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

imadgeine, to answer your question about the efficieny of smallpox vaccination I found the following

www.impfkritik.de/upload/pdf/zeitdokumente/der-impfspiegel.pdf (this is a translation of a short paragraph):

Med. Rat Dr. von Kerschensteiner, Munich, had to admit in the year 1871:?Almost the whole of the population of Bavaria has been vaccinated and despite 55 years of thorough vaccination the following numbers of people became ill with smallpox:
a) Vaccinated 29,429 = 65.7 %
b) Not vaccinated (babies) 1,313 = 4.3%
The Bavarian army has been re-vaccinated since 1843. Despite of that in 1870/71 559 soldiers died of smallpox.?

On that document you will find quotes of a whole list of doctors commenting on the topic.

Catherina, the University of Bonn will be happy to know that you judge their approach as 'bottomless crap'

You are picking and choosing again. There are peer reviewed papers: there is a body of clinical evidence.

If you really want to walk your road then obviously you'll have to accept a wholesale rejection of vaccines on the grounds that they're "associated" with companies which have produced flawed and damaging products, which have lied about this, attempted to cover up their exposure, have refused to admit responsibility, have refused to offer compensation, have sought to silence dissent, have colluded with and subsidised flawed research and so on and so far and ever was and ever shall be.

So you know. It cuts both ways. If you want to walk that road.

In the case of MMR, I've probably read more pro- papers than anti. I keep looking for reassurance and I've never found it. It's depressing, and what's even more depressing is that each study is lauded as the final definitive finding that there's no problem with it. ..except, it never is.

And it is very much a matter of our belief system that draws conclusions. I remember about18 years ago when my FIL was concerned about me not vaccinating my youngest child after rather disturbing experiences with my first two children. He brought an article in Readers Digest where they reported about the very efficient use of polio vaccination in Germany. They result of the research was that the only cases of polio which were very few that had actually been found in that period of research were those cases that occured after a vaccination.

My FIL's conclusion was that this is a proof for the efficiency of vaccination. My conclusion was: Hang on - maybe vaccination is the only reason why polio is still around nowadays.

So I wonder, Catherina, if you have done your homework, what makes you believe that only the reports and findings of the pharmaceutical companies is not 'bottomless crab' and worthwhile to be looked at? And all the reports of doctors who made real experiences with real patients belong into the category of conspiracy theorists?

Rosi, the University of Bonn is not supporting the Klinghardt Therapy. Typical anti-vaccine strategy to mix their nonsense into legitimate science that does not support the nonsense.

And yes, belief system. I am glad we agree :D

Gooseberrybushes,

I actually agree with you on the pharma [hgrin] My approach is to read as much as I can, from a lot of different sources and sort out the consistent elements (and consistent means, consistent between sources and consistent with the intersubjective reality). One of my favorite resources are the documents of the EMEA licensing agency, since they have a lot of the study report.

I can assure you, I am just as offended by the "Every child by two" campaign stating "50% of children who catch measles die" (I kid you not! That was in one of their ads and my angry email contributed to that being pulled), as I am by the anti-vaccine lies that Rosi is so in love with.

Catherina, you did not answer my question

.. or did you mean that "belief system" was the answer to my question?

Catherina, the University of Bonn states on their website that 'light, its positive and healing but also damaging properties cannot be ignored by medicine particulary by dermatology any longer'. .. 'It stimulates vitamin D metabolism and the immune system, influences the nervous system as well as the hormone balance'.

So - does your belief system make you draw the conclusion that something which influences so many things in our body does not have any effect and should therefore be completely ignored like all the other 'bottomless crap' because it is not mainstream pharmaceutical approach.
Just because it does not specifically refer to Dinshah or Klinghardt it means that it has no value at all in terms of getting an understanding about the potential of colour light?

Rosi - Klinghardt is a quack, the University of Bonn does not support him. I totally agree with the University of Bonn, I have total contempt for people like Klinghardt. Does that answer your question?

Catherina, no it does not and if you read my question you will realize yourself.

Catherina, if you say Klinghardt is a quack, you have to accept that this might be an interesting viewpoint and your personal opinion but nothing more than that. It might have nothing to do with reality, and I really wonder what gives you the right to judge and discredit people all the time.

