PDA

View Full Version : New Study Finds Direct Link Between Vaccines and Infant Mortality




Anti Federalist
06-26-2011, 11:59 PM
Confirms what I've thought all along.

It's not something in the vaccines, it's the vaccines themselves, given too many at too early an age.

Links to the study and scipd copy at site.

(I'll wait here for the Jones haters and debunkers)



New Study Finds Direct Link Between Vaccines and Infant Mortality

http://www.infowars.com/new-study-finds-direct-link-between-vaccines-and-infant-mortality/

A shocking new study published in a prestigious medical journal has found a direct statistical link between higher vaccine doses and infant mortality rates in the developed world, suggesting that the increasing number of inoculations being forced upon children by medical authorities, particularly in the United States which administers the highest number of vaccines and also has the highest number of infant deaths, is in fact having a detrimental impact on health.

The study, entitled Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?, was conducted by Neil Z. Miller and Gary S. Goldman. It was published in the reputable Human and Experimental Toxicology journal, which is indexed by the National Library of Medicine.

According to his biography, “Goldman has served as a reviewer for the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Vaccine, AJMC, ERV, ERD, JEADV,and British Medical Journal (BMJ). He is included on the Editorial Board of Research and Reviews in BioSciences.”

Miller, a medical research journalist and the Director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute, has been studying the dangers of vaccines for 25 years.

“Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates,” the study found, adding that the results demand an “essential” inquiry into the correlation between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and infant mortality rates.

Despite the fact that the United States administers the highest number of vaccine doses to children in the entire developed world, 26 before infants reach the age of one, its infant mortality rate is higher than 33 other nations, all of which administer less vaccines. The study clearly illustrates the fact that developed countries which administer less vaccines have lower infant mortality rates, suggesting a direct statistical link between vaccination side-effects and infant deaths.

For example, the two developed countries that require children be immunized with the least amount of vaccines, Japan and Sweden, also top the table for the lowest infant mortality rates.

Of the top ten developed countries with the lowest infant mortality rates, seven of the ten also appear in the top ten table of countries that administer the least vaccines.

When looked at in comparison, the table of countries ordered by which ones administer the least vaccines compared to the table which orders countries based on infant mortality rates is very similar.

Despite the fact that it administers the most vaccines, the United States has the highest infant mortality rate of all developed countries, with an average of 6.22 deaths per 1000 live births. The US has a far higher infant mortality rate than the likes of Cuba or Slovenia despite spending vastly more on health care.

http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/june2011/230611top2.jpg

raiha
06-27-2011, 04:20 AM
Yeah. Welcome to planet earth, kid...jab!!!Never vaccinated my daughter except for polio. She is still alive.

teacherone
06-27-2011, 06:04 AM
Yeah. Welcome to planet earth, kid...jab!!!Never vaccinated my daughter except for polio. She is still alive.

has she had mumps or measles? can you give us some indication how hard they were to deal with - what to expect?

Krugerrand
06-27-2011, 06:20 AM
I don't doubt it.

I get a little nervous when studies reference infant mortality. My understanding is that it's a bit of a bogus statistic, since countries track infant mortality differently. People would try to use the US's high infant mortality to say that our health care is inferior, when we simply count more live births than other countries do.

Acala
06-27-2011, 09:02 AM
Also, this doesn't seem to be comparing mortality rate among infants who are immunized, but rather total infant mortality rate. I think that assumes ALL American infants have the same immunizations. Is that true?

And the USA is highly diverse racially and culturally especially when compared to, for example, the two lowest mortality rate countries - Japan and Sweden.

What was the basis for choosing this particluar list of countries? The correlation almost certainly falls part when you add the African countries to the list.

And, as with ALL epidemiological studies, the results are NOT proof because there is virtually no control of extraneous variable. Just a possible correlation.

Not saying that immunization of infants is a good thing. Just pointing out potential flaws in the study.

Tom in NYC
06-27-2011, 09:15 AM
I don't doubt it.

I get a little nervous when studies reference infant mortality. My understanding is that it's a bit of a bogus statistic, since countries track infant mortality differently. People would try to use the US's high infant mortality to say that our health care is inferior, when we simply count more live births than other countries do.

Yeah Tom Woods actually uses this very point in Nullification I think. The whole causation-correlation thing seems, at first glance, to still be an issue based on this article. I haven't read the study to see any further what they were linking.

