Why Vaccinations Shouldn't be Optional

[Tanj]

I never claimed to have a doctorate in immunology. Do you?

I have 10 years post-doctoral research in the field, hope that counts for something.

I never once espoused to be an expert on immunology.

You might like to consider gaining some expertise in that area, at least if you want to be taken in anyway seriously.

 

[Zoii]

I never claimed to have a doctorate in immunology. Do you?
But, if I cause even one person to look deeper into the topic and not just blindly roll up their or their children's sleeve, then THAT will be good.
I want people to be INFORMED and maybe even ask to read a vaccine insert.
I want people to have a conversation with their doctor. Ask questions.
Most doctors have no clue what is in vaccines.
Vaccines can be harmful to at-risk groups, particularly babies, the elderly and the immunocompromised.
Two sides to every story.
An emerging body of evidence indicates that vaccines can damage a child’s developing brain and immune system, leading to neurodevelopmental disorders, learning disabilities, ADHD, asthma, anaphylactic food allergies, diabetes and autoimmune disorders.
Vaccination: Basic Concerns - Vaccine Choice Canada



Nope, I'm actually very good at it. I just don't analyze it for anyone else.



Well, it's a good thing I am not misinforming.
I am providing another perspective and hopefully, others quietly reading along will be spurred to do their own research and not blindly believe the mainstream.
Asking questions is good.

Asking questions is good - on that we can agree. And yes I encourage people to read empirical research. Thats not what you have been providing. The link for example that you attached takes you to a ant-vax website that offers an opinion piece, and whose references are again to opinion pieces.

This is what I mean @Saricharity when I say you offer an opinion but can back it up with no primary research.

For example you state:
Thats Drs aren't informed which is nonsense, then send them to a site compiled by people with zero scientific credentials. If you want accurate information then the Centre for Disease Control is where you should be pointing people as its an unbiased centre.

You state your great at statistical analysis - if thats so then so far you haven't shown it. As for my own capabilities in that area - very happy to go one-on-one with you in that area. You do not sound like someone who is studying research methods or statistics, simply from the way you describe papers.

Now Im not trying to embarrass you but I want people here to understand that they may be listening to someone with biases and zero credentials to be saying what your saying - the very fact you point people away from primary research to sites that are nothing but opinion pieces attests strongly to the credibility of your arguments

 

[Sabertooth]

Vaccines do not cause autism, but there is evidence that certain ones can injure a person who already has autism. (And there is a company working on [hypo-allergenic] forms of them.)

 

[Zoii]

I never once espoused to be an expert on immunology.
I am passionately against vaccines being mandated. I am passionately against any medical intervention being mandated.
Mandatory vaccination violates the medical ethic of informed consent, the Nuremberg Code, and the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights.




The safety of the current CDC vaccine schedule has never been proven in large, long-term clinical trials.

No independent trials confirm the safety of giving multiple vaccinations at once.

The current vaccine schedule has never been tested for safety in the real world way in which the schedule is implemented.

Most vaccine safety trials use control groups consisting of other vaccinated populations or placebos
containing aluminium. These are not true placebos.

I will only make a few points:
Firstly you're either horribly uninformed or your deliberately misinforming - There are literally thousands of longitudinal studies over large populations on the study of vaccines and there outcomes. If you have an argument for the type of placebo used by all means bring up a paper and we can all discuss its strengths and weakness - what study is it that you had issue with the placebo content as most Ive read are saline. But by all means give us the link and we can discuss.

Vaccine studies abound in terms of efficacy, administration and adverse effects. As an example I attached a systematic review of 64 longitudinal studies - what issue did you have with that paper?

Vaccine schedules are tested by the US and Australian CDCs. Would you like some papers to read?

lastly - Look Im going to back off from you a little because you probably feel you're under siege. You probably have parents that are heavily into anti-vax or anti-medicine so if that's the case then any volume of research wont change your mind. Instead I will say this:

If you refuse to be vaccinated and you contract a communicable disease, at least have the moral fortitude to isolate yourself from the community. Your actions shouldn't lead to other peoples suffering. If you gain measles or chicken pox or rubella, you place at risk those who are immuno-compromised, and fetuses in-utero. You can at least take responsibility for your decision.

