I don't vaccinate my child because it's my right to determine which diseases come back

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
ChemGal said:
What exactly do you mean by this?
Click to expand...
More or less that vaccinated children do not have lifetime immunity. They also won't have immunities passed on from their mother's breastmilk because that mother also relied on vaccines. Already within one generation we have gone from a one dose MMR vaccine, to a two dose and now a three dose vaccine given at various stages in life.

Vaccines haven't been around that long. (although they did have a crude form in ancient days) How do we know that each generation doesn't pass on an increased immunity to the actual vaccine?
 
Waterfall said:
More or less that vaccinated children do not have lifetime immunity. They also won't have immunities passed on from their mother's breastmilk because that mother also relied on vaccines. Already within one generation we have gone from a one dose MMR vaccine, to a two dose and now a three dose vaccine given at various stages in life.

Vaccines haven't been around that long. (although they did have a crude form in ancient days) How do we know that each generation doesn't pass on an increased immunity to the actual vaccine?
Click to expand...
If the mother has antibodies, they will be passed on in the breastmilk. It doesn't matter if it comes from a vaccine or exposure to the disease.
What do you mean by immunity to the vaccine?
 
ChemGal said:
It depends by what you mean by 'focusing on the negative'. Absolutely by those inventing stories. I do think a bit of research on the negative sides will lead to safer vaccines. If everything is 100% great, there's no need to improve. It isn't though, and I think research focusing one whether some people get too much, and others not enough of a response will lead to safer and more effective vaccination strategy and possibly better vaccines as well.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Until vaccines are 100% effective and there are no side effects at all, there remains room for improvement. They are already a massive improvement, but where there can be more, I'm all for it. The anti-vaxxer arguments just suck, and not vaccinating, when the alternative is far worse, is incredibly irresponsible parenting.
 
ChemGal said:
If the mother has antibodies, they will be passed on in the breastmilk. It doesn't matter if it comes from a vaccine or exposure to the disease.
What do you mean by immunity to the vaccine?
Click to expand...
I have read that the mother DOES NOT pass on antibodies to the baby if she never had measles or chickenpox and only had the vaccine. Do you have a source that says otherwise?
 
Waterfall said:
I have read that the mother DOES NOT pass on antibodies to the baby if she never had measles or chickenpox and only had the vaccine. Do you have a source that says otherwise?
Click to expand...
What mechanism is there for determining whether an antibody is due to exposure from a disease, or from exposure to a vaccine?
 
Waterfall said:
Vaccines haven't been around that long. (although they did have a crude form in ancient days) How do we know that each generation doesn't pass on an increased immunity to the actual vaccine?
Click to expand...
We don't need boosters because we are becoming "immune" to the vaccine. That I understand it, we need boosters because a small percentage don't develop an immunity to the disease on the first dose, and the body's production of the antibodies can (or will) fade over time.

Basically, there is no cumulative effect here. All that is happening, is vaccines prompt your body to produce antibodies to fight the weakened or killed microorganisms in the vaccine. Now your body has lots of little sodiers who know what to do if they see that disease again. No exposure to the disease in a long time? The body can simply say, "Nah, not a threat any more," and slowly stop producing the antibodies (soldiers).

I'll say it again: There is no "medicine" being added to your system here. It's all about stimulating your own body's defenses.
 
Pr. Jae said:
Rita - since you don't believe in young earth creationism - what do you prefer as the alternative? How does the fall of humanity fit into that which you subscribe to?
Click to expand...

Don't know what Rita would say, but as one who believes that the earth is about 4 billion years old, because that's what the best and most solid evidence tells us, and as one who also has no problem with evolution, I'd argue that for most of the time that humans have existed, we were one with nature; a part of nature, acting on instinct rather than with any notion of good or evil. At some point, humans developed the capacity to discern notions such as right or wrong. We were no longer just a part of nature, we had the capacity to manipulate nature. Once that discernment and capacity became possible, we inevitably made bad choices - thus, the fall. I accept the Genesis account of creation as symbolic of that process of human development. It becomes problematic when we assume that it has to be taken as "fact" rather than as "truth" - the two are not the same thing. The Bible is neither a history nor a science text book. It is a divinely inspired (in my view, both in the sense that God inspired its authors to write, and that God inspired later generations to preserve what was written) collection of writings about human interaction with and perception of God. And, in any event, as has already been pointed out, young earth creationism is a human construct not explicitly supported in the Bible.
 
Waterfall said:
I have read that the mother DOES NOT pass on antibodies to the baby if she never had measles or chickenpox and only had the vaccine. Do you have a source that says otherwise?
Click to expand...
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/29/infdis.jit143.long

While the value is lower, that is most likely due to the fact that vaccines generally tend to produce less antibodies than the disease. I have only read the abstract so far. I might get to reading the entire thing later, when I'm in less pain.
 
RitaTG said:
If you look further up thread you will see my viewpoint revsdd....
And we seem to see things pretty much the same...
Click to expand...

