baby's brain development--trauma and vaccines and their impact upon future learning

Where was the Baked Blunts study done, julian?

-CK

julian Gerona wrote:

Since it was once again vaccine time for kids in school, One of my children was confronted by a teacher for refusing to take vaccine.

Teacher: If you dont vaccinate then you post a risk to your classmates.

My son: But teacher, If my classmates been immunize then they are immune. How can they be at risk?

Did you read my post above?

Vaccinations don't work on some children, or they are unable to have them for medical reasons. Herd immunity protects them. In my boy's school one child recently had a course of chemo-therapy for an auto-immune disease. They have made a full recovery, but for 12 months or so they essentially had no immune system. The vaccinations of their classmates protected them. Herd immunity also protects everyone else with vulnerable immune systems - those having cancer treatment, pregnant women and their unborn babies, those with weak immune systems, or those for whom the vaccinations were not fully effective.

Michael Cox wrote:One of the requests above has been "why haven't placebos been used as controls?"
In ethical medical trials doctors are always looking for a net benefit to health above the best current treatment. No research doctor is looking to determine if a particular medical intervention is better than a placebo - they are looking to see if treatment X (the current best) is better or worse than treatment Y (the new contender). In this case the control group is going to be the group of patients receiving treatment X, not the group that receive some kind words and a cup of tea!

Not only would a trial comparing placebo to the new treatment knowingly give a group of patients a worse treatment (unethical), but it would also be useless of medical professional who are trying to choose between the two options X and Y.

We are often told that "Vaccines are safe and effective."  Medical trials you are describing are very good at determining if a new vaccine is effective but they don't determine if it is safe. They also don't address the cumulative effects of giving them at the rate and quantity the CDC recommends. Expecting a majority of the population to use a product not proven to be safe long-term could be called unethical.

Much like all the toxins Nicole mentions above and as others have stated, it's very hard to tell which combination of things is causing people to get auto-immune disorders, autism and other slow onset problems.

The CDC has data for unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people in the Vaccine Safety Datalink system. They just need to analyze it and present it.  No new tests or trials need to be run.  That's why it's worrying to me that it hasn't been done.

Michael Cox wrote:If your concern is that media reporting is biased that I strongly advocate consulting a qualified medical professional directly and seeking their advice. Better still consult with a dozen different ones in your area and get a range of views. Unless you truly believe that all medical professional are corrupt, motivated by personal profit, and are getting kickbacks from the pharmaceutical industry (hint - they are not. Such kickbacks are HIGHLY illegal and would be a massive massive scandal if it were happening).

I have a concern that there is some media bias.  When about half the commercials during the news are for drugs I think it tells me something about how the media's bread is buttered.  

I don't think anyone is suggesting that medical professionals are corrupt, motivated by personal profit or getting kickbacks.  Suggesting that could lead to even more divisiveness in an already contentious issue.  I would suggest that medical educations likely teach people to think a certain way about vaccines and that doctors are more protected if they follow the standard of care. They don't intend harm.  If they thought they were causing any, I'm sure they would feel horrible.  

Mike Jay wrote:
I have a concern that there is some media bias.  When about half the commercials during the news are for drugs I think it tells me something about how the media's bread is buttered.  

This is a cultural aberration specific to the US. Such direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medications is illegal pretty much everywhere else in the developed world.

Re the safety issue; I personally just don't buy it. You have diseases which are known to kill, cause life altering injuries etc... which can be totally prevented by vaccinations. And on the other hand you have a possible harm of the vaccination itself that is so weak a correlation that the harms have not yet been proven to even exist. Given the state of the rhetoric, highly motivated people and large funding involved on both side I would suggest that if measurable harm existed it would be in the public domain already and would be being trumpeted from the roof tops.

Michael Cox wrote:
Re the safety issue; I personally just don't buy it. You have diseases which are known to kill, cause life altering injuries etc... which can be totally prevented by vaccinations. And on the other hand you have a possible harm of the vaccination itself that is so weak a correlation that the harms have not yet been proven to even exist. Given the state of the rhetoric, highly motivated people and large funding involved on both side I would suggest that if measurable harm existed it would be in the public domain already and would be being trumpeted from the roof tops.

This sums up my thoughts precisely.

Put another way, if every case of vaccine injury were absolutely caused by vaccines, considering the sheer number of people that have been given these same vaccines, what would the percentage affected be?

-CK

Here's the study I'd like to see. It might be a huge undertaking. I'd like to take the internet histories of those for and against, and look at the amount of time spent on Facebook and YouTube, then compare it to the amount of time spent reading peer-reviewed articles. Let's see if they have a preference in magazines. Maybe they like Scientific America or National Geographic. Maybe they prefer People magazine and the National Enquirer. Then let's look at occupations and income level of a broad sampling. This may show us something and it may not.

So, that study would be for the rank-and-file people who are for and against. Then let's look at the biggest influencers promoting vaccination and the biggest influencers who are against it. Let's look at what they do for a living and try to determine whether their education and experience might inform them in this area. Then let's look at whether they make money advocating for their side.

