To Vaccinate or Not

[Splash]

Before the middle of the last century, diseases like whooping cough, polio, measles, Haemophilus influenzae, and rubella infected hundreds of thousands of infants, children and adults in the U.S.

Thousands of people died every year from them.

As vaccines were developed and became widely used, rates of these diseases declined until today most of them are nearly gone from the US

but NOT from many many other parts of the world.  

 
Nearly everyone in the U.S. got measles before there was a vaccine, and hundreds died from it each year.

Today, most doctors have never seen a case of measles - BECAUSE OF VACCINATIONS.  
 

More than 15,000 Americans died from diphtheria in 1921, before there was a vaccine.

Only one case of diphtheria has been reported to CDC since 2004 - BECAUSE OF VACCINATIONS.  
   

An epidemic of rubella (German measles) in 1964-65 infected 12½ million Americans, killed 2,000 babies, and caused 11,000 miscarriages.

In 2012, only 9 cases of rubella were reported to CDC - BECAUSE OF VACCINATIONS.  


Given successes like these, it might seem reasonable to ask, “Why should we keep vaccinating against diseases that we will probably never see?”

Here is why:

Vaccines don’t just protect yourself.

Most vaccine-preventable diseases are spread from person to person. If one person in a community gets an infectious disease, s/he can spread it to others who are not immune. But a person who is immune to a disease because she has been vaccinated can’t get that disease and can’t spread it to others.

The more people who are vaccinated, the fewer opportunities a disease has to spread.


If one or two cases of disease are introduced into a community where most people are not vaccinated, outbreaks will occur.

In 2013, for example, several measles outbreaks occurred around the country, including large outbreaks in New York City and Texas –
mainly among groups with low vaccination rates.

If vaccination rates dropped to low levels nationally, diseases could become as common as they were before vaccines.


Diseases haven’t disappeared.

The United States has very low rates of vaccine-preventable diseases, but this isn’t true everywhere in the world.

Only one disease — smallpox — has been totally erased from the planet.

Polio no longer occurs in the U.S., but it is still paralyzing children in several African countries.

More than 350,000 cases of measles were reported from around the world in 2011, with outbreaks in the Pacific, Asia, Africa, and Europe.

In that same year, 90% of measles cases in the U.S. were associated with cases imported from another country.

Only the fact that most Americans are vaccinated against measles prevented these clusters of cases from becoming epidemics.

Disease rates are low in the United States today.

But if we let ourselves become vulnerable by not vaccinating, a case that could touch off an outbreak of some disease that is currently under control is just a plane ride away.

We know that a disease that is apparently under control can suddenly return, because we have seen it happen, in countries like Japan, Australia, and Sweden.

Here is an example from Japan. In 1974, about 80% of Japanese children were getting pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine.

That year there were only 393 cases of whooping cough in the entire country, and not a single pertussis-related death.

Then immunization rates began to drop, until only about 10% of children were being vaccinated.

In 1979, more than 13,000 people got whooping cough and 41 died.

When routine vaccination was resumed, the disease numbers dropped again.

The chances of your child getting a case of measles or chickenpox or whooping cough might be quite low today.

But vaccinations are not just for protecting ourselves, and are not just for today. They also protect the people around us (some of whom may be unable to get certain vaccines, or might have failed to respond to a vaccine, or might be susceptible for other reasons).
And they also protect our children’s children and their children by keeping diseases that we have almost defeated from making a comeback.  What would happen if we stopped vaccinations?  We could soon find ourselves battling epidemics of diseases we thought we had conquered decades ago.

   CDC. Measles — United States, January 1-August 24, 2013. MMWR 2013; 62(36);741-43.
   Updates on CDC’s Polio Eradication Efforts
   Reported Cases and Deaths from Vaccine Preventable Diseases, United States, 1950-2011 Adobe PDF file [6 pages]
   Gangarosa EJ, et al. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story. Lancet 1998;351:356-61.

[Monica]

Please stop Monica - I have never once argued that "injecting poisons...preserved with formaldehyde...at many times the known safe rate for individual poisons, never taking into account the cumulative effects nor the fact that they're preserved and injected directly into the bloodstream...into infants...is safe".  

I'm unclear why you're trying to say that about what I've shared?

Have you not been arguing all along for the safety and efficacy of vaccines?

Vaccines contain known poisons, at concentrations much, much higher than the standards set by our own medical system. Look up safety standards on 'official, authoritative' sites you trust. (The unbiased ones...hahaha!) Do the math. It's simple common sense that if the ingredients are harmful, then the sum total is harmful.

I find it amusing that you say the site I posted - the one with the ingredients list - is biased. Here, maybe you will like this one better:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

Surprise! The ingredients list is the very same! Why? Because that's where they got it!

Your last couple of posts have been very inflammatory, with personal statements about my intentions, rather than discussing the topic amicably and academically. Plus, you have stated several times that my info is biased...as if yours isn't? The height of naivete is thinking that everyone in a multi-billion-$$ industry is honest and well-intentioned, or that there is any such thing as a completely unbiased source of information. 

To accuse the families of the victims as being 'biased' while implying that the drug industry is unbiased...well gosh, I just don't know what to say to that. If you really think that the industry who profits to the tune of nearly $16 Billion per year (just from vaccines) really is UNbiased, while the families who are desperately trying to stand up to this behemoth are biased, then...well, you're entitled to think whatever you like. But that seems rather laughable to me.

