This is irritating...

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2007
This is irritating...
46
Fri, 01-23-2009 - 1:39am

I was flipping through one of the random free parenting type magazines that I have gotten in the mail in the last year and a half. (I'm sure from all those free diaper and formula forms I filled out back when dd was born) The one I was looking at was "Parents". I usually don't like it very much as most of the items they recommend are pretty pricey and their views on hot topics are usually very far from my own. This particular issue had a bunch of stuff about vaccines. I've seen these things before and been put off by how pro sided they are. I looked at their website and am just so effin peeved right now.

Here's one article:
http://www.parents.com/baby/health/autism/health-update-more-proof-that-vaccines-dont-cause-autism/

Here's a nice little nugget from that one:
<"But if you choose not to vaccinate your child, you are increasing his risk of contracting serious diseases that can lead to complications, hospitalization, and even death," says Dr. Fombonne. For example, after the MMR vaccine was first linked to autism in England, many parents stopped vaccinating their children -- and several children died during a measles outbreak in Ireland soon afterward.

For all the major childhood vaccinations (hepatitis B, rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, pneumococcal, polio, flu, MMR, chickenpox, hepatitis A, meningococcal), most experts agree that the many, many benefits from getting vaccinated far outweigh any possible side effects or risks.>

Here's another:
http://www.parents.com/baby/health/vaccinations/hows-and-whys-of-baby-vaccines/?page=1

Loved this (in regards to an alternate schedule):
"Sounds good in theory. But it's actually playing Russian roulette with your baby's health. "When you delay vaccines, you increase the period of time during which children are susceptible to diseases vaccines can prevent," Dr. Offit says. "Certain diseases -- like Hib, pneumococcus, and pertussis -- rear their head in the first year of life, so you need to immunize infants as quickly as possible."

Talk about scare tactics:
"Is it ever preferable for my child to get the natural disease?

No. The diseases we vaccinate children against can have serious consequences. Many parents today have had chickenpox. They recovered uneventfully, perhaps sustaining just a few scars from the pox.

But some children don't pull through quite so easily. In some cases, chickenpox can make children susceptible to infection and cause pneumonia. "

I also love that it talks about being careful when reading scary stuff about vaccines on the internet and tells it's readers to only believe the cdc or aap. Then it goes on to use more scare tactics pushing the vaccines.

I'm just peeved that this info can be in such a wide spread publication and be so one sided.

Photobucket Thanks to Andie for my siggy!



Photobucket

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-02-2009
Tue, 02-03-2009 - 5:42pm
Interesting! A lot of parallels with New Jersey, in the U.S., which has a high rate of autism and mucho industrial waste.
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009
Thu, 02-05-2009 - 2:13pm

It's a scare tactic because they don't show both sides.


In my opinion, they don't need to show the other side because the other side has not yet been proven. Vaccines HAVE been proven to be effective. Vaccines have not shown to definetly cause ANYTHING. There are thoughts of connections to this and that but NONE of it has been proven.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-02-2009
Thu, 02-05-2009 - 3:44pm

Well, that is a logical approach. Vaccines haven't actually been proven safe. They haven't been proven safe in the combinations as currently given in the U.S.

But it is up to the parents to prove that vaccines aren't safe. Against the government and the drug companies, who have a major conflict of interest in convincing people not to question vaccines. It is a sort of triple conflict: egg on their faces if they turn out to be wrong; legal liability on a huge scale if they turn out to be wrong; loss of billions of dollars (for Pharma) on new vaccines like Prevnar and Gardasil if they turn out to be wrong.

As to effective, did you miss the large mumps outbreak in the U.S. a couple of years ago. The majority of the mumps patients were college students who had received two doses of mumps vaccine.

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009
Fri, 02-06-2009 - 5:27pm

Well, that is a logical approach. Vaccines haven't actually been proven safe. They haven't been proven safe in the combinations as currently given in the U.S.


They have not been proven to be UNsafe either, so what is your point?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-02-2009
Fri, 02-06-2009 - 9:12pm

Well, before a medical product is injected into millions of babies...it ought to be demonstrated to be safe. In the combinations in which it will be used. At the ages it will be given. Including long term effects.

Vaccines are not emergency medicine.

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sat, 02-07-2009 - 2:12am

"They have not been proven to be UNsafe either, so what is your point?"

You've never read a vaccine's package-insert have you?

http://vaers.hhs.gov/pdf/PackageInserts.pdf

Pages