One thing that I have a hard time with, is vaccines that are required but are not for infectious diseases. Why do kids need a vaccine for a blood born pathogen to be in school? Why are some states requiring the HPV vaccine just to go to school? HPV is sexually transmitted. Measles, even chicken pox, make a bit of sense to prevent those diseases from spreading in a confined environment. But, HPV? Why are we assuming that all these kids are going to be having such rampant, unprotected sex in the classroom and so need this vaccine?  

I got married in 2007. The year before (2006), I went to my doctor to get a physical. My doctor highly suggested that I get the HPV vaccine, in case my future husband carried it, as they can't test for HPV. I took home the medical pamphlet, and it said the only side effects were arm soreness or headache. I searched online, and found no negative side effects. So I got the three course set of HPV shots, and developed inverse psoriasis. For years I wondered WHY I developed it then, as nothing in my life had changed...other than that vaccine. Psoriasis is an autoimmune condition, and those can be triggered by vaccines.

Fast forward a few years, and everyone is reporting all these horrible side effects from that vaccine. And I go and look, and the vaccine had been released in 2006, and had only been studied for 4 years. FOUR YEARS. (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa020586 --finding that four years number is now hard. It used to be easy to find out how long the vaccine was in development. That info used to be on the gardracil site, as well as wikipedia. It isn't any more.) The women were injected "between October 1998 and November 1999"

At enrollment, the women underwent a gynecologic examination that included the collection of cervical samples for thin-layer Papanicolaou testing (ThinPrep, Cytyc) and cervical swabs, external genital swabs, and cervicovaginal-lavage specimens for HPV-16 DNA testing. Serum was obtained for the measurement of HPV-16 antibody. Follow-up visits were scheduled one month after the third vaccination (month 7), six months after the third vaccination (month 12), and every six months thereafter until month 48. During these visits, specimens were collected for Papanicolaou tests, HPV-16 DNA testing, and measurement of HPV-16 antibodies. The results of HPV-16 tests were not used for clinical care.

After only four years of testing, they did another small study, and then put the vaccine on the market in 2006. The vaccine clinical studies didn't test or screen for side effects other than acute ones that women reported. There were no long term studies done. Those of us that got it, are the long term studies, and there's no control factor. I miscarried my first child and found out I have PCOS--did the HPV vaccine cause that? Who knows, because there's no ultrasounds of women who got the vaccine before they got it and after, vs women who didn't get the vaccine. There's no control studies. The only side effects they look for are acute ones, not the potential long term effects. I don't like being their lab rat.

I understand where those against vaccines are coming from, because when there's mandated vaccines for things that don't make that much sense (like HEP-B and HPV), it makes you wonder what else doesn't make much sense. Especially when other countries do not mandate these vaccines.

-----------------------------------------------------------

On the subject of heel pokes and pain. Current child development science shows that trauma in the first year of life IS damaging. Babies at that age need to learn that the world is a safe and loving place.

At the first stage of Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development, children learn to trust others. Trust, in this convention, refers to the ability to expect certain things from, and depend on, other people. This sense of trust is derived principally from the relationship an infant has with his mother.

The trust between an infant and his mother is usually developed through the act of touching and physical interaction, as this often fosters a sense of familiarity and is something that the infant subconsciously remembers as he grows up. If the mother is unable to adequately care for the infant, such as feeding him when he’s hungry or providing him with the necessary amount of affection, then the infant will develop a sense of mistrust not only towards his mother, but also towards the world around him. The infant will not be willing to trust and depend on other people, a tendency which may continue throughout the remaining stages of his psychosocial development.

Once they learn that, they can grow in other areas. It is this reason that people are so distressed about those under 2 being removed from their mothers at the American-Mexican boarder. It's why people are so concerned about children in war-torn areas. This is a valid concern. I have a friend who adopted a child from the foster system, and her son has attachment disorder. It's devastating.

RAD and other attachment disorders occur when a child has been unable to consistently connect with a parent or primary caregiver. If a young child repeatedly feels abandoned, isolated, powerless, or uncared for—whatever the reason—they will learn that they can’t depend on others and that the world is a dangerous and frightening place.

This can happen for many reasons:

A baby cries and no one responds or offers comfort.

A baby is hungry or wet, and they aren’t attended to for hours.

No one looks at, talks to, or smiles at the baby, so the baby feels alone.

A young child gets attention only by acting out or displaying other extreme behaviors.

A young child or baby is mistreated or abused.

Sometimes the child’s needs are met and sometimes they aren’t. The child never knows what to expect.

The infant or young child is hospitalized or separated from their parents.

A baby or young child is moved from one caregiver to another (the result of adoption, foster care, or the loss of a parent, for example).

The parent is emotionally unavailable because of depression, illness, or substance abuse.

Common signs and symptoms in young children include:

An aversion to touch and physical affection. Children with RAD often flinch, laugh, or even say “ouch” when touched. Rather than producing positive feelings, touch and affection are perceived as a threat.