ChaosControl
06-27-2011, 10:41 AM
I cannot say I am even remotely surprised. Of course putting all these chemicals in your body is going to be harmful.

ChaosControl
06-27-2011, 10:43 AM
What was the basis for choosing this particluar list of countries? The correlation almost certainly falls part when you add the African countries to the list.

Why would you use non-developed countries? Of course they will have higher mortality rates otherwise, it wouldn't be a valid comparison.

liberalnurse
06-27-2011, 11:35 AM
has she had mumps or measles? can you give us some indication how hard they were to deal with - what to expect?

I had mumps, measles and chicken pox as a child. My brother and sister did, as well. I think we had the measles one after the other. We survived. I remember the chicken pox and the measles well. Not pleasant but not terrible. I remember oatmeal baths and dark rooms as light and heat seemed to exacerbate the itching. I've had seasonal flu and felt worse. On a personal note, my son is 24 and I was good friends with the Doctor who delivered him and then was his primary care MD. He was a GP, not a ob or pediatrician. We spread the vaccinations out over 5 years. When Eric was 13 he went for a PE and it was a different doctor, and he said ok, need a tetanus booster, Hep. B (only 2 injections for adolescents and no long term studies on efficacy) also vericella is now available and Eric had never had the chicken pox. I said no, no and no.

Kade
06-27-2011, 11:40 AM
Before I chime in, can you please link directly the study... thanks. I can't get to infowars from here.

specsaregood
06-27-2011, 11:45 AM
//

Krugerrand
06-27-2011, 11:46 AM
// specsaregood wins.

Anti Federalist
06-27-2011, 12:11 PM
///

Kade
06-27-2011, 12:25 PM
Confirms what I've thought all along.

It's not something in the vaccines, it's the vaccines themselves, given too many at too early an age.

Links to the study and scipd copy at site.


Confirms what I've thought all along.

It's not something in the vaccines, it's the vaccines themselves, given too many at too early an age.

Links to the study and scipd copy at site.

Sorry AF, you know I have nothing but love for you, but when it comes to science, I can't hold my tongue.

This "study" is not peer reviewed. Miller is the founder and editor of ThinkTwice and Goldman is the editor and founder of Medical Veritas, prominent anti-vaccine groups -- which makes the article questionable before I even had a chance to get to the methods section. Neither of them are scientists who have studied or researched at a serious academic institution.

There are numerous mistakes in the dosage handling -- OPV instead of antigens. The paper is highly engineered and binned.

The biggest issue is that this article uses the well known hack method of causal inference. Example:
The sky is blue <14.7% of the 5-7pm time frames.
People fear elephants at zoo times of 7pm.
Blue is correlated with fear and elephants during 7pm. p=.08%


In this case, it was a listing of countries and the number of scheduled vaccines, correlated with mortality rates. There is no empirical evidence of causation, whatsoever.


At least three studies have shown empirically that the suggestion of this "paper" is false, and that the opposite is in fact true:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11290634
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17400342
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=15602672

When this "paper" undergoes decent peer review, then I will change my opinion... not before.

Kade
06-27-2011, 12:26 PM
// specsaregood wins.

I had to read the paper first.. come on.

Krugerrand
06-27-2011, 01:01 PM
I had to read the paper first.. come on.

I posted the link and after my message posted, I saw he beat me to it. So I changed my post to give him credit for getting it there first.

dannno
06-27-2011, 01:11 PM
At least three studies have shown empirically that the suggestion of this "paper" is false, and that the opposite is in fact true:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11290634
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17400342
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=15602672

When this "paper" undergoes decent peer review, then I will change my opinion... not before.

So when a study is 'peer-reviewed' (aka supposedly 'neutral' proponents of the industry spend a bunch of extra money funding scientists in an attempt to obtain a result that fits their agenda), you automatically believe the results?

My question is who is going to pay for a study like this one to be peer reviewed when it causes industry to be less profitable, when it appears to be industry itself that helps fund and control the research being done?

How reliable is this system you believe in, which forces parents to vaccinate their kids using violence and is completely driven by profit motive? I'm a big proponent of profit motive, but when you take away the competition (in this case, allowing people NOT to be vaccinated if they wish...in many other cases, natural medicines which are safer and more effective being illegal to sell by the FDA), then the profit motive becomes one sided.

