Vaccination - The Point Of View Of The Child

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
Waterfall said:
Chemgirl, I"m going to opt out of this debate, but I will say this.....the argument in the above article is not impressive IMO. I'm not an anti vaxer per se but a proponent of more independent research with no connections to those who manufacture the product. Which unfortunately may be next to impossible to find anyone to fund that.
Click to expand...
What I posted at least links to studies.
You state that natural immunity is often lifelong, with no evidence supporting that.
You also claim I am using the wrong interpretation for herd immunity but the article you posted didn't suggest that it is specific to natural immunity.
 
Children die. Sadly, that is true.
A niece died of SIDS. The family then proceeded to use alerts for their babies, and 2 of the following children set it off regularly. They were lucky.
I am sure some people would have aligned it with some vaccination, after all babies have vaccines.

SIDS, though, is not a vaccine related death. Thankfully the parents understood that and got vaccines as well as the proper care for their future children.
 
Pinga said:
Children die. Sadly, that is true.

SIDS, though, is not a vaccine related death.
Click to expand...

Definition By Mayo Clinic Staff

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is the unexplained death, usually during sleep, of a seemingly healthy baby less than a year old. SIDS is sometimes known as crib death because the infants often die in their cribs.

Although the cause is unknown, it appears that SIDS may be associated with abnormalities in the portion of an infant's brain that controls breathing and arousal from sleep.

“Crib death’ was so infrequent in the pre-vaccination era that it was not even mentioned in the statistics, but it started to climb in the 1950s with the spread of mass vaccination against diseases of childhood. It became a matter of public and professional concern and even acquired a new name, “sudden infant death of unknown origin,.” or, for short, SIDS. This name is significant, in the light of subsequent controversies, since “of unknown origin” means exactly that. So, when the medical establishment assures us that SIDS is unrelated to vaccinations, the obvious response is, How do you know?, if it is defined as “of unknown origin”? At this (as with most common-sense questions about vaccinations) the medical establishment prefers to retire from the debate in dignified silence.

@Pinga - How do you know?
 
monk said:
Definition By Mayo Clinic Staff

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is the unexplained death, usually during sleep, of a seemingly healthy baby less than a year old. SIDS is sometimes known as crib death because the infants often die in their cribs.

Although the cause is unknown, it appears that SIDS may be associated with abnormalities in the portion of an infant's brain that controls breathing and arousal from sleep.

“Crib death’ was so infrequent in the pre-vaccination era that it was not even mentioned in the statistics, but it started to climb in the 1950s with the spread of mass vaccination against diseases of childhood. It became a matter of public and professional concern and even acquired a new name, “sudden infant death of unknown origin,.” or, for short, SIDS. This name is significant, in the light of subsequent controversies, since “of unknown origin” means exactly that. So, when the medical establishment assures us that SIDS is unrelated to vaccinations, the obvious response is, How do you know?, if it is defined as “of unknown origin”? At this (as with most common-sense questions about vaccinations) the medical establishment prefers to retire from the debate in dignified silence.

@Pinga - How do you know?
Click to expand...

How about looking at the Centre for Disease control which has clear information.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/sids.html
 
@Pinga and @chansen @BetteTheRed - NONE of YOU know anything more than what you claim to know.

Just because you can read does not mean that you know. YOU do not know anymore than I do.

The shot that was delivered and in question as regards the recent death in my extended family was as recommended for an 18 month old in the province of BC: DTaPIPV-Hib Diptheria, Tetanus, acellular Pertussis, Inactivated Polio Virus, Haemophilus Infulenzae type B

I can read as well and I have read that:

CDC’s own research has found that the long denied vaccine-SIDS link is real Adverse Events following Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccines in the Vaccine Adverse Event ReportingSystem, 1990-2013,” wherein CDC and FDA researchers identify 749 deaths linked to the administration of the Hib vaccine, 51% of which were sudden infant death linked to the administration of Hib vaccine.

Still, YOU choose to believe the official pronouncements of top governmental health agencies like the CDC and FDA, all the vaccines in the present day schedule are safe and effective. YOU believe what you are told to believe. YOU and I are told that not only do they not harm you, but that not taking them can kill you.

