Myths as they relate to not vaccinating

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2008
Myths as they relate to not vaccinating
117
Sun, 12-14-2008 - 6:45pm

Here are a list of myths that people use to not vaccinate and basically why the rationale does not work:


1. Autism is caused by vaccinations


Truth: So far, 10 studies involving thousands of children have yet to find any connection between the MMr vaccination and autism. The original paper suggesting a connection between the two was formally retracted by 10 0f 13 authors in 2004


*The type of mercury in thermisol does not accumulate in the body. So how can it be harmful?


* Autism rates have continued to rise even after the drug companies phased out thermisol in 2001.


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sat, 01-10-2009 - 12:19pm

Just like the MMR doesn't always work - Rubella doesn't ALWAYS come with a rash. Most likely, its the vaccinated who won't/don't present ALL the symptoms of a sickness. That is why it is mostly the VACCINATED who spread the diseases! And I bet you think anyone who's not had rubella will come down with it if exposed....that's not true either. Think outside the box, read outside of your textbooks and you can learn the facts. Textbooks only teach you how to spread the scare tactics! That is not a personal attack, please don't take it as such. :)

Your point is something you dreamed up. There is absolutely NO proof that vaccines have caused any disease to be eradicated. And don't even pretend that smallpox is eradicated unless you intend to prove that the vaccine was ever effective in the first place. There are more studies showing that it was not then there are studies showing that the vaccine actually worked 100% of the time.

Improved living conditions make the spread of disease less likely but I do realize that they don't teach you about that in med school. ;)

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2007
Sat, 01-10-2009 - 2:27pm
girls
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Sat, 01-10-2009 - 11:06pm

Even with the smileys and trying to imagine your tone as anything other than condescending .. I find your tone condescending. I have a better understanding of illness / biology / immunity than I think you realize -- I am well aware that not everyone who is exposed to a disease becomes symptomatic. If I believed that I would never be able to go to work because I would be sick for my entire life. I do read outside of textbooks (actually, most of my textbooks have not even had the cover cracked on them because I prefer published / peer review research, when available) .. before going into nursing I spent 2 years in a biomedical lab doing research -- very little of that work is with textbooks. ;)

There is quite a bit of compelling evidence that vaccines have, at the very least, played an active role in the eradication / reduction of disease spread. I'd like to see your proof otherwise. I'm not sure why so many scientists around the world would waste their time creating vaccines if they didn't work? -- Also I'd like to see your sources related to smallpox not having been eradicated .. since the World Health Organization has led most of the globe to believe it was eradicated in 1977 .. I'm sure they would like to know if there are still active cases.

<> .. I don't even know what this sentence means -- but no immunologist would argue that a vaccine is effective 100% of the time .. so I'm not sure what your point is, anyway.



Photobucket





Photobucket




Photobucket











Lilypie Expecting a baby Ticker


Photobucket






Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-10-2004
Tue, 01-13-2009 - 1:34pm

"Only 20% of women contract rubella in this country because there have been such aggressive measures to vaccinate the population"


20% of the women in this country do not contract rubella! Roughly 20% are not immune to it, that doesn't = contracting it. I actually question the only 20% because I haven't found how they arrived at that and keep track of it. Very few adults have thier titers drawn to check for continued immunity. It's not even done across the board in pregnancy and I don't think those results are required reporting or even reportable to anywhere. So in my mind it may be a lot more, but for this debate I'll let it stand at that based on the number of women innoculated as children in the US.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Tue, 01-13-2009 - 7:11pm

I'm glad you corrected your thinking but here is what you said:

"Only 20% of women contract rubella in this country because there have been such aggressive measures to vaccinate the population."

I hope that explains my reply.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2007
Tue, 01-13-2009 - 8:03pm
LOL. Im sorry but i still didn't state that
girls
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Tue, 01-13-2009 - 8:19pm

I am condescending at times - but not usually to people like you. Sorry. I had just watched the "Contamination" show (ABC's Private Practice)and I was agitated at the medical community. Agitated more than usual, I should say. I come here to learn that 20% of all women die from rubella (joking)...