Control issues. Most children with reactive attachment disorder go to great lengths to remain in control and avoid feeling helpless. They are often disobedient, defiant, and argumentative.

Anger problems. Anger may be expressed directly, in tantrums or acting out, or through manipulative, passive-aggressive behavior. Children with RAD may hide their anger in socially acceptable actions, like giving a high five that hurts or hugging someone too hard.

Difficulty showing genuine care and affection. For example, children with reactive attachment disorder may act inappropriately affectionate with strangers while displaying little or no affection towards their parents.

An underdeveloped conscience. Children with reactive attachment disorder may act like they don’t have a conscience and fail to show guilt, regret, or remorse after behaving badly.

So, infant trauma and mistrust of parents does have very negative consequences for the life of the infant. But, does a heel poke do this? I asked my husband about the heel pokes again. He told me that as long as the baby is swaddled all cozy or with mama, they usually don't even notice the poke. They're more unhappy about their foot being cold or being away from Mama.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_disorder)

Personally, I tried very, very hard to reduce pain in my children's infancy. I did not make them "cry it out" or refuse to hold them so that they didn't become "too needy."  But, if they did need to endure pain, I held them and I loved them and I showed them that I was, indeed, there and did, indeed love them.

The heel poke at the hospital tests for PKU "Phenylketonuria (PKU) is an inborn error of metabolism that results in decreased metabolism of the amino acid phenylalanine. Untreated, PKU can lead to intellectual disability, seizures, behavioral problems, and mental disorders. It may also result in a musty smell and lighter skin." as well as the child screening. If the baby becomes ill, more blood tests are done (CBC--which checks white and red blood cell counts and is the general blood test that happens any time you get your blood drawn.) If the baby has a fever or signs of infection, a blood culture is done: blood is drawn into a tiny little vial; the vial is carried away and cultured to see if bacteria grow to test for infection.

When my daughter was 8 months old, she developed an infected cyst. She endured a lot of pain from this--the pain of the cyst, the pain of having IV antibiotiocs (she HATED her hand touched) as well as surgery. But, I didn't want her do die, and so she got treatment. And I stayed with her every minute she was there, singing her to sleep before she got anesthesia for the surgery to remove the cyst. I could not take her pain away, but I could and did do everything I could to show that I loved her and was there for her. I was not able to keep her pain, but I kept her from trauma. It's the trauma--from all I have read--that causes attachment problems, not simply the pain.

Nicole, I think your post shows vastly more thought and concern than the initial post that declared "DO NOT VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN".  The broad, no-exception, declaration brought about what I would assume would be the expected response.  You and Mike Jay both brought out points that I feel should be considered by parents.  An absolute statement that no one should give their children any vaccinations is an altogether different situation.

Thanks Trace, I think most of us are trying to convey that there are some logical reasons why a person could be farther down the spectrum towards pro or anti vaccinations.  

Michael Cox wrote:

Mike Jay wrote:
I have a concern that there is some media bias.  When about half the commercials during the news are for drugs I think it tells me something about how the media's bread is buttered.  

This is a cultural aberration specific to the US. Such direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medications is illegal pretty much everywhere else in the developed world.

Very good point Michael!

Chris Kott wrote:Put another way, if every case of vaccine injury were absolutely caused by vaccines, considering the sheer number of people that have been given these same vaccines, what would the percentage affected be?

I realize that's a hypothetical question so I'll posit a hypothetical answer.  Autism has increased from 1 in 10,000 in the 1930s to 1 in 40 today.  IF only 1% of those cases are triggered by vaccines, it equates to a thousand serious complications a year.  I realize that's an unprovable hypothetical.  But I hope it puts a bit of context behind why so many people have hesitations about the safety of vaccines (not necessarily the efficacy).

It's hard to pin down the actual percentage of people injured by vaccines because the injuries can occur years after the event and not be recognized for what they are.
But, the US government runs a little-known Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), so they concede people do get hurt. Petitions must be filed within three years of the first symptom of alleged injury, or within 2 years of death, or within 4 years of the first symptom that resulted in death.  Burden of proof is on the injured party, which makes it hard to get compensated since pre-marketing safety studies are so short. Here's information about the VICP (About the VICP).

The VICP has paid out more than $4 billion dollars in settlements since 1988, despite the difficulty in proving causation.  The money to pay the settlements comes from an excise tax on each vaccine.  The vaccine maker doesn't pay for damages attributed to their products.  

The US government also runs a program called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).  This is a passive reporting system that relies on people suspecting or recognizing a vaccine injury and taking time to report it.  The program is not that well known or used, so it doesn't fairly represent the possible full scale of the problem. It can't prove injury causation and it's full of minor injuries, but there are some major injuries reported there too. It's not a perfect system, but it's all we have. Here are links to VAERS for reporting purposes and to the CDC's site for searching the database.

Our world full of microplastics, polluted air, water, and food is taxing enough on the body.  Maybe vaccines, depending on what they contain, the number given in a day or the age when administered, push some people "over the edge."