Parents just like YOU and I are told that refraining from vaccinating their infants or children will greatly increase their risk of dying or being disabled. Worse, they are increasingly labeled - by people like YOU (Not I) - as ‘crazy’ and ‘irresponsible’ anti-vaccine zealots who are putting the lives of others in danger.

So then what are YOU and I to believe should happen when the actual evidence from the scientific and clinical literature produced by say the CDC and FDA contradict their own vaccine policies?

YOU and the CDC continue to boldly deny that there is any evidence supporting a causal link between vaccines and infant death, despite the fact that their own webpage on the topic acknowledges that “From 2 to 4 months old, babies begin their primary course of vaccinations. This is also the peak age for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).”

Just Coincidence - YOU all say. And, in all your wisdom, YOU SADLY acknowledge that even though SIDS is the stated reason of death in one out of every 2,000 children in Canada each year - 3 babies die each week - these cases of crib death every year are a reasonable price to pay to support the steady flow of vaccines for the benefit of the public health. Screw the babies that die each year after being vaccinated - they have at least enjoyed the benefit of the childhood vaccines to their untimely demise!

@Pinga While the CDC still suggests that stomach sleeping is the primary modifiable risk factor - unfortunately, the research of the last 30 years provides no evidence that the incidence of SIDS decreases with the use of monitors. In fact- a monitor is not a treatment; it can only alert the caregiver to a potential problem. Although some parents may be reassured to know that their baby's breathing is being continuously assessed, some families find the full-time commitment to operating the device and the psychological stress can result a heavy burden. And being that you have pronounced that SIDS is in no way ever related to vaccines - why stress over it at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
monk said:
as ‘crazy’ and ‘irresponsible’ anti-vaccine zealots who are putting the lives of others in danger.
Click to expand...


Sadly, this is normal domesticated primate behaviour

Instead of being able to discuss words (which is what we are all using here, which aren't the objects they describe -- the word 'homosexual' isn't a homosexual & the phrase 'she was gutted like a snail', there is no actual person in that phrase, no snail, no actual gutting), when dealing with things that make us uncomfortable (and we each have certain things that we find to be uncomfortable -- each BS has its own category of things that one finds blasphemous, that shan't be talked aboot, to even consider them is bad and wrong, even evil), we, instead of waiting and letting the feelings pass and remembering/being aware of where these feelings are coming from, from the person who is having them, we project them outside ourselves, to others, and say 'they are causing my uncomfort'...this can lead to pogroms, to racial violence, to prejudice, to sexism, to...

Obviously, to some here, talking aboot vaccines as a choice is blasphemous...and that anyone who doesn't use the same words as they are are idiots...SINNER OUTCAST UNCLEAN HEATHEN BURN THEM MY FEELINGS ARE BEING HURT!!!

Keep at it, monk, keep at it
 
Some people will vacillate, some will vex and some will facilitate a pathe into what's behind that beyond us ... presently mythical!

Needless to say if it is beyond what is presently understood they will despise it as different --- Kubler-Ross curve ... a depression in space?
 
Is that a holy BLIP, or a wholly chirp ... sort of like two BH's having incidence like Hairy meets sal-el?

Perhaps just when O'cean reaches the niche in the hairy place ... that notch marking des pot?
 
Very dignified exits - We are not willing to look at anything that does not support the herd mentality?

I'm bowing out, too. I'd like to leave you all with a few resources as well:

Short Version - (34 pages) http://www.gsk.ca/english/docs-pdf/product-monographs/Infanrix-hexa.pdf

Long Version - (1271 pages) 2011 GSK documentation on the Infarix Hexa - clinical and adverse reaction studies:
https://autismoevaccini.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/vaccin-dc3a9cc3a8s.pdf

If parents are really to be informed - the above materials should be provided before the vaccine is administered. Of course that is IMO - which you all do not wish to entertain being that I am obviously irrational because there was a possible vaccine related death in the family and it is not in your closed-minded pro-vaccination stance to encourage open-minded inquiry into such an impossible event. Neither does it seem that a survey of 14,000 un-vaccinated people and their testimonies of relatively better health than vaccinated participants is of any value in your ongoing ignorance of the possibility that vaccination could be optional and a matter of individual responsibility not mindless civil obedience.

I understand - it is rather risky to infiltrate the herd with the concept of informed individual responsibility - they might even think for themselves that they want to opt out!

