Well it would be nice if you knew what study you're looking up first. We were talking about Vitamin D (the hormone) not Vitamin E.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonRules
Printable View
Well it would be nice if you knew what study you're looking up first. We were talking about Vitamin D (the hormone) not Vitamin E.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonRules
It's irrelevant, they're both toxic at the rates the Quacks prescribe them.Quote:
Originally Posted by donnay
From the Mayo clinic, a highly respected source in case you don't know:
Vitamin D toxicity: What if you get too much?
What is vitamin D toxicity, and should I worry about it since I take supplements?
Answer
from Katherine Zeratsky, R.D., L.D.
Vitamin D toxicity, also called hypervitaminosis D, is a rare but potentially serious condition that occurs when you have excessive amounts of vitamin D in your body.
Vitamin D toxicity is usually caused by megadoses of vitamin D supplements — not by diet or sun exposure. That's because your body regulates the amount of vitamin D produced by sun exposure, and even fortified foods don't contain large amounts of vitamin D.
The main consequence of vitamin D toxicity is a buildup of calcium in your blood (hypercalcemia), which can cause symptoms such as poor appetite, nausea and vomiting. Weakness, frequent urination and kidney problems also may occur (Nice!). Treatment includes the stopping of excessive vitamin D intake. Your doctor may also prescribe intravenous fluids and medications, such as corticosteroids or bisphosphonates.
Taking 50,000 international units (IU) a day of vitamin D for several months has been shown to cause toxicity. This level is many times higher than the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for most adults of 600 IU of vitamin D a day. Doses higher than the RDA are sometimes used to treat medical problems such as vitamin D deficiency, but these are given only under the care of a doctor and only for a short time.
Although vitamin D toxicity is uncommon even among people who take supplements, you may be at greater risk if you have health problems, such as liver or kidney conditions, or if you take thiazide-type diuretics. As always, talk to your doctor before taking vitamin and mineral supplements.
So as you can see above, the Recommended Dietary Allowance is 600 IU of vitamin D a day
Look at what the Quacks recommend:
From your favorite medical news source!:
http://www.naturalnews.com/036491_vi..._starving.html
Starving for vitamin D
Tuesday, July 17, 2012 (freshly posted) by: Craig Stellpflug
(NaturalNews) A study published in the journal Pediatrics found that 70 percent of U.S. children have low levels of vitamin D. "We expected the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency would be high, but the magnitude of the problem nationwide was shocking" says Dr. Juhi Kumar of Children's Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center.
In times past it was known that not enough vitamin D caused a bone disease known as rickets, but more recent discoveries count vitamin D deficiency as a major factor in adult heart disease, stroke, hypertension, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, depression, chronic pain, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, muscle weakness, muscle wasting, birth defects, periodontal disease, at least 17 varieties of cancer and more.
Vitamin D deficiency has been noted in 69 percent of adult patients with inflammatory joint diseases or connective tissue diseases, 77 percent with soft tissue rheumatism, 62 percent with osteoarthritis, 75 percent with back pain, and 71 percent with osteoporosis.
The "sunshine" vitamin [Well then, why don't you go to the beach instead?]
Years ago it was wrongly proposed that the sun was our enemy and that sunshine caused skin cancer. Boy were we wrong! The opposite it true and our abuse of sunblock goops is growing in lock-step with the growing numbers for skin cancer.
The skin makes the best form of vitamin D from sun exposure and produces approximately 10,000 IU of vitamin D with just 20-30 minutes of full-body summer sun exposure. Sunlight exposure is the best way to get Vitamin D, as the body automatically regulates how much Vitamin D it makes from sunlight. The body stores vitamin D for up to six months.
Then there is the added benefit of vitamin D controlling cholesterol levels. Since vitamin D precursors require cholesterol for conversion, without adequate sun exposure, vitamin D precursors can turn into cholesterol instead of the vitamin. Conversely, statin drugs hamper the body's vitamin D levels.