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The global pharmaceuticals market is worth US$300 billion a year, a figure expected to rise to US$400 billion within three years. The 10 largest drugs companies control over one-third of this market, several with sales of more than US$10 billion a year and profit margins of about 30%. Six are based in the United States and four in Europe. It is predicted that North and South America, Europe and Japan will continue to account for a full 85% of the global pharmaceuticals market well into the 21st century. Companies currently spend one-third of all sales revenue on marketing their products - roughly twice what they spend on research and development.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]As a result of this pressure to maintain sales, there is now, in WHO's words, “an inherent conflict of interest between the legitimate business goals of manufacturers and the social, medical and economic needs of providers and the public to select and use drugs in the most rational way”. This is particularly true where drugs companies are the main source of information as to which products are most effective. Even in the United Kingdom, where the medical profession receives more independent, publicly-funded information than in many other countries, promotional spending by pharmaceuticals companies is 50 times greater than spending on public information on health.[/font]

from http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story073/en/

I don't need to back up anything. What I have already posted stands on its own merit. There is already plenty of info on this thread, for anyone who is interested, to research further on their own.

I will only reiterate what I've been saying all along: Figures don't lie, but liars can figure. This applies to cancer statistics also. There is plenty of info on how cancer statistics have been twisted, if anyone cares to seek it.

"Please stop?" Stop what? Expressing my own viewpoints in a discussion forum?

Haha, what an odd request. But sure, ok, no problem. I have lost interest in this conversation anyway.

[Monica]

BECAUSE OF VACCINATIONS. 

That is the propaganda, but it's simply not true. Polio was clearly declining before the vaccine was introduced. This is verifiable on the CDC's own graph!

[Minyatur]

Those in power do great efforts to keep others alseep, I know I've been using their means to remain asleep.

[AnthroHeart]

I am scared to take another red pill and tumble further down the rabbit hole.
But I realize I must so to penetrate the veil.

[Shawnna]

BECAUSE OF VACCINATIONS. 

That is the propaganda, but it's simply not true. Polio was clearly declining before the vaccine was introduced. This is verifiable on the CDC's own graph!

I agree polio was in decline but the correlation you're trying to make is that vaccines should never have been introduced given this information.

It is clear that your goal in this dialog is to further the false notion that vaccines are harmful and therefore should be avoided despite the obvious public health benefits as Splash so eloquently articulated.

That is simply untrue for the vast majority, and makes absolutely no sense from a public health policy perspective.

[Minyatur]

BECAUSE OF VACCINATIONS. 

That is the propaganda, but it's simply not true. Polio was clearly declining before the vaccine was introduced. This is verifiable on the CDC's own graph!

I agree polio was in decline but the correlation you're trying to make is that vaccines should never have been introduced given this information.  

It is clear that your goal in this dialog is to further the false notion that vaccines are harmful and therefore should be avoided despite the obvious public health benefits as Splash so eloquently articulated.  

That is simply untrue for the vast majority, and makes absolutely no sense from a public health policy perspective.

What tells you the extreme cases are the only side effect, what of spiritual side effects?

[Shawnna]

BECAUSE OF VACCINATIONS. 

That is the propaganda, but it's simply not true. Polio was clearly declining before the vaccine was introduced. This is verifiable on the CDC's own graph!

I agree polio was in decline but the correlation you're trying to make is that vaccines should never have been introduced given this information.  

It is clear that your goal in this dialog is to further the false notion that vaccines are harmful and therefore should be avoided despite the obvious public health benefits as Splash so eloquently articulated.  

That is simply untrue for the vast majority, and makes absolutely no sense from a public health policy perspective.

What tells you the extreme cases are the only side effect, what of spiritual side effects?

As I've stated numerous times - my heart aches for all who suffer.

Nothing happens by chance; all of our experiences in life have been designed by our fully-aware Soul to facilitate our own unique spiritual evolution. I realize there are those who will take great exception to such a statement of belief - so please know that is simply my belief and I would never ask anyone to either accept or even entertain such a belief. It is consistent with the information outlined in Journey of Souls by Newton which resonated deeply.

My sole purpose in engaging in this particular dialog is because it is astounding to me to see the negative impact those who have embraced the false notion that because a very, very small minority have experienced a negative reaction to a vaccine that we should avoid them all together. The recent measles outbreak originating in So Calif is just one example; unnecessary suffering that could have been avoided.

[Monica]

I agree polio was in decline but the correlation you're trying to make is that vaccines should never have been introduced given this information.

Well thank you for finally admitting that at least!

No, I never said that vaccines should never have been introduced. The concept of vaccination is sound. However, there is a way to do it that is harmless. The medical model of using poison to strengthen the immune system is as outdated and barbaric as leeches and bloodletting.  

It is clear that your goal in this dialog is to further the false notion that vaccines are harmful and therefore should be avoided despite the obvious public health benefits as Splash so eloquently articulated.  

That is simply untrue for the vast majority, and makes absolutely no sense from a public health policy perspective.

First of all, I cannot fathom how you can say it's a 'false notion' that vaccines are harmful. They contain harmful ingredients. I proved that to you. You cannot refute what is on the official CDC website - one that you consider 'unbiased.' For you to say that they aren't harmful is to insult the many thousands of families whose children have been damaged or killed by these poisons, and whose lives are a constant torment as a result.