Better to stick with the Ridicule-ous Versions in your education of the ignorant masses:

 
Open minded Ness ... a dark hard spot planted where? As tone to be cracked as co dead? Can it be half awake without the desire to gothere?

What's a gothe ?
 
And here's a REAL LIFE moral question, that happens to fit with the thread.

Let's assume that there are VERY RARE adverse vaccination effects. (There are, it appears, "perfect storms" of unfortunate genetic combos sometimes.) Let's also assume that my numbers are just rough, rough guesstimates.

If 100% of the population (as close as can be, let's not quibble about cancer patients/the immuno-compromised) is vaccinated against polio for instance, let's assume a "vaccination adverse affect" of some small number per 100,000 vaccinated. By contrast, the year before the polio vaccine was introduced, 1955, in the U.S., there were about 30,000 cases of polio reported. Of those, about 1,000 died; some other predictable percentage of those infected people were permanently disabled.

If there is a "cost" of one or two deaths to save 1000 lives, is it worth it? Probably not to the one or two adversely affected, and when our memory of the awfulness of the epidemics fades, there's bound to be questions. Preventive stuff is always less sexy than rescue stuff.
 
BetteTheRed said:
And here's a REAL LIFE moral question, that happens to fit with the thread.

Let's assume that there are VERY RARE adverse vaccination effects. (There are, it appears, "perfect storms" of unfortunate genetic combos sometimes.) Let's also assume that my numbers are just rough, rough guesstimates.

If 100% of the population (as close as can be, let's not quibble about cancer patients/the immuno-compromised) is vaccinated against polio for instance, let's assume a "vaccination adverse affect" of some small number per 100,000 vaccinated. By contrast, the year before the polio vaccine was introduced, 1955, in the U.S., there were about 30,000 cases of polio reported. Of those, about 1,000 died; some other predictable percentage of those infected people were permanently disabled.

If there is a "cost" of one or two deaths to save 1000 lives, is it worth it? Probably not to the one or two adversely affected, and when our memory of the awfulness of the epidemics fades, there's bound to be questions. Preventive stuff is always less sexy than rescue stuff.
Click to expand...


Rendered down: "It all depends on your perspective!" i.e. where you come from and this is often an unknown to the ordinary person!
 
BetteTheRed said:
And here's a REAL LIFE moral question, that happens to fit with the thread.

Let's assume that there are VERY RARE adverse vaccination effects. (There are, it appears, "perfect storms" of unfortunate genetic combos sometimes.) Let's also assume that my numbers are just rough, rough guesstimates.

If 100% of the population (as close as can be, let's not quibble about cancer patients/the immuno-compromised) is vaccinated against polio for instance, let's assume a "vaccination adverse affect" of some small number per 100,000 vaccinated. By contrast, the year before the polio vaccine was introduced, 1955, in the U.S., there were about 30,000 cases of polio reported. Of those, about 1,000 died; some other predictable percentage of those infected people were permanently disabled.

If there is a "cost" of one or two deaths to save 1000 lives, is it worth it? Probably not to the one or two adversely affected, and when our memory of the awfulness of the epidemics fades, there's bound to be questions. Preventive stuff is always less sexy than rescue stuff.
Click to expand...
The issue is when those things happen, it's oh well, it happens sometimes and we don't really know why. I know, because of been there.
Also, what's the point of having data about adverse reactions if not all of the adverse reactions can be reported?
 
@BetteTheRed

Thank you for bowing back in and I will do the same.
I will make every attempt to be graceful; to be less reactive and more proactive or 'preventive' as you coined.
I will not assume that I have the right answers. I will not assume that you have the wrong answers.

I am not convinced however that going forward with assumption will be instrumental in answering the questions around the vaccine debate.

This is my most pressing question:

Should vaccination be mandatory and enforceable by law?

For your consideration before answering:

Vaccination is a medical treatment with known risks including death. The Supreme Court in the United States has deemed vaccinations “unavoidably unsafe”,meaning that even when used as directed some individuals will be injured or killed by vaccinations. Vaccines are complex biochemical substances that are, by definition drugs, and by their very design, can make healthy individuals sick.