I do not know this for certain, but it does makes sense. I also did a little research of my own and it does seem the case. The reason we have 2 MMR's is just in case the 1st one doesn't take! Its a safety precaution. It is for this reason alone, that my now 13 year old has only ever had the 1st MMR jab. I am relying on the fact that the 1st MMR jab did take. Would be interested to know your thoughts.

Catherine, I also feel it is a rather interesting conclusion to call concerned doctors' comments on vaccination (which I referred to in this link www.impfkritik.de/upload/pdf/zeitdokumente/der-impfspiegel.pdf) 'anti-vaccine lies'. What almighty truth do you hold the have the right to tell that all these people do lie.

Rosi - Impfkritik sind Spinner, sorry, ist einfach so, auf dem Niveau bewege ich mich nicht.

Catherina, this is not an answer to my questions.

"the University of Bonn states on their website that 'light, its positive and healing but also damaging properties cannot be ignored by medicine particulary by dermatology any longer'."

Light has been used in mainstream medicine for a long time. UV light has been used to treat psoriasis for as long as I can remember and light is used to breakdown bilirubin in newborn jaundice, so i suspect that quote has been taken out of context.

The difference is the discrediting by association seems to work oneIway only for you.

There is the world of difference between the statement "Light has some beneficial effects on the body and the mind" and "You can heal illnesses with light."
I didn't have a question about the efficacy of smallpox vaccine. Particularly in the efficacy of the vaccine in Germany in the 1870s.
The point is , to spell it out, is that Smallpox was eradicated worldwide by vaccination. It was not only eradicated in countries where people had access to clean water, good food and antibiotics. It was eradicated in every country, even the poorest and the most desperate. Polio has nearly gone the same way. So the argument that infectious diseases have declined due to non-vaccine-related factors does not seem at all convincing.

Gooseberrybushes,

that is probably true - although I consider COI at every stage, the industry interests are clear and can be approximated, while the complete vaxaloons that Rosi links to are just completely from another planet. I cannot fathom what they want and why they want it and they can believe what they believe. I have looked into their beliefs and statements and the weird and gratuitously malicious has given me the creeps. I'd rather deal with corporate greed than with that.

Caterina - I assume you are no longer attempting to help me change my mind about you.

Imageine your arguments seem every now and then to contain some extraordinary claims.

Here's one: "Firstly the idea that improved hygiene and nutrition means that children now healthy enough to withstand infections (without need for vaccines). This is a fallacious argument."

If it were fallacious, the human race would have become extinct long before vaccines were invented or conceived, probably long before measles evolved I don't think this extraordinary claim needs any further attention - if you'll excuse the term - it's utterly ludicrous.

That malnutrition damages the immune system: true: but so do vaccines in some children. Any look at the rise in auto immune disease which has accompanied the growing vaccine schedule should give any normal person pause for thought.

"Even the best nourished can and do get ill": of course: the getting ill, the rash, the cough, the fever, they are signs that the body is fighting the infection. Being well nourished doesn't mean you won't get ill: it means you'll be able to recover with immunity.

In addition the received wisdom about small pox is that it was eradicated by vaccine. Sometimes a look at figures can challenge the received wisdom: I believe there are statistics on other threads indicating that only 10-20pc of the population was ever vaccinated (which makes sense for the age) and that outbreaks swiftly followed what vaccination campaigns were carried out.

You don't have to be interested in that but I believe there some challenges to the customary view.

GBB, I am certainly not making a concerted effort, although I would not be surprised to see you surprised at one point :o

imadgeine - it was eradicated in countries where there wasn't widespread vaccination too eg, Australia and New Zealand. Does that show you that it maybe isn't all down to vaccines? In many countries smallpox epidemics were dealt with using isolation and selective vaccination (not mass vaccination) too. In any case, Smallpox itself was changing - the variola minor strain which was not as severe as the variola major strain (

a term like "vaxaloons" doesn't make me angry, it stops me reading and staunches any interest in you

Bubbley: stats queen you are encyclopaedic on stats