Secondly, you just admitted that polio was already on the decline. News Flash: So were other diseases. All diseases have life cycles. You'd know this if you did half the research I've done.

But the bottom line is this: There is no question that diseases are a threat. No one is disputing that we need some sort of immunization. What IS being disputed is this toxic cocktail of poisonous substances, whose efficacy is questionable, at best, and quite undeniably harmful for some children, and quite likely contributing to chronic illnesses in many more, if not most. Now before you say this is unfounded, simply go look up the toxic effects of EACH ONE of those toxins in EACH vaccine. Do it singularly; ie., look up formaldehyde first, then look up mercury, then aluminum, etc. Then multiply that times the number of vaccines (48 by age 6) then be sure to make it proportionate - ie., a newborn weighing 7 lbs...and get the equivalent toxic dose. Oh and be sure to compound all of it because poisons do tend to interact with one another! but wait, you aren't done yet! All of the data on toxicity is based on ingestion + the body's normal elimination channels having the ability to process and metabolize, and eliminate, said poisons. You must now compound the problem by taking into consideration that the body CANNOT metabolize the poisons because they are preserved! Plus, they have been injected, rather than ingested. That is NO small matter. That is a very BIG matter.

Then, after you've done the math and the chemistry, go find some families with autistic children, plus some whose beautiful, healthy babies died a few hours after being injected, and then, to add insult to injury, whose court cases were rigged from the beginning. Look them in the eyes and listen to their stories, and THEN tell me they have some sort of 'bias' or 'agenda' while choosing to believe the industry who profits to the tune of $16 BILLION on vaccines alone, and another $294 BILLION keeping people sick.

Then tell me that this is in alignment with the Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm.

If you think this is good medicine, and are content to live in a world where children are getting cancer and diabetes, and even babies - yes babies! - are being born with cancer...if you think that is normal...if you think that is a fair exchange for no longer having polio...never mind that it was already in decline before the vaccine was introduced...and if you aren't concerned that many children's immune systems may have been compromised, and because they're so bogged down dealing with all those poisons they might not be able to withstand the REAL threats - future mutated viruses for which there are NO vaccines...if you aren't concerned about that...then...carry on.

Lastly, it is offensive for you to tell me that I am intentionally trying to spread false info. I would never say that to you. It is clear that you really believe you are right. I strongly disagree but would never accuse you of intentionally trying to mislead.

That's not even counting all the other insinuations you've made. You say your 'heart aches' for those who suffer yet you insult them by accusing them of some sort of 'false agenda.' As if parents have nothing better to do than make up lies.

Suggestion: Don't take this so personally. We disagree. Accept it. And accept that the parents who are activists are doing what they believe is right, in exposing the lies and corruption, in an effort to wake up other parents so that maybe their children won't suffer the same fate. To just write them off as 'biased'...to say that they must just accept the damage to their children 'for the greater good' when harmless alternatives exist, is insensitive and offensive.

I mean seriously, who are YOU to tell these parents that they shouldn't share THEIR stories?

You're just a mom who was lucky.

...

[Minyatur]

As I said, what if you perceive not the deeper negative impact it has? Many things are but weights with the only purpose of slowing the transition toward 4D where the apparent purpose of these not so easy to perceive weights would not be needed anymore.

Anyway this is good, what could we be doing other than mirroring each other's beliefs? As long as we are not fully aware that we are simply playing with ourself all alone as the Creator, then that's all we can be doing. It's not like there's actually something wich is not Love and Light in Creation, there's just you and nothing else and you are Love and Light always in every single instant.

So yeah, all is well as we explore the dellusion of not being all things and work out the seemingly conflict in-between our different incarnated dellusions.

In the end my belief is that even without the extreme effects Monica is speaking of, there are much more subtle things at work in this.

[Shawnna]

I agree polio was in decline but the correlation you're trying to make is that vaccines should never have been introduced given this information.

Well thank you for finally admitting that at least!

No, I never said that vaccines should never have been introduced. The concept of vaccination is sound. However, there is a way to do it that is harmless. The medical model of using poison to strengthen the immune system is as outdated and barbaric as leeches and bloodletting.  

It is clear that your goal in this dialog is to further the false notion that vaccines are harmful and therefore should be avoided despite the obvious public health benefits as Splash so eloquently articulated.  

That is simply untrue for the vast majority, and makes absolutely no sense from a public health policy perspective.

First of all, I cannot fathom how you can say it's a 'false notion' that vaccines are harmful. They contain harmful ingredients. I proved that to you. You cannot refute what is on the official CDC website - one that you consider 'unbiased.' For you to say that they aren't harmful is to insult the many thousands of families whose children have been damaged or killed by these poisons, and whose lives are a constant torment as a result.

Secondly, you just admitted that polio was already on the decline. News Flash: So were other diseases. All diseases have life cycles. You'd know this if you did half the research I've done.

But the bottom line is this: There is no question that diseases are a threat. No one is disputing that we need some sort of immunization. What IS being disputed is this toxic cocktail of poisonous substances, whose efficacy is questionable, at best, and quite undeniably harmful for some children, and quite likely contributing to chronic illnesses in many more, if not most. Now before you say this is unfounded, simply go look up the toxic effects of EACH ONE of those toxins in EACH vaccine. Do it singularly; ie., look up formaldehyde first, then look up mercury, then aluminum, etc. Then multiply that times the number of vaccines (48 by age 6) then be sure to make it proportionate - ie., a newborn weighing 7 lbs...and get the equivalent toxic dose. Oh and be sure to compound all of it because poisons do tend to interact with one another! but wait, you aren't done yet! All of the data on toxicity is based on ingestion + the body's normal elimination channels having the ability to process and metabolize, and eliminate, said poisons. You must now compound the problem by taking into consideration that the body CANNOT metabolize the poisons because they are preserved! Plus, they have been injected, rather than ingested. That is NO small matter. That is a very BIG matter.

