Article -- Physicians Urge Government to Let Parents Make Vaccine Decisions

Rufous McKinney

Will Take Care of All That For You!
Messages
286
Likes
615
Since so many PR members had their ME/CFS start after a vaccination
So here we are in PR with these serious, life compromising, debilitating illness/s that: struggles to seen, named, acknowledged. We are making some progress! Good.

So then we inject these substances into the tiny bodies of newborn babies and we don't know anything about: their genetic predispositions, whether they may be extra sensitive to this Immune System Assault.

And is getting one vaccination a bit different from receiving 22? And what does repeated doses of this innocent "aluminum" doing?

If our condition was receiving the attention and concern that it warrants, I"d feel more comfortable with these vaccination assertions of safety. California has State Mandated the vaccinations.o_O

And we cannot have a rational discussion about this.
 

Rufous McKinney

Will Take Care of All That For You!
Messages
286
Likes
615
My insurance sent a Home Nurse here to interview me. So how do we reconcile this?

1) I'm left with a piece of paper that says I should get all the various vaccinations at 65.5 years old.
2)I'm sick every day with this illness and therefore, what would be the likely adverse effects of injecting myself with- pneumonia, shingles, and other stuff? When I get a flu vaccine, I get the flu. I might as well just: get the flu. And the vaccine doesn't even contain the Soup of the Day (correct flu virus).
3) she tells me that I will NEVER be helped by the doctors (I appreciated her honesty, she has fibromyalgia).

So the recommendations for the vaccinations are made with no regard for my underlying condition. Yes, I will discuss this with my actual doctor. During an appointment thats not long enough to remotely discuss these issues.

I'll never know what the vaccines did to me, sick at One. I remember standing in line for the sugar cube. Eppstein Barr (Mono) followed shortly thereafter.
 

Lisa108

Senior Member
Messages
335
Likes
992
two separate day care center workers there who both described how easy it is to spot big differences between unvaccinated children and those who received normal vaccinations. In short, the unvaccinated children were calmer, behaved better, were more patient, had greater focus, etc.
Ooohh, although I find it highly interesting, I think that this observation should be looked carefully at.

You could read it as if vaccinations are making children hyperactive.
You could also read it as if the unvaccinated children were too fatigued to frolic (word?) and are limited to quiet activities.
It does say nothing about the educational background of these children.
Does is show which behaviour day care workers prefer? (And I ask this neutrally, as I know of the high workload and stressfull job.)
 

Rufous McKinney

Will Take Care of All That For You!
Messages
286
Likes
615
this observation should be looked carefully at.
But they won't look at it carefully. Because the SYSTEM has bought into the HERD's survival. This is what overpopulation looks like as you lose your individual liberties.

If you are fatigued, you don't exhibit "calm focus"....in my opinion.
 

Lisa108

Senior Member
Messages
335
Likes
992
But they won't look at it carefully. Because the SYSTEM has bought into the HERD's survival. This is what overpopulation looks like as you lose your individual liberties.
Sorry, @Rufous McKinney, but I do not share your opinion on this.
I'm very much for herd immunity.

You won't stop overpopulation by stopping vaccinating people, you will contribute to it (not to mention that you'll add a huge amount of suffering).

My opinion on "individual liberties" is that as long as you live in a community as we do, and take the profit that comes from living in a community, than you'll have to compromise in cases where your "liberties" are harming other members of your community.

As in the (far from perfect) example in one of my first posts:
If we were discussing texting while driving: can you ethically demand that it is your right to text while driving (because you were informed about risks and benefits)? You could argue yes, because you are willing to take the risk of causing a car accident.
I'm arguing no, because you are not risking your own health only, but that of others.

This is what distinguishes vaccines from other medical procedures: it is NOT only about your health/body (or that of your underaged child). So I don't think that this should be made a personal choice.

If you are fatigued, you don't exhibit "calm focus"....in my opinion.
I said: too fatigued to frolic, so I could argue that they were pacing themselves (in doing quiet activities) and therefore were able to focus...

Edit: spelling (as always)
 

Rufous McKinney

Will Take Care of All That For You!
Messages
286
Likes
615
were pacing themselves
Now laughing, since it was when I had MONONUCLEOSIS aka EPPSTEIN BARR when I was ten, and I was not allowed outside at lunch to play for the whole schoolyear.

I was considered the great DISRUPTER of that class. I was not quietly doing anything.
 

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
3,351
Likes
4,149
Location
Ashland, Oregon
which behaviour day care workers prefer?
I guess you'd had to have been there. But these two day care workers (who apparently didn't even know each other) were quite passionate about what they perceived as the damage being done to vaccinated children.

It was clear they much prefer being around non-vaccinated children, because they are calmer, more relaxed, and much more engaged in focused activities. All of which represent spiritual qualities to me. Do we really want to give the government the right to mandate "health measures" that impact our abilities to live and express our spiritual essence?