Indeed, I replied to Jae without reading through the whole thread. But I don't apologize for participating in a derail. Conversations evolve. Tis how things go.
 
chansen said:
We don't need boosters because we are becoming "immune" to the vaccine. That I understand it, we need boosters because a small percentage don't develop an immunity to the disease on the first dose, and the body's production of the antibodies can (or will) fade over time.

Basically, there is no cumulative effect here. All that is happening, is vaccines prompt your body to produce antibodies to fight the weakened or killed microorganisms in the vaccine. Now your body has lots of little sodiers who know what to do if they see that disease again. No exposure to the disease in a long time? The body can simply say, "Nah, not a threat any more," and slowly stop producing the antibodies (soldiers).

I'll say it again: There is no "medicine" being added to your system here. It's all about stimulating your own body's defenses.
Click to expand...
To add on to this, and to explain how immunity works.
B-cells (a type of white cell) are what produce antibodies. In addition to normal DNA, they have special DNA (not what we find in other cells) that has methods to mutate. A B-cell will only produce antibodies when this special DNA has mutated. Some of the antibodies produced by B-cells remain attacked to the cell, with the part that recognizes viruses and the like facing away. These look like little 'Y's all over the cell, with the bottom attached to the cell. The B-cells have different 'Y' tops, as this is the section of the protein that was produced by the mutated DNA.

When the top of the Y finds something it can stick to, the B-cell is activated. This activation causes it to divide, producing more B-cells with the same DNA that is already mutated, so they end up producing the same antibody.

Every time an antigen sticks to an antigen on B-cells, you get more of the same B-cells produced. This is why a second exposure to a similar molecule (whether it's from a vaccine, virus, or bacterium) results in even better immunity.
 
RitaTG said:
Sorry everyone .... I participated in a thread derail .....
Once again Jae has taken the discussion elsewhere and I fell for the bait.
Click to expand...

(Love it how often people credit me with derailing threads. This one was actually a tag-team effort - Rita - between yourself - Rev John (who first
 
ChemGal said:
To add on to this, and to explain how immunity works.
B-cells (a type of white cell) are what produce antibodies. In addition to normal DNA, they have special DNA (not what we find in other cells) that has methods to mutate. A B-cell will only produce antibodies when this special DNA has mutated. Some of the antibodies produced by B-cells remain attacked to the cell, with the part that recognizes viruses and the like facing away. These look like little 'Y's all over the cell, with the bottom attached to the cell. The B-cells have different 'Y' tops, as this is the section of the protein that was produced by the mutated DNA.

When the top of the Y finds something it can stick to, the B-cell is activated. This activation causes it to divide, producing more B-cells with the same DNA that is already mutated, so they end up producing the same antibody.

Every time an antigen sticks to an antigen on B-cells, you get more of the same B-cells produced. This is why a second exposure to a similar molecule (whether it's from a vaccine, virus, or bacterium) results in even better immunity.
Click to expand...
You sound like my wife. She makes me look stupid, too.
 
revsdd said:
...I'd argue that for most of the time that humans have existed, we were one with nature; a part of nature, acting on instinct rather than with any notion of good or evil. At some point, humans developed the capacity to discern notions such as right or wrong. We were no longer just a part of nature, we had the capacity to manipulate nature. Once that discernment and capacity became possible, we inevitably made bad choices - thus, the fall. I accept the Genesis account of creation as symbolic of that process of human development.
Click to expand...
So, people who didn't know any of those details about human development, created a story that was symbolic of that development?
 
Waterfall said:
I have read that the mother DOES NOT pass on antibodies to the baby if she never had measles or chickenpox and only had the vaccine. Do you have a source that says otherwise?
Click to expand...
What's your source for the chickenpox? I haven't found anything yet. It's a new vaccine though, and it wasn't routinely offered to my generation. I don't know how many people who've received it also have children.

It is a live virus though - so I find this particularly interesting that a source would suggest antibodies are passed due to having the virus, but not the vaccine. There is evidence to show that chickenpox antibodies are passed via breastmilk, I see no reason why the vaccine should be any different, other than just differences in concentration due to the immune response.
 
chansen said:
So, people who didn't know any of those details about human development, created a story that was symbolic of that development?
Click to expand...

Your comment makes no sense. I said nothing about whether those who wrote the "stories" understood the evolutionary development of humanity or the origins of the earth. In order to write a story about how humanity came to be, they needed only two pieces of knowledge: 1) that humans exist; 2) that some things are right and some things are wrong. They clearly knew both. They were not, and in my view didn't believe themselves to be or claim to be, writing a scientific or historical account of how those two things came to be. They simply reflected on the fact that those two things were obvious, and tried to discern meaning from them. In other words, they did what science does not attempt to do. Science attempts to determine process, their goal was to discern purpose. Science is largely concerned with fact, faith and the Bible largely with truth. Truth is deeper than fact in my view, although fact may contribute to truth, and vice versa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top