I've been around lurking and or posting for years. I know you have a medical background.

"There is quite a bit of compelling evidence that vaccines have, at the very least, played an active role in the eradication / reduction of disease spread."

I realize that. I give more credit to the environment (improvements in the spread of disease) than I do vaccines. The medical community tends to offer more credit to the vaccines themselves and most often they won't/don't even mention environmental changes, nor do they mention/consider the improvements in medical practices (antibiotics).

That show left half of America (the dumbed down half) believing that the measles will kill all children. That is what the medical community does. They incite fear.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Tue, 01-13-2009 - 9:35pm
Oh okay...got it!
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Thu, 01-15-2009 - 2:03pm

I received this today, I thought you (and everyone) would enjoy reading it...

http://www.visainfo.org.au/pages/04_Vaccines_and_Disease/Peter%20Baratosy/Baratosy_Smallpox.pdf

Small Pox Vaccination
Dr Peter Baratosy MB BS PhD

There has been a lot of hype in the media lately about Smallpox vaccination
and as usual, most of this is myth and/or dis-information. It is
timely that we explore the topic more closely.

Smallpox vaccination has a long history and it is interesting to point
out that the in-effectiveness of this procedure had been known for a
long time.

One good message that is being emphasised in the news bulletins is
that smallpox vaccination is dangerous. People do die from the vaccine.
The figures quoted are possibly on the conservative side but that
is probably a political ploy.

Most people think that smallpox vaccination started with Edward Jenner
in 1796. Not so! Smallpox was recognised in approximately the 6th
century but did not come to England till the 13th century. It is postulated
that it was brought there by the returning Crusaders. The disease
was quite prevalent and there was no treatment. It was well known that
the same disease did not occur twice in the same person, though note
well, this only occurs in people with the full-blown disease. This does
not occur with artificial infection. That is the catch. To get full immunity,
you have to catch and overcome the full blown infection. Having
a mild, modified infection does not give full, permanant immunity.

There was the thought among people that smallpox was one of those inevitable
things (like death and taxes) so, to get it over and done
with, some people deliberately inoculated themselves and their children
directly from infected people. This was done so that the time could
be chosen, when they were at their best health to get the disease and
hopefully to survive. This is in line with the ideas of Paracelsus,
the so-called medical genius of the middle ages, who taught isopathy,
which is the cure of disease by the use of the products of those diseases
(pus or exudate). The historian Le Duc describes similar methods
in Constantinople in 1672. The method that he described consisted of
cutting a cross into the flesh and then applying smallpox exudate to the
cut.

Many regions practised similar methods of inoculation--it is no wonder
that the incidence of smallpox was high. In 1721 Lady Mary Wortley
Montague, the wife of the English ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, was
in Constantinople and there she saw the Turks inoculating each other.
Again the idea behind this was that if you get the disease in a mild,
less debilitating form, you would not get it again.

There is no explanation of how you could get a mild case by inoculating.
You could dilute the exudate, or get exudate from a mild case, but
either way you could not guarantee that a mild case would be produced;
severe cases could still be produced in the recipients despite the fact
that the donor had an apparently mild case. None the less, Lady Mary introduced
the idea to England. Her motives were honourable: she wanted to
reduce the level of smallpox in England. However, instead of improving
the situation, it became worse; smallpox spread to places where it had
not been seen previously.

In 1753 the College of Physicians found that there was much apprehension
about direct inoculation and issued a pronouncement that these
people were ignorant-- that inoculation is “highly salutary to the human
race.” By 1796 they, too, began to realise that it was not at all
“salutary to the human race” and the opposition to it was well-founded.
At this stage Edward Jenner came on the scene.

