The science on vaccinations.

Post Reply New Topic

Of course, you are right. My mistake.

I have definitely been called a cow more than once.

Last edited by BlackSabre7 on 16 Dec 2013, 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Not vaccinating is more risky than risk of autism.

However, it is not entirely true that a link between vaccination and autism can't exist. It is too early to declare that since Autism itself isn't clearly scientifically understood yet.

Studies show that vaccination can cause brain injury: http://fedgeno.com/documents/delayed-ne ... erosal.pdf

Ans it's not the only study, and Autism might be one of the possible manifestations of brain neurotoxity.

The_Face_of_Boo has a point.
I have never seen convincing evidence that vaccines cause autism, but there are still too many unknowns.
For example, sometimes damage is possible to a child because the mother has had exposure to something.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

We know autism is not caused by vaccination because there is no correlation between vaccination and autism.

Correlation is not sufficient for causation, but is it necessary.

Another cult member?

What about the studies that show a link between vaccinations and brain neurotoxicity and delays in certain areas?

Studies that might show a link betwen vaccination an brain neurotoxicity are mostly showing a link between vaccination and brain neurotoxicity. I would discuss that in a forum of brain neurotoxicity affected.

I simply dont get what you are arguing about. Is anyone saying, that there would be NO possible negative sideeffects to vaccination? - Nope. Every medication has possible negative side effects. The reason why my mom and my sister only use their "heavy asthma" medicine in case of an real heavy asthma incident, is because of that medication having heavy negative side-effects.

But the risc of that side-efects are statistically lesser, then dying by an asthma-incident. Medication, helping agains heart attack, by making your blood more fluidly, to prevent heart attacks, can as well have bad negative side effects. If you get injured, then that will cause you to loose more blood in the same time. Sure thats not good. But when you have that kind of sh***y blood, that its pretty reasonable, that you will get your next heart attack within a year, then by statistic the side effects of medication are far less worse then not taking the medication.

The only medication existing, that has absolute NO medical negative side effects, which every medical person will agree, is homoepathic. Why this is so, everyone shall decide himself.

People dont get Hepatitis vaccination out of fun, and risc that side effects, but because of them wanting to prevent a serious life long illness, ruining their liver, that can additionaly be spreaded to your relatives. I did not get it out of fun, but because of me working on construction sites, having contact with our workers, that have again contacts with hundreds of other workers on that construction site, coming from all over the world and often traveling home and back again, to visit their families, as well as them often exchanging weekly the construction sites, so having even more various contacts to tons of people, additional working on a place, where you often dont have sufficient sanitary equip, like the possibility to wash your hands regularly after doing dirty stuff and where you have an increased risc of having smaller or bigger injuries, that help infections get spread.

Have I already been completely tired and exhausted for some days, or having aches in my arms, after receiving vaccination: Yes. Is that worth riscing to get without any necesitty a sh***y illness, that will enable me my whole life long, and that I can additionaly spread to my child and people I like. No.

I am definitly not vaccinating against Duange-fever or Malaria, simply because neither of those exists in my country. But Hepatitis sadly exists in middle europe, and if you work in places with lousy sanitary standards and an increased risc of injurym and tons of people, having tons of exchange of bacterias with tons of other people across whole europe, its simply unwise not to vaccinate against it.

I dont get, why specially when it comes to vaccinations, people are overblowing negative side effects. People have all the time negative side effects to certain medication, but instead of getting weird and doing conspiration theories, they simply go to the doctor to change medication or even when getting into hospital, they simply accept it at part of negative statistic. Noone creates an "evil antibiotic conspiration theory", only because of them having many bad side effects, and some people as well being allergic to them. Its simply bad statistical luck, and if it is like that, you try to find other solution, but dont start creating rumors about the evil antibiotics conspiration, that tried to damage you on purpose, only to earn some 13 $ they got for the medication.

Last edited by Schneekugel on 16 Dec 2013, 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ahhhhh, and now it all makes sense. You have close personal negative experience from vaccinations. Because of that, you now feel the need to know with more certainty than most people expect, that vaccines are perfectly safe. It seems that allergic or other autoimmune reactions to something that may be standard in vaccines might run in your family, so no s**t why you wouldn't want to vaccinate your kids. This is pertinent information that I feel that you, personally, should take far more into account than studies done on the population in general. There are countless 'subpopulations' for which effects exist but will not be found within the population in general. Like autistics who can get physical pain from being touched.

You seem to have missed the point about formaldehyde completely, which is that to not vaccinate your child because of formaldehyde in a vaccine is analogous to saying you're removing an eyedropper of water from a filled bathtub and saying you've significantly reduced the water level, or similarly that if you add an eyedropper's worth of water that you've increased it significantly.

I never called you stupid, I said exactly what I meant to say in that I perceive your standards for safety for scientific studies are too stringent to be useful in proper decision-making. Although with the new information you've given me in your most recent post about your family having had negative reactions to vaccines, what you are doing makes a lot more sense. Still though, without that information, your argument does seem pretty illogical. I mean, it'd be one thing if vaccinations have been implicated in something, like Asperger's or if you're trying to figure out why your cousin and brother got sick, but it's quite another if you're blindly trying to find fault within studies to show that they're not safe with seemingly nothing to suggest that they ARE unsafe, while their usefulness is blatantly obvious.

