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

Rosi7
Be fair, you are wrong on this one
I'm not claiming to be an expert, but an educated open minded personal clearly able to identify risk in ANY medication

Even colour light as a psychological treatment could trigger an acute psychological reaction. HUGELY unlikely but it is still a risk

We always have to weigh up the risks with the benefits

If you want to return to the question in hand, all vaccines like all medication carries risk

No I am not. As it is not a false claim. The anti-neoplastines do not have the side=effects radiation and chemotherapy has.

Colour light does not have any pathological side-effects.

But as I mentioined earlier. This does not fit into your limited pharmaceutical approach. Therefore it does not count event though it might be more useful than your approach.

Where the risks are minimal, as with ur colour therapy then it is reasonable to conclude that the benefits are worth the risk

This is the case for the consideration for vaccination for otherwise health individuals

There is no risk in colour therpay.Why do you say they are minimal?

Rosi
The treatment still has a risk of side effects as I demonstrated. That is fact!
Just because they are not the same risks as chemo does not make them any less real.
The risks are real, you can't ignore them because the are different from those of chemo/radiation

And why are you confusing risk and side-effects all the time?

Rosi, PLEASE read the lists of risks I gave for both ur suggestions
They are real

You will never escape the risk of death. But you can escape the risk of side-effects.

I'm not confused with side effects and risk

If you agree that treatment has potential side effects, then you are agreeing that the treatment carries risk of symptoms or problem developing that would not have been there WITHOUT the administration of the treatment

Rosi you told me that I was wrong to say that ALL medications carry risk

Now you have just agreed with me!

All medications carry risks

Rubella is extremely mild in babies and children, to the extent that it is often asymptomatic. Many people are surprised to find that they are immune, having no recollection of ever had it. Your scaremongering would be better aimed towards, say, chicken pox and nobody calls the vast majority of parents who don't vaccinate their children again chicken pox "irresponsible" and "selfish". I wonder why?

The only people who need worry about rubella are non-immune pregnant women. Even if we are assuming that they are not responsible enough to be in charge of their immunity status, it should be easy enough to check for this immunity when pregnancy is confirmed. (This is the norm in France, by the way. All pregnant women are tested for rubella immunity in the first weeks of pregnancy)

In any case, it is not reasonable to expect the entire population of the world's baby girls and boys to be vaccinated against a very mild childhood disease to protect the fetuses of a few non-immune pregnant women they might never even come into contact with. This effort would be much more productive if teenage girls were tested and vaccinated at that point if necessary, for example.

And the cancer treatment you mentioned has risks
Complications of line insertion, infection, pneumothorax, bleeding
Electrolyte disturbance that can lead to coma, heart problems and dealt
Allergy
Anaphylaxis
Unknown risks, as with CJD

CA, i have addressed the risk of rubella to children in a previous post

Did you read it?

But there is a confusion. You do confuse effects with side-effects. You cannot use the same term for different things. Why should I use antibiotics with negative side-effects if I could use the frequency of the green colour instead which might have an effect, but not a negative side-effect.

Rosi, because you make a decision using risk benefit in each case

ALL medications carry risk

The other risk with light therapy is that it might not work

Example: you are in intensive care and have a severe infection that is life threatening.
The bacteria causing the infection has Been isolated and an appropriate antibiotic has been selected.

You could accept this treatment and accept the risks associated with it

Or you could take the light therapy with lower risk of side effects but greater risk of death from a life threatening infection

Medical decisions are about weighing up the benefit versus the risk and ALL medications carry risk however small.

Vaccinations to otherwise healthy patients have minimal risks and well documented proven benefits

Rosi,
Can you just clarify. You claimed I was making incorrect claims by saying that all medication carries risk

Rosi
I think I deserve an apology from you. My statements are true and genuine

You were wrong I'm afraid, it happens

You will not be able to escape the risk of death in this world. That seems to be too obvious to everyone.

How can you judge though, that with colour light therapy there is a 'lower risk of side effects but greater risk of death from a life threatening infection'.

It is your assumption that it must be less efficient than antibiotics. This is not knowledge but a statement based on the belief that pharmaceuticals are more efficient. You are making that statement without true knowledge.

Rosi, if you have a randomised controlled trial to show that colour therapy at treating severe sepsis, I'd be happy to read it
If you want any papers that show a significant improvement on mortality from antimocrobial administration, I have over 100

Now you are admitting that there is always risk, I really would like an apology

*to show that colour therapy is as efficient if not better at treating severe sepsis than anti microbial therapy

Have you read the surviving sepsis guidelines? The rivers study etc

Trust me, I know this ground. I might not know about colour therapy but I know ALL tested treatments for septic shock and their efficacies. Do you?? Are are you making assumptions without ALL the knowledge

And could I suggest that if you want to debate the efficacies and risks of antimicrobials and cancer treatments that you start another thread. This is a debate on VACCINES

And I really would accept an apology for being called a liar when u have now agreed that I was simply stating the obvious

ALL medications carry risk. The decision to administer is based on an analysis of risk vs benefit

Yes, you know this ground. Pims, but you do not know the other ground.
If you do not believe what Dr. Baldwin said, it is up to you to prove she is wrong and investigate yourself.

Sorry where have I suggested they are wrong?

I am not debating the efficacy of her cancer treatment, I am confirming that as a medication it carries risk

Please stop jumping to conclusions

And if you know this ground perhaps you could tell me the improvement in mortality associated with administration of antibiotic therapy in septic shock (with mean range and confidence interval)

Then compare with light therapy

You have me interested.
I'd like to see the reference too if it's not too much trouble