Vitamin D is essential for the absorption of calcium. A person deficient in vitamin D doesn't absorb enough calcium, even if the intake of calcium is high. Vitamin D is also an anticancer miracle being part of a metabolic product called calcitriol that influences some 2,000 genes in the body. Vitamin D has also repeatedly shown great promise in fighting off colds and flu, and people who are D-deficient are more likely to get sick.
Where to get your vitamin D
The best source of vitamin D comes from the sun - which makes supplementing with cholecalciferol (D-3) pills second best. Being an oil-soluble vitamin, at least a portion D-3 should be from cod liver oil, so that some Vitamin A and other oils' fractions are included. If you are taking a large daily dose of Vitamin D, divide the dose between two or three meals.
Diet sources of vitamin D are fatty fish and fish liver oils, mushrooms, eggs and raw milk. Some foods, such as milk and orange juice, are fortified with vitamin D, but the form of vitamin D used for fortification is not best.
Read your labels and definitely avoid the Big Pharma version called calcitrol vitamin D. Take too much synthetic vitamin D and you might just end up with muscle weakness, apathy, headache, anorexia, irritability, nausea, vomiting, and bone pain. Keep on taking too much and you could get constipation, anorexia, abdominal cramps, polydipsia, polyuria, backache, hyperlipidemia, and hypercalcemia. (nice!)
Dosing D
A blood test can determine where your actual vitamin D levels are. The Vitamin D Council recommends blood levels between 50-80 ng/mL. Adults can safely supplement with D-3 in divided doses up to 10,000 IU a day. If you have cancer your naturopath may prescribe much more.
[Holly crap. These people are killers!]
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently updated its vitamin D guidelines for infants, children, and teens to 400 IU per day in supplement form although many health experts say that amount is still far too low.
About the author:
Craig Stellpflug is a Cancer Nutrition Specialist, Lifestyle Coach :p and Neuro Development Consultant (BS in other words) at Healing Pathways Medical Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ. http://www.healingpathwayscancerclinic.com/
With 17 years of clinical experience working with both brain disorders and cancer, Craig has seen first-hand the devastating effects of vaccines and pharmaceuticals on the human body and has come to the conclusion that a natural lifestyle and natural remedies are the true answers to health and vibrant living. You can find his daily health blog at www.blog.realhealthtalk.com and his articles and radio show archives at www.realhealthtalk.com
Pro Tip: If the article includes the word "Healing", it's crap.
I have come to the conclusion your posts are irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonRules
I have two words for you: Codex Alimentarius.
Says RonRules. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RonRules
Quote:
Originally Posted by donnay
Rare group in Peru shows resistance to rabies
AFP – Wed, Aug 1, 2012
Scientists said Wednesday that a rare group of people in the Peruvian Amazon appears to have some natural resistance to rabies, which is widely considered fatal if not immediately treated.
The research reported in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene is based on blood samples from six people who said they had never been vaccinated against rabies.
But the group showed "rabies virus-neutralizing antibodies," indicating for the first time that some people may develop an immune response that scientists could study in order to find new paths to treatment.
"The overwhelming majority of rabies exposures that proceed to infections are fatal," said lead author Amy Gilbert with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases.
"However, our results open the door to the idea that there may be some type of natural resistance or enhanced immune response in certain communities regularly exposed to the disease," she said.
"This means there may be ways to develop effective treatments that can save lives in areas where rabies remains a persistent cause of death."
The research was conducted in two remote communities, Trueno Cocha and Santa Marta, in the northern Peruvian Amazon, where fatal rabies infections caused by vampire bat bites are common.
Blood samples were taken from 63 people, and seven were found to have rabies virus-neutralizing antibodies. Only one of the seven reported receiving a rabies vaccination that would have generated antibodies to rabies.
The World Health Organization says more than 55,000 people die worldwide of rabies each year.
