Vaccines are ineffective and dangerous

Post Reply New Topic

I don't mind length. (And I'll probably go on about this at great length, be warned. I'm like that.)

Of course I go in for length myself often. It's not to shout others down. It's a combination of being hypergraphic, and also the fact that what I have to say contradicts stereotypes a lot. So I have to explain more carefully than I would if I were just throwing stereotypes around (which take very little effort to say, because everyone generally knows what you mean when you say them). And then I also have to explain what I am not saying. (Like, "Not this stereotype. Not that one either. Etc.") And I want people in general to know precisely what I mean. So I use a lot of words to say it unless I'm word-tired. I use huge lengths both when I am angry and when I am not though, which would fit with the not-to-shout-others-down thing.

I can't always read long things, but I don't mind them and don't assume they're about shouting people down just because of their length.

On the other hand, what I have a problem with is the "Ha ha, now I've got you, you don't know anything do you?" sorts of messages, as well as the condescending ones. Those things are just nastiness. Nastiness is different from just frustration or anger, which I don't always mind either.

Nastiness, snideness, that sort of stuff is just not necessary. It turns genuine discussion into a contest of who can win. It makes it more likely that people will respond to the nasty tone and not the content, or be afraid to respond at all lest they be condescended to by someone they know full well is really being nasty underneath. And it is more likely to turn things into, as I described earlier on another thread, a battle between who is friends with who rather than trying to figure out who is right about something.

Nastiness is especially, well... nasty, when combined with obvious and extreme friendliness to people who agree with you. It reminds me of girls I used to know on the playground when I was a kid. They would make snide little remarks to me, or even just flat-out nasty ones, or even do something somewhat violent to me, and then turn to someone next to them, one of their friends, and be almost sickeningly sweet to them. It's a way of showing who's "in" and who's "out", and it's totally unnecessary in these discussions.

Before anyone assumes that I am only saying this because I don't agree with someone, I just told some people I do agree with roughly the same thing I am saying now. Only I said it much more angrily. Basically people were mocking and/or being nasty to people they didn't agree with over things that they would either overlook in people they did agree with, or even have fun with in people they did agree with. It made me wonder whether, if I changed my mind on agreeing with them, they would decide to mock and be nasty to me, or my mother (since she is a bad speller), or other people. I find that whole kind of thing very unsettling. (And autism_diva can back up that I really did get angry about that recently in front of her.)

Also I think I said something about that on this board, when two people (I think one of them agreed with me and another disagreed on some particular issue) started doing the "Aren't you friends with X?" "Well aren't you friends with Y?" game.

Any of that, and nastiness, just isn't necessary anywhere as far as I'm concerned. People aren't perfect, so they do it, and that's something I accept, but I don't accept that people should be fine with themselves for doing it and not attempt not to do it.

The nastiness is evident even in the short posts, in fact it is worse in some of them (although some of the long posts are unreadable to me today), and is some of why I've been hesitant to respond (although obviously I have).

I looked up thimerosal at the FDA website and it says:
Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine, called M-M-R-II by Merck - Never contained Thimerosal
http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm#t1

It looks like the MMR never contained Thimerosal. Is the FDA lying? It it's true, then none of the Thimerosal studies can be used as evidence that MMR doesn't cause autism.

It's true.

MMR is a live strain. Thimerosal would kill it instantaneously if the vaccine makers were to use it.

I'm surprised. I thought I read more than once something like "the mercury from the Thimerosal in the MMR vaccine made my child autistic." From what I've read, alot of parents blame Thimerosal or the MMR so it's odd that Thimerosal isn't even in the MMR vaccine.

The MMR can cause autism-like symptoms (it's been documented at least once), but it's very rare and I don't consider it real autism.

The whole scare regarding that particular vaccine was started by Andrew Wakefield.

Wow. Just wow.

Zendell and LeKiwi, I am guessing you haven't taken science classes like geology or chemistry or biology...am I right?

Because if you had, you would know you absorb more radiation and mercury from the environment in a year than in all of the shots (and I'm talking boosters--most people don't know that most shots received in childhood have to be taken again) one would (I would say should) in a life time.

In fact, you get more heavy metals naturally in organic food...oh, hell, dangerous bacteria alone! Don't wave that "organic is better because it's not contaminated" crap because it's covered in, well, CRAP. I worked on an organic farm...we had to be careful. But I have to give that farming couple credit--they were under no illusion that organic produce has to be treated carefully and more thoroughly than the mass produced garbage passing as food, and passed out fliers to alert their buyers of how to treat their produce. In fact, e coli, botulism (from canning), and other bacteria and cooties are on the increase, and it's because of the organic movement. But in that case, I blame ignorance, not organics. Organics are still the most nutritious and tasty...

