LA kid gets measles

Post Reply New Topic

In these 'poorer' countries, the deaths aren't from lack of vaccination - you don't die if you don't get vaccinated!! !! ! Let's try giving them clean drinking water, a decent diet rather than whatever tiny bit of food they might get twice a week, sanitation and proper toilets etc, access to basic healthcare like antiobiotics, and decent housing. You think that maybe with those added to the equation the death rate might go down? The reason the death rate is so much higher in these countries is not because they don't have vaccines, it's because they don't have the basic necessities to live a healthy life!! If you didn't have clean drinking water, toilets, food, shelter, or medicine I think you'd probably find yourself in the same situation. Now let's try and remedy those basic things first before we go ranting and raving that you die if you don't get vaccinated. Not true. You die from malnutrition and lack of clean water.

Uhm, no, I fail to see where I've stated that, because I never have done. I'm not talking about autism here, I'm talking about the general problems people have and suggestions to get around that. This isn't anti-vaccine, this is make-them-safer. In theory they're great, but right now there are major problems related to them. Solutions are pretty obvious, so put them into practise, and people will be happier to utilise them.

Look, vaccines are not the holy grail they're made out to be, and they aren't infallible. Right now, kids die and are maimed from these reactions. How is it unreasonable to suggest that all kids get tested to see if they're react before they stick that needle in their arm? If you know they'll react, don't vaccinate them with that particular one. If they won't react, then go ahead with it.

How is it unreasonable to suggest drug companies make their tests transparent, and declare by law when they're going to undertake a trial and what the potential outcome will be BEFORE they do it, so they can't sweep any unwanted results under the table? It'd save a helluva lot of problems later on (enter Vioxx...). They aren't above the law but they're playing games with our children's lives. And ours. Make it harder for them to doctor results - if the drugs are as good as they're made out to be they won't have any problems, but we'll be safer.

How is it unreasonable to suggest they're spread out and done in single doses, rather than 7 or 9 at once, as occurs now? The only thing standing in the way of this is convenience for the parents and doctors. Spread the schedule out, lose the ones that aren't vital (because let's face it, what are the odds of a baby contracting Hepatitis - it's an STD or bodily-fluid-contact disease, not something you catch in the air!), and give them in single doses rather than combined.


None of this is 'anti-vaccine' and none of it is unreasonable. Why should vaccines be any different than anything else that has problems - you have a problem, you fix it. Simple. I'm not saying get rid of them, I'm saying iron out the problems, admit they're there, sort them out, and people will be happier and more likely to vaccinate than they are now where people bury their heads in the sand screaming "They're safe! They're safe!"

More word juggling. More "I'm right and the world is wrong". Measles kills. You want the annual 300,000 deaths from purely measles to be maintained in poorer countries? You advocate refusal to vaccinate, hence you want measles deaths.

I think a problem is an improperly administered vaccination (people get vaccinated who should not) or an improper follow of the vaccination schedule (vaccinations are not timed correctly).

I'd want children (and adults) to be tested for obvious complications that vaccines will likely catalyst. Before the process of vaccination obviously.

Right now, I just see 'get child, give shot, make child go home'.

Doctors ought to inform their patients well. They usually don't. Many parents have no idea what vaccines their children were given.

Now what about those with epilepsy, allergic reactions, infections at the time of vaccination, metabolic disorders and respiratory disorders? That's reaction to the other substances in vaccinations. Why do they have to 'be lucky' when doctors say 'oh, it's unlikely, why bother checking'?

Not saying the only way it to take these substances out. That's complicated. But doctors ought to: CHECK!

That's not at all fun for us very very very, eh, very few but existing people who potentially react by allergic-anaphylactic shocks. Which makes me go un-vaccinated since baby years.

Must it be only in favour of the almost absolute majority?


But everything else... I'm somewhat neutral, but sincerely doubt a connection to autism.

There is also no reason to not give a healthy child a hexavac. Of course the immune system can bear it - in the past vaccinates were worse and fuller with antigens than today. 23 against 3000? I'd rather inject the 23 of today into a child.

Immunisation is also pretty safe. The quote of failure of, say, MMR is about 5%. Safe!


Though, about the newer 'mitochondrial disorders+vaccination = autism' idea:

How exactly are vaccinations supposed to further affect or destroy the DNA of some people's mitochondria? Do people even know what mitochondrial disorders such as MERRF are?

I advocate a safer schedule, transparent trials and information, and tests for contradindication. You'd have realised that if you read a thing I wrote. You are the one being unreasonable now.

Here in the USA, doctors are required to inform parents of vaccine info and possible reactions. Parents must also read the ingredient list in each vaccine before they are administered and then parents must sign off on each one.

Standards are very strict here.