Kade
06-27-2011, 01:13 PM
So when a study is 'peer-reviewed' (aka supposedly 'neutral' proponents of the industry spend a bunch of extra money funding scientists in an attempt to obtain a result that fits their agenda), you automatically believe the results?

My question is who is going to pay for a study like this one to be peer reviewed when it causes industry to be less profitable, when it appears to be industry itself that helps fund and control the research being done?

How reliable is this system you believe in, which forces parents to vaccinate their kids using violence and is completely driven by profit motive? I'm a big proponent of profit motive, but when you take away the competition (in this case, allowing people NOT to be vaccinated if they wish...in many other cases, natural medicines which are safer and more effective being illegal to sell by the FDA), then the profit motive becomes one sided.

Honestly, as a member of the academic community you are inching closer to insulting the whole field, I can say that many of the peer reviewing is done by independent scientists who really don't give a rats ass about corporate interests. If Vaccines harmed people, they would be the first group to shouting it from the ivory towers... trust me on this.

Krugerrand
06-27-2011, 01:16 PM
Sorry AF, you know I have nothing but love for you, but when it comes to science, I can't hold my tongue.

This "study" is not peer reviewed. Miller is the founder and editor of ThinkTwice and Goldman is the editor and founder of Medical Veritas, prominent anti-vaccine groups -- which makes the article questionable before I even had a chance to get to the methods section. Neither of them are scientists who have studied or researched at a serious academic institution.

There are numerous mistakes in the dosage handling -- OPV instead of antigens. The paper is highly engineered and binned.

The biggest issue is that this article uses the well known hack method of causal inference. Example:
The sky is blue <14.7% of the 5-7pm time frames.
People fear elephants at zoo times of 7pm.
Blue is correlated with fear and elephants during 7pm. p=.08%


In this case, it was a listing of countries and the number of scheduled vaccines, correlated with mortality rates. There is no empirical evidence of causation, whatsoever.


At least three studies have shown empirically that the suggestion of this "paper" is false, and that the opposite is in fact true:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11290634
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17400342
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=15602672

When this "paper" undergoes decent peer review, then I will change my opinion... not before.

I've only done a cursary reading of the paper.

Stats like these are difficult to put any weight behind, as you point out. Add researcher bias, and the whole things is dubious at best.

That said, the lack of reliability of the stats is not a ringing endorsement for the manufacturers either. For swine flu, we saw 'epidemic' redefined so that the swine flu could be categorized as such. We saw hospitals instructed to classify just about everybody who walked in the door as having swine flu (I wouldn't be surprised if the UPS man got tacked on each day.)

I had read an interesting piece on Polio suggesting that the disease levels are completely unchanged compared to before the vaccine - but that now it gets classified as a type of meningitis for anybody who has had the vaccine. (I'll dig up links if anybody is interested) The swine flu example give credence to the polio claim.

The "system" has a built in bias that "the vaccine's can do no harm" and so many things can get categorized otherwise because of the premise. It's going to be nearly impossible to extrapolate any information from statistics because of that.

dannno
06-27-2011, 01:25 PM
Honestly, as a member of the academic community you are inching closer to insulting the whole field, I can say that many of the peer reviewing is done by independent scientists who really don't give a rats ass about corporate interests. If Vaccines harmed people, they would be the first group to shouting it from the ivory towers... trust me on this.

That's ridiculous, I've seen far too many examples of corporatism and fraud in the medical industry. The academic/research community is only partly responsible. The main component, again, is the fact that we don't have the freedom to choose, so the monopoly on violence continues against individuals and small the natural supplement industry and the academic community sits by and watches for the most part. They could do something, but anybody who does is then banished by said academic community because if they stand alongside them their funding sources will be cut. This is the culling of the academic community, it usually happens to a person long before they become well known and established from within the community.

SWAT teams raiding stores for selling apricot pits and stevia, both harmless and healthful substances, raw milk raids in LA and more recently in San Diego. You can't even sell a natural plant and say what it helps or what it is good for.

If we had freedom to choose, then the monied interests would be less inclined to try and control people's use of medicines and supplements because they would have less ability to do so through force. The academic community would have more intellectual honesty because their funding wouldn't depending on continuing lies about various health issues and substances.

I'm sorry, but I've had exactly the opposite experience as you, apparently. The more I stay away from western medicine and the more I turn to natural medicine, the more healthy I become.

