Food for thought

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2007
Food for thought
9
Wed, 02-03-2010 - 8:35am

I lurk here since i rarely have time to follow up. But i thought some of you who say you'd like your kids to get diseases "naturally" should see this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/health/03polio.html?hpw

Miss Maggie's Mommie


Lilypie 1st Birthday Ticker


Photobucket


Daisypath Next Aniversary PicDaisypath Next Aniversary Ticker
Lilypie Second Birthday tickers
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
In reply to: mrsruvi
Wed, 02-03-2010 - 10:47am
I'm sorry, I read the article, and I'm assuming you had a point when you posted it, but I'm failing to find it. ??

Rands


Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
In reply to: mrsruvi
Wed, 02-03-2010 - 10:51am

I have a lot of problems with this article, but then I have problems with almost everything the NYT publishes so I'm not surprised.

<<>>

And many adventitious agents were delivered to those millions of people, causing insurmountable suffering. As I understand it, polio surveillance data is pretty hard to come by these days. And lest we forget, the diagnostic changes in this disease (just like the broadening of ASD) changed disease incidence with the stroke of a pen.

<<>>

It is profoundly hypocritical to suggest that a disease can wreak havoc on the body several years later and deny the possibility of vaccine-induced injury doing the same. Somehow any complication suffered from disease must be broadcast ad nauseum as a means to justify vaccination, while any complication from a vaccine is simply denied and labeled coincidence. Alas, correlation and causation confusion only applies to vaccines. Not.

This disease is commonly used as a defining example of vaccination success, and there is more obfuscation surrounding the data than any other disease, save for smallpox.

Nice to see you back.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2005
In reply to: mrsruvi
Wed, 02-03-2010 - 11:28am

Seems like the point is a reminder of how nasty the vaccine-preventable diseases can be, and that lucking out with a mild wild-caught case doesn't mean the "natural" disease can't bite you later.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc248/gwennyc/b6yfcl.png<A href="http://s218.photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
In reply to: mrsruvi
Wed, 02-03-2010 - 11:50am

I really don't think that anyone has denied that there are some diseases which

Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-10-2004
In reply to: mrsruvi
Wed, 02-03-2010 - 3:12pm

I had measles, both kinds, chicken pox, and recently I found out that I had whopping cough twice as a child. My parents did as well. No nastiness involved. Well nothing even remotely life threatening nasty at least. Being sick wasn't exactly a barrel of fun but it never is, with any illness.

My dad was a child pre polio vaccine (he was an adult in WWII) and did not get vaccinated for it or contract it. My mother was forced to have a small pox vaccine three times because it wouldn't take, something about no bubble or blister forming to prove it had taken effect? My grandmother did have TB, as a teen, and that was hard on her as she had to go to a sanitarium for about 6 months to recover but she has had no life long effects. My grandparents, parents, aunt and uncles almost all had measles, chicken pox, mumps and a host of other childhood illness. It was considered normal, welcomed and expected. None of them have ever been able to tell me about anybody in the family or anyone they knew that had complications or death from these diseases. I'm sure it happened to some children but as the exception not the rule.

I'm not trying to say that disease doesn't come with risks, because of course it does, even ones that have no vaccine like the common cold or strep throat. They also come with benefits though like a natural immunity in many cases. My own children have had measles, chicken pox and whopping cough as well as several rounds of flu. None of them have ever had any complications involved so far. However my oldest who is almost completely vaccinated has suffered life long complication from vaccines. They are not life threatening but they are life long complications some more complicated than others. I prefer the illness over the vaccine. I am very well informed of the pros and cons of both vaccines and natural illness.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2007
In reply to: mrsruvi
Wed, 02-03-2010 - 4:01pm
I think that it is ridiculous that some of you take these diseases so lightly. I would like to see what would happen if you took that argument to a parent who had lost a child to a complication from chicken pox or whooping cough.
What would you say? Oh, well, I had it and it wasn't that bad - sucks to be you! And cheerfully move on??
Just because it didn't kill you or your children doesn't mean that it is not dangerous.
Photobucket
PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket
Photobucket


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
In reply to: mrsruvi
Wed, 02-03-2010 - 4:39pm

Do you honestly believe that people would behave like that? By and large, people are very compassionate when others suffer from unspeakable tragedy. Not to mention it's an enormous strawman.

My source of contention is that the people that suffer from disease are portrayed as more important than those THAT ACTUALLY VACCINATED and either suffer life-long results or HAVE ALSO DIED.

