New to board, exploring options, help

"but is there any place where I could read unbiased pros and cons to weigh my options?"

Here :)

On this board you can find links to both sides of the issue, the non vax side has much more to offer by the way of peer-reviewed science but the other side pretends to have such proof too. When you ask for the proof, the request is often ignored. Just read and you can see the patterns emerge. Then you will understand what I mean.

Miller's book is my favorite but the others mentioned in the above post are also very helpful.

Most helpful is understanding that the papers you are handed at the doctors office read much more like advertisements, and leave out a lot of what doesn't fit the cause...it all depends on which state you are in.

For the real scoop on what can go wrong read the package inserts:
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM093833

Understanding that many of the employees at the WHO, CDC, FDA and AAP are corrupt and each has his/her own conflicts of interest - that in itself is overwhelming, but it's necessary if you are to see the truth. Some people are very afraid to speak out and some just stay quite to keep their jobs. The conflicts of interest are despicable. It will take a lot of boring reading to get a full understanding of just how far it goes. That is the reason why I like Millers book the best, it puts it all in perspective, or it did for me. I already had some experience from my childhood that made things crystal clear for me before I learned the truth about those who we are supposed to be able to trust - so you might could say I'm a little biased.

Its also interesting to read the debate between Hannah Poling's Dad and the rest. Just do a search on this website for "Hannah Poling" and you will find arguments against his own profession. I find the letters written by Mr. Poling to be very helpful in seeing the truth.

Understanding VAERS and its limitations can be helpful for when your doctor uses VAERS data and pretends it's the gospel:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Safety/MedWatch/UCM168497.pdf

Good luck with your labor and delivery. Congratulations on the new baby. Good luck with your doctor, I hope you have an open minded one, some will kick you out of their practice if you give them any flack about vaccines.

Also - welcome to the board! There are a few ladies here who can help you learn this stuff but I gotta warn ya, it won't be as quick and painless as you want it to be. It is overwhelming, but with a lot of reading it does become easier. :) And remember there's pharmashills out there who's only mission is to confuse you and make it even more difficult for you to learn. We have one here...and we love him being here, gives us something to talk about!

Jon,

Take the high road. Why do you think that continuing to insult people is working?

Obviously Dana's been reported as well since she's under a new screen name. How about we all grow up a little bit?

Jamie

I'd already read this post, thanks for sharing it again for people that haven't.

<<< I am not sure what you really want from this "study" you continually ask for from me.>>>

Really? You're the one making the assertions related to safety and I'm asking you for your evidence. You keep giving me the same sources that I have already read and I am not convinced by your evidence, sorry.

<<>>

Let me see if I can be crystal clear.

* You make claims that the vaccine schedule, as it is administered is perfectly safe and safer than the disease itself. There are no data to determine adverse event prevalence as the schedule is currently structured and administered nation-wide. There isn't a single study (even in animals) that addresses the entire US schedule in its entirety, nor are there any data about the possible synergistic effects of giving 7 different vaccines in a single visit. There just isn't Jon, and you would be a lot more credible if you would simply concede that we are assuming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

* Challenge studies have repeatedly shown that antibody levels do not equate to "immunity" (though many diseases do have a protective titer established, measuring the sera after an animal stops showing symptoms doesn't mean they can't also spread disease...subclinical infections are not prejudiced). You cannot state, with any sort of confidence, that vaccination status will determine who will and who will not actually respond as intended and resist infection from the disease causing agent. Obviously, circulating antibodies for known infectious threats are a good thing. Likewise, if an organism is busy circulating those antibodies - then they have demonstrably less resources to address any novel pathogen that might also circulate concomitantly. Vaccine failures can, and do, occur. The answer is not continual vaccination until we completely lose count of how many our children under 2 are getting. Of course some vaccines work - where have I said they haven't? Some vaccines carry their own issues for the herd.

If the overall goal is actual community immunity, the only way to accomplish sufficient protection is to give people options and stop being irrational about communicable disease. Reasonable people can determine when a vaccine is necessary, and will choose when to vaccinate based on their own circumstances.

The issue to them (and obviously, only them), is whether there is a safer way to individually vaccinate to reduce the risk of adverse events. In order to quantify the risks, you first have to admit that they not only happen, but that we've done a crappy job monitoring them since the late 80's and you also have to be in favor of a system that captures the events systematically. And above all, you then need to hold people that administer vaccines accountable for guidance and reporting as it relates to this medical procedure.

<<>>

I typically only lurk there but have chimed in occasionally. I have, however posted it on ScienceBlogs several times. And yes, even on Orac's blog. You know what I got? Crickets. Then ad hominems. Then conspiracy mongering. Then disease promotion mongering. Then more ad hominems. Start. Cycle. Over. Again.

We do agree on something though, the Sandman post was great.

Sorry to see you go...