Kade
06-27-2011, 01:30 PM
That's ridiculous, I've seen far too many examples of corporatism and fraud in the medical industry. The academic/research community is only partly responsible.


I'm sorry, but I've had exactly the opposite experience as you. The more I stay away from western medicine and the more I turn to natural medicine, the more healthy I become.

I generally agree with you in regards to the governmental abuse of homeopathic remedies and natural remedies and what not... that was never really my point. I was only pointing out that this study is highly flawed. Argue that it is wrong to mandate vaccines, do not argue that they are harmful. Scientists as a community are not generally pro-corporatist, even though some do exist. If there was empirical evidence to demonstrate that vaccines were harmful, trust me, they would absolutely be saying it... this is just a fact. Scientists love proving each other wrong, they are damn prideful stubborn people.

RonPaulGetsIt
06-27-2011, 01:42 PM
pharmaceutical companies have blanket immunity from vaccine lawsuits. Predictably they push for more vaccines to be added to the cfc schedule. Add to that the revolving door between cfc and the pharmaceutical execs and voila you get this result

moostraks
07-05-2011, 09:53 AM
... Argue that it is wrong to mandate vaccines, do not argue that they are harmful.

Taking just two repeat vaccines for infants with adverse reactions listed in order of occurrence per their insert:
dtap- "Redness
Swelling
Pain
Fever
Fussiness
Drowsiness
Poor Appetite
Vomiting
Persistent crying
Seizures
Hives
Swelling of the Mouth
Difficulty breathing
Hypotension
Shock
Brachial neuritis
Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
Cyanosis
Diarrhea
Intussusception (Intestinal blockage)
Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura
Lymphadenopathy
Thrombocytopenia
Anaphylactic reaction
Hypersensitivity
Cellulitis
Limb swelling
Convulsions
Encephalopathy
Hypotonia
Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode
Somnolence
Irritability
Respiratory Tract Infection
Erythema
Pruritus
Rash
Urticaria
Ear pain The Potential Connection To Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
The DTaP package insert includes mention that there is some concern that the DTaP vaccine is a cause of SIDS, since the vaccine is administered beginning at 2 months of age, and the highest rates of SIDS occur between 2 months and 4 months of age. The manufacturer is quick to include a study disputing this claim. Various reputable research studies disagree on the connection, so further research is needed to determine causality. "

and mmr-"Merck lists the following side effects on their package insert. Panniculitis
atypical measles
fever
syncope
headache
dizziness
malaise
irritability
vasculitis
pancreatitis
diarrhea
vomiting
parotitis
nausea
diabetes mellitus
thrombocytopenia
purpura
regional lymphadenopathy
leukocytosis
Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions
angioneurotic edema
bronchial spasms
arthritis
anthragia
myalgia
encephalitis (Brain Swelling signaled by uncontrollable crying~Beth)
encephalopathy
subacute sclerosing panencephalitis
Guillian Barre Syndrome
febrile convulsions
seizures
ataxia
polyneuritis
polyneuropathy
ocular palsies
paresthesia
aseptic meningitis
Pneumonitis
sore throat
cough
rhinitis
Stevens-Johnson syndrome
erythema multiforme
urticaria
rash
pruritis
nerve deafness
otitis media
retinitis
optic neuritis
papillitis
retrobulbar neuritis
conjunctivitis
Orchitis
DEATH"

Why shouldn't it be argued they are harmful???

PaulConventionWV
07-05-2011, 12:04 PM
I generally agree with you in regards to the governmental abuse of homeopathic remedies and natural remedies and what not... that was never really my point. I was only pointing out that this study is highly flawed. Argue that it is wrong to mandate vaccines, do not argue that they are harmful. Scientists as a community are not generally pro-corporatist, even though some do exist. If there was empirical evidence to demonstrate that vaccines were harmful, trust me, they would absolutely be saying it... this is just a fact. Scientists love proving each other wrong, they are damn prideful stubborn people.

That's not a fact. It's an opinion. You don't know what would happen. Stop trying to pass off things you can't know as "facts."

