Vaccination & epidemic

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

When it was time to make the decision, we saw a higher risk of injury from the vaccine than exposure and injury by one or all of the diseases.

Good. You have numbers. After all, such decisions always - as in always - require perspective only possible with numbers. Since you knew better than biased doctors, then provide those numbers. Let all see this problem since honest discussion is always about sharing such important facts.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by tw

Good. You have numbers. After all, such decisions always - as in always - require perspective only possible with numbers. Since you knew better than biased doctors, then provide those numbers. Let all see this problem since honest discussion is always about sharing such important facts.

If I was trying to convince you of something, I might link numbers. I don't really care if you approve of my actions though.

Back in 1998-1999 when we were faced with this decision, jinx did tons of research about vaccine injuries and deaths or illnesses related to the diseases the vaccines are made to combat. As I stated, there were zero deaths due to measles in the US. There were many more cases of vaccine related injury, increasing incidence of autism, digestive disorders, etc. There was also a good bit of controversy about the businesses that manufacture the vaccines getting protection from liability due to alleged injury.

It seemed far more likely that there would be a negative reaction to the vaccine than the remote chance of contraction of, and subsequent harm by one of the diseases.

I didn't even mention that Spencer came up with a rash on his face and scalp (eczema was the diagnosis) 2 or 3 days after one of the early shots he got before we started having second thoughts about them.

He had bad mood swings throughout his childhood if he had too much dairy. Ripley would get a bright red patch on her face, and bad poopies if she had dairy. Clod could probably tell you more about what that indicates.... but I truly believe we did the right thing. And I KNOW we did what we did in an informed and logical manner.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

There were many more cases of vaccine related injury, increasing incidence of autism, digestive disorders, etc.

There were zero cases of vaccine causing of autism. Zero as in none - except where people were lying. Or using what is classic junk science reasoning. A benchmark of a liar was the poorly educated Jenny McCarthy. Many believed her only because she made claims that were contradicted by numbers and well proven facts. Her credibility came from the same thing that made Kim Kardasian famous.

Did you get actual facts with numbers? Or just read hearsay that must be true because it was on the internet? Your job is not to convince anyone. A contributor defines what facts are. Where are these numbers that were used to prove an MMR vaccine dangerous?

We know vaccines only increased autism because liars (including Dr Wakefield) were intentionally deceitful. Done because he could so easily manipulate many who know by ignoring numbers. Dr Wakefield fled the UK in 2004 when it was obvious he was going to be censured for treachery and intentionally counterfeit research. He moved to where he could set up a clinic to continue his lies: Texas. After 2010, his lies were so egregious that he was very publicly stripped of his UK license to practice medicine. In part, because he was using lies about vaccines and autism only to enrich himself.

And so again the question. It is not about you convincing anyone. It is a question – based in nothing but logic - about how you came to a conclusion that was otherwise only promoted by hearsay, lies, and myths. What numbers were used to make an informed decision? Hopefully not what is well proven to be a lie promoted by the obviously dumb Jenny McCarthy – about vaccines creating autism. Since we have no numbers to justify any such conclusions, then where did you find numbers that said something different?.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

If they let you choose which vaccines to give your kids, did them ONE AT A TIME, and provided you with unbiased facts about the risks and benefits of each vaccine. ....I think I probably would give my kids certain ones.

Have you held your baby while it got a shot?

Would you really wanted them to get four separate shots? Or one with everything in it.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

Have you held your baby while it got a shot?

Would you really wanted them to get four separate shots? Or one with everything in it.

You feeling alright?

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

You feeling alright?

Not bad, considering. I'm mostly pain free these days, which is a blessing. My energy is better since I started taking sublingual B12 in addition to the monthly shot. The bile-salt diarrhea is improving but I'm still in the bathroom a lot. And I never trust a fart.

How you doin'?