What I hear is a little bit opposite from your post actually... it usually goes something like: sorry your kid died, BUT mine took vaccines just fine. Or, sorry your kid has autism BUT, science has spoken and there is no credible evidence that there is a causal relationship. Or, and this one's my favorite: just because it happened after the vaccine was given doesn't mean the vaccine caused it. This attitude is definitely a two-way street. We could surely reciprocate that point of view and it goes like this: just because a person has complications from disease - doesn't mean the disease caused it. Co-morbidities, antipyretics, steriods, antibiotics... the list is quite endless. It's certainly easier to blame the nearest pathogen and ignore the fact that it became opportunistic in *that person* for a reason.

I realize that saying, "Little Johnny down the street died of chicken pox!" Is a lot more frightening than saying, "Little Johnny's underlying immune system disorder prevented him from mounting a proper response to the challenge and we suppressed what little response he did have with antipyretics."


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2007
In reply to: mrsruvi
Wed, 02-03-2010 - 5:59pm

sorry your kid died, BUT mine took vaccines just fine. Or, sorry your kid has autism BUT, science has spoken and there is no credible evidence that there is a causal relationship. Or, and this one's my favorite: just because it happened after the vaccine was given doesn't mean the vaccine caused it.

My answers to those would be, yes my child took the vaccines just fine, but I was aware when I gave them to him that there could be adverse reactions. Vaccines are not for every child, which the CDC clearly states and informs parents about.
And, I'm sorry your child has autism, but I'd rather my child have autism than die from a preventable disease
and, just because it happened after the vaccine was given doesn't mean the vaccine caused it is TRUE
That's like saying that if my kid gets a cold, everything after was caused by that cold. It's ridiculous to blame everything that happens after vaccination on the vaccination. It makes no sense.

And yes, I would (and have) said to parents of children with autism - that I am truly sorry that their child has autism, but no credible research has proven a link.
I don't have a child with autism (despite the fact that he is fully vaccinated), but I have lost a child. Trust me, I'll take autism any day.

Photobucket
PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket
Photobucket


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
In reply to: mrsruvi
Wed, 02-03-2010 - 7:12pm

<<>>

This apparently happens with infectious disease a lot. A challenge to the immune system is a challenge to the immune system. In order for vaccines to work (and some of them clearly do) they must elicit a response.

Some people are perfectly content to classify certain inflammatory responses (any disease causing agent, not just those for which vaccines are available) dangerous to the person... (a very narcissistic blogger did just that with SIRS: systemic inflammatory response syndrome) whereby the body's response actually endangers the host. Somehow the thought of vaccine induced inflammation, on a perhaps more attenuated, chronic, level resulting in other kinds of performance deficiency (molecular mimicry, auto-immune disease, allergies, diabetes) is some kind of stretch of the imagination. It is a 100% selective application of physiology / biology and by definition... classic denial.

No credible evidence exists linking autism to vaccines, I agree. But that which purports to exonerate a little bit of thimerosal versus a lot of thimerosal... or MMR studies that don't actually look at kids that regress don't do anything either. I cannot believe that anyone honestly looks at the complement of data that is available and says "Science has spoken". If it has, it's not speaking very well. If you don't look, you won't find.

<<>>

And when someone gets chicken pox and the person caring for them foolishly administers an antipyretic to bring down their fever and they begin to develop severe complications and secondary infections, it's not the pox causing the complication.

And yet the burden of proof to be met in order to be compensated for vaccine injury is considerably less than what any scientist will tell you meets the standard of being evidence-based. We require no such proof when there is a pathogen or disease causing agent for which a vaccine is universally recommended. It's like saying that parents that refused measles vaccines for their kids, who later got measles and died was a result of not being vaccinated.... however, when you look a little deeper, you find that they didn't seek treatment, but instead treated them solely with holy water. Being vaccinated does not ensure you can resist disease in the first place (to say so would be to ignore the numerous vaccine failures that history has shown us). If anyone is able to produce a credible study that proves that being vaccinated is the same as resisting disease, I'm very happy to eat crow.

Don't bother looking. They do not exist, because serological immunity does not equal disease resistance, otherwise people that have been vaccinated would not also be able to contract and spread disease... and they do.

<<>>

I am sure that kind of pain is indescribable and I cannot begin to try. The loss of a child is extremely tragic in any circumstance. I am very sorry for your loss Meredith.