Bats are the source of most human rabies deaths in the United States and Canada, and bat rabies has more recently emerged as a public health threat in Australia, Latin America and western Europe, according to the WHO.
The incubation period for rabies ranges from one week to one year. Symptoms often begin with fever and a tingling feeling at the site of the wound, then progress to inflammation of the brain and spine.
Patients may die of brain hemorrhage, heart attack or total muscle paralysis.
Anyone who believes they may have been exposed to rabies is urged to immediately seek treatment with a series of shots that can ward off an active infection.
"We all still agree that nearly everyone who is found to be experiencing clinical symptoms of rabies dies," Gilbert said.
"But we may be missing cases from isolated high-risk areas where people are exposed to rabies virus and, for whatever reason, they don't develop disease."
-------------------------
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-nsf072712.php
New study finds strong evidence of humans surviving rabies bites without treatment
First indication of people naturally protected against rabies found in remote Amazonian communities regularly exposed to vampire bats
This press release is available in Spanish.
Deerfield, IL (August 1, 2012) Challenging conventional wisdom that rabies infections are 100 percent fatal unless immediately treated, scientists studying remote populations in the Peruvian Amazon at risk of rabies from vampire bats found 11 percent of those tested showed protection against the disease, with only one person reporting a prior rabies vaccination. Ten percent appear to have survived exposure to the virus without any medical intervention. The findings from investigators at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were published today in the August 2012 issue of the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.
"The overwhelming majority of rabies exposures that proceed to infections are fatal. However, our results open the door to the idea that there may be some type of natural resistance or enhanced immune response in certain communities regularly exposed to the disease," said Amy Gilbert with the CDC's National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, who is the paper's lead author. "This means there may be ways to develop effective treatments that can save lives in areas where rabies remains a persistent cause of death."
Rabies experts estimate the disease kills 55,000 people each year in Africa and Asia alone, and appears to be on the rise in China, the former Soviet Republics, southern Africa, and Central and South America. According to the CDC, in the United States, human deaths from rabies have declined over the past century from 100 annually to an average of two per year thanks to an aggressive campaign to vaccinate domestic animals against the disease.
In general, people who believe they may have been exposed to rabies are advised to immediately seek treatment which involves post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) - a series of injections - to prevent the exposure from causing an active infection. These preventive treatments, when administered promptly, are 100 percent successful at preventing disease. Scientists have documented only a small number of individual cases, including one last year in California, in which an exposure to rabies proceeded to infection and the victim survived. Most of those survivors still required intensive medical attention, including one case in Wisconsin in which doctors induced a coma, though this approach has not been successful in most subsequent cases.
This CDC study was conducted in collaboration with the Peruvian Ministry of Health as part of a larger project to understand better bat-human interactions and its relation to rabies and emerging diseases that may be transmitted by bats. For their research, scientists traveled to two communities (Truenococha and Santa Marta) in a remote section of the Peruvian Amazon where outbreaks of fatal infections with rabies caused by bites from vampire bats—the most common "natural reservoir" for the disease in Latin America— have occurred regularly over the last two decades. They interviewed 92 people, 50 of whom reported previous bat bites. Blood samples were taken from 63 individuals and seven (11 percent) were found to have "rabies virus neutralizing antibodies."
One out of the seven individuals reported receiving a rabies vaccination—which generates antibodies to the rabies virus—but there was no evidence that the other six had received anti-rabies vaccine prior to the blood sampling or had sought out any medical attention for a bat bite, evidence that they had harbored the virus itself.
The researchers acknowledged that they could not conclusively determine whether the antibodies were caused by an exposure to the virus that was somehow insufficient to produce disease. But they believe their evidence "suggests that (rabies virus) exposure is not invariably fatal to humans."
Gilbert said non-fatal exposures may happen more often than some think because "unless people have clinical symptoms of the disease they may not go to the hospital or clinic, particularly where access is limited."