Then, after you've done the math and the chemistry, go find some families with autistic children, plus some whose beautiful, healthy babies died a few hours after being injected, and then, to add insult to injury, whose court cases were rigged from the beginning. Look them in the eyes and listen to their stories, and THEN tell me they have some sort of 'bias' or 'agenda' while choosing to believe the industry who profits to the tune of $16 BILLION on vaccines alone, and another $294 BILLION keeping people sick.

Then tell me that this is in alignment with the Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm.

If you think this is good medicine, and are content to live in a world where children are getting cancer and diabetes, and even babies - yes babies! - are being born with cancer...if you think that is normal...if you think that is a fair exchange for no longer having polio...never mind that it was already in decline before the vaccine was introduced...and if you aren't concerned that your children's immune systems have been compromised, and because they're so bogged down dealing with all those poisons they won't be able to withstand the REAL threats - future mutated viruses for which there are NO vaccines...if you aren't concerned about that...then...carry on.

Lastly, it is offensive for you to tell me that I am intentionally trying to spread false info. I would never say that to you. It is clear that you really believe you are right. I strongly disagree but would never accuse you of intentionally trying to mislead.

That's not even counting all the other insinuations you've made. You say your 'heart aches' for those who suffer yet you insult them by accusing them of some sort of 'false agenda.' As if parents have nothing better to do that make up lies. That is offensive. 

Suggestion: Don't take this so personally. We disagree. Accept it. And accept that the parents who are activists are doing what they believe is right, in exposing the lies and corruption, in an effort to wake up other parents so that maybe their children won't suffer the same fate. To say that they must just accept the damage to their children 'for the greater good' when harmless alternatives exist, is insensitive and offensive.

I mean seriously, who are YOU to tell these parents that they shouldn't share THEIR stories?

You're just a mom who was lucky.

...

I accept we disagree - what I cannot accept is the continual effort to paint vaccines as some sort of harmful conspiracy promulgated by the powers that be.



Going down that s***-filled rabbit hole is toxic to all.

With respect to denying someone their right to share their story - paleeze Monica. I've never said anything about shutting people down from sharing their story. Once again you are trying to paint a picture of me that is completely false.

Further, it is one thing to share a story; it is quite another to use that story as a fear-mongering tool in an effort to move public health back to the dark ages.

That is what you, and others like you, are doing.

You said yourself that the vast majority get vaccines without any harm, let's leave it at that as that seems to be the only point on which we agree.

[Monica]

I accept we disagree - what I cannot accept is the continual effort to paint vaccines as some sort of harmful conspiracy promulgated by the powers that be.

Maybe others have said that, but not me. I never said any such thing. We don't need to talk about conspiracies. They do exist, but we really don't need any conspiracy theory, in this case, to explain what they're doing. It's just simple greed.  Sounds like you're lumping me in with some others you've encountered in the past. Not cool.

With respect to denying someone their right to share their story - paleeze Monica.  I've never said anything about shutting people down from sharing their story.  Once again you are trying to paint a picture of me that is completely false.

LOL!!!  

Further, it is one thing to share a story; it is quite another to use that story as a fear-mongering tool in an effort to move public health back to the dark ages.

??? I'm not the one who posted grim predictions of what will happen if people quit vaccinating...OMG plagues will return!

Hey by the way, did you know that the US spends more on disease management than all the other industrialized nations put together, yet ranks #46 in health? (United Nations WHO statistics.)

I'd say we're already in the dark ages.

You said yourself that the vast majority get vaccines without any harm, let's leave it at that as that seems to be the only point on which we agree.

I modified my statement. It's impossible to inject that many poisons into the bloodstream of an infant and NOT do any harm. We just don't know the full ramifications yet, but there is definitely harm. I clarified that most children's ill effects aren't correlated to the vaccines, and they are still able to function normally...that is, if you call taking several medications for asthma, allergies, etc. plus getting cancer, diabetes and other chronic illnesses 'normal.'

[Monica]

I also am incredulous that you refer to these parents as 'fear-mongers'. That seems very calloused and insensitive to me. Try putting yourself in their shoes. How would you react? Would you not want to alert others too? Or would you just 'accept' it and keep your mouth shut like a good little citizen?

And if some of them think that this is part of a conspiracy, well, so what? That doesn't negate the truth of what happened to them. Maybe they're wrong about the WHY or the WHO is behind it...or maybe they're right...but that in itself shouldn't be a reason to disregard their stories or minimize them as mere 'collateral damage.' It's easy to do that when it's someone else's child.

OMG another thought just occurred to me...you say the anti-vaxxers are the ones who are fear-mongering. Yet, we are the ones who had the courage to NOT vaccinate our children! While the pro-vaxxers do it...out of FEAR of getting the dreaded diseases!

How ironic...the anti-vaxxers are actually the ones with LESS fear...the pro-vaxxers are the ones with MORE fear.  :idea:

Or maybe everyone has fears...just different fears.