Just a note:

People post all sorts of fake things. I remember coming upon a Wikipedia page about how King Henry VIII wrote a book about he wonders of taffy cotton candy. He didn't, of course, but someone still posted it. People do that sort of thing just to have fun, or if they do believe something, they'll make up things in order to support their causes. They don't need logical, sensible reasons to believe anything - they can just become hooked on something, and in order to get others hooked (like you), they make fake graphs. It happens. They're probably not too worried about the government; even if they do get caught (which is unlikely), they can find some sort of excuse to get out of it. They might not even know that making up those things and saying it's from the government is illegal.

In regards to your second paragraph... You're pretty much just doing that. You shouldn't base your opinions on some unproven, not collaborated graphs and insufficient (and probably faked as well) "studies". There's no evidence in that; it's just wishful thinking.

Although the subject was rather a long way back from the "they", I'm fairly sure that was what you meant.

No. That would be you playing the games. You are the one who states repeatedly that you will not vaccinate. In fact, only you could regard this as a "game". Making your decisions based on no statistics, just guesses... that's a game. I wonder if you also reject seat belts, because they might jam and trap you in a burning car?

The same requirement is in effect here (though I have not heard about parents having to read the ingredient list). But still, somehow most people have no idea despite this.

Rejecting seatbelts (especially in my line of work, I see first hand what happens) is ridiculous. But it also doesn't involve injecting poisons into children without knowledge of what it'll do to them first, it doesn't involve companies who hide facts, alter statistics, and don't tell you what they're doing, and it doesn't involve the many aggravating factors vaccines do. So it's a bad comparison.

Look, I do reject vaccines as they are at present because they aren't safe at present. The theory is fine, yes, I have no problem with it. But until the drug companies tell us the results of all their studies - and tell us what they're doing a study on before they do it, so they can't pretend it never happened when the results don't go their way; until they remove all the toxins from them and replace them with safer substances; until they test children for reactions prior to jabbing them; until they make single vaccines mandatory rather than combined ones, and space out the schedule so it's safer; until they take out potential allergens such as egg from vaccines given to babies... I won't be doing it.

This is all simple, logical stuff to fix. Rather than burying their heads in the sand they should be working on fixing these logical problems and coming up with simple solutions. When this is all sorted out, then I would consider vaccinating. But until that day, I won't be, because the risks are far higher from vaccination than they are from contracting measles or mumps or whatever else.

Proof? Evidence? Just your guess?

You repeat the same "scare story" stuff. You insist that the world kowtows to your specious wishes, while you continue your exhortations towards measles epidemics with their consequent deaths.

The seat belts analogy was good, as there are people who reject them for exactly the reason I gave. You regard that as "ridiculous", as do I. However, I regard your attitude to vaccines as far worse than "ridiculous".

Of course they are worth saving! I'd save the rest of them with better sanitation and clean water. A combination of better nutrition (especially vitamin A with regard to measles - would also stop millions of children from going blind and dying due to a vitamin A deficiency) and better sanitation and cleaner water should prevent most if not all of these deaths from measles.

Why would you prefer vaccinations instead of vitamin A supplements? I prefer vitamin A because in addition to protecting against measles "approximately 250,000 to 500,000 malnourished children in the developing world go blind each year from a deficiency of vitamin A, approximately half of which die within a year of becoming blind." and there are no side effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A_deficiency

Want to know the likely real reason the death rate from measles dropped after vaccinations were introduced? Vitamin A has been shown to reduce the death rate from measles. So what did they do? They started giving them vitamin A supplements with their measles vaccines. Then, they credited the vaccines with lowering the death rate! The number getting measles may have remained unchanged after ineffective vaccines. That may be why they only listed the death rate (which vitamin A is known to reduce) as opposed to number infected. This kind of sloppy science would earn a high school student an "F" in science class so why should we accept it?

"As an oral form, the supplementation of vitamin A is effective for lowering the risk of morbidity, especially from severe diarrhea, and reducing mortality from measles and all-cause mortality. Some countries where vitamin A deficiency is a public health problem address its elimination by including vitamin A supplements available in capsule form with National Immunization Days (NIDs) for polio eradication or measles. Vitamin A capsules cost about US$0.02." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A_deficiency

No. I was quoting your own figures. You stated that 45% of the deaths due to measles were due to poor diet, etc. You stated that those deaths totalled 250,000. Therefore you stated that 300,000 died purely from measles.

You make all these statements. You need to befog the issues with hand-waving.

Wake me up when you have some genuine evidence.

But there can be side effects too.

Vitamins can be toxic in inappropriate doses and for some people who have certain genetic predisposition. In the case of vitamin A that's hypervitaminosis.

Correctly handled and given to people who have low-levels of a vitamin/mineral is safe. As is vaccinating a healthy child by the correct procedure.

\\

So you're saying it's unreasonable to suggest an allergy test before pumping a kid full of toxins and allergens that can cause major, life-long damage and huge reactions?

It's unreasonable to suggest the manufacturers release all the available info from all of their tests so we know of any potential risks and any problems that arose during those studies?

It's unreasonable to suggest they're spaced out and given in single doses, rather than given all at once as happens these days, when giving them in big doses at once has been shown time and again to cause massive problems?


Sounds like you're the one being unreasonable to me.