[lumberjim]

Because you said we're all dum. We don't know what we're doing. You disclaim calling me dum, but then use a Dummed down analogy to illustrate your point that I should just trust the experts.
Then you try to make me sound like a Jehovas witness. Wtf?

I'm saying that when in doubt, you're better off trusting nature (god) than man made work arounds(playing God). Shelby breast fed the kids for the same reason.

We were in doubt.

Ok, bro. I'm done with this. We did what we felt was the best thing for our kids at the time. You clearly think we should have done the immunizations. I get it. thing is, they are my responsibility, not yours or orthodocs, or the lying doctorette. Mine. You can disagree with my conclusion and choose yours when you have kids. Just, please stop intimating that we chose our path out of ignorance or fear.

Damn

[Undertoad]

You read that into what I said more than I wrote it.

[lumberjim]

Perhaps

[Aliantha]

Vaccination issues is a hot topic here after a boy who was infectious with measles spent a day at one of our biggest theme parks during spring break.

For my part, i am sure the parents wouldn't have allowed such a thing on purpose, but there would be a high risk for lots of children too young to be immunised.

Personally, i dont see any proof against immunisation which stacks up against the possible risks of not doing it. I have made my point here before though, so no need to do it again.

[lumberjim]

I'm good.

[lumberjim]

You're ignoring the timeline. McCarthy, Wakefield, etc.... all that was going on at the time this thread was created. I've linked the page that shows info from 1998. My kids were born in 98 and 00.

Where's the proof that more children were harmed by measles mumps or rubella than were harmed by vaccines?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

Where's the proof that more children were harmed by measles mumps or rubella than were harmed by vaccines?

It was not my responsibility to obtain facts and numbers; to protect the kids. The question was whether you did. Your answer was not to convince anyone. Just to state how you reached a decision.

Medical research, confirmed by statistics, has repeatedly confirmed these diseases are far more destructive than any few adverse reactions. Every peer reviewed study that contradicted that fact was later proven bogus.

This research is repeated constantly. A vaccine in 2010 appears to be less effective than it was in the 2009 study. Same vaccine was even less effective in 2011. Why was that discovered? Because people who make decisions by doing numbers are analyzing this stuff constantly. Infant vaccines remain, by far, the best solution. That conclusion, based in numbers, has not changed.

No numbers in multiple replies confirms you made a decision without numbers. Question answered both by omission and with profanity. No numbers in multiple posts is a damning symptom. So you answered the question.

Previous vaccination scams were reported and then exposed. For example, a 1981 study in England claimed permanent brain damage in one out of every 310,000 kids. NBC aired those claims in 1982. Meanwhile, the study was exposed as false. But now many (who routinely know by ignoring numbers) automatically knew vaccines harmed kids. It was the first thing heard; so it must be true. Facts be damned.

Accusing MMR of being ineffective or dangerous has been classic junk science reasoning. No numbers makes that obvious. Same reasoning was used by a stripper named Jenny McCarthy to cause death and harm to so many kids. She also will not apologize for lying even though her only information source (Dr Wakefield) never provided honest numbers.

[lumberjim]

It's very clear to me why clod avoids this thread. You fuckers don't listen. You're more interested in telling someone they are wrong than trying to relate to them.

I said I was not going to change anyone's mind, and wouldn't try to. I also said you won't change mine. I guess you took that as a challenge.

The goddamned fact of the Motherfucking matter is that we did what we did. We did it on purpose. Giving me shit about it at this point is asinine. Persisting after being asked over and over to stop it is fucking rude. Knock it the fuck off.

I've said repeatedly that if the situation changes, I'm not opposed to vaccines. If my kids had been injured by the vaccines, I would not be able to Un vaccinate them and make them back to the way they were.

[DanaC]

This is getting way personal.

A discussion on the pros and cons of vaccinating is one thing. Challenging a dwellar to justify parental decisions from a decade ago is not right. This is not the place. We do not have that right.

Jim and Jinx made their decisions according to the information and climate of a different time.