I credit medicine for saving my life, prolonging my mother's by fourteen years, and saving my brother in law not once, not twice, but three times. I remember measles epidemics, and crippled and dead kids cannot compare to a kid with A.S. Polio. There's another one. That kept going on into the fifties. Another one that killed and crippled a lot of people, and is now killing even more people with "Post-polio sydrome." My mother died from it. If she had had the vaccine, she'd still be alive, even with those puny odds of something happening with the vaccine.

Risk the vaccines compared to what? Someone like me? Hell, I'll take it. I'm pretty damn awesome.

I'm an old hippie who's done it before, and believed everything I read against "The Man," until I noticed something. People were still suffering. They weren't getting better on their veggie diets, juicing, and vitamins and minerals, all organic. In fact, they still had the same problems as before. They were still nuts, delusional, and into crystals and such...it all seems to go hand in hand. Physically and in a lot of cases mentally ill.

I get so sick of conspiracy theorists and there's no proof except using business ethics instead of moral ethics. Business people aren't that smart. They don't want to put a product out that doesn't work--they want a product to sell. I doubt seriously we need to ascribe some evil to "Big Pharma."

A little reason and weighing of risks is all we have. The information is there if one knows who to trust.

Just a clue--Mercola is not one of those people. He's way above the Geiers in actual evil. That man needs to get thrown back in jail. There's a phony getting rich off the gullible.

Hey, life is life, and none of us get out of here alive, and I just had to vent so I can get on with it.

Karuna, Rjaye.

Yeah.

And one of the dangerous underbellies to some of those fads (as well as some fads in conventional medicine, to be fair), is an idea that floats around, that if you just do everything right, avoid the right things, do the right things, your health will be really good. And that anyone who is disabled or chronically ill must have done the wrong thing somewhere along the line, or must not be doing the right thing in order for them to be cured.

It is very similar to some religious points of view where disability is a sign of a person's sin, or even their relatives' sin. And the pure and properly faithful are "cured" and "healed".

I remember once hearing from someone that cancer was a sign of a bad attitude. Cancer ran heavily in her family. I understood that she wanted to feel like she had control over whether she got cancer or not. But most kinds of cancer are not caused by a person's actions. Some kinds of cancer run in my family as well, but I just know I live with a certain degree of risk, from that and from other sources. And it seemed horribly insulting to a lot of people with cancer, to claim that if they just had a more positive attitude they wouldn't have it. (Especially since I've known some incredibly positive people who happened to also have cancer. It happens.)

I've done a number of things in my life to try to give myself a sense of control over things I didn't have the least bit of control over. Which is why I do understand the impulse. But in the broader picture it doesn't work so well.

Yeah, there's evidence that dogs ( and cats) have severe and debilitating vaccine reactions, but you have to do some digging to find the info-most vets won't admit it. Try getting a copy of the book "Vaccine Guide to Dogs and Cats" by Catherine Diodati ( I think that's how her name is spelled) Much of what I know about pet vaccines I learned from that book.

My own pets have been selectively vaccinated and are much healthier than pets I've seen who've been vaccinated according to the traditional schedules.

Same here! I don't have kids, and there's no possiblity of my having them right now, but if I did, I would focus on preventing disease in them by building their immune systems by healthy diets and supplements, not by injecting them with neurotoxins. I'm currently following that route with both of my pets ( dog and cat) and they are very healthy for their ages and tempermentally stable.

I don't see why it's a public health risk for people not to vaccinate their kids. If vaccines were really effective, the vaccinated kids wouldn't be in any danger of getting the disease. We-not the public, not the goverment-are responsible for our health and that of our dependents, and if we think that vaccination isn't in our best health interest, we deserve the right to refuse it.

Mercury is given to babies and it's injected. That's the problem. For adults, amalgams release more mercury than thimerosal.