I myself believe in the adage that if even one person has to be sacrificed for the "greater good", then it cannot possibly be good for either the individual or the greater good. -- When it comes to vaccines, I think if it was better known that IV Vitamin C can cure most childhood diseases, then there would be much less support for mandated vaccines. Why take any risk, if there's no need to?
 

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
3,351
Likes
4,149
Location
Ashland, Oregon
If you are looking for hard evidence of vaccine adverse events, it makes good sense that the adverse effect symptoms should occur very soon after the vaccination.
I would respectfully disagree with that; here's just one reason why. I've seen many reports of various health symptoms not showing up for many years. E.g., for a very long time, it was believed that chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) was only experienced by football players who endured many years of head collisions, and that it didn't really develop until well into their 30's.

Recently, a high school football player died, and a thorough autopsy was performed. Though he had ZERO symptoms of CTE, the tell-tale signs of CTE showed up in his autopsy. It was shocking for many who thought that such a thing was nigh close to impossible. -- Also, it's been published that the symptoms of Alzheimer's often don't show up until 10-15 years or more after the dementia process starts in the brain.

Some people who are against vaccinations claim that every single vaccination injures the brain to some degree. Though I don't know whether that's the case, there's apparently much evidence to suggest it does. So, I think this would be another major area of research that should be done. But alas, research into better and safer vaccines is close to non-existent, and many legitimate avenues of research continue to be ignored.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
11,746
Likes
20,182
I would respectfully disagree with that; here's just one reason why.
I am not suggesting there cannot be long-term or delayed action effects after vaccination. In fact we have seen from the case of macrophagic myofasciitis that the average time from vaccination to the appearance of the first symptoms is 7 months.

But it's always harder to pin down delayed action causality than it is immediate action causality. If you get a major blow to the head and you immediately drop down dead, the causality is obvious. But if you get a blow to the head and then only 5 years later do you drop down dead, it's not clear at all that the blow was the cause; you could have died for a number of other reasons.
 

Lisa108

Senior Member
Messages
335
Likes
992
It was clear they much prefer being around non-vaccinated children, because they are calmer, more relaxed, and much more engaged in focused activities. All of which represent spiritual qualities to me.
1. But we do not know if these qualities were more pronounced in the group of unvaccinated children because they were unvaccinated!
I think this would be jumping to conclusions. It is an observation, a truely interesting one, and needs further research.

But it could as well be that parents who are opposing vaccination also encourage more quiet activities and "good" behaviour (manners) in their children.
Maybe because these parents are more sensitive, quiet, "spiritual" themselves, and the behaviour of their children is just a reflection of this.
It could be that parents who are opposing vaccinations also are more prone to provide organic food and avoiding food additives and preservatives (which can induce adhs-like behaviour in sensitive kids).

The list could go on.

2. I also disagree with putting different value on quiet activities ("spiritual") and loud and wild activities ("unfocussed").
If you ever ask a bunch of wildly playing kids what they are doing, you'd be amazed of how focussed they are interacting in a very creative plot they had imagined themselves. How they explore ethics (in battles between "good" and "bad", rescuing those in distress, etc.).

So the reason why the day care workers preferred the calmer group may not be because these kids were showing better qualities. It may be that they matched the personality of the workers more. They surely were less straining to have around.


To sum it up: We do not have enough information to conclude that vaccinations are changing the behaviour or abilities of children.
 

Lisa108

Senior Member
Messages
335
Likes
992
I myself believe in the adage that if even one person has to be sacrificed for the "greater good", then it cannot possibly be good for either the individual or the greater good. -- When it comes to vaccines, I think if it was better known that IV Vitamin C can cure most childhood diseases, then there would be much less support for mandated vaccines. Why take any risk, if there's no need to?
But following your logic then both vaccinating and not vaccinating are equally bad!
Because the "greater good", aka freedom of choice, in this case would certainly mean that individuals (who have to rely on herd immunity) are "sacrificed".

If we are talking about vaccines in general here, we have to think in broader terms than "most childhood diseases". There is also diphteria, tetanus, polio...

Vit. C i.v. you mention here as a treatment. Vaccines are a prevention. The main aim is to eradicate these diseases.

How will you provide the Vit. C i.v. to people who do not have access to hospital settings? Who can't afford to pay for the prolonged hospital stay?

In people with renal disease, Vitamin C is contraindicated. So if Vit.C was the go-to treatment, you'd also sacrifice quite a lot of people...

_____

IMO you can't live up to this adage. If noone had ever taken a risk, most medical procedures we rely on today would not exist.
Then people here would die because surgery was not invented. Or of the pain from surgery, because even anaesthesia has its own risks.

That does not mean that these procedures should not be continually reviewed and improved! Both technically and ethically.
_____

But I still always come back to this point:
Is it ethical to make vaccination a personal choice, when one's decision can be harmful to the society at large?

Here is another adage: Whoever saved a life, saved an entire world.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
11,746
Likes
20,182
Isn't mainly the measles vaccination where herd immunity is of critical importance?