I frankly don't give a s**t what you have and haven't studied and learned outside of this topic of conversation, it has no bearing unless I implied you don't understand what you've read or something, which I have not.

Rather, you recently seemed to be suggesting that -I-, by not having thoroughly read and examined all the information about vaccines to make 100% fully self-informed choices about my vaccines, am being dumb. I am not, I am being reasonable. I have no cause to think that if I were to get a vaccination that I would negatively respond to it. (My 2nd most recent vaccinations I got I rather didn't get immunity, unfortunately, had to be immunized again.) Importantly, I have no need to treat a vaccine as anything different from the food I put into my mouth as the air I breath and the things I touch. But of course if one starts to investigate the safety of every, single thing out there, about everything I interact with, I would have no life. (as if I had one already...). The point is, one must pick and choose their battles and the information they choose to take in, for there is far too much information out there for me to possibly know or disseminate all but a fraction of it. And that is why you get herds, because at some point we have to blindly trust something. You blindly trust most products you use every, single day, but you don't hear me calling you dumb for (presumably) not wearing only organic, cotton clothing or using a computer that leeches endocrine disruptors into your skin every time you touch the keyboard.

The biggest reason why you are getting flak for not wanting to outright vaccinate your kids is that vaccinations 1, blatantly have a huge benefit and 2, until recently you gave no good reason why NOT to vaccinate your own kids beyond they're 'not proven as safe as you want'. If you went around telling people you've had 2 family members react very poorly to them and so you worry there's a possible genetic component, you wouldn't be having this issue.


Boo: Are you solely referring to the study you linked? I don't think you've read it, for if you had even read the abstract and only a part of the introduction, you'd know that it's about a very specific vaccine where it's not even the vaccination itself that is implicated but the preservative which apparently is hardly used anymore (at least in non-third world countries.)

I mentioned that my daughter was born with a severely compromised immune system, and that helped to condition my decision not to vaccinate her.

I still got flak...

I don't think this is true. Anti-biotics have a very bad press, ranging from stuff like over prescription to being a factor in creating resistant "super bugs".

And the forums here have more than their fair share of people complaining about "Big Pharma" in respect of psych meds.

Protest against overprescriptions of antibiotics, is not meant against antibiotics, but has PRO antibiotics causes. Overusing antibiotics and wrongly using antiobiotics simple help illnesses, getting resistant against them, and then the antibiotics loose the effect, that we want them to have. But the reason why that is bad, is because we want antibiotics to work, so we think of them as something positive.

The process of illnesses getting slowly immune against antibiotics is a natural one, but if you use it wrongly, you accelerate that effect. And enhancing the time until antibiotics get useless, only to receive 50 ct cheaper animal flesh, is not really wise or necessary.

Antibiotics should simply be given against threatening illnesses, and not to cheapen flesh production, or without any testing against not determined diseases to see "if it works", so that we have as long as possible to positive effect of those antibiotics against threatening diseases.

It´s nothing else like vaccination. You should not vaccinate against every illness that an vaccination ever was created, but against stuff, that people know by experience, that it can effect them. If you dont live in middle eruope, you wont need vaccination against FSME (an brain illness), just as someone living in a capital city, wont need one, because the illness is carried by ticks. But I live directly at the forest and remove about 1-2 dozend ticks every year from my body. so I prefer being vaccinaetd. I definitly wont vaccinate myself against every weird disease, that are actually not spreaded here, and might only be carried by tourists here, but against common diseases here, that have rather bad effects by experience.

If you have an immunity against vaccination, nothing bad about that. Some people, react badly to them just as some react badly to certain antibiotics or anesthetics. But the more it should be important to you, that people having no kind of allergies or problems with vaccinations, do so, to protect as well the ones that cant be vaccinated. Noone denies, that there are problems and incidents, just like every serious medication can cause that, simply because people are differently. But by statistic, the affected of problems cause by vaccination, are far lower then the people that were affected by those illnesses before. So you should not vaccinate out of fun against stuff, that does not effect you, just like you should not take any kind of medication out of fun. But as example Tetanus and FSME is something that you get easily in nature around here, and that is not forced on people. Out of this reason and because of the increasing vaccination lazyness we actually do have regularly people affected by this diseases, that have to endure really bad conditions.

I was simply expressing a desire to see clear data, over time, for death rates, incidences, and hospitalizations of childhood diseases. I was not implying that vaccines do not contribute to prevention of incidence of disease - I even stated elsewhere that they do. But when those sorts of information are provided in pieces from different sources, then it is easy to be left with a misleading impression. If, for example, you read about high death rates of a disease, and those death rates dropped by 90%, and people were afraid of the disease, and THEN you introduced a vaccine which reduced the incidence of the disease by half, it would be misleading to say the vaccine was responsible for the initial 90% death rate drop. Yes, the vaccine, in this hypothetical scenario, reduced incidence of disease, which would, no doubt, further reduce the death rate because of this, but it would not be accurate to say that the horror of the high death rates was over, all due to the vaccine.