The unfortunate thing in even this request of you, is that there is a latent period between contracting an infection, and the onset of symptoms, during which time you are infectious. No-one here can make you think objectively or act responsibly - this is up to you.

 

[Zoii]

Vaccines do not cause autism, but there is evidence that certain ones can injure a person who already has autism. (And there is a company working on hypo-allergenic forms of them.)

Do you have a reference for that - the research itself? I ask because thats not what any SR has indicated.

 

[Sabertooth]

Do you have a reference for that - the research itself?

Not enough to stand up in court, but there is plenty of research pointing in that direction. Besides, the OP already allowed for those who have allergies to certain components used in vaccines. (Autistics & gifteds are both known for having an increase in allergies, generally.)

 

[Zoii]

Not enough to stand up in court, but there is plenty of research pointing in that direction. Besides, the OP already allowed for those who have allergies to certain components used in vaccines. (Autistics & gifteds are both known for having an increase in allergies, generally.)

Drs screen patients as to identify at risk groups. No medication (or food or natural therapy product) is free from adverse reactions. So a vaccine isn't given to an immuno-deficient patient or one known to be allergic to one of its products. That doesn't make vaccines unsafe or bad though.

 

[Sabertooth]

Drs screen patients as to identify at risk groups. No medication (or food or natural therapy product) is free from adverse reactions. So a vaccine isn't given to an immuno-deficient patient or one known to be allergic to one of its products.

Too little is known/documented about hereditary autism, so doctors don't yet screen for it. A running theory (that I subscribe to) is that lower-functioning autism is a high-functioning autism that has been injured by a relatively new component (not thimerosal) introduced into some vaccines in the 1980s.

That doesn't make vaccines unsafe or bad though.

We still get all of the necessary vaccines without that component (while we await their [hypo-allergenic] alternatives).

The vaccine method isn't inherently bad. But each individual vaccine must be considered on its own merits.

 

[Zoii]

Too little is known/documented about hereditary autism, so doctors don't yet screen for it. A running theory (that I subscribe to) is that lower-functioning autism is a high-functioning autism that has been injured by a relatively new component (not thimerosal) introduced into some vaccines in the 1980s.

We still get all of the necessary vaccines without that component (while we await their hypo-allergenic alternatives).

The vaccine method isn't inherently bad. But each individual vaccine must be considered on its own merits.

And this is where longitudinal double-blind controlled research has its part. If there is anecdote or a hypothesis that there are increased risks for a particular cohort, then it needs to be researched to clarify if its correct and if so how the products within the vaccine can improve.

 

[Sabertooth]

If there is anecdote or a hypothesis that there are increased risks for a particular cohort, then it needs to be researched to clarify if its correct and if so how the products within the vaccine can improve.

One can be cautious before then.

I only have such a report for the general population.* Their findings are even more risky for those with higher allergy tendencies.

*SCPI is not against vaccines, generally. They are seeking to manufacture [hypo-allergenic] alternatives, because of their findings.

SCPI still maintains that bad vaccines are responsible for the whole autistic spectrum. Other sources suggest that the autism was hereditary (in its high-functioning form). Only its recent additional complications were caused by vaccine injury.

 

[Zoii]

One can be cautious before then.

I only have such a report for the general population.* Their findings are even more risky for those with higher allergy tendencies.

*SCPI is not against vaccines, generally. They are seeking to manufacture hypo-allergenic alternatives, because of their findings.

SCPI still maintains that bad vaccines are responsible for the whole autistic spectrum. Other sources suggest that the autism was hereditary (in its high-functioning form). Only its recent additional complications were caused by vaccine injury.