Still, you gotta give us some credit...we're SO SURE that the vaccines are dangerous that we're fucking willing to face possible diseases!!! Have you thought about that? As scary as those diseases are...we find the vaccines much scarier!

I invite you to think about that...then tell me we're fear-based. Pffffft...it takes courage to face the possibility of diseases armed with our knowledge of alternative medicine...It takes balls to stand up to the medical system, to go against what the doctors tell us to do. 

WHY??? Why would we do such a thing? Don't you wonder just a little bit?

But please don't insult these parents by saying they are 'fear-mongers' when they are facing something you have chosen not to face.

These parents deserve some respect.

[Splash]

I gave up on being heard/understood on this thread (and the 'Grand Conspiracy' thread) a lonnnnggg time back...

(mostly because it's a known psychological phenomena that often, arguing with people can cause them to become even more adamant about their position on an issue...)

but - as Monica has made reference to peoples first hand experiences being important to take into account...

I thought I'd (re) share this one:

'Growing Up Unvaccinated'
(I had the healthiest childhood imaginable. And yet I was sick all the time.)

By Amy Parker

"I am the ’70s child of a health nut. I wasn’t vaccinated. I was brought up on an incredibly healthy diet: no sugar till I was 1, breastfed for over a year, organic homegrown vegetables, raw milk, no MSG, no additives, no aspartame. My mother used homeopathy, aromatherapy, osteopathy; we took daily supplements of vitamin C, echinacea, cod liver oil.

I had an outdoor lifestyle; I grew up next to a farm in England’s Lake District, walked everywhere, did sports and danced twice a week, drank plenty of water. I wasn’t even allowed pop; even my fresh juice was watered down to protect my teeth, and I would’ve killed for white, shop-bought bread in my lunchbox once in a while and biscuits instead of fruit, like all the other kids.

We ate (organic local) meat maybe once or twice a week, and my mother and father cooked everything from scratch—I have yet to taste a Findus crispy pancake, and oven chips (“fries,” to Americans) were reserved for those nights when Mum and Dad had friends over and we got a “treat.”

As healthy as my lifestyle seemed, I contracted measles, mumps, rubella, a type of viral meningitis, scarlatina, whooping cough, yearly tonsillitis, and chickenpox. In my 20s I got precancerous HPV and spent six months of my life wondering how I was going to tell my two children under the age of 7 that Mummy might have cancer before it was safely removed.

So the anti-vaccine advocates’ fears of having the “natural immunity sterilized out of us” just doesn’t cut it for me. How could I, with my idyllic childhood and my amazing health food, get so freaking ill all the time?

My mother would have put most of my current “crunchy” friends to shame. She didn’t drink, she didn’t smoke, she didn’t do drugs, and we certainly weren’t allowed to watch whatever we wanted on telly or wear plastic shoes or any of that stuff. She lived alternative health. And you know what? I’m glad she gave us such a great diet. I’m glad that she cared about us in that way.

But it just didn’t stop me getting childhood illnesses.

My two vaccinated children, on the other hand, have rarely been ill, have had antibiotics maybe twice in their lives, if that. Not like their mum. I got many illnesses requiring treatment with antibiotics. I developed penicillin-resistant quinsy at age 21—you know, that old-fashioned disease that supposedly killed Queen Elizabeth I and that was almost wiped out through use of antibiotics.*

My kids have had no childhood illnesses other than chickenpox, which they both contracted while still breastfeeding. They, too, grew up on a healthy diet, homegrown organics, etc. I was not quite as strict as my mother, but they are both healthier than I have ever been.

I find myself wondering about the claim that complications from childhood illnesses are extremely rare but that “vaccine injuries” are rampant. If this is the case, I struggle to understand why I know far more people who have experienced complications from preventable childhood illnesses than I have ever met with complications from vaccines. I have friends who became deaf from measles. I have a partially sighted friend who contracted rubella in the womb. My ex got pneumonia from chickenpox. A friend’s brother died from meningitis.

Anecdotal evidence is nothing to base decisions on. But when facts and evidence-based science aren’t good enough to sway someone’s opinion about vaccinations, then this is where I come from. After all, anecdotes are the anti-vaccine supporters’ way: “This is my personal experience.” Well, my personal experience prompts me to vaccinate my children and myself. I got the flu vaccine recently, and I got the whooping cough booster to protect my son in the womb. My natural immunity—from having whooping cough at age 5—would not have protected him once he was born.

I understand, to a point, where the anti-vaccine parents are coming from. Back in the ’90s, when I was a concerned, 19-year-old mother, frightened by the world I was bringing my child into, I was studying homeopathy, herbalism, and aromatherapy; I believed in angels, witchcraft, clairvoyants, crop circles, aliens at Nazca, giant ginger mariners spreading their knowledge to the Aztecs, the Incas, and the Egyptians, and that I was somehow personally blessed by the Holy Spirit with healing abilities. I was having my aura read at a hefty price and filtering the fluoride out of my water. I was choosing to have past life regressions instead of taking antidepressants. I was taking my daily advice from tarot cards. I grew all my own veg and made my own herbal remedies.

I was so freaking crunchy that I literally crumbled. It was only when I took control of those paranoid thoughts and fears about the world around me and became an objective critical thinker that I got well. It was when I stopped taking sugar pills for everything and started seeing medical professionals that I began to thrive physically and mentally.