"We all still agree that nearly everyone who is found to be experiencing clinical symptoms of rabies dies," Gilbert said. "But we may be missing cases from isolated high-risk areas where people are exposed to rabies virus and, for whatever reason, they don't develop disease."
In the Amazon region where the study was conducted—the Province Datem del Maranon in the Loreto Department of northern Peru—vampire bats, which live off of mammalian blood, regularly come out at night and prefer to feed on livestock. But in the absence of those food sources, they are known to seek out a meal from humans. They can use their extremely sharp teeth and the anticoagulant that naturally occurs in their saliva (appropriately referred to as "draculin") to feed on a sleeping person without awakening them. The rabies virus circulates extensively among vampire bat colonies in the region, and when an infected bat feeds, it passes along the virus to its host.
"This type of thorough and persistent scientific rabies investigation lends continued support to the belief that even the most dangerous of infectious diseases may be amenable to treatment," said James W. Kazura, MD noted infectious disease expert and president of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH). "Continued investment of resources is essential for us to protect the health and well-being of innocent people whose lives and livelihoods are needlessly threatened by infectious diseases like rabies."
Gilbert and her colleagues hope their findings will prompt further studies in remote, at-risk communities to see if the results are replicated. In an editorial accompanying the study, Rodney E. Willoughby, a pediatric disease specialist at Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, said if it turns out there are distinct populations of people with "complete or relative resistance to rabies," there could be the potential to use whole genome sequencing to help develop new, life-saving treatments for rabies infections.
"Careful, respectful genetic study of these genetically unique populations may provide information on which pathways in human biochemistry and physiology promote resistance to human rabies," he wrote. "Equally important, knowing that there is a continuum of disease, even for infectious diseases like rabies, should push us harder to try for cures when confronted by so-called untreatable infectious diseases…."
Gilbert noted that the study was done as part of a larger public health effort to address a series of rabies outbreaks in the Amazon, where some health officials are now considering conducting pre-emptive vaccination campaigns in areas where risk of rabies is high and availability of medical care low. She said that while her study highlights people who appear to have survived an exposure to the virus, the fact remains that rabies outbreaks in small communities in the region have left tragic results.
"These are very small villages and, when they witness ten people dying from what is a horrible disease, it is incredibly traumatic," Gilbert said. "We want to help raise awareness of the problem and try to develop a more proactive response."
###
About the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
ASTMH, founded in 1903, is a worldwide organization of scientists, clinicians and program professionals whose mission is to promote global health through the prevention and control of infectious and other diseases that disproportionately afflict the global poor.
About the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
Continuously published since 1921, AJTMH is the peer-reviewed journal of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, and the world's leading voice in the fields of tropical medicine and global health. AJTMH disseminates new knowledge in fundamental, translational, clinical and public health sciences focusing on improving global health.
---------------------------------
Untreated Rabies May Not Be Lethal for All, Study Says
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...iclekey=160950
By Maureen Salamon
HealthDay Reporter
Latest Infectious Disease News
WEDNESDAY, Aug. 1 (HealthDay News) -- Bucking the notion that untreated rabies always proves lethal to humans, scientists studying the virus in isolated pockets of the world have found evidence that either natural resistance or an immune response may stave off certain death for some.
Traveling to the Peruvian Amazon, where outbreaks of rabies infections are spurred by highly common vampire bats, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention learned that 10 percent of natives appeared to have survived exposure to the virus without any medical intervention. Another 11 percent were found to have antibodies in their blood that would neutralize rabies.
"This is a potential game-changer if the study is repeated successfully," said Dr. Rodney Willoughby Jr., a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children's Hospital of Wisconsin and the author of an editorial accompanying the research. "It suggests either that rabies is not universally severe or fatal [HIV used to be thought of this way] or that there are ways of conferring relative resistance to rabies in humans. If the latter could be identified -- these days, probably through genetic sequencing -- then that might afford insights into prevention or treatment."
