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

Oh, and the number needed to treat would be HUGELY useful too, thanks in advance

All medications carry risk -

This is not true. Colour light therapy does not carry risk. Life carries the risk of death.

Why do you not use the term risk through negative side-effects in order not to confuse things anymore.

Pims, I can give you the book you can read: "let there be light" from Darius Dinshah. If you want to go beyond that you have to investigate yourself in the English speaking world.

Oh, and the number needed to treat would be HUGELY useful too,

What do you mean by that?

'If you do not believe what Dr. Baldwin said, it is up to you to prove she is wrong and investigate yourself.'

Unfortunately, that is not how medical treatment works as the thalidomide tragedy confirmed.
Physicians must prove safety and efficacy first before treatment can be used on the public, rather that the public proving harm after the treatment has been made avaliable.

"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 was actually right, this risks/side effects associated with that treatment are as follows
ations of line insertion, infection, pneumothorax, bleeding
Electrolyte disturbance that can lead to coma, heart problems and dealt
Allergy
Anaphylaxis
Unknown risks, as with CJD

I though you want to find out ? But this seems not to be the case then.

I thought I mean

Before you accuse me of not knowing what Im talking about, or suggesting that I prove some doctor Ive never even heard of wrong.
MAybe you could share your knowledge and prove why you are right.
I can given all the information to support that antibiotics improve mortaltity in septic shock

If you can discuss the efficacy of light therapy versus antimicrobial therapy in septic shock (as you claim you can). you need to explain the number needed and mortality improvement associated with administration of antibiotic therapy/light therapy in septic shock (with mean range and confidence interval)

"I though you want to find out ? But this seems not to be the case then."

I am always interested in any new treatments of sepsis and septic shock even complementary ones. I really do make an effort to keep up to date and open minded with this.
How can I find out about what you are talking about when you can give me NO credible scientific links?

For the cancer treatment this might be true, I agree. So in that case I apologize.

I really appreciate your apology.

I have looked up what I can on colour therapy and Darius Dinshah and his father
In April of 1920, Dinshah introduced his system of healing with colored lights to the world in New York City. (He had taken up permanent residence in the United States in 1911.) He named his development Spectro-Chrome. In the next four years Dinshah trained over 800 professionals and lay persons. He also designed and sold color projectors and accessories.
There were a number of published case studies between 1920 and 1940, however
In 1947, Dinshah was tried in court for ?mislabeling? his product. Dinshah was found guilty and was forced to surrender all of the books, magazine articles and papers he had written on Spectro-Chrome

All of the physicians who used his treatments and all of the clinical case studies published used light IN CONJUNCTION with standard medical treatment.

Any of the websites I have found offering it says that it should not be considered INSTEAD of conventional medicine, but as an adjunct to it

I have been following this thread from the start with much interest.

Before it reaches 1000 posts, can I just stand up and give you all a round of applause for sheer stamina

As you were.

Pims, you seem happy to accept that vaccines are not 100% safe and that some children will be damaged by them and that some 'at risk' children should not have them. Would you like to define what an 'at risk' child is? How do you know whether a child will or will not react badly to a vaccine? Some MNers who have posted about not vaxing their children are getting sympathy and understanding because it would be too much of a risk for them. It's tragic that the only reason they found out that they were at risk was because they (or their older siblings) were vaccine damaged. How can you reassure people that vaccines are safe and that they should have their children vaccinated when you have absolutely no idea of how they are going to react?

Sure that's what happened to him. What did you expect that happens to somebody challenging the existing system.

I could quote Shopenhauer again.

It is up to you if you want to use that information as something that stops you from digging deeper into the field.

But if you really want to know, you have to go beyond that threshold. Read the book and listen to the other side as well. The court case is mentioned in the book as well.

BM this is a list of the contraindications to the MMR vaccine. hope that helps
Hypersensitivity to measles, mumps, rubella, and/or varicella vaccines, or any component of the formulation;
individuals with blood dyscrasias, leukemia, lymphomas, or other malignant neoplasms affecting the bone marrow or lymphatic systems;
those receiving immunosuppressive therapy (including high-dose systemic corticosteroids);
primary and acquired immunodeficiency states (including HIV; cellular immune deficiencies;
hypogammaglobulinemic and dysgammaglobulinemic states);
family history of congenital or hereditary immunodeficiency (until immune competence in the vaccine recipient is demonstrated);
active untreated tuberculosis; current febrile illness with fever >38.5°C (>101.3°F); pregnancy

BM, I would advise all parents to discuss any concerns with the child paediatrician or GP who will have access on the most up to date on the contraindications for each individual vaccine

rosi
I didnt 'expect' anything. I was quite shocked by that to be honest.

The efficacy of the treatment as documented in the clinical cases between 1920 and 1940 describe it as an adjunct to conventional treatment. I really don't have an issue with that and have ordered your book :)

lukewarmama

Thanks, I have to say Im exhausted!!

Pims - the point is, many children don't have any of those things and yet are still damaged by vaccines. In any case, how many doctors discuss those risks with their patients or question them on their family history prior to vaccinating them? (or question their parents obviously, in the case of babies/children)

BM, I'm not sure what children you are referring too.
Do you have a reference that isn't wakefeild?

And I can't really comment on the vaccination practices of individuals.
I can comment on what the standard for practice is

I'm not talking about autism so Wakefield isn't relevant. I'm talking about other vaccine damaged children. Some mums of vaccine damaged children have posted on this thread and iirc they had absolutely no reason to suspect their child would react to a vaccine until they did.

Do you know any doctors who take a detailed patient history prior to administering a vaccine?

Bm
Mine do. And ensure the patients have NO contraindications. This is the standard for practice.
I'm sorry I can't answer the question re cause or predictability of vaccine damage if u can't give me specific clinical case studies

Woohoo 1000 posts