Organic foods - the problem is pesticides

vaccines - I'd rather have an acute illness than a chronic illness. there's some evidence that chronic fatigue syndrome is caused by a mutated form of polio that would have went away had the person not been vaccinated. vaccines probably cause millions to suffer life long illnesses. i think the risk far exceeds any potential benefits. oh, and my aunt had polio and post-polio syndrome and it's pretty bad but you can get it anyway even if you're vaccinated against it. and if the vaccines cause the polio to mutate and cause a more serious chronic illness then you are worse off with vaccines

conspiracy theorists - you're right, there is no conspiracy. Trust Big Tobacco. Cigarettes are completely safe and don't cause lung cancer or any other health problems. Anyone who questions Big Tobacco and says cigarettes are bad is a conspiracy theorist who you should ignore. We all know Big Tobacco and Big Pharma don't lie.

Mercola - i like this guy. who tells us what everyone else is afraid to say. he bases stuff on preliminary studies that may be right or wrong. it's good to be cautious since most of these studies will never be followed up to confirm them

Oy... more false, unresearched, unproven anti-vax propaganda...


When I get married and have kids, they will be vaccinated. Period.

The stuff I mentioned about vaccines is not "false, unresearched, unproven anti-vax propaganda." It's based on scientific research. There's preliminary evidence of long-term harm caused by vaccines. Further research is needed to determine whether the preliminary evidence is correct. It's currently unproven and may be false but it may also be proven to be correct.

The possibility of long-term harm is why I feel it's best to strengthen the immune system through natural means to prevent these serious diseases.

There is a possibility, yes.

But it most likely is false. Vaccines are not dangerous, regardless of what you think. They could be safer, yes, but they're not dangerous.

I have taken those classes actually, so wrong there!

I don't think I've ever mentioned radiation... the only radiation I would be mildly concerned about is the huge rise in recent years of cellphones and wireless internet. Besides that I don't particularly worry about it; radiation is part of nature, so err... yeah. My concern with the mercury is that, as I've said time and again, you're injected with it over and over again within the space of a year or two, before the immune system or brain have fully developed. I'd be less concerned if they were spread out over a decade or so, and the unnecessary ones were taken out (ie chicken pox - again, what's the point?).

As for organic; I'm not sure what standards are in the US but in the UK (and New Zealand) to get the Soil Association stamp the produce needs to meet very, very stringent control measures for exactly that reason - by contaminated I meant contaminated with junk pesticides/herbicides. I eat only organic - a good half of which I grow myself (would be all were my garden bigger) - and since making the change I've become so much more energetic, happy, less anxious, my skin is clearer, and I feel better having eaten it and you're right, it's far better tasting than non-organic. I'd never go back simply for that!!

Unfortunate too... no sane scientist will go near that again for quite some time thanks to him tarnishing any credibility the theory could have. I know I wouldn't!!



That's the one thing that annoys me. When people go OTT into pure fanaticism about healthy eating/living/drinking/etc and suddenly if you get cancer or something it must be the person's fault. Nevermind the genetics of it, or the unavoidable things in the environment that could trigger it that we have no control over... I'm not against using 'alternative' cancer treatments (I think I'd prefer them really) but when you go from being concerned and leading a 'healthy lifestyle' into the realms of being an almost religious zealot about things it's a problem. Blame is the wrong game - some things just cannot be helped.

It also worries me that some of these people may get something seriously wrong but think "Oh no, I can't possibly get x, y or z because I eat organic and do everything right etc", and end up finding out too late.

As I've followed the conspiracy (for lack of better word), there were originally two different arguments, one outshineing the other particularly if their was too much critism for the other or more public support of one. The first theroy was that the MMR vaccine attacked the intestines causeing all kinds og gusteointestinal problems which then made normal kids become autistic. A second one was that vaccines which have Thimerosal [a preservation compound made from a type of mercury, not ethymercury(the kind listed as a toxin above certain doses) and the Thimerosal because of the mercury in it acted as a neurotoxin and poisened normal children causeing them to become autistic. The MMR theroy came first but was pushed asid by the thimerosal theroy. They was a lot of switching back and forth. A dual theroy then merged that either the thimerosal shots allowed the MMR vaccine to attack the intestines, or (more commonly) the MMR vaccine attacked the intestines, thus weakening the immune system allowing the thimerosal in other vaccines to accumalate as a toxin poisoning the brain and causeing autism. Then some how these theroies got jumbled together in public opinio, as the thimerosal in MMR vaccines causeing autism. Not really the most creditable sounding when laid out like that but is enough to scare a bunch of parents, particularly those who a. don't fully understand all the scientific "mumbojumbo" and/or b. have an autistic child and can't understand or accept the fact that it just happens and is thus desperatly searching for an answer or someone/thing to blame.