If you think your child’s immune system is strong enough to fight off vaccine-preventable diseases, then it’s strong enough to fight off the tiny amounts of dead or weakened pathogens present in any of the vaccines.

But not everyone around you is that strong, not everyone has a choice, not everyone can fight those illnesses, and not everyone can be vaccinated. If you have a healthy child, then your healthy child can cope with vaccines and can care about those unhealthy children who can’t.

I would ask the anti-vaxxers to treat their children with compassion and a sense of responsibility for those around them. I would ask them not to teach their children to be self-serving and scared of the world in which they live and the people around them. (And teach them to love people with autism spectrum disorder or any other disability supposedly associated with vaccines—not to label them as damaged.)

Most importantly, I want the anti-vaxxers to see that knowingly exposing your child to illness is cruel. Even without complications, these diseases aren’t exactly pleasant. I don’t know about you, but I don’t enjoy watching children suffer even with a cold or a hurt knee. If you’ve never had these illnesses, you don’t know how awful they are. I do. Pain, discomfort, the inability to breathe or to eat or to swallow, fever and nightmares, itching all over your body so much that you can’t stand lying on bedsheets, losing so much weight you can’t walk properly, diarrhea that leaves you lying prostrate on the bathroom floor, the unpaid time off work for parents, the quarantine, missing school, missing parties, the worry, the sleepless nights, the sweat, the tears, the blood, the midnight visits to the emergency room, the time sitting in a doctor’s waiting room on your own because no one will sit near you because they’re rightfully scared of those spots all over your face.

Those of you who have avoided childhood illnesses without vaccines are lucky. You couldn’t do it without us pro-vaxxers. Once the vaccination rates begin dropping, the drop in herd immunity will leave your children unprotected. The more people you convert to your anti-vax stance, the quicker that luck will run out."


*Update, Jan. 6, 2014: This post has been updated to clarify that the quinsy the author contracted, not the author herself, was resistant to penicillin.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/famil...dhood.html

[Splash]

.

..one other thing:

I've worked extensively with children, teens, and adults, (and friends) with Autism and other disabilities -

so I speak from years of direct, complex, varied and thorough experience when I say that

the stigma, stereotyping, and prejudice against people with disability that is inherent in the anti-vaccination premise being argued on this thread

- is discriminatory, judgemental and ignorant.

(I'm friends with a prominent (Australian) disability rights activist who would be furious and deeply insulted were Monica (or anyone) to tell her that who (and how) she is - in a differently-abled mind and body - is 'wrong' - a 'disaster' - "damaged".)

There are serious consequences of negative attitudes towards persons with disability.

from: http://nda.ie/Publications/Attitudes/Lit...tudes.html

"Impairment is an objective concept and means that aspects of a person's body do not function or function with difficulty (Crow, 1996). However, when impairment is taken a step further to imply that a person's body, the person and the person's worth is inferior to that of others, then there is an interpretation that is socially created and is therefore not fixed or inevitable (Crow, 1996). Crow argues that one can think of impairment in three, related, ways. First there is the objective concept of impairment. Second, there is the individual interpretation of the subjective experience of impairment. Finally, there is the impact of the wider social context upon impairment, in which misrepresentation, exclusion and discrimination combine to disable people with impairments."

"Gleeson (2006) has attempted to de-construct 'discourses of what is considered normal i.e."normalcy". In the NDA Research Conference in Dublin in 2006 she describes how a powerful but narrow and rigid set of thinking called 'normal' arises and how structures and systems are then organised around this thinking. Reviewing research carried out by people with disabilities Gleeson found that

  - Fear and power under-gird relationships with disability
  - Vulnerability to illness and death are feared and unconsciously that fear is projected onto people with disability
  - Fear turns in to power in that unconsciously people with disabilities are treated as not normal and our projection is reflected in social structures which further isolate and marginalize them
   - From an early age we are socialised into thinking about 'normal' and 'not normal' categories of people and consider those categories to be true or natural."

Some of the most lovely, creative, happy individuals I have ever known - have Autism.


-and before any one asks me if I'm only referring to people with Autism who are "high functioning" - NO - I'm not.

I could share the variety of the life experiences of children and adults I've worked with... over many years... but I don't have the permission (or energy) to do so.


anyhoo- I'm leaving this thread (again)... I just don't have the energy to squander to a *right-fighter.

(*the right-fighter has a goal of conforming all around her/him to an understanding of the one “correct” and “only” perspective in an argument.)


Monica, in the past I've expressed I appreciate (at times) your passion and commitment... but (imo) you are a "right fighter"...

(imo) you are too difficult to exchange ideas with because you have your mind already fully made up... so you come here to convert not to dialogue.  

For example: Shawnna has repeatedly agreed with and/or made concessions to several of your points... but still you continue to receive her replies coloured through a defensive perspective... and repeat fear laden rhetoric.

Also, you're selectively replying to the info I posted (by only focussing on Polio)... and if you allege 'disease has cycles"

- then provide this membership with a thorough, structured solution to this entire issue...

- because we can't take away what's currently holding epidemics at bay without a viable alternative!

I agree vaccine safety is very important - and needs to continue - it's a work in progress..

in the interim what alternative (whole-scale) are you actually proposing?? (The product you sell?)



I don't want this kind of dogmatic exchange in my life... but I have briefly re-joined this thread to make these points - to stand up for disability advocacy and for plain common sense.