Current medical ethics adhere to the belief that no one should be forced to undergo a medical treatment without informed consent and their agreement to the treatment. We condemned the forced sterilization of individuals with developmental disabilities, the Tuskegee experiments that intentionally infected black inmates without their knowledge or consent, and the Nazi medical practices that included involuntary euthanasia, experimentation, and sterilization. Yet today we are considering ethical practices similar to those we previously condemned.


The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, currently guarantees not only the fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion, but also the legal right to security of the person. For the government to attempt to enforce any vaccination program without recognizing these rights could invoke at least a judicial process and possibly a legislative one.


If we are to continue down the path of mandatory vaccinations prerequisites should include:

Mandatory reporting of all adverse effects of vaccinations.
Currently the reporting of adverse effects of vaccination is voluntary with no consequence for a failure to report vaccine damage. It is estimated that only two to ten percent of actual vaccine damage incidences are reported. A rigorous and systematic collection of adverse reactions to vaccines needs to be implemented and be fully available to public scrutiny.

Training of physicians to diagnose vaccine damage
Physicians would require training in diagnosing and treating vaccine damage prior to any mandatory treatment. Currently physicians receive no training on how to diagnose or treat vaccine damage.

Mandatory compensation for all vaccine damage including vaccine failure.
Currently there is no national vaccine damage compensation program in Canada other than in the province of Quebec. Nor is there any compensation for illness caused by vaccine failure. Canada and Russia are the only remaining countries of the western world not to have a vaccine damage compensation plan.


While the United Stated has a Vaccine Damage Compensation Program, the US Vaccine Court has been criticized for its reluctance to acknowledge and provide compensation for vaccine damage, and for the lack of consistency and accountability of its vaccine court Special Masters. A Canadian compensation system needs to be implemented and provide much more accessible compensation for vaccine damaged individuals.

Canadian Vaccine Injury Victims Access to Justice
Canadians who experience significant injury or death as a result of vaccinations are unable to obtain financial compensation through the Canadian court system. While anyone can initiate a lawsuit if they believe they or a family member has suffered a vaccine induced injury, in Canada the victim must prove not only “causality”, but also “negligence”.


Because this is an impossibly high standard to litigate, to date no vaccine injury case has succeeded in winning damages in a Canadian court. Vaccine injury victims are also precluded from presenting their case to a jury. Only trial by judge is accepted. With these barriers the Canadian legal system offers no meaningful legal recourse to Canadian vaccine injury victims.


Without the precedent of court adjudicated awards for vaccine injury, the Canadian government is enabled to turn a blind eye to the plight of the vaccine injured and refuse to implement a vaccine damage compensation system.

Mandatory evidence of long-term vaccine safety and effectiveness

Currently there are no long-term clinical trials that demonstrate vaccine safety or effectiveness.


Most efficacy trials are limited to the measurement of anti-bodies/titres in the blood as surrogate proof of effectiveness, rather than producing verifiable evidence that the vaccine actually prevented the disease.


Most safety trials are limited to only 2 – 6 weeks. Effects can emerge beyond this limited time period.


No safety trials exist that determine the safety of giving multiple vaccinations at once.


No large safety trials exist that use an unvaccinated population as the control group.


Most safety trials not only use control groups consisting of other vaccinated populations, but also use so-called “placebos” that contain aluminum adjuvants and other vaccine ingredients (minus only the immunizing agent). In medical science, a placebo is defined as an inactive substance with no pharmacological action. It is administered to some patients in clinical trials to determine the relative effectiveness of another drug administered to a second group of patients. This failure to use a proper neutral placebo undermines the integrity of vaccine safety claims because it masks the damaging effects of aluminum and other vaccine ingredients themselves, which are known to be toxic.

Oversight by an independent body
A judicial body needs to be established to oversee and provide independent evaluation of product safety as well as evaluate the justification for imposing medical treatments without consent. This body ought to be independent of both industry and government and have the powers and independence of the judiciary.

Mandatory reporting of all vaccine research trials and outcomes
Currently vaccine manufacturers are able to withhold evidence of vaccine trials and outcomes and only publish or acknowledge those trials that produce the outcomes favorable to their cause. As a consequence any vaccine trial that produces an unfavorable result can be withheld from public and governmental scrutiny.

