Debate on Vaccines

[Emsyboo]

I have seen a few threads where mums have an opinion pro or con vaccine and asking for more information I would like to know your reasons for being one or the other.
My MIL is very anti vaccine and told me 4 out of 30 children die from vaccinations - I don't believe this to be true think their may be a decimal point missing although I have seen some posts from people who seem to have backed up information about vaccines.

I am pro vaccine but like to see both sides before I make a decision so if anyone has any information pro or con and more importantly has info to back up I would be really interested.

Thanks

Tabs be careful of your sources. Consider the writers qualification and motivation. Also look at the rigor with wich the research has been performed.

I am really struggling to find any scientific articles that recognise aluminium from vaccines can cause clinical signs of brain damage.
aluminium is cleared by the kidneys (quickly)
in end stage renal failure where the kidneys can not clear aluminium the
measured plasma aluminum levels are frequently elevated to approximately 400 to 1000 µg/L BEFORE there are signs of encephalitis
the levels in vaccines would not alter plasma concentration at all.

I know certain vaccines containing aluminium have been withdrawen.
Aluminium however was not the isolated causal problem
There are no vaccines currently in circulation that have any safety concern relating to aluminium

WHO agreed that aluminium in vaccines was safe
www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/aluminium/statement_112002/en/index.html

Verdier F, Burnett R, Michelet-Habchi C, Moretto P, Fievet-Groyne F, Sauzeat E. Aluminium assay and evaluation of the local reaction at several time points after intramuscular administration of aluminium containing vaccines in the Cynomolgus monkey. Vaccine; 23(11):1359-1367, 2005

I have seen some biochemical papers that describe the cellular reactions, but dont indicate the clinical picture that goes along with the cellular pathology they describe.

The current vaccines we have are considered to be safe and effective, with minimal risks as described

be careful of what you read on the web. Anyone can write anything and make it seem convincing. Be careful of the sources you trust. Always consider the writers motivations objectivity and qualifications

How many detailed studies have there been? How much research?
For how long? Aluminium has been in vaccines for decades. Does that make it safe?

Im happy to answer, but I thought you were telling me about the reading you had done?

vactruth.com/2011/05/26/aluminum-in-vaccines-where-are-the-safety-studies/ paragraph one.

Now, the WHO guidlines on safe levels of aluminium are x.
The childhood vaccine programme gives levels of aluminium far above that in the first year.

To be honest, I think my previous posts answers most of the points in that article.

The studies showing inflammatory changes are in vitro and do not show any clinical signs associated with this. It is a description of the cells not a description of the symptoms (if any) that people would display.

Safety is determined through initial drug safety tests (which all vaccines currently in practice have passed before they are licensed) and through ongoing feedback from patients and clinician's. So the length of time that aluminium has been used safely IS very relevant.

As I also said, I know vaccines containing aluminium have been withdrawn. Anthrax being the most notable, however aluminium was not the causal problem with this vaccine. It is worth acknowledging that vaccines with significant reported concerns ARE investigated and withdrawn if there is an identified real safety concern.

The current vaccines we are using have no such concern. There are no clinical case studies of children displaying signs of aluminium toxicity secondary to vaccine use.

Pims, 'All medicines carry risk'

This is a completely false information. It is not true. This is your belief because all you can see is your limited pharmaceutical approach mirroring the present system in place.

There is e.g. a cancer treatment available with no risk and no side-effectwhich is far more successful than chemotherapy and radiation. If you had had a look at my link about how pharmaceutical companies and national health institutes work rather than bringing in a sarcastic reply you would have realized.

There is no willingness at all to have a look beyond your limited understanding. So please at least stop giving wrong information and advice.

It is well known and for a long time that aluminum accumulates in the body and this accumulation is proven to be linked to a variety of problems, notably Alzheimer's. My mother is a long-retired pharmacist. She told me this when I was taking this stuff. Apparently, it has been common knowledge even at her time.

rosi7, the medicine you are talking about carries a significant risk - of death.

Are you prepared to answer my questions yet? The ones about whether you would take your children into an area with cholera relying on theri immune systems alone to protect them, and the one about whether you believe that diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses?

You did not even have a look at it seeker, but you know what it is about.
The same with colour light. You refuse to look at it. But you have the right to judge it

Have a look at it so you know what I am talking about.

I did have a look at it. And I've been shown it by other people in real life.

My questions?

but then you expect me to answer your questions?

Why not? Are they too difficult for you?

Did you really check out on colour light?

You got my answer already

It might just be one you do not like

And then checking out this cancer therapy you know that there is a therapy available with no side-effects and that Pims statement actually is wrong

"Pims, 'All medicines carry risk'

This is a completely false information. It is not true"

Im afraid it is. Everything we do carries risk. Everytime we put something in our bodies (even when we eat) we carry some risk. allergy, food poisening, choking

There are NO medications that have absolutely no risk on no side effects. If you can name me ANY, i would be happy to name the risks that they carry.
Medicine is about weighing up risk versus benefit.

There is no willingness at all to have a look beyond your limited understanding. So please at least stop giving wrong information and advice.

My information is correct, and I have backed it up with credible sources.
the only advice I have given is to make sure that you are informed with the correct information to make sure you make decisions based on accurate information on risk versus benefit.

I have been very willing to look beyond what I know, and have opening invited people to suggest areas of reading.

I prove that statements are incorrect rather than just posting a categorical 'you were wrong because I say so'

If you had had a look at my link about how pharmaceutical companies and national health institutes work rather than bringing in a sarcastic reply you would have realized.

I did look at your link, and I am not being sarcastic. I think that the World health organisation is a more credible source than You tube

Sorry Pims, this is not correct. This cancer therapy does not have side-effects like radiation and chemotherapy do.

Colour light does not have any pathological side-effects and is according to Dr. Baldwin at least as efficient as medication.

You do not need to 'weigh up risk versus benefit' using colour light. This is pure nonsense.

if you think that antineoplastin carries not risk, you are completely mistaken

To name but a few risks:
The treatment has to be administered through a hiccman or PiCC line, which caries risk of haemorrhage, infection and pneumothorax

The treatment itself has a high sodium load which can cause serious electrolyte imbalance, in extreme cases coma, cardiac arrhythmia and death.

Not to mention the usual risk of anaphylaxis. As the peptides are taken from the serum of another mammal therefor there may be unknown risks as there was with the contraction of CJD etc

I am sure this treatment has obvious benefits, however it is NOT risk free

And then what about colour light?

colour light is not a medication however any light from an LED source can cause retinal damage and potentially siezures if not used correctly.

There is risk with everything

any others you want me to look at?

Are you willing to apologise for saying I am giving incorrect information, when you are actually the one making false claims?

How do you know you use an LED source? This is not the case. Are you the expert on colour light certainly?