Because measles is very contagious, you need to have around 90 to 95% of the population immunized if are going to stop major measles outbreaks. This 95% is known as the herd immunity threshold for the measles virus.

Whereas with polio, which is less contagious, the herd immunity threshold is 80 to 85%, so you can afford up to around 20% of population declining the polio vaccine, and you will still prevent polio outbreaks.

With cytomegalovirus, the herd immunity threshold is only around 50%, so even if you only vaccinated around half the population, you could eradicate this virus from circulation.


If you give people the free choice whether to vaccinate or not, as long as the percentage of people choosing to vaccinate is above the herd immunity threshold for that particular infectious pathogen, then there should be no problem, as you will maintain herd immunity.

But if the percentage of the population choosing to vaccinate is less than the herd immunity threshold, that's when you run the risk of disease outbreaks that can cause nasty things in children like deafness or death.
 

Rufous McKinney

Will Take Care of All That For You!
Messages
286
Likes
615
you run the risk of disease outbreaks
There are multiple issues here. So at this moment, I am concerned about 1) myself, as an older adult with ME, receiving vaccinations like for pneumonia, shingles etc. This is not about eradicating. Its about my particular body and how will it react and "well, I care but does anybody else?".
2) my grandchild is arriving. Most important little ditty, ever! And until I know what kinda child we've received, and if she is vulnerable due to our genetics, I want that: addressed, considered, recognized and accommodated.

Not ignored. While we may be a herd, the herd is a group of individuals. The group of us here are : wanting to be seen and acknowledged. We exist, this is real and it needs full consideration. Not dismissal.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
11,746
Likes
20,182
And until I know what kinda child we've received, and if she is vulnerable due to our genetics, I want that: addressed, considered, recognized and accommodated.
That kind of advanced warning of possible issues is unfortunately not available for most medical things, even though we would all like it to be.

Perhaps in 200 years time, as medical science advances, we will slowly gain knowledge, and be able to predict in advance which drugs, for example, will work for which type of patients, and which patients will suffer side effects. But at the moment, I don't think we are anywhere near that kind of scientific sophistication.

We don't even know why the same virus triggers ME/CFS in one person, but causes no harm in the next.


When I reach the age that it is recommended to take protective flu shots (65 in the UK), I will have to decide whether that is advisable for someone like me with ME/CFS. I don't see there is any specific danger, and there are benefits, as flu can be dangerous in older people; but nobody really knows the answer, though the UK ME Association give some advice on the matter.

This article says that those who should not take the flu vaccine include:
  • Babies under 6 months old
  • Those with a history of an allergic reaction to previous flu vaccines
  • Those who are allergic to any component of the flu vaccine
  • Anyone with a fever (typically over 101 F) or moderate to severe illness at the time of vaccination; wait until you are better
 

Lisa108

Senior Member
Messages
335
Likes
992
@Rufous McKinney ,

I don't think that Hip meant that you and a possibly genetically vulnerable newborn have to be vaccinated.
There will never be a 100% vaccinated society.
Both you and the baby are what the herd immunity is for!

So that those who can not be vaccinated (due to age or medical reasons) are as safe as possible from infection.

But if those who could be vaccinated opt out in large numbers, this leaves those who cannot more vulnerable.

And I don't think that it is easy to decide pro/against vaccinations when one looks at it from the individuals's point of view. Of course your little one is the most precious and most important to you. You don't want to take ANY risk. Either way you decide, there are scenarios in which you could deeply regret your decision.

Which is another ethical point I find should be debated whether parents should decide on this.

I hope delivery will be smooth, and all will be and remain well!


(And I hope that I did understand your and Hip's posts correctly.)
 

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
3,351
Likes
4,149
Location
Ashland, Oregon
When I reach the age that it is recommended to take protective flu shots (65 in the UK), I will have to decide whether that is advisable for someone like me with ME/CFS.
But what if the government were to pass a law which takes that decision out of your hands, under the (arrogant) assumption it can make better decisions about your personal health situation than yourself? If we believe we have the right to not have forced mandated vaccinations injected into our bodies, should they be forced on children? To me, the answer is a clear no. This is governmental overreach at its worst.
 
Messages
17
Likes
25
Something that really caught my attention at that meeting was there were two separate day care center workers there who both described how easy it is to spot big differences between unvaccinated children and those who received normal vaccinations. In short, the unvaccinated children were calmer, behaved better, were more patient, had greater focus, etc.
This was only two women. And they're daycare workers, not trained behavioral analysts. We don't know the types of tasks the children were completing when they were "observed" and we don't even know if these daycare workers were accurate in their assumptions of which kids were vaccinated or not.
 

Rufous McKinney

Will Take Care of All That For You!
Messages
286
Likes
615
This was only two women
Most of our existence is anecdotal. Most of our experiences are: individual.

Well done studies would be : nice to have. Double blind et etc. It appears just reading the manufacture's pamphlet for vaccines is pretty informative.