Acala
07-06-2011, 11:44 AM
Taking just two repeat vaccines for infants with adverse reactions listed in order of occurrence per their insert:
dtap- "Redness
Swelling
Pain
Fever
Fussiness
Drowsiness
Poor Appetite
Vomiting
Persistent crying
Seizures
Hives
Swelling of the Mouth
Difficulty breathing
Hypotension
Shock
Brachial neuritis
Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
Cyanosis
Diarrhea
Intussusception (Intestinal blockage)
Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura
Lymphadenopathy
Thrombocytopenia
Anaphylactic reaction
Hypersensitivity
Cellulitis
Limb swelling
Convulsions
Encephalopathy
Hypotonia
Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode
Somnolence
Irritability
Respiratory Tract Infection
Erythema
Pruritus
Rash
Urticaria
Ear pain The Potential Connection To Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
The DTaP package insert includes mention that there is some concern that the DTaP vaccine is a cause of SIDS, since the vaccine is administered beginning at 2 months of age, and the highest rates of SIDS occur between 2 months and 4 months of age. The manufacturer is quick to include a study disputing this claim. Various reputable research studies disagree on the connection, so further research is needed to determine causality. "

and mmr-"Merck lists the following side effects on their package insert. Panniculitis
atypical measles
fever
syncope
headache
dizziness
malaise
irritability
vasculitis
pancreatitis
diarrhea
vomiting
parotitis
nausea
diabetes mellitus
thrombocytopenia
purpura
regional lymphadenopathy
leukocytosis
Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions
angioneurotic edema
bronchial spasms
arthritis
anthragia
myalgia
encephalitis (Brain Swelling signaled by uncontrollable crying~Beth)
encephalopathy
subacute sclerosing panencephalitis
Guillian Barre Syndrome
febrile convulsions
seizures
ataxia
polyneuritis
polyneuropathy
ocular palsies
paresthesia
aseptic meningitis
Pneumonitis
sore throat
cough
rhinitis
Stevens-Johnson syndrome
erythema multiforme
urticaria
rash
pruritis
nerve deafness
otitis media
retinitis
optic neuritis
papillitis
retrobulbar neuritis
conjunctivitis
Orchitis
DEATH"

Why shouldn't it be argued they are harmful???

The list of possible side effects of driving your car each morning include severe injury and death. Yet you still drive your car each morning. Why? Because the likley benefits of driving your car each morning outweigh the likely detriments.

Analogously, a vaccine may have a long list of POSSIBLE side effects but still be a great idea because the likely benefits outweigh the risks. So simply posting a list of possible side effects doesn't accomplish much.

Created4
07-06-2011, 10:12 PM
The list of possible side effects of driving your car each morning include severe injury and death. Yet you still drive your car each morning. Why? Because the likley benefits of driving your car each morning outweigh the likely detriments.

Analogously, a vaccine may have a long list of POSSIBLE side effects but still be a great idea because the likely benefits outweigh the risks. So simply posting a list of possible side effects doesn't accomplish much.

Just what are those "likely benefits?" The FACTS are that the government's own vaccine adverse reaction database and its own vaccine compensation program show just how dangerous vaccines are, with injuries and deaths in the many thousands. See: http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/more-than-2000-vaccinated-babies-died-the-cost-of-doing-business/ and then see the proof of the vaccine - autism link here: http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/83-cases-of-autism-associated-with-childhood-vaccine-just-tip-of-the-iceberg/

The belief that vaccines stop epidemics is not something that has any solid scientific proof. It is simply a strong belief. Sacrificing the health of the healthy for a belief and forcing that belief on others is not liberty. It is tyranny.

Zippyjuan
07-06-2011, 10:42 PM
You are more likely to die from the flu- 30,000 flu related deaths in the US on average. Measles kills 164,000 a year globally http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/ while in this country which has a high rate of vaccination, only about 100 cases a year are even reported- let alone have people die from it. In 1999, a measles vaccination program was put into effect in Africa where deaths were cut in half within five years. http://www.ifrc.org/es/noticias/noticias/international/measles-deaths-in-africa-almost-halved-in-five-years/

Created4
07-06-2011, 11:10 PM
You are more likely to die from the flu- 30,000 flu related deaths in the US on average. Measles kills 164,000 a year globally http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/ while in this country which has a high rate of vaccination, only about 100 cases a year are even reported- let alone have people die from it. In 1999, a measles vaccination program was put into effect in Africa where deaths were cut in half within five years. http://www.ifrc.org/es/noticias/noticias/international/measles-deaths-in-africa-almost-halved-in-five-years/

"This country" also has better sanitation, better nutrition, better water, better sewers, better emergency care, etc. Correlation does not prove causation. In Africa, were vaccines the only thing put into effect? I seriously doubt that injecting vaccines were the only course of action taken. There are many ways of fighting disease besides injecting biologically active ingredients and toxins into someone's immune system.

