer of any importance as the preservative isn't used anymore in the US and the European Union (Bigham & Copes, 2005).

Finally, some say that eating healthy and exercise is enough to protect their children and some even claim that people used to do just fine in the past without immunization. That is simply not true: polio, smallpox, hepatitis ... were a large factor in the lower life expectancies and the higher child mortality of the past centuries.

If I may quietly say so, I have never had any sort of vaccine and have never been sick with even the common cold. I am by no means a clean freak; I have eaten peices of food off of many a floor and even some sidewalks!

My point is that if one gets plenty of VITAMIN D (sunlight is the best source!), eats a good diet (not necessarily the pyramid), and keeps the immune system on its toes by not living in an absurdly clean environment, one will not get sick as much as others.

Plus, if thimerosol is mercury based, and mercury is obviously toxic, why would someone want it anywhere near their systems? And what about formaldehyde? Isn't that a toxic chemical inside vaccines as well? I wouldn't want that in my body either.

(edit to emphasize vitamin D)

[edit on 17-2-2009 by Lifthrasir]

Well sure, the human race has been able to survive for thousands of years without vaccines. But we've also survived without anesthesia. But I don't think that people want to get rid of that either.

Yup, but vaccines aren't anasthetics, neither are they cornflakes, or hamsters, or any of the other great things that the human race appreciates.

Just because something has a harmful affect on .0001 percent of the population doesn't mean we should get rid of it.

Nobody is saying get rid of it. I'm perfectly happy for other people to inject their kids with potentially life destroying chemicals. I just don't want it to be mandatory.

Vaccine/Autism Link - Studies

adventuresinautism.blogspot.com...

above link cites 33 studies showing a link

www.talkaboutcuringautism.org...

600 citations at above link.

Now go read a bit and stop saying 'there is no evidence'. It is ignorant and I expect highly offensive to parents with autistic children who believe vaccines were the cause.

If I may quietly say so, I have never had any sort of vaccine and have never been sick with even the common cold. I am by no means a clean freak; I have eaten peices of food off of many a floor and even some sidewalks!

It's been postulated that toddlers eat dirt, as part of an instinct to boost their immune systems. It's already been proven that kids who are kept fastidiously free of germs have poorer immune systems, since they haven't encountered as many or as large variety of germs which their system needs to fight to improve itself.

Originally posted by steve_montana
The thiomersal issue is no longer of any importance as the preservative isn't used anymore in the US and the European Union (Bigham & Copes, 2005).

I beg to differ. If a link is 'proven' and a financial compensation precedent set in a court case, the historical link will cost big-pharma billions and billions, and could potentially bring down the entire corrupt vaccination industry.

I would imagine that the thiomersal issue is still important to the kids with autism and their families.

Plus, I'll wager it is still in the stuff they are selling to the rest of the world.

Very narrow minded view

[edit on 17/2/09 by RogerT]