The study is published Aug. 1 in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.
An average of two to four people die in the United States each year of rabies after bites from animals such as bats, dogs or raccoons. Though nearly wiped out in the United States due to domestic animal vaccinations, the infection kills about 55,000 annually in Africa and Asia alone. For those who believe they're infected, a series of shots are 100 percent effective at preventing death.
In Peru, vampire bats regularly seek out meals of mammalian blood from livestock and humans, using extremely sharp teeth and a blood thinner in their saliva aptly known as draculin to feed on sleeping people without awakening them.
CDC researchers interviewed 92 people, 50 of whom reported previous bat bites. Blood samples were taken from 63 participants, with seven found to have rabies virus-neutralizing antibodies. Only one of the seven reported receiving a rabies vaccination, which would generate such antibodies, but no evidence existed that the rest had sought either a vaccination or treatment for a bat bite.
Study author Amy Gilbert, a postdoctoral fellow with the CDC's National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, said the research suggests the rabies virus is not invariably fatal to people.
"Generally, most folks presume we don't develop antibodies to respond to rabies exposures," she said, "but this was a scenario where clearly there were exposures to the virus that did not lead to disease. I think the same recommendations and advice still hold -- that anyone with a bite exposure to a bat or other carnivore needs to seek out post-exposure [injections]."
In his editorial, Willoughby noted two recent cases in the United States (in Texas and California) where children recovered from rabies without intensive treatment after suspected bat bites.
"Knowing that there is a continuum of disease, even for infectious diseases like rabies, should push us harder to try for cures when confronted by so-called untreatable infectious diseases," he wrote. "Modern therapeutics can move us . . . toward greater survival, even when specific cures or antidotes remain undiscovered."
MedicalNewsCopyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
SOURCES: Amy Gilbert, Ph.D., postdoctoral fellow, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta; Rodney Willoughby Jr., M.D., pediatric infectious disease specialist, Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Aug. 1, 2012, American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
How about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by donnay
Interesting.
The human immune system works and adapts.
Yup. But don't forget that one of the most important ways it adapts is by killing off the non-adapted genetic lines. That's groovy if you are in the adapted pool. Non-adapted, not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti Federalist
This^^ Vitamins work perfectly for those with a healthy pH balance (can be determined with pH strips via saliva or urine). If your pH balance is bad, supplements will just give you expensive urine for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyEagle
“Don’t read anything by this writer. He’s obviously mentally ill. He wants you to stop vaccinating your children, so they can catch life-threatening diseases.” Bill Gates.Quote:
Originally Posted by donnay
Kinda ironic quote coming from a man who created the most virus-prone software.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonRules
Bill Gates (of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) is a credible source to you? The same Bill who teamed up with Bloomberg to stop people smoking "around the world"? And who hired a senior executive [Dr. Trevor Mundel] at the pharmaceutical company Novartis AG as president of the Gates' Foundation? Yep, let's not question this. Nothing to see here. Move along, folks. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RonRules
When you buy something it should work. Tell me the last time a person got a flu vaccine and it, with out a scientific doubt, stopped that individual from getting the flu? Most people run it all on faith; that's it. If they don't get the flu it must have been the shot, if they get the flu any way they say it lessens the severity of the flu. Both apologies for a complete waste of time.
You see how silly you sound?Quote:
Originally Posted by awake
Fun fact: "echinacea" is not in Bill Gates's spell checker. The suggestion is "chinaware".
You've simply proved my point. Chicken soup and flu vaccine; pushed in much the same way for the same motivations. The difference is the chicken soup industry doesn't usually have cards checking your consumption and quasi inspectors to make sure you keep up your consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonRules
From the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti Federalist
Is your position that it's better to wait for another 50000 years, and ten times as many lives, for humanity to possibly develop a natural immunity than it is for scientists to try to speed things up a bit?Quote:
The research was conducted in two remote communities, Trueno Cocha and Santa Marta, in the northern Peruvian Amazon, where fatal rabies infections caused by vampire bat bites are common.