Mike Jay wrote:

Our world full of microplastics, polluted air, water, and food is taxing enough on the body.  Maybe vaccines, depending on what they contain, the number given in a day or the age when administered, push some people "over the edge."

Hmmm... so maybe the *real* solution is to get rid of microplastics, pollution from our water, air, and food, and grow *real* food in healthy soil and we'd not only improve our tolerance of vaccines, but also our ability to fight of disease.

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Jay Angler wrote:Mike Jay wrote:

Our world full of microplastics, polluted air, water, and food is taxing enough on the body.  Maybe vaccines, depending on what they contain, the number given in a day or the age when administered, push some people "over the edge."

Hmmm... so maybe the *real* solution is to get rid of microplastics, pollution from our water, air, and food, and grow *real* food in healthy soil and we'd not only improve our tolerance of vaccines, but also our ability to fight of disease.

I think that would be awesome! We'd still have to combat the screwed up epigenetics from previous generations passing on their negatively affected genes (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170717100548.htm)....but that'll likely take generations. Here's a bit about epigenetics, for those that don't know.

In our body we find more than 250 different cell types. They all contain the exact same DNA bases in exactly the same order; however, liver or nerve cells look very different and have different skills. What makes the difference is a process called epigenetics. Epigenetic modifications label specific regions of the DNA to attract or keep away proteins that activate genes. Thus, these modifications create, step by step, the typical patterns of active and inactive DNA sequences for each cell type. Moreover, contrary to the fixed sequence of 'letters' in our DNA, epigenetic marks can also change throughout our life and in response to our environment or lifestyle. For example, smoking changes the epigenetic makeup of lung cells, eventually leading to cancer. Other influences of external stimuli like stress, disease or diet are also supposed to be stored in the epigenetic memory of cells.

It has long been thought that these epigenetic modifications never cross the border of generations. Scientists assumed that epigenetic memory accumulated throughout life is entirely cleared during the development of sperms and egg cells. Just recently a handful of studies stirred the scientific community by showing that epigenetic marks indeed can be transmitted over generations, but exactly how, and what effects these genetic modifications have in the offspring is not yet understood. "We saw indications of intergenerational inheritance of epigenetic information since the rise of the epigenetics in the early nineties. For instance, epidemiological studies revealed a striking correlation between the food supply of grandfathers and an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease in their grandchildren. Since then, various reports suggested epigenetic inheritance in different organisms but the molecular mechanisms were unknown," says Nicola Iovino, corresponding author in the new study.

Trauma has also been shown to echo epigentically down through the generations. In this study (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190326-what-is-epigenetics), they looked at the decendents of US Civil War prisoners of war (POW). Controlling for economics as well as how the former POW parented, the children and grandchildren of the POW experienced worse health than decendents of veterans who had not been POWs, and even their elder siblings who had been sired before their father went to war.

While their sons and grandsons had not suffered the hardships of the PoW camps – and if anything were well provided for through their childhoods – they suffered higher rates of mortality than the wider population. It appeared the PoWs had passed on some element of their trauma to their offspring.

...

This excess mortality was mainly due to higher rates of cerebral haemorrhage. The sons of PoW veterans were also slightly more likely to die from cancer.

I think this also relates back to the original post in this thread. It's important to note that the trauma--or lack of trauma--affects not just our own children's life outcomes, but also those of their children.

Another interesting article on epigenetics (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/health/mind-epigenetics-genes.html)

In a series of recent studies, scientists at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, led by Tracy Bale, have raised male mice in difficult environments, by periodically tilting their cages, or by leaving the lights on at night. This kind of upbringing, effectively a traumatic childhood, changes the subsequent behavior of those mice’s genes in a way that alters how they manage surges of stress hormones.

And that change, in turn, is strongly associated with alterations in how their offspring handle stress: namely, the young mice are numbed, or less reactive, to the hormones compared to control animals,

Since I came across the notion, I have considered epigenetics to be the most likely direct mechanism for evolution. And if I understand the concept properly, not only is it not just trauma at issue; epigenetics could explain how the body reacts to stressors by passing on their genes in different ways, perhaps not fully expressing a dominant gene for a trait that isn't a benefit, or might be a detriment, in favour of it's opposite number, say, decreasing overall size of the next generation of offspring as a reaction to long-term starvation by the parents.

This is in no way any more than a somewhat informed opinion, but it makes sense as far as it goes. I would love to hear other considered opinions.

-CK

"What’s Really Behind the Current Measles Outbreak?
Tedd Koren, DC
In this nation of over 300 million, a little over a hundred cases of measles have been reported with no deaths. Some epidemic. Why is everyone so concerned?

How many epidemic scares have we seen in the past few years? Both swine flu scares, SARS, bird flu, H1N1 flu, the Ebola scare and wasn’t heterosexual AIDS predicted to wipe out a quarter of the earth’s population? And this is only a partial list! As George Carlin once said, “Americans panic easily.”