Read "Ex-Vaccine Developer Reveals Lies the Vaccine Industry is Built Upon in Interview" http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/ex-vaccine-developer-reveals-lies-the-vaccine-industry-is-built-upon-in-interview/ It is quite revealing.

Excerpt:

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.

Q: Why?

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.

Q: And then?

A: I did my own investigation.

Q: What conclusions did you come to?

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.

Q: What conditions?

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don’t contract the diseases as easily.

NiceGoing
07-09-2011, 02:20 PM
Unbelievable that this is still being debated. With the vast, even to say, mountain of evidence AGAINST any use of these deadly vaccines available to anyone who would do a *lick* of research via Google or the like, my only explanation to myself is that: There are none so blind as those who will not see. Sad!

Zippyjuan
07-10-2011, 08:32 PM
Unbelievable that this is still being debated. With the vast, even to say, mountain of evidence AGAINST any use of these deadly vaccines available to anyone who would do a *lick* of research via Google or the like, my only explanation to myself is that: There are none so blind as those who will not see. Sad!

You are right. There is a massive amount of verified research which shows the benefits of vaccination (and no significant threat) yet people still see what they want to on the issue. Arguing won't change the minds.

Anti Federalist
07-10-2011, 09:56 PM
You are right. There is a massive amount of verified research which shows the benefits of vaccination (and no significant threat) yet people still see what they want to on the issue. Arguing won't change the minds.

Which is why I'm sure you are opposed to the idea of forced inoculations or medicating.

Birdlady
07-11-2011, 01:15 PM
What you did in both of these posts is exactly what happens to any scientist who comes out against vaccines, amalgams or any other serious issue. They are immediately discredited and if they researched at some "serious academic institution", then some other excuse would be made why their conclusions are wrong. You have scientists and doctors come out about it, but they are never good enough. Am I right?

I'm not saying this study is perfect or whatnot, I'm simply tearing apart your argument that if vaccines were bad, then all of these scientists would be talking about it. No it is a career KILLER to say anything about this stuff. If you do, then you can kiss your research money goodbye.


Sorry AF, you know I have nothing but love for you, but when it comes to science, I can't hold my tongue.

This "study" is not peer reviewed. Miller is the founder and editor of ThinkTwice and Goldman is the editor and founder of Medical Veritas, prominent anti-vaccine groups -- which makes the article questionable before I even had a chance to get to the methods section. Neither of them are scientists who have studied or researched at a serious academic institution.
...


Honestly, as a member of the academic community you are inching closer to insulting the whole field, I can say that many of the peer reviewing is done by independent scientists who really don't give a rats ass about corporate interests. If Vaccines harmed people, they would be the first group to shouting it from the ivory towers... trust me on this.

asurfaholic
07-11-2011, 06:31 PM
All this is confusing. Is there actual evidence that doing all the vaccinations are harmful? I am weeks away from having my first baby, and I don't know what to do about vaccinations. There are lots of them in the typical plan, I think around 30. Which ones should I opt out of, if any? Or all?

Teaser Rate
07-11-2011, 08:31 PM
All this is confusing. Is there actual evidence that doing all the vaccinations are harmful? I am weeks away from having my first baby, and I don't know what to do about vaccinations. There are lots of them in the typical plan, I think around 30. Which ones should I opt out of, if any? Or all?

Listen to your doctor, not to what someone on an Internet message board tells you.

Zippyjuan
07-11-2011, 08:42 PM
All this is confusing. Is there actual evidence that doing all the vaccinations are harmful? I am weeks away from having my first baby, and I don't know what to do about vaccinations. There are lots of them in the typical plan, I think around 30. Which ones should I opt out of, if any? Or all?

How many people do you personally know who have been harmed by vaccines? Half? One in 20? One in 100? None? That is something I would look at. It will give you a more realistic look at the risks. You can find all kinds of claims on the internet.

Mahkato
07-11-2011, 08:43 PM
Don't have a source for it, but I believe I've read that infant mortality is also higher in countries where childbirth is more medicalized: higher induction rates, higher anesthesia rates, higher c-section rates, higher infant mortality rates.