Double post.
You don't see how that begs the question?Quote:
Originally Posted by angelatc
No its not. It simply mutates again. Vaccines aren't 100% effective so the virus always survives. It just mutates and spreads. Its the reason you have to keep getting vaccines for things almost the entire population is vaccinated against, such as the flu.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonRules
Influenza is an exception to the rule. I won't bore you with the science but long story short, the unique genetics of the flu virus explains why it mutates so rapidly. Smallpox is a good example of a virus that, although highly virulent, evolves slowly enough to the point we can eradicate it if everyone is vaccinated.Quote:
Originally Posted by PierzStyx
+repQuote:
Originally Posted by awake
People don't seem to want to think about faith while they are dogmatically repeating the word "science." The irony runs deep.
How convenient. EVERYONE has to get it or it doesn't work. I'm sure the government loves that. It's kinda like Santa Claus.Quote:
Originally Posted by PierzStyx
Engaging the Anti-vaxxers
http://i47.tinypic.com/2a619o5.png
A BOOK REVIEW BY CHRISTIAN ORLIC
On May 14, 1796, Edward Jenner developed and tested the first vaccine. He was able to protect people from smallpox by inoculating them with cowpox. Two centuries later vaccines have eradicated diseases and are often described as one of public health’s greatest achievements. According to the CDC vaccines have been highly successful and by 1996 there was 97.8% decrease in the incidence of rubella, diphtheria, haemophilus influenza type b, measles, mumps, pertussis, polio and tetanus .
Nevertheless, American parents appear to be more anxious than ever about vaccinating their children. Currently, American children receive at least 36 vaccinations before their sixth birthday. Some vaccines protect children and people against devastating communicable diseases that if when left unvaccinated would result in epidemics within communities. Nowadays about 40% of American parents chose to delay or refuse vaccinations for their children. Most of the children who have received no vaccines have slipped through the cracks: they are poor and have no insurance (20–40% of unvaccinated children). About 11.5% of American parents have “consciously refused” vaccines recommended by pediatricians, and about 23% have delayed some vaccines . Currently, all U.S. states allow vaccine exemptions for medical reasons, 48 states also allow children to be exempt for religious reasons, and some have even begun accepting philosophical objections.
Mark A. Largent is a historian of biology and director of Science, Technology, Environment, Public Policy (STEPPS) at Michigan State University. Largent’s previous book, Breeding Contempt, deals with the history of coerced sterilization in the United States. In Vaccine: The Debate in Modern America, Largent couples historical scholarship, keen cultural observations, and personal experiences in order to explore the American debate surrounding vaccination.
Largent’s provocative but compelling argument suggests that the debate about the science, safety and efficacy of vaccination is a proxy for a set of unaddressed underlying anxieties regarding vaccines; therefore, science is not enough to resolve it, “no scientific finding and no agreement among physicians and scientists can possibly bring it [the debate] to an end”.
The book sets out to explore these anxieties and understand where and how they originated. Largent’s insightful observations provide ways in which the debate can be moved forward by addressing the anxieties parents have directly, rather than bickering about “simplistic stand-ins”. The anxieties that motivate the debate are over the number of vaccinations required, the diseases for which we vaccinate, the contents of vaccines, a perception that pharmaceutical companies care more about profits than safety, recent public health emergencies, fears over the long term effects of vaccinations, a belief that natural is better, as well as an overall frustration with the state of medical care. These underlying anxieties, Largent argues, must be addressed in order to continue enjoying high levels of vaccine compliance: “our continuing success in vaccinating children depends on whether the public has confidence in the scientists, doctors, and policy makers (including industry) who shape these programs”.