How the actual idea came to him is not known for sure; I have come
across two different versions. One reference says that one of his patients,
a dairy-maid, on being diagnosed as having smallpox said to Jenner
that she could not possibly have smallpox (Variola major) because
she had had cowpox (Variola vaccinae). Another reference says that he
got the idea from a farmer by the name of Benjamin Jesty. There was an
old wives tale which claimed that if you caught cowpox then you could
not catch smallpox. However, Jenner himself saw that this was just not
true, that is, people who had caught cowpox still could get smallpox.

One important factor that has been observed is that the lifestyle of
country people was relatively healthier than that of city dwellers.
Country people had less smallpox not because they caught cowpox, but because
they lived in healthier circumstances than city people, who were
crammed into unhealthy urban situations with overcrowding, poor food,
contaminated water and open cess-pools.

Jenner used this old wives tale to achieve two things. Firstly, by using
cowpox he could get away from the objections to direct inoculation.
Secondly, there was a financial factor.

Jenner initially did not have a medical degree, he was a barber and
chiropodist by profession. He had some medical training and bought his
degree from a Scottish University for 15 pounds. It was only after several
applications that he got an honorary degree of Doctor of Medicine
from Oxford. The College of Physicians refused to admit him. He was
elected FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society) in 1789 on the strength of a
paper, which was on a non-medical subject, The Natural history of the
Cuckoo. The original was so inaccurate that it had to be returned for
revision.

Jenner$s ideas on vaccination caught the popular imagination of the
time, mainly because there was no treatment for smallpox. The government
gave him a grant of 10,000 pounds in 1802, and another 20,000
pounds in 1807, to further his researches. That was a lot of money in
those days! As you can see, the money factor was as important then
as it is now. Jenner$s vaccine came from the greasy heels of horses.
He said that this must be used instead of the ordinary cowpox. He
used horse grease cowpox because he saw men who milked cows soon after
treating the heels of horses and they did not seem to get smallpox.
He announced that this would give protection for life. This was a big
mistake because soon it was found that it did not give any protection
at all. When questioned why some did not work, he answered that there
are two types of horse grease, the genuine and the spurious. He did
not attempt to explain how to differentiate them, he only said that you
distinguish them by the results, which is a smart way of saying that if
they came down with smallpox they obviously were vaccinated with the
wrong type! Revaccination was introduced because vaccinated people did
catch smallpox. They argued that it must have worn off so decided to
give another dose and another and another. Note, as explained above,
this procedure only gave a localised illness, therefore not full immunity.

A very important question to ask at this point is What is cowpox? Nobody
really knows for sure. What is known about it is that it occurred
only in cows, never on a bull and only on the udders and teats. It was
only found on a milking cow and only on those in contact with humans.
The evidence is that in all probability the disease is a human disease
created by inadvertent inoculation from infected humans on to the
cows udders. But what is this disease? No one really knows for sure. It
could be smallpox itself but there is some evidence that it could have
been syphilis.

Compulsory vaccination

The vaccine was introduced in England in 1798. It was made compulsory
in 1853 and in 1867 the laws were made even more rigid.

Over 44,000 lives were lost in the 1870-72 epidemic. Hundreds of
thousands of people knew from their own experience, from family and
friends that vaccination had failed to work. In fact, they saw that
the vaccinated ones were those who were more likely to catch the disease.

Despite the penalties of fines and imprisonment for not being vaccinated,
more and more people risked the penalties and did not get vaccinated.
Synchronous with this decline in vaccination rates was the decline
in smallpox. Figures from the London Smallpox Hospital showed that the
majority of the patients were in fact vaccinated.

In 1898 a conscience clause was added to the legislation; this allowed
people to refuse vaccination on a conscientious objection basis. Figures
showed that as the percentage of unvaccinated people rose, the incidence
of smallpox fell. In 1879 the percentage of vaccinated was 86% and had
dropped to 61% in 1879. There was no increase in smallpox deaths. After
1902 the percentage of vaccinees dropped even further to below
40%. There was no increase in smallpox. After 1905 there was virtualy no
smallpox deaths.