But who can blame us when the “experts” say terrible things are going to happen and the media doesn’t give the other side of a story? The media merely parrots the official medical party line and even ignores and mocks those with opposing views. The fact that they’ve been wrong every time doesn’t matter; people still freak out when told, “It’s coming and it’s gonna be bad this time.”

What exactly is measles?

Measles is a short-lived viral infection that begins with a fever that lasts for a couple of days, followed by a cough, runny nose and conjunctivitis (pink eye). A rash starts on the face, hairline and upper neck, spreads down the back and trunk, and extends to the extremities. After about 5 days, the rash fades.

How dangerous is measles?


Measles is a mild and harmless disease that leaves a stronger, healthier child in its wake; most adults today who were born before 1965 got measles and have lifelong immunity as a result. Serious problems from measles are very, very rare.

This, by the way, was standard medical policy; measles was just a rite of passage. It changed when the measles vaccine came on the market in the 1960s. Suddenly this mild, beneficial rite of passage became a deadly disease.

Some MDs still don’t buy the hype. As Jay Gordon, MD, former UCLA Medical Center pediatrician recently said:

This measles outbreak does not pose a great risk to a healthy child and quite frankly I don't think it poses any risk to a healthy child.
Doctor explains why he lets kids avoid the measles vaccine.
http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/ucla-medical-center-pediatrician-let-parents-choose-on-measles-vaccine/#sthash.SvNqgHrZ.dpuf
 
How deadly is measles compared to the measles shot?

Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in an Associated Press interview in 2014 stated that there have been no measles deaths in the US since 2003.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_04.pdf

http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/zero-u-s-measles-deaths-in-10-years-but-over-100-measles-vaccine-deaths-reported/#sthash.jsHvonAX.dpuf

However, the CDC’s National Vital Statistics Reports show 2 deaths associated with measles for 2009 and 2010.

Now let’s look at this measles vaccine

“Pediatricians continue to defend vaccination to the death.  The

question parents should be asking is, ‘Whose death?’
Robert Mendelsohn, MD

Another government reporting agency, The National Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), reports 108 children died from the measles vaccine during a ten year period. http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/index.php

But that may be a fraction of the real number because MDs often do not report vaccine injuries.

Death certificates, usually filled out by MDs, very rarely mention vaccination as the cause of death. They may write encephalitis or brain inflammation rather than vaccination even though vaccines can cause brain inflammation) on the death certificate. We don’t know the real number of vaccine injuries and deaths. But they are most likely much greater than what VAERS reports due to underreporting.

According to Dr. David Kessler, former head of the Food and Drug Administration, "Only about 1 percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported to the FDA." Kessler DA, Natanblut S, Kennedy D. et al. Introducing MEDWatch A New Approach to Reporting Medication and Device Adverse Effects and Product Problems. JAMA. 1993;269(21):2765-2768.

We don’t know how many vaccine injuries and deaths there are but if we apply the above underreporting number to vaccine injuries then possibly as many as 10,800 children might have been harmed or killed by the measles vaccine during the period that at most four died from measles."

More on this link

https://us2.campaign-archive.com/?u=066e7441257a929bfd50fcd95&id=9a44e9c2d1&e=ed6c246107

Herd. Immunity.

Oh, and measels can and do complicate pregnancies,  causing anything from birth defects to death in-utero.

I like the idea that to engage in society, all who are healthy enough must be vaccinated, to protect those who cannot be, and those who are pregnant.

I think that the best we can do is shun those who won't comply from society. If they aren't going to school or to any public place where at-risk individuals may be exposed, I have no problem with they themselves not being vaccinated. It sucks for their kids and grandkids, as I have sketched out above, but if people want to doom themselves and their progeny to a miniature virgin field epidemic when a visitor to their community turns out to be an asymptomatic carrier of something communicable, well nothing could be done to prevent that, right?

But what will most likely happen, as does with children, is that they will rebel against their parents and get vaccinated as soon as they can get away, and then go on all the news outlets saying how much they love their parents, but that they are wrong and that everyone who is healthy enough should be vaccinated.

Sounds familiar? That's because it happened last year. I will try to find the link.

-CK

Here's a link:  https://www.webmd.com/children/news/20190215/ohio-teen-gets-himself-vaccinated-inspires-others

From what our family GP advised, Hep B significantly raises the chances of liver cancer.

Similarly, HPV can lead to many cancers of the reproductive system - especially cervical.

So, essentially, when you get the jabs you are being immunised against certain cancers.

Statistically, kids become sexually active, or begin to experiment, around age 12-15. So, getting immunised early simply means it's all done and there's no chance of forgetting about it.

HPV immunisation was a very big deal here because it was co-developed by an Australian at the University of Queensland. So it received a LOT of media scrutiny at the time.

Because of the treatment, they've estimated that cervical cancer could be completely eradicated in the near future.

If in doubt about the safety and effectiveness of immunisation, have a chat with a trusted GP rather than Mr/Mrs Google, school parent gossip or other unsubstantiated source.