Actually, I did not find out about the family history until I was an adult. If I saw anything as a kid, no-one told me what was going on, so I did not have any emotional experience with the issue. But my Mum mentioned it, and frankly, I began researching after my baby was born because I wanted to find something to say to her when she asked why I was vaccinating. I assumed that a piece of data could be found to reassure her that it was not like in her day. Ironically, I was wrong - turned out that Mum's distrust of the industry was not unfounded. It took a year of reading before I was confident that I was actually doing the right thing.
Of course, my kids are good evidence that you can successfully raise bright, healthy, well behaved kids without vaccinating.

But yes, the family history is a very good example of why it should be checked out before deciding to vaccinate. Anyone who fails to do so is adding to the risk. It is not a complete lotto.



I never said to not vaccinate your child because formaldehyde is present, I just pointed out that it is one of the dangers present in vaccines. It is dangerous in high quantities, and we all experience unnaturally high exposure. Infants should be protected from toxic substances, not have them injected into their bodies.



I am not trying to do anything blindly. The metastudy I summarized said it all. The science is incomplete. There is not enough work done to justify the overconfident attitude with which people are pressured into vaccinating. And if no-one looks, any possible links will never be found.
I think every parent should decide for themselves whether "the benefits outweigh the risks", and not just have it assumed on their behalf.



Well, you implied I knew nothing about biology, so I chose clarify that was not so.




Well, I do not mean to imply that anyone is dumb for choosing to vaccinate. I may be coming off that way because anytime I mention I choose to not vaccinate, I get attacked and accused. I did put a lot of effort into my decision, and I heavily resent being treated like a criminal when I know full well I have every right to make it.
I agree with what you said about having to pick your battles, and trusting blindly sometimes.



I still feel there is a principle to it. I do not want to just 'have an excuse'. Parents should be allowed to choose without being persecuted.
I got attacked for even suggesting I would look into it, on the day my first child was born, before I knew anything. My mum was bullied into vaccinating, and she could not defend herself because she was young and uneducated, but she was right. Ironically, if she hadn't vaccinated, and had not had the experience with my brother, I probably would have because I thought I knew more than her, with my big time education and all. Since becoming a mum, I have developed a huge amount of respect for her intelligence and experience. Pity I did not learn that earlier.

Some vaccines are grown in chick embryo culture. My daughter has a genetic allergy to egg protein. She does not get sick unless she has a lot, but I sometimes wonder, if I had vaccinated her as a baby with one of those vaccines, would it have developed into a life threatening allergy?
Hopefully I will never find out at her expense.

When it comes to rising of allergies and asthma, then german reunion, gave us some real good hints.

In 1991, when germany was reunited, there were far lesser east german kids affected by allergies and asthma, then west german ones. About 10 years later, the numbers are almost comparable.

So it must be somthing about life circumstances, while vaccination hardly cant have had an effect, because vaccination was as well done broadly in east and west germany before, with comparable vaccination medicine.

There has been much research about that, but no ulitmate knowledge. One thing that departed east germans from west german, was them having far less processed food and additives in cosmetica/hygienic articles, as well as simply less consume about lots of stuff. (As example buying new cloth every few months and new curtains every year, causes you to be more often surrounded by cloths and furniture, that is freshly treated with chemicals. Just as they naturally did have soap, shampoos, washing powder and all that kind of stuff, but with less additives, so more basical ones and as well not that one dozend cremes that many people nowadays use dail.y.)

There has been much research on it, but beside that somehow it must have been related to the differences of lifestyles, there sadly has been no answers. But vaccination was in east germany as well standard, so its rather unlikely, that they are responsible for it.

Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170

A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535

B-Lymphocytes from a Population of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Unaffected Siblings Exhibit Hypersensitivity to Thimerosal
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2013/801517/

Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534

Metabolic biomarkers of increased oxidative stress and impaired methylation capacity in children with autism1,2
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/6/1611.full --> then this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11895129 Toxic metals and oxidative stress part I: mechanisms involved in metal-induced oxidative damage.


Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?
http://omsj.org/reports/tomljenovic%202011.pdf

^ most of these studies are new too, 2010+.

You know that aluminium caused damage, will be far likely be caused by the tons of aluminium, people add daily in their body by using anti-aspiration deodorants, and far less my the few mini-amounts you get every few year by a vaccination. Funnily most people with rather avoid the "unnecessary vaccination" then the "oh so necessary" antitranspirant deodorant.

Proximity to point sources of environmental mercury release
as a predictor of autism prevalence (2006, revised 2008)
http://civileats.com/wp-content/uploads ... er2008.pdf

Thimerosal neurotoxicity is associated with glutathione depletion: protection with glutathione precursors.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11895129

Environmental mercury release, special education rates, and autism disorder: an ecological study of Texas.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16338635


Induction of metallothionein in mouse cerebellum and cerebrum with low-dose thimerosal injection.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19357975

Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: an assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18482737