-------------------------------

NB: Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

```````````````````````````

Splash

[Bourbon Betty]

Good discussions from the glance I've had and listened to.

My opinion is this, Vaccinate by slow build-up of resistance by taking the least harmful disease and building up from there in relation to the situation you are in. If you expect to meet the black death, vaccinate with getting chicken pox, and so on.

[Bluebell]

.

..one other thing:

I've worked extensively with children, teens, and adults, (and friends) with Autism and other disabilities -

so I speak from years of direct, complex, varied and thorough experience when I say that

the stigma, stereotyping, and prejudice against people with disability that is inherent in the anti-vaccination premise being argued on this thread

- is discriminatory, judgemental and ignorant.

(I'm friends with a prominent (Australian) disability rights activist who would be furious and deeply insulted were Monica (or anyone) to tell her that who (and how) she is - in a differently-abled mind and body - is 'wrong' - a 'disaster' - "damaged".)

There are serious consequences of negative attitudes towards persons with disability.

from: http://nda.ie/Publications/Attitudes/Lit...tudes.html

"Impairment is an objective concept and means that aspects of a person's body do not function or function with difficulty (Crow, 1996). However, when impairment is taken a step further to imply that a person's body, the person and the person's worth is inferior to that of others, then there is an interpretation that is socially created and is therefore not fixed or inevitable (Crow, 1996). Crow argues that one can think of impairment in three, related, ways. First there is the objective concept of impairment. Second, there is the individual interpretation of the subjective experience of impairment. Finally, there is the impact of the wider social context upon impairment, in which misrepresentation, exclusion and discrimination combine to disable people with impairments."

"Gleeson (2006) has attempted to de-construct 'discourses of what is considered normal i.e."normalcy". In the NDA Research Conference in Dublin in 2006 she describes how a powerful but narrow and rigid set of thinking called 'normal' arises and how structures and systems are then organised around this thinking. Reviewing research carried out by people with disabilities Gleeson found that

  - Fear and power under-gird relationships with disability
  - Vulnerability to illness and death are feared and unconsciously that fear is projected onto people with disability
  - Fear turns in to power in that unconsciously people with disabilities are treated as not normal and our projection is reflected in social structures which further isolate and marginalize them
   - From an early age we are socialised into thinking about 'normal' and 'not normal' categories of people and consider those categories to be true or natural."

Some of the most lovely, creative, happy individuals I have ever known - have Autism.


-and before any one asks me if I'm only referring to people with Autism who are "high functioning" - NO - I'm not.

I could share the variety of the life experiences of children and adults I've worked with... over many years... but I don't have the permission (or energy) to do so.


anyhoo- I'm leaving this thread (again)... I just don't have the energy to squander to a *right-fighter.

(*the right-fighter has a goal of conforming all around her/him to an understanding of the one “correct” and “only” perspective in an argument.)


Monica, in the past I've expressed I appreciate (at times) your passion and commitment... but (imo) you are a "right fighter"...

(imo) you are too difficult to exchange ideas with because you have your mind already fully made up... so you come here to convert not to dialogue.  

For example: Shawnna has repeatedly agreed with and/or made concessions to several of your points... but still you continue to receive her replies coloured through a defensive perspective... and repeat fear laden rhetoric.

Also, you're selectively replying to the info I posted (by only focussing on Polio)... and if you allege 'disease has cycles"

- then provide this membership with a thorough, structured solution to this entire issue...

- because we can't take away what's currently holding epidemics at bay without a viable alternative!

I agree vaccine safety is very important - and needs to continue - it's a work in progress..

in the interim what alternative (whole-scale) are you actually proposing?? (The product you sell?)



I don't want this kind of dogmatic exchange in my life... but I have briefly re-joined this thread to make these points - to stand up for disability advocacy and for plain common sense.


-------------------------------

NB: Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

```````````````````````````

Splash

i am autistic. i am anti forced vaccination. u know y? it's not because vaccines CAUSE autism. after all, autism is HEREDITARY.

it's because autistics have a VERY SENSITIVE SYSTEM. vaccines & poison in vaccines cause a heap of problems.


so, go ahead & vaccinate ur babies but don't tell me to put mercury in my autistic hypothetical baby.

[Monica]

I gave up on being heard/understood on this thread (and the 'Grand Conspiracy' thread) a lonnnnggg time back...

(mostly because it's a known psychological phenomena that often, arguing with people can cause them to become even more adamant about their position on an issue...)

Not sure what you mean by this, but then, maybe I missed some threads you're referring to. I do recall pm'ing you because I was impressed by something you said, so I for one, have 'heard' what you say (for what it's worth). I might not always agree with you, but I have found value in your words.

but - as Monica has made reference to peoples first hand experiences being important to take into account...

I thought I'd (re) share this one:

Being in the business I'm in, I've had a lot of experience with disinfo. That post has several classic elements of disinfo. I think it's fake. The way it's worded, the type of site it's posted on, its tendency to 'cover all the bases' of discrediting alternatives, and its hallmark trait of 'going overboard' all look like classic propaganda to me.

Disinfo pieces are easily recognized by their tendency to go overboard:

It was when I stopped taking sugar pills for everything and started seeing medical professionals that I began to thrive physically and mentally.

Even IF it's true (which I think it isn't), I could find hundreds of cases saying the opposite, for every one like this.