In regards to the other childhood diseases like measles, polio, diphtheria, etc - the jabs also protect babies that are too young to get immunised. For example, a parent may have a newborn at home and a kid at school, if the kid at school has been immunised there's much less chance of it being a carrier.

People want 100% certainty in things these days, that's just not realistic, never has been and never will be.

F Agricola wrote:
People want 100% certainty in things these days, that's just not realistic, never has been and never will be.

I agree.  I think it's important to evaluate risks as objectively as possible.  Most of us have subjective fears that aren't based on reality, but if we can acknowledge that, admit our superstitions, it can help us avoid making decisions based on superstitious, unreasonable fear.  Some fears, if kept to oneself, make no real difference in the big picture.  For instance I have a superstitious fear of microwave ovens so I avoid using them, but I don't proselytize others against using microwave ovens. Fear of vaccines that makes one avoid them and proselytize against them does make a difference in the big picture.

F Agricola wrote:

People want 100% certainty in things these days, that's just not realistic, never has been and never will be.
-----'
And we come back to herd immunity. The whole idea is that it doesn't need to be 100% but it needs to be close enough to that number that it becomes unlikely to be spread, so any little outbreak tends to stop. That's exactly why you see those low numbers. I'm talking about measles and such. The numbers of AIDS cases is not low by any stretch and the spread has been greatly slowed by intervention, not by ignoring the problem.

Here's another example of herd immunity. The house I'm in currently, does not have a sprinkler system or other means of putting out a fire. But I still consider it a very safe place to be, because none of the neighboring houses are on fire. I don't think any of the houses in the neighborhood are on fire. Therefore the only way it will catch fire is if I do something stupid or there's a wiring problem or something.

So it would be an isolated case. And if somehow this house did catch on fire, there would be a rapid response, just as you see with a measles outbreak. Then they would encourage everyone to get a smoke detector and a carbon monoxide detector and to clean up the junk in their basements. That's about as close to immunization as I can bring this little story... Each wood-framed house on its own is a tinderbox, but if they all have a smoke detector and if people act the moment the fire is discovered, the whole neighborhood won't be burned down. If we simply let them burn and see where it stops, only large physical obstacles like rock formations and lakes, would prevent it from spreading throughout the whole city. So we intervene.

I'm a big fan of vaccinations. One of my kids is immune compromised, and while the doctor's have never been able to diagnose what's compromising his immune system, they all agree that something is. That being said, he is vaccinated, they just don't always work, or at least the way they are supposed to. He has had shingles about a dozen times, but when tested to see if his chicken pox vaccine was still working, he was told that he had no antibodies.

Personally, I think that the staph infection he got as a newborn from the hospital has been more detrimental to his health than vaccines.

Chris Kott wrote: Oh, and measels can and do complicate pregnancies,  causing anything from birth defects to death in-utero.
and F Agricola wrote: Statistically, kids become sexually active, or begin to experiment, around age 12-15. So, getting immunized early simply means it's all done and there's no chance of forgetting about it.

These two quotes work together - yes, we absolutely need better ways to keep track of diseases on an individual basis, so we know what immunizations people and the community would benefit from and when. I've seen what health records look like, and far too few of them have charts that allow for changes and additions to a summary. Using the "excuse" that people will "forget" about it doesn't work for me, because I know that in my environment, getting a tetanus booster every 10 years is a *really good idea*. I did have a wise Doctor who gave me that booster on a year ending in "0" because she thought it would help me remember it, and so I know that in 2020 I'm due.

Keeping long term records that are easy to access is getting easier. I personally don't think that I would be comfortable immunizing a child under the age of 1 year for a disease they won't be at risk of for a minimum of 10 years (or at least shouldn't be in the case of HPV.) Many diseases are far more dangerous to teens, young adults or pregnant women than they are to 5 year olds. If I had a daughter that hadn't had measles, I would make sure she was vaccinated before pregnancy was a risk, but that doesn't mean that I would immunize her at 6 months of age.

The system wants this issue to be polarized for whatever motivates them - often money or the "not forgetting" thing. Unfortunately, I feel it makes the whole system dumbed down which makes it harder to actually get and use accurate information responsibly. Like every tool, immunization has a time and a place in my opinion, but can also be used in the wrong time and place. The example of the teen who left home and got immunized actually makes sense. Many of these diseases are *far* worse when caught as an adult, and any diseases one's already immune to, won't require a vaccination for, so by immunizing late, you'll likely need fewer.

I'm going to try to find out some things about my own immunization status since most of it happened when I was a child. I got yellow fever vaccine last year, but I probably won't need that again. They had a very simple way of dealing with it. I wouldn't have been allowed into Kenya or Tanzania without having my vaccinations. Pretty simple.

My move to the Philippines, means that I have a greater chance of being exposed to things I haven't experienced before. I will check with the local authorities, to see what is already being enforced there. My fiance had to prove her vaccinations status in order to get her passport. I'm glad they've done that, and I'm not sure if it was prompted by their own government or the many places where Filipino workers travel to.