It is well known that smallpox vaccine is dangerous. People die from
the vaccine. As the incidence of smallpox fell (and this was not due to
vaccination) the incidence of death from smallpox became very close to
death from vaccination. In 1889 there were 23 per 100,000 deaths from
smallpox and 58 per 100,000 deaths from vaccination. 1890, smallpox 16,
vaccine 43, 1891 smallpox 49, vaccine 43. After 1905, a person was more
likely to die from vaccination than from the disease itself.

Smallpox vaccination was suspended in the early 1980s because the disease
was officially eradicated, but one of the main reasons for the suspension
was that more people were dying from the vaccination than from
the disease. Official figures from the Registrar-General of England record
109 children under 5 dying of smallpox in England and Wales in the years
1910 to 1933. In the same period 270 died from vaccination. Between 1934
and 1961 there was not one recorded death from smallpox but there were
115 deaths from vaccination. A similar situation occurred in the USA:
between 1948 and 1969 there were no deaths from smallpox but there were
300 deaths from vaccination. At the annual meeting of the American
Academy of Pediatrics in 1971 it was stated that on average 6 to 9 individuals
die per annum from smallpox vaccination. Military forces continued
to vaccinate their troops and this caused small local outbreaks
among civilian contacts such as family and friends.

The ineffectiveness of smallpox vaccine has been the subject of many
journal articles since early this century. In the British Medical Journal,
14 January 1928, Dr R.P. Garrow discussed many facts about smallpox
vaccination. The death rate was higher in the vaccinated than in
the unvaccinated; this difference was nearly five times as great. The
number of cases was related to the number of vaccinees, i.e., as the
number of people vaccinated increased, so did the number of cases. Conversely,
as the number of vaccinees dropped, so did the number of cases.
In some of the best vaccinated towns, the disease was rampant.

In Leicester vaccination was not practised to a great extent, the disease
was almost unknown. The City of Leicester adopted a policy of quarantine
and isolation; newly diagnosed cases were isolated and therefore
the disease was not spread. They adopted this policy in preference to
vaccination and their figures, compared against those of nearby towns
that did vaccinate, showed quarantine and isolation to be a much better
method of control.

Countries like Germany, which was heavily vaccinated, had a very high
rate of smallpox. For example, in 1919 Germany had 707 deaths while in
England there were only 28; in 1920 Germany had 354 while in England
there were only 30.

In 1918 the US government initiated a smallpox vaccination campaign
in the Philippines. Approximately three million people were vaccinated
and then an epidemic erupted. Over 47,000 people caught smallpox;
over 16,000 died. The next year they doubled their efforts and
vaccinated 7 million people. Again an epidemic came and this time
over 65,000 people caught smallpox; over 44,000 died. The unfortunate
part was that the illness struck the more- or better-vaccinated areas.
Disease struck the vaccinated people more than the unvaccinated.
There is ample evidence that these epidemics were largely a direct
result of the vaccination programmes. So you can see that this is not
an isolated finding. Smallpox did affect the vaccinated population more
than the unvaccinated.

Whenever the question of immunisation is discussed, the triumph of
the eradication of smallpox is always mentioned. This is, in the eyes
of the general public, the great achievement of modern medicine. Or is
it?

There is really no evidence that the World Health Organisation (WHO)
vaccination programme did what it is claimed to have done. In 1967,
the year the WHO started the smallpox eradication programme, there
were 131,000 cases reported from 42 countries. This figure is greatly
underestimated; some have claimed that this represented only 5% of
the total number of cases. The last official case was in Somalia in
1977 and the disease was officially pronounced eradicated in 1980.
You did notice that I said officially. Smallpox is still around and I
will go into that later. Now the big question is Did the vaccination
programme eradicate smallpox or, as in all the other diseases, was
smallpox already on the way out? At the same time, improvements in hygiene,
sanitation and living standards were introduced.