Mahkato
07-11-2011, 08:55 PM
Listen to your doctor, not to what someone on an Internet message board tells you.

There is so much money and government in the health care system that it's difficult to figure out what is good medical advice and what has been influenced by the politics of it. Vaccine manufacturers can rake in billions of dollars by getting their vaccine added to an official vaccination schedule; once that happens it's difficult for consumers to research and choose what vaccines they want. So little of health care is paid for out-of-pocket that people don't bother to do the research either. If you had to pay for 30 vaccines separately, how many would you buy?

aravoth
07-11-2011, 09:02 PM
Vaccines work, that's not really up for argument. Do some people get hurt by them? Yes they can. Why? Because everyone's body chemistry is different, everyone has odd gene mutations that can make them react to almost anything in an adverse way. No two people are the same. Vaccines helped with he Spanish flu outbreak, and virtually eliminated polio in the United States. There is always going to be a percentage of people that have bad reactions to them, just like there is a percentage of people that have an adverse reaction to certain antibiotics.

Despite that, forced immunization is morally wrong, and parents should always have a choice. For the most part we do, I declined vaccinating my son because he has a very rare genetic disorder called "CIP", which prevents him from feeling pain. Because so little is known about it I was concerned that there could be other adverse neurological effects from the vaccines. But as time went on I have slowly caught him up on all his vaccines, and he's doing great. Both my children are vaccinated, and have had no adverse reactions from them. But as their parent, it is a choice I have to make.

If you, as a parent feel that vaccines are dangerous, and that your child could be part of the extremely small percentage of people that have bad reactions to them, then you'll have to decide if vaccinating them is the right thing to do.

I would certainly support that parent, regardless of their decision. I just wish the Government would also.

Zippyjuan
07-11-2011, 09:07 PM
Don't have a source for it, but I believe I've read that infant mortality is also higher in countries where childbirth is more medicalized: higher induction rates, higher anesthesia rates, higher c-section rates, higher infant mortality rates.
We can check a list of infant mortality and see who leads and trails the list. From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

Let's see who has the lowest infant mortality rate and note what sort of level of medical care they tend to have (hmm- those at the top also seem to have national healthcare plans):
(they have a lot of data following the list so I will just hand copy a list of the names):
1)Singapore
2)Iceland
3)Japan
4)Sweden
5)Finland
6)Norway
7)Luxemburg
8)Czech Republic
9)France
10)Slovenia

(US is #34)

Bottom Ten:
224)Angola
223) Sierra Leone
222)Afghanistan
221)Liberia
220)Niger
219)Somalia
218)Mozambeque
217)Mali
216)Zambia

You get the picture. But not sure how that relates to vaccinations- though the countries with higher infant mortality rated do also tend to have lower vaccination rates.

Echoes
07-11-2011, 09:13 PM
Which is why I'm sure you are opposed to the idea of forced inoculations or medicating.

That's the key, be wary of the criminals who endorse forced medication. What someone believes about effectiveness is irrelevant, personally i think it's unnecessary and harmful in many cases.

Krugerrand
07-12-2011, 06:01 AM
Listen to your doctor, not to what someone on an Internet message board tells you.

Keep in mind what influences your doctors advice:
- does not want to get sued
- payments for services (coverage by insurance)

This leads to a mentality of doing whatever the American Academy of Pediatrics says. It leads to a mentality of being a tool for the drug companies. Walk into any doctors office and see how many symptoms require a simple natural remedy as opposed to a drug company patented remedy. There is little to no practical method for testing natural remedies in the same way as drug companies have to test their patented remedies. Therefore, any doctor recommending those increases liability. The system is skewed towards the drug pushers.

I agree that medical advise from an internet message board should be treated as suspect. BUT - it can be a great spark to investigate and research some other alternatives to what the drug companies want to push on you.

I agree - listen to your doctor. BUT - question your doctor. Remember that you are responsible for the well being of yourself and your child. Your doctor is responsible for paying his/her insurance premiums. Be ready to NOT follow your doctors advice when appropriate.

moostraks
07-12-2011, 07:10 AM
The list of possible side effects of driving your car each morning include severe injury and death. Yet you still drive your car each morning. Why? Because the likley benefits of driving your car each morning outweigh the likely detriments.