Mandatory quarantine of all vaccinated individuals receiving live and attenuated viruses
If we are serious about the goal of ‘herd immunity’ and stopping the transmission of viruses then the quarantine of individuals vaccinated with live/attenuated viruses (measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, rotavirus) needs to be implemented. These vaccines are capable of transmitting the virus to others due to viral shedding. Viral shedding can occur for up to six weeks following vaccination.

Agree or Disagree ?
 
I'm remembering the mandatory Anthrax vaccine in the US military and all the adverse reactions that were reported and ignored.

Another concern of mine is, what happens over time? Sure maybe this generation will be blessed but does that necessarily mean the next or second generation may pay the consequences from our over dependencies on vaccines that may actually alter our progeny's DNA....is that even possible?

Will it be like our antibiotics that we have overused to the point of ineffectiveness in some cases with the development of superbugs? Will we just hope that whatever the next generation encounters they will figure it out? Much the same as we deal with pollution and global warming?
 
Last edited:
Summary
When you look up the term ‘pseudoscience’ in the dictionary, one of the definitions is as follows: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. What we are witnessing with these journals is certainly not science. Our medical journals have devolved into something other than pillars of scientific truth in pursuit of health, and by definition, would have to be characterized as pseudoscience.

Vaccine skeptics are constantly being told that they are anti-science or science deniers, but when we look at the so called ‘science’, it becomes clear that the exact opposite is true. To be more accurate, vaccine skeptics are taking issue with cherry picked data, buried studies, fraudulent data and poorly conducted clinical trials, posing as science. Vaccine skeptics are well aware of the fact that our medical journals left the realm of science years ago and have become valuable business tools in the world of economics, marketing and politics.

The fact that so many experts from within the industry are telling us that we can’t trust data published in the most prestigious journals in the world really cuts to the heart of the matter. We are told that the debate is over and vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective, but from what evidence can they conclude this? If pharmaceutical companies sponsor almost all of the research while then also deciding what gets published and what doesn’t, how can we imagine we’re getting reliable information? When we know that the data in these publications have been manipulated in favor of pharmaceutical products, how can we trust it?

The truth is that studies favoring the safety and efficacy of ANY pharmaceutical products published in medical journals can no longer be presumed to have integrity and cannot be safely cited as scientific fact. Arguments that use this data as their foundation must be called out for what they are: agenda-driven misinformation. Unless we have comprehensive independent audits, allowing auditors to review ALL the information, or until trial results can be replicated by independent researchers, the published research on vaccines is not reliable. Published vaccine trial data is lacking the scientific rigor and the integrity we need, in order for it to provide us with the quality of information necessary for giving adequate informed consent.

The information presented in part one of this article alone is enough to make any parent feel skeptical about putting any pharmaceutical products into their children. As you will see in the following parts of this article, medical journals are only one component of the systematic deception and corruption taking place in this industry. When we take a closer look at the behavior of the pharmaceutical industry and their ties with federal and local regulatory agencies, we find behavior that is equally troubling.

Part 1: Why Are So many People Choosing Not To Vaccinate?

Part 2: A Closer Look at Pharmaceutical Companies

Part 3: Vaccine Policymakers and Conflicts of Interest

Part 4: How The CDC, FDA and WHO Lost the Trust of Vaccine Skeptics

Part 5: Are Vaccines Safe & Effective?

Part 6: What Are The Real Risks of Not Vaccinating in the U.S.?

Part 7: Herd Immunity, Shedding and the Questionable Science Behind Vaccines

Part 8: Did Vaccines Really Eradicate Infectious Diseases in the 20th Century?

Part 9: The Conclusive Evidence Linking Vaccines and Autism

Part 10: Why Don’t We Hear The Whole Story About Vaccines?

Part 11: What Are Independent Experts Telling Us About Vaccines?

Part 12: Vaccines: The Greater Good or Greater Greed? – Conclusion
 
Is BS or pseudoscience something that we observe but all its parts are invisible to us .... due to authority's determination that we shouldn't know what they done ... thus dunes of sans to burry our heads in as an Ostr etch ... that drawn our horseman ... now in four quarters ... as light powers etched out as a line of humanity to demonstrate evil to those beyond us ... subversive gods as behind the front gods?

Isn't that a devilish inversion ... for the sake of diversity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top