If there are any areas where I think the system is lacking, I will offer to host a clinic at my place or try to put together something that could be done at a school or other public building. In the past, HPV vaccinations were looked down upon by the church, and they told people to not get it on moral grounds.

My fiance posted something on Facebook concerning HPV vaccination. Her former employer was not happy that I stole her slave ( they stopped paying her the moment they learned about me ). She posted things on Facebook, saying that she had become a prostitute and that these vaccinations represented moral decline and that only prostitutes need to be concerned with things like HPV. We got her account shut down and I informed her of what would happen to her business, should there be any more similar attacks. Her behavior did have some effect on her business already, since she was using Facebook for marketing purposes and that disappeared. It's probably back up in some form now, but if she gives us any more trouble, I will have no problem spending more than she ever could, to crush that little business.

Dale, I haven't looked into this, but is there a simple way to get a test panel that will show what immunities you have currently?  Even if you've had your vaccinations as a child I've been told that there is a small chance that you may not have full immunity later in life.  Sometimes a booster is needed.  I have no idea how practical/expensive this might be.

F Agricola wrote:
People want 100% certainty in things these days, that's just not realistic, never has been and never will be.

I think this is the key thing that always trips me up when it comes to people who are completely against all vaccinations. Nothing is 100% but we can get pretty close sometimes, why not advocate for safer vaccines instead of no vaccines at all ? The stance that vaccines are all terrible and dangerous just makes the arguments come off very extreme to me.

It also seems to be a very to come from an uncomfortably privileged/sheltered kind of mindset, I mean odds are really low my kid will be exposed to diphtheria so why vaccinate? they may end of with measles but they get good medical care so it isn’t like they will die like third world kids, so why vaccinate? There was a west coast case not too long ago where a kid spent something like 30 days in ICU with tetanus because the parents were against vaccines; with awesome medical care he recovered and went home. Parents refused a tetanus shot again when he left the hospital.  What a waste of resources!

I suppose if I wanted to take a true permaculture mentality approach to child raising I could treat them like my plants “ oops, they died, guess that kid doesn’t like it here, oh well, try another kid” , but I just didn’t enjoy pregnancy enough to want ten and would rather focus on keeping the two I have growing along.

Dale Hodgins wrote:
If there are any areas where I think the system is lacking, I will offer to host a clinic at my place or try to put together something that could be done at a school or other public building. In the past, HPV vaccinations were looked down upon by the church, and they told people to not get it on moral grounds.

My fiance posted something on Facebook concerning HPV vaccination. Her former employer was not happy that I stole her slave ( they stopped paying her the moment they learned about me ). She posted things on Facebook, saying that she had become a prostitute and that these vaccinations represented moral decline and that only prostitutes need to be concerned with things like HPV. We got her account shut down and I informed her of what would happen to her business, should there be any more similar attacks. Her behavior did have some effect on her business already, since she was using Facebook for marketing purposes and that disappeared. It's probably back up in some form now, but if she gives us any more trouble, I will have no problem spending more than she ever could, to crush that little business.

In a way, I sort of see the moral stance against the HPV shot, only because why should a kid need it if they're not going to be sexually active for years? When they decide to be active, they can get it then. And, no, that doesn't just apply to "prostitutes." Since there's no test for HPV, if a woman is getting married and her future spouse ever slept around (and most guys do at least once and most cultures don't frown on boys being active, only the girls) the girl would probably want the shot (as long as the vaccine is affective) before getting married.

And, they don't even need all three of the shots done before getting married. They can get the first and get boosters at the required intervals after she got married. So, really, there's no reason  a girl would need the shot early, when it's just as affective when she's 25. Thinking that a kid needs an HPV shot is kind of saying, "This world is one in which my kid will get raped or have sex before they are an adult, so I need to give them this shot." Perhaps that's just being realistic, but it's still a hard thing to think. And, some parents know their children well enough to know whether or not they are going to be messing around and when/if to get them the shot, and whether the benefits outweigh the risks of side effects.

My oldest daughter is too old to have gotten the HPV vaccine, so now, she has HPV. She has had to endure multiple biopsies because of abnormal cells. Those procedures are very painful. She is fine, gave birth to a beautiful child last year, but I wouldn't wish HPV on anyone. You bet my youngest has been vaccinated against HPV. Teenagers aren't going to check that they are immunized prior to sex. Adults who think that they are are being naive. This is how sexually transmitted diseases proliferate.

Dale - you can get tested to check for continued immunity, that is how they check my son's immunity. It doesn't work very well for him, but as I have mentioned, his experiences aren't typical.

Stacy Witscher wrote:My oldest daughter is too old to have gotten the HPV vaccine, so now, she has HPV. She has had to endure multiple biopsies because of abnormal cells. Those procedures are very painful. She is fine, gave birth to a beautiful child last year, but I wouldn't wish HPV on anyone. You bet my youngest has been vaccinated against HPV. Teenagers aren't going to check that they are immunized prior to sex. Adults who think that they are are being naive. This is how sexually transmitted diseases proliferate.