The current debate surrounding vaccinations is bipartisan, and those who oppose vaccines use both liberal and conservative arguments. The anti-vaccine movement was influenced by alternative medicine and recent events. For example, when AIDS was first described, Eva Lee Snead claimed it was linked to the polio vaccine. Some concerns about vaccines are and have been legitimate. When polio vaccines were first developed, kidney tissue from chimpanzees was used. In fact, this process was unsafe, and tens of millions of people were unintentionally infected with SV40. The fears expressed by Snead were thus not unwarranted; if one virus could make the cross-species jump, others could too. Since then, however, studies have disproven the link between the polio inoculations and HIV. Likewise, the alleged link between Gulf War Syndrome and vaccines given to soldiers is now debunked. Largent concludes that both of these public health emergencies fed suspicions about the safety of vaccines.
The claim that vaccines were linked to autism emerged at the same time in the U.S. and in the UK. These claims could only emerge because “modern concerns about vaccines were already in place”. Largent may come off as too sympathetic to Dr. Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy, “the iconic vaccine-anxious parent”; however, I submit, that this is required for both good history and understanding. By at least momentarily embracing the views of those who opposed vaccination, we come to understand why they hold these views and how they developed them. Chapter 3 and 4 of Largent’s book explore how Wakefield and McCarthy came to believe that vaccines cause autism and how they became spokespeople for an already anxious community. Their rapid rise to celebrity within their community supports the assertion that British and American parents were already anxious. Therefore, it should not surprise observers “how easily they adopted an explanation that was critical of the modern vaccine schedule”. The alleged link between thimerosal and autism, as well as that of the MMR vaccine with digestive problems resulting in developmental problems, provided “a ready-made venue for discussing their concerns about vaccines within a group of like-minded advocates”(12). While Largent recognizes that there is no evidence to support either Wakefield or McCarthy claims, he thinks that their outright dismissal is detrimental to maintaining high levels of vaccine compliance.
Largent argues that by ignoring the underlying anxieties public health officials and vaccine advocates have misconstrued the reasons parents chose not to vaccinate or delay vaccination. Secondly, public health officials prefer to discuss the efficacy and safety of vaccines because this is within their professional realm. Vaccine advocates often claim that ignorance is one of the reasons parents are anxious about vaccinating their children. They claim that this refusal to vaccinate is predicated by an ignorance of the severity of the diseases for which vaccines protect. Whereas, data demonstrates that the more educated parents are the more likely they are to have reservations about the recommended vaccine schedule. (Wow, Just Wow) These parents for the most part are making conscious, non-religious, decisions to refuse or delay vaccinating their children. Further antagonizing them rather than addressing underlying anxieties is likely to reduce vaccine compliance.
One of the most important observations made by Largent is that not all vaccines are the same. Some vaccines protect against devastating diseases (MMR, DPT), others protect against dangerous ones (Hep A, Hep B, Hib, rotavirus, PCV) but the likelihood that an infant may be exposed to these is low, and other vaccinations provide protection against diseases with extremely low mortality rates (chickenpox). The distinction between the diseases each vaccine protects from are often forgotten. For example, Largent argues that some of the diseases we vaccinate newly born babies against may be unnecessary, such as HepB, a disease that an infant could only “contract by having sex with an infected person or by sharing contaminated needles with an infected drug addict” could wait. Public health officials should keep in mind that it is preferable for children to be under vaccinated than not vaccinated at all. Unfortunately, the vaccine debate is polarized. Amanda O’Peet, who supports vaccination, referred to the parents of unvaccinated children as “parasites” (Good) but: (she later apologized). Recognizing that not all vaccines are equal could sooth the rhetoric of the debate and allow for a more fruitful discussion. Otherwise, parents who are anxious about the amount of vaccines or one specific vaccine may be pushed not to vaccinate at all. Failing to recognize the differences between different inoculations results in an all or nothing approach.