Dr Thomas McKeown, past Chairman of the World Health Organisation Advisory
Group on Research Strategy, concluded

“...All the countries that advanced rapidly achieved a substantial
improvement in nutrition, which led to increased resistance. Indeed
in some countries this was the only important direct influence. It is
perhaps surprising that immunisations appears to have contributed relatively
little to the advances....the reduction in mortality occurred
during a period when vaccine coverage was still low. To anyone who
has travelled extensively in the rural areas of the Third World, the
common causes of ill health may seem self-evident.

Many children are visibly malnourished, sanitary conditions are primitive,
drinking water is unclean, the food...is contaminated, and the
number of people competing for the means of life is clearly excessive.”
(http://www.whale.to/v/obosawin.html)

Is smallpox really eradicated?

Before I answer this question, I think it important to explore the conditions
needed to eradicate any viral disease. In 1977 Frank Fenner, a
world-renowned virologist, wrote a paper in Progress of Medical Virology
about the eradication of smallpox. He said that eradication of any
infectious disease can be ruled out if any one of the following criteria
is met: (1) if there is an animal reservoir; (2) if the infective
agent persists in the human for long periods; (3) if the infective agent
has multiple sero-types; (4) if a necessary degree of social cooperation
cannot be obtained.

It was originally thought that there was no animal reservoir for smallpox,
therefore the disease could be eradicated if all the people were
made immune. This is now known to be not true and, as stated above, no
disease can be eradicated if there is an animal reservoir. There are
many similar pox viruses that cause similar diseases which are difficult
to differentiate, even serologically.

There are the so-called monkeypox, camelpox and whitepox viruses, which
each have large animal reservoirs. Since the 1970s a new disease, monkeypox,
is being reported. Monkeypox is clinically indistinguishable
from smallpox and is caused by a virus serologically difficult to differentiate
from smallpox. As of May 1983, 101 cases had been reported.
More recently an outbreak of over 90 cases has been reported in central
Zaire. The Australian Doctor 23 May 97 reports that between February
and August 1996 there were 71 cases, six of them fatal. Therefore
smallpox cannot be eradicated and it still occurs.

Vaccination is not the answer. The only way to prevent disease is by
improving hygiene, supplying clean water, effectively removing sewage
and rubbish, supplying adequate housing and, most importantly, providing
proper nutrition.

Overall, when the data are analysed, there is little evidence to support
the claim that the vaccination programme eradicated smallpox. The
programme reached only a relatively small percentage of the population,
an estimated 10%, and at the same time social changes were occurring
which included better housing, clean water, better sanitation and better
nutrition. Does all this sound familiar?

Myths about Smallpox

This is based on a report by Dr Sherri Tenpenny, who attended the Centre
for Disease Control (CDC) meeting of the Advisory Committee for Immunisation
Practices in June 2002.

1/ Smallpox is highly contagious.....WRONG

“Smallpox has a slow transmission and is not highly contagious” Joel
Kuritsky MD, Director of National Immunisation Programme and Early
Smallpopx Response and Planning at the CDC.

It is not transmitted by clothes or bed contamination; it is not
spread by food or water.

2/ Smallpox is easily spread by casual contact with an infected per-
son.....WRONG

“Transmission of smallpox occurs only after intense personal contact,
defined by the CDC as constant exposure, occurring within 6-7 feet, for
a minimum of 6-7 days.” Dr Joel Kuritsky MD, Director of National Immunisation
Programme and Early Smallpopx Response and Planning at the
CDC.

Smallpox is transmitted by droplet contamination. Note that coughing
and sneezing is not generally a part of smallpox infection. The person
only becomes contagious once the rash develops. By this time they are
sick at home in bed, not out and about spreading the disease.

3/ The death rate from Smallpox is 30%......WRONG

This is the general hype...smallpox is a deadly infection....the figure
thrown about is 30%.