I read the pivotal research they were pointing to, as Im sure you did. At first glance I wondered why it didn't affect the SRs that have been published on the topic over recent years. Then I note that their statistical analysis is based on a correlation between the rise in diagnosis of autism, and the involvement of vaccines, particularly those with DNA elements.

So in essence its saying that since we started using this type of vaccines, autism has increased. Im surprised that type of correlation passed peer review, because while you can certainly identify that rates have increased, the rise in autism could be also associated with numerous other factors including environmental and simply an improved access to assessment and diagnosis of the autism spectrum. For conclusions to be definitive, it has to exclude other factors. Now when this was done in numerous other research papers, no correlation could be identified.

Dont get me wrong - If you have repeated anecdote it gives rise to a hypothesis which in turn should be tested through research.

 

[Sabertooth]

So in essence its saying that since we started using this type of vaccines, autism has increased.

Just the low-functioning variety. High-functioning autism has always been present.

And not only that. These changepoints can be seen to occur at different times as they were introduced into different countries.

 

[keith99]

Just the low-functioning variety. High-functioning autism has always been present.

And not only that. These changepoints can be seen to occur at different times as they were introduced into different countries.

Source?

 

[Sabertooth]

Source?

Do you mean for the historical presence of HFAs?
That dialogue would hijack this thread. PM me, if you are really interested.

If you meant the different changepoints in different parts of the world, I added a link in my previous post.

 

[Zoii]

Do you mean for the historical presence of HFAs?
That dialogue would hijack this thread. PM me, if you are really interested.

If you meant the different changepoints in different parts of the world, I added a link in my previous post.

I have to say at least your making an honest attempt to be evidence based. But I feel that perhaps you didn't follow your own links. The link you attached took you to an opinion piece that incorrectly made conclusions about the research. To its credit though, it did attach a link to the actual research.

This is what the research article itself concluded - By the way this was a systematic review and was very robust so good evidence:

Of 20 478 titles identified, 67 were included. Strength of evidence was high for measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine and febrile seizures; the varicella vaccine was associated with complications in immunodeficient individuals. There is strong evidence that MMR vaccine is not associated with autism

And like a lot of vaccines it strongly advises NOT to give the vaccine to immunodeficient cohorts.

 

[Sabertooth]

You must have missed this quote,

Testifying before the Minnesota legislature in 2011, Deisher told lawmakers that governments around the world have identified clear jumps or “change points” in the rate of autism diagnoses over the past twenty years, and in almost every case, the jump coincided with a change in the MMR vaccine from animal-based production to human fetal cell line production during the year the new wave of autistic children were born.

“What we have found is that across continents, and across decades, change points in autism disorder (not considering autism spectrum but only autism disorder) are clearly associated with the introduction of vaccines produced using human fetal cell lines,” Deisher said.

 

[Zoii]

You must have missed this quote,

No I just went to the actual research itself - opinion pieces are NOT research
My reply was in response to the link that you attached ie this one New study ‘disproves’ MMR-autism link? Not so fast: pro-life vaccine expert

 

[Sabertooth]

And you read her distinction between vaccine sources (hence, the "not so fast" part)?

Dr. Deisher's report can be found at http://www.cogforlife.org/congresstestimony.pdf

 

[Zoii]

And you read her distinction between vaccine sources (hence, the "not so fast" part)?

Dr. Deisher's report can be found at http://www.cogforlife.org/congresstestimony.pdf

Yes she writes really well. Her work is objective and reliable from what I can tell. I read the entire paper and posted it earlier in the thread.

So the next step would (and is) a longitudinal study on the the new vaccines. I have no qualms challenging the status quo when adverse reactions are noted or when longitudinal studies suggest unintentional pathology. I just take exception when that's turned into a comment to say vaccines dont work or are bad. - Whats bad is getting a communicable disease and propagating it through the community.

 

[Sabertooth]

I have no qualms challenging the status quo when adverse reactions are noted or when longitudinal studies suggest unintentional pathology.

That is where so many of us are at. And why vaccines should remain optional.