Analogously, a vaccine may have a long list of POSSIBLE side effects but still be a great idea because the likely benefits outweigh the risks. So simply posting a list of possible side effects doesn't accomplish much.

When you have a child who is detrimentally affected by the so-called safe vaccines you will think differently about the side effects. The fact is that health care workers threaten parents with child neglect for failure to vaccinate. As well as cps workers who take children based on parents making choices not to vaccinate or failure to follow gov't demands regarding healthcare is what makes this issue so frustrating to me. Parents are damned if they do and damned if they don't...

When one takes the time to think that each one of these side effects occurred to at least on family in association close enough to the vaccinations to warrant being included it should give anyone pause before offering their child up "for the good of the community". My children are not public property. Their safety is my utmost concern. Being forced to vaccinate is wrong...

NiceGoing
07-12-2011, 09:51 AM
.

I agree that medical advise from an internet message board should be treated as suspect. BUT - it can be a great spark to investigate and research some other alternatives to what the drug companies want to push on you.

I agree - listen to your doctor. BUT - question your doctor. Remember that you are responsible for the well being of yourself and your child. Your doctor is responsible for paying his/her insurance premiums. Be ready to NOT follow your doctors advice when appropriate.

The finest doctors we have have gone on record against the 'toxic buffet of vaccines' forced on infants. They are quoted on the Internet, which is a very great benefit to YOU -- but they are NOT "Internet doctors", lol. For a particularly impressive example, I'll cite the name of "Russell Blaylock, M.D." - a highly respected neurosurgeon and nutritionist. Why not check his name out, for starters??

raiha
07-13-2011, 09:51 PM
has she had mumps or measles? can you give us some indication how hard they were to deal with - what to expect?

She had measles...treated her homoeopathically and she was fine. didn't get mumps.

Child hood diseases help develop immune systems. The problem with vaccinations is you are administering them to entire populations without taking each individual's weaknesses or hereditary predisposition into consideration.

Once i had a mother come into my clinic wanting me to treat her 3 year old but would not bring him in "because he would destroy the place in two minutes." The behaviour had begun after the measles, whooping cough, diptheria vaccination.

I gave her a homoeopathic dose of the vaccines to give him. She came in six weeks later crying saying: "I have my little boy back!" If the behaviour had not been caused by the vaccinations, the dose would have done nothing.
But homoeopathy is a 'placebo' say the experts!

Deborah K
07-13-2011, 10:15 PM
All this is confusing. Is there actual evidence that doing all the vaccinations are harmful? I am weeks away from having my first baby, and I don't know what to do about vaccinations. There are lots of them in the typical plan, I think around 30. Which ones should I opt out of, if any? Or all?

Neither of my daughters got their (3) babies vaccinated. The oldest is 3 and 1/2 and the two younger kids are 18 months.

AcousticFoodie
07-14-2011, 02:13 AM
Yeah. Welcome to planet earth, kid...jab!!!Never vaccinated my daughter except for polio. She is still alive.

Did you refuse Heb B when she was fresh out of them womb?

awake
07-14-2011, 04:41 AM
My question would be: are all mortality rates calculated in the same time frames and fashion. Did they track infant mortality at the first week, first month or first year? Most infants die in the immediate time frames post birth. The statistics can be deceiving, but this study is interesting in its suggestion.

Deborah K
07-14-2011, 09:01 AM
My question to all parents is, why take the risk? You have to be exposed to these diseases in order to get them. Why do newborns need 15 vaccinations by the time they're 6 weeks old? How did humans survive before inoculations? Most parents keep their newborn babies away from risky people and environments. Let your baby's nervous system fully develop. Let his/her immune system develop. Breastfeed. The colostrum is full of antibodies. For me and my family, this is a no brainer.

Anti Federalist
07-14-2011, 12:02 PM
All this is confusing. Is there actual evidence that doing all the vaccinations are harmful? I am weeks away from having my first baby, and I don't know what to do about vaccinations. There are lots of them in the typical plan, I think around 30. Which ones should I opt out of, if any? Or all?

I am not a doctor nor do I play one on TV.

This is strictly my own opinion and life experience with my own two children.

Do not give infants vaccinations.

If you must, hold off on vaccinations until they are at least 2-3 years old, and then, again if you must, give them in a staggered fashion, not all at once nor in combined doses.

Neither of my kids were vaccinated, they are 12 and 10 now, and are two of the healthiest kids I know.