The actual death rates are much lower, some quote a figure of 10-15 %,
(Dr Tom Mack USC, CDC Meeting June 20, 2002.) but even this figure may
be inflated due to the poor nutritional status of many of the 3rd world
victims.

In 1900, 21,064 cases of smallpox were reported and 894 patients died.
This is a 4.2% death rate. (MMWR 1999;48:243-48)

When asked during the CDC meeting: What is the cause of death in smallpox?....
no one could answer the question for sure. The cause of death
was a mystery, even in these modern days.

Smallpox is a skin disease and seldom involves internal organs. Severe
cases, such as the haemorrhagic and the confluent malignant types died of
complications of skin sloughing (? dehydration from loss of skin covering
such as in burns.) Another suggestion was a form of “generalised
toxaemia”. Also note that these death rates are based on early 20th
century technology. With modern technology things may be different.

Treatments such as re-hydration and IV Vitamin C would possibly reduce
the incidence of death. (See Vitamin C, Nature$s Miraculous Healing Missile
Drs Glen Dettman, Archie Kalokerinos and Ian Dettman. Publ. Frederick
Todd, Melbourne Australia 1993)

In summary, Smallpox vaccination is dangerous and ineffective. It should
not be used. People should vote with their feet and refuse it if ever
the situation arose where it is offered.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Fri, 01-16-2009 - 12:41am

Interesting post -- I have several points I'd like to address -- although I need to do a bit more reading to make sure I have the right sources .. It's tempting to believe some parts, and I have no doubt that this Dr. Baratosy has some of his facts right .. however, his "paper" has not one single source cited -- therefore, I have a hard time believing much of his story.. how do we know he's presenting the complete picture? Or that he's not misinterpreting the data?

1) Dr. Baratosy's website specifically states that his interests are diabetes, HTN, obesity, cholesterol, thyroid disorders, GI disorders and hormonal changes .. surely they're not all areas of specialties, because he would have had to spend several years in each specialty to consider himself a specialist -- but all that aside .. those are, at the very least his "interests" .. no mention of vaccines or immunology or even infectious disease.. all areas that would help to support his case, here.

2) This man makes his money from publishing books about natural lifestyles / healthy eating and avoiding vaccines / medications -- he "specializes" in complimentary and alternative medicines -- nothing wrong with that.. just something to keep in mind when we're criticizing the various "experts" and their motives .. this man makes his money from writing books that appeal to the masses who don't want to vaccinate or use medications .. Just like Dr. Offit and others who are pro vaccination / medication are criticized for their share in the profits.

3) Author states: "It was originally thought that there was no animal reservoir for smallpox therefore the disease could be eradicated if all the people were made immune. This is now known to be not true and as stated above... there are many similar pox viruses that cause similar diseases which are difficult to differentiate, even serologically...Monkeypox is clinically indistinguishable from smallpox and is caused by a virus serologically difficult to differentiate from smallpox...<> Therefore smallpox cannot be eradicated and it still occurs."

Perhaps Dr. Barastoy does not believe that smallpox has been eradicated .. but just because one virus is difficult to distinguish from another does not mean the two are not different. The science demonstrates the the viruses are different genetically / serologically and in presentation. Differential diagnoses for monkeypox include varicella and variola .. BUT the three ARE different. The various pox viruses can be similar without being the same .. presenting stats about monkeypox incidence and then jumping directly to "Therefore smallpox cannot be eradicated and it still occurs" is misleading and false .. he JUST stated his stats on monkeypox and explained that the viruses are SIMILAR and DIFFICULT to differentiate between -- but not that they ARE the same.

He uses a lot of numbers .. and since he gives not one single source throughout his entire presentation, it'll take some time for me to find these sources and the statistics. Unless someone else has them already? I'd take his "publication" very lightly ... and not as good science or good review of research, since he has drawn some inconsistent conclusions based on research he can't even supply the reader with sources for.



Photobucket





Photobucket




Photobucket











Lilypie Expecting a baby Ticker


Photobucket






Photobucket

Pages