HPV - Cervical CancerFollow

My point was why should there have to be particular outs? The choice should be there to begin with.

Assuming the vaccine for polio had much to do with its eradication. An Australian study (linked here on an admittedly biased site shows that most of these diseases were well on their way out before the vaccines came into common use, mostly due to public health improvements.

All I'm saying is, it's a VERY complex question, and I'm not willing to put my kids in harm's way based on the say-so of sources which may very well be suspect.

Are there certain diseases which are deadly enough that I might not choose to court the risk of them? Yeah, there are. However, measles (which only poses a small danger to pregnant women, and almost no danger to children) and chicken pox are not among them, nor is mumps (which only poses a small danger of sterility to a low percentage of males who contract it) or Hep B or rubella (which only a danger to women in the first trimester of pregnancy) or several other diseases that aren't actually all that dangerous, but for which we have mandatory vaccines nonetheless.

In the case where the disease is NOT in fact life-threatening, or doesn't even a danger of disability, and where it might actually be MORE harmful if contracted as an adult after the immunity from the vaccine wears off, what is the benefit of subjecting a developing child to a vaccine that may very well cause life-long disabilities? I'd rather take the time off work to nurse my child through his non-life-threatening illness than see him disabled by a vaccine that ends up being more harmful than the disease itself.

I think I am failing to communicate effecitvely with you Ambrya, or vice a versa.



If one fails to actually prove that their is a link between autism/vaccines, it doesnt matter how many studies come out that you feel 'don't conclusively disprove it', because it has never been proved in the first place.

Appeal to Ignorance. Read up.

Their has been no credible peer reviewed publications that manages to link vaccinations to autism. There have however been a number of published papers in scientific journals showing that vaccinations have not been shown to increase autism in a population. Your only retort to these studies is not on the actual science but to attack the credibility of the person presenting the science (ad hominem). So not only do you lack the science to back up your claims, you lack a valid scientific argument against the persons position and have to resort to attacks on character.

Not only that but you then resort to:



Which is basically an argument (I forget the specific name for it) along the lines of: IF A causes B and B causes C then A must therefore cause C. Which yet again is another glaring logical fallacy.

I don't care what you are arguing, if the core components that your argument rely upon are based of **** poor rhetoric and logical fallacies, then the argument itself is flawed.



Edited, Feb 8th 2007 10:17pm by bodhisattva

That article is wrong. All the vaccines which have traditionally contained thimerosal are still on the market, there are just ALTERNATIVE non-mercury containing versions (which often you need to request and/or have your pediatrician special-order) of each of them available, if you're educated enough to jump through the hoops to get them.

But that doesn't address the host of problems not related to mercury, like the fact that many vaccines are grown on cultures of monkey tissue and chick embryo that can cause serious allergic reactions, or the fact that bombarding an immature immune system with multiple antigens all at once can lead to auto-immune and developmental disorders.

Not vaccinating them against diseases which aren't actually harmful in the first place isn't putting them in harms way. Giving potentially dangerous vaccines against diseases which aren't actually harmful in the first place IS.

Girl cooties.

Luckily, the vaccine ("Line, line, dot, dot.. now you got your cooties shot!") has a rather low rate of harmful side effects. Mostly caused by untrimmed fingernails.

False dilemma. Not only that but one of your dilemmas is based off a point you can't even prove, but once again rely on appeal to ignorance to prove.

I haven't drawn any conclusions here, and I'm not making any claims, other than that the issue needs further inquiry, because the assumption that A is automatically a good thing despite the risks cannot be supported.

This is patently false.

I hope you don't use this level of reasoning to decide other issues involving your children. I'd hate to see them eaten by bears because it was unclear if the bars at the zoo actually did anything.

Chicken pox to start with. Sure, it may be a pain in the *** to take care of a kid through it, but it's benign to the kid. It is not, however, benign to adults, and if the kid gets vaccinated in kindergarten and the immunity wears off when he's in college (because at this time boosters for the varicella vaccine are not suggested) so he gets it as an adult, then by vaccinating him, I've actually done him more harm than good.

HepB is another one. Since I sincerely doubt my newborn infant is going to be using IV drugs, engaging in risky sex, or working as a healthcare worker, and since I KNOW he's not being born to a HepB positive mother, he's in no danger from HepB, so why vaccinate him in his first days of life against it?

Measles. Extremely low chance of death, and much higher chance of harm when contracted as an adult. Vaccine is known to wear off, pushing the at risk group into the age bracket of people most likely to suffer harm from it, while doing little to benefit the age group to whom it is most benign.

Mumps. In extremely rare cases, males who get it may end up sterile, but chances of death are almost non-existant.

Rubella. Benign in children, may cause birth defects in first-trimester pregnant women. So why vaccinate the kids?

The list goes on, but there are plenty of diseases against which we routinely vaccinate that don't actually pose a risk, and for which the chances of suffering harm from the vaccine are greater than those of suffering harm from the disease itself.

Yeah. From the Chicago bayou.

The obvious reason to vaccinate children is because we tend to herd them into small rooms for seven hours a day. Many (state-mandated) vaccinations aren't so much for the health of the individual child but also for the overall welfare of the population and eliminating childhood transmission means fewer vectors overall.

That said, my sister had a severe case of chicken pox as a youth. Inside her mouth, eyelids, nose and ears, etc. She was lucky to escape without lasting complications (eye lesions or ear canal scarring) but saying that's "benign" in children is just stupid. I'm not about to go researching every other disease but I have to question your credibility in the "What diseases are harmless" arena.

Edited, Feb 8th 2007 3:16pm by Jophiel

And how many of those deaths are in adults, who aren't necessarily protected by the vaccine because it is as yet unknown whether or not it confers lifelong immunity?

Again, part of the concern here is that vaccines are pushing some diseases into age groups where they do more harm than they do in children.



And again, how many of those are adults who didn't get it as a kid because they got the vaccine instead, but it wore off and they weren't told they needed a booster?



And what does injecting your child with known toxic substances border on...?

And what does injecting your child with known toxic substances border on/

When the 'toxicity' is identical to feeding them fish sticks? It borders on being a responsible parent.