Just my two cents, after reading up some on this vaccine stuff I called a friend of mine from highschool who now works at some fancy hospital in New York Citymaking vaccines.
She actually creates new ones, which I thought kinda made her knowledgeable on the subject. Long story short of course she vaccinated both of her kids, she said it was not without risk but a greater risk to go without.
She did mention several methods I have forgotten the names of that made the vaccination process safer and said she recommended them to skeptic parents.
Just my 2 cents.
Just my two cents, after reading up some on this vaccine stuff I called a friend of mine from highschool who now works at some fancy hospital in New York Citymaking vaccines.
She actually creates new ones, which I thought kinda made her knowledgeable on the subject. Long story short of course she vaccinated both of her kids, she said it was not without risk but a greater risk to go without.
She did mention several methods I have forgotten the names of that made the vaccination process safer and said she recommended them to skeptic parents.
Just my 2 cents.
5 Ridiculous Lies That Fooled the Whole World
Guess who made it to #1!
http://www.cracked.com/article_20007...-world_p2.html
#1. Andrew Wakefield Screws the MMR Vaccine
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/ar...143616.jpg?v=1
The MMR vaccine is an immunization shot you probably got as a baby that is supposed to prevent the measles and other diseases. These days, quite a few parents refuse the shot, because they heard somewhere that the vaccine somehow causes autism. They may have heard it from Jenny McCarthy or some other actor, but the whole thing goes back to a shady scientist named Andrew Wakefield.
In 1998, Wakefield and 12 other scientists published a paper on 12 kids who had gastrointestinal and developmental issues. According to their totally objective parents, these issues only showed up after the kids got their MMR vaccine. After a crazy battery of tests that included sampling the kids' intestines and stabbing needles into their spines (as we have written countless times before, science is at its best when it is scaring children), Wakefield concluded that there might be some link between the MMR vaccine and the various ailments that had befallen the children.
Just like that, Wakefield became the champion of the anti-vaccination movement, spurring on a generation of parents who forgo vaccines for fear of giving their children autism or other developmental disorders.
The Con:
First, let's make it clear: The science shows that vaccines do not cause autism. If you don't believe the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, you can look at the tens of thousands of non-U.S. children whose autism (or lack thereof) hasn't been tied to vaccines (or lack thereof). However, the subject has been the source of fierce controversy over the past few years, and what is so terrifying about the sudden drop in vaccinations (other than the now-epidemic levels of previously controlled diseases) is that most of the controversy came from dime-store scientist Andrew Wakefield.
For starters, Wakefield's own scientist couldn't duplicate Wakefield's results. Wakefield also manipulated his data to ensure that children who were sick before getting the vaccine were reported as only being sick after. He flat-out changed results he didn't like or that didn't completely agree with his hypothesis, all while performing needless, painful tests on children.
So why would he do all that?
Well, there's the patent for a new MMR vaccine that Wakefield filled out before he published his paper, and the money he accepted from a legal aid fund that was trying to sue vaccine manufacturers (it's almost as if he had a massive financial stake in scaring people into believing that the MMR vaccine was dangerous).
The paper was so flawed that 10 authors and the publisher of the journal it appeared in have retracted the work. That's right -- the people who helped create and publish the paper now say that it's bullshit. But don't worry -- stuff like this has a way of hanging around forever -- just ask the people who are still insisting that fluoride is poison 70 years later.
Enjoy!
Is Harvard a reputable source?Quote:
Originally Posted by RonRules
Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...12+PRN20120724
Flu shot study shows it does more harm than good...read it before it gets memory holed.
I prefer nice teeth!Quote:
Originally Posted by majinkoola
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_B1LlYh6iKq...y-people-8.jpg
Yep, it's better to have a lot of stupid people with nice teeth. LOL :DQuote:
Originally Posted by RonRules
Case in point: it must be true that fluoride makes you dumber, look at RonRules.Quote:
Originally Posted by majinkoola