Dale - you can get tested to check for continued immunity, that is how they check my son's immunity. It doesn't work very well for him, but as I have mentioned, his experiences aren't typical.

   Very much agree. I grew up in a plain church where it is about as “ no sex ever” as you can get and most parents would have been horrified at what their kids got up to. I started appropriate but complete education with my kids as they’ve grown, much to the dismay/ horror of my mom. “ pray to God, but row for the shore” has definitely been my motto in this area .
   I would also point out that there is a rapid increase in men getting HPV related cancers of the throat and neck, it’s projected to outstrip the cervical cancers 4:1.  

If all we are going off of is "My family did X and we're all fine" then my very large family (13 nieces and nephews not including my own children and all us adults) is entirely vaccinated and perfectly fine. Since your family is your reason people shouldn't vaccinate than my family should be the reason people do aye.

Nicole Alderman wrote:One thing that I have a hard time with, is vaccines that are required but are not for infectious diseases. Why do kids need a vaccine for a blood born pathogen to be in school? Why are some states requiring the HPV vaccine just to go to school? HPV is sexually transmitted. Measles, even chicken pox, make a bit of sense to prevent those diseases from spreading in a confined environment. But, HPV? Why are we assuming that all these kids are going to be having such rampant, unprotected sex in the classroom and so need this vaccine?  

It's not an assumption. It's just fact. Kids have sex. They may be ashamed to tell people they're doing it, but they're doing it. It is why I choose to teach my children about safety and self respect rather than fill them with shame for even thinking it. Also, working in criminal defense, I decided at birth to tell my children appropriate names for their body parts and where it is ok for people to touch them and where it is not. Do I think my kids will get targeted by a pedophile? No. Do I want my kids to be able to crucify said pedophile if it happens, absolutely! It happens more than you'd think, too.

julian Gerona wrote:

I am going to be direct here. This video is a fallacy/ fake news.

Here is what actually happened:
France 24 - Did Sweden ban mandatory vaccinations?
Video:


Actually, trend is complete opposite in Europe. For example: Italy banned unvaccinated children from schools. Here is the link: Italy bans unvaccinated children from school . You can google for the rest.

I have read many good arguments in this thread. Many are well written. Some are at the edge of trolling.

julian Gerona wrote:

You may want to fact check that, because Sweden did not ban vaccinations.  Maybe check a credible news source, rather than some random guy on Youtube.

There must be something wrong with the videos available on this subject. Maybe instead of posting videos that misconstrue the facts of the case, we can have an actual conversation.

I find text more reliable than YouTube videos, for the most part. Video in general is more prone to having its messaging affected by delivery, specifically appeal to emotion, rather than reason.

Also, sometimes it's possible to find studies written by academics and researchers, whose funding doesn't come from a biased party, that are then reviewed by other academics and researchers, who get a chance to call bullshit.

If we get enough of these and compare them, eliminating ones whose procedures were flawed or proven to show bias, we can often get a pretty accurate idea of what the reality of the situation is.

That's something you don't get from YouTube, which is fine if we're talking about watching me dig and build a hugelbeet by hand, but not so helpful for discussing life-and-death scientific issues.

-CK

As to the the HPV thing, there's no justification for not vaccinating girls young, such that they get it before they become sexually active, in my opinion.

If there was a vaccine against HIV, would it be a good idea to offer it to people before or after they become sexually active? The argument is identical, and the same with other vaccines,  when discussing any vaccine against sexually-transmitted diseases. The more who are immune, the fewer carriers, and the chances of contracting it go down.

I could see waiting until age eight or so for the HPV vaccine, but there is an argument that bloodborne contagions should be vaccinated against as soon as is healthy for the individual,  as nobody knows when they might need an emergency transfusion.

Again, I am 100% for constant and ongoing testing for as long as vaccination programs are mandated, but those need to be strenuously unbiased and rigorous, with huge sample sizes, and large control groups on identical batches as test groups.

Otherwise, we're like the three blind men examining an elephant by touch, who each think an elephant is either like a thin rope, a snake, or a tree trunk. The bigger picture may look vastly different than our expectations of it based on our limited perspectives.

-CK

Dale Hodgins wrote:My move to the Philippines, means that I have a greater chance of being exposed to things I haven't experienced before. .

Dale, you may find this useful https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/traveler/none/philippines
You may also want to talk to your doc about an antiparasitic-antihelminthic if you`re going to be playing in the dirt or raising animals.

When my husband came to the US from Japan he had to have a workup to see what he had immunity to and get boosters for whatever he was lacking. (this was part of US immigration procedure, i imagine it`s still the same).

Thanks for commenting. The title is actually misleading I think. Maybe you can also comment on the previous videos because to me they look like honest people, honest parents and doctors. I wonder why there are no commenting on the previous ones. Here is another.  There are just too many speaking up against vaccine that it is not good to ignore.