Even IF it's true, we all know about Uncle Charlie who was never sick a day in his life, despite eating white bread and baloney sandwiches and drinking tequila and smoking 2 packs of cigs every day, and lived to 95. Uncle Charlie's story doesn't prove that smoking cigarettes is healthy.

Yes, stories are important. Yes, we should listen to what these people have to say. A single story has little weight. Collectively, a large number of stories with the same pattern, carries a lot more weight. We also need to have some common sense.

[Monica]

the stigma, stereotyping, and prejudice against people with disability that is inherent in the anti-vaccination premise being argued on this thread

- is discriminatory, judgemental and ignorant.

(I'm friends with a prominent (Australian) disability rights activist who would be furious and deeply insulted were Monica (or anyone) to tell her that who (and how) she is - in a differently-abled mind and body - is 'wrong' - a 'disaster' - "damaged".)

There are serious consequences of negative attitudes towards persons with disability.

That is some very good feedback! I'd never thought of it that way, but now that I think about it, you're right. Obviously the parents whose children were injured (is that a better term?) would never want to add judgment or stigmatizing on top of all their other problems, so it's clearly not intentional.

I admit I picked up the term from seeing it used so often by them. I don't think I ever would have chosen that word. It does carry a certain connotation.

Over 2 million people are hospitalized each year, and 106,000 people die every year from adverse drug reactions, for prescription drugs used properly. It's the 4th leading cause of death in the US. This isn't even counting overdoses of prescription drugs (which is the 2nd leading cause of death) or illegally used drugs.

When I talk with doctors about adverse drug reactions, I use the term injured. It does seem a much better choice.

I'm not active in the anti-vaxxer movement but I know someone who is, and I will pass on your feedback to her.

Edit: When I was compiling all those statistics (in subsequent posts) I saw several 'official' sites that used the word 'damaged' so apparently it's the official term and maybe that's why the parents started using it too. I agree that it's a poor choice of wording.

[Monica]

(imo) you are too difficult to exchange ideas with because you have your mind already fully made up... so you come here to convert not to dialogue.

Interesting that you don't seem to have an issue with Shawnna 'having her mind made up.' So it's ok for her to have her mind made up that people should vaccinate their children, but it isn't ok for me to have my mind made up that vaccines are dangerous and people should do extensive research into the issue so that they can make an informed decision?

There is a difference between having one's mind made up after extensive study of a subject, vs being closed-minded to new information about a subject they haven't researched yet.  

For example: Shawnna has repeatedly agreed with and/or made concessions to several of your points... but still you continue to receive her replies coloured through a defensive perspective... and repeat fear laden rhetoric.

Shawnna has also repeatedly changed the conversation away from academic discussion of the topic, to an assessment of my intentions, just as you just did with your 'convert' comment.

I have zero respect for any comments about another person's motivations or intentions. That is making it personal. I disagree with Shawnna but would never accuse her of 'spreading false notions' so I didn't appreciate being told that I was doing that. There were several other, similar statements made by her but I let them slide.

Also, you're selectively replying to the info I posted (by only focussing on Polio)... and if you allege 'disease has cycles"

- then provide this membership with a thorough, structured solution to this entire issue...

Contrary to what you just asserted, I don't have any wish to convert anyone to anything. I wish only to convey that this issue isn't as black-and-white as the medical system would have us believe, and there is a huge amount of important information out there, that anyone with a computer can access, and I think it's a mistake to inject poisons into a child without first doing a LOT of due diligence.

It's really about taking responsibility for our own health, instead of following the so-called 'experts.' I'm actually NOT advocating that no one ever vaccinate. If you read all my posts, you will see that I never said that. I even acknowledged the 2 vaccines that I personally believe have merit, and whose good outweighs the risks.

No, my stance all along has been "Vaccines are inherently dangerous. Be aware of this and do you due diligence so that you can make an informed decision, instead of just doing what the doctor tells you to. Get educated. Be informed. Then decide for yourself."

I did my research on this 27 years ago, when I was pregnant. That was before we had internet! I don't even remember the titles of all the books and medical papers I read, so it would be impossible to list there here.

In recent years, I have done a fair amount of additional research on the internet. There is an abundance of information available, and I think everyone here knows how to use Google.  

- because we can't take away what's currently holding epidemics at bay without a viable alternative!

I agree vaccine safety is very important - and needs to continue - it's a work in progress..

in the interim what alternative (whole-scale) are you actually proposing?? (The product you sell?)

I hope you're not implying that I am stating these views in order to sell some product! (Which would be laughable...being that Big Pharma makes $300Billion per year on drugs, many of which are actually killing many thousands of people.)

My whole point is that medicine should follow the Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm. Vaccines clearly do harm. Even if the numbers are small, that's still harm. But the numbers aren't even small!

I disagree with the mentality that poisoning the body could possibly have any benefits. It's a different paradigm. It is the same with chemo. I know many people who were left for dead by the medical system, and were healed using alternatives (which the doctors told them were worthless).

I agree that we can't just quit vaccinating without replacing it with anything. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that I have frequently told parents "Don't just not vaccinate. If you choose to not vaccinate, you need to get educated about alternatives."

I have done the same thing with people who had cancer. "Don't just not do chemo. If you choose the alternative route, then get educated and DO it...don't just do nothing!"

I have said this many times. I shudder at the thought of people just rejecting the medical methods, but doing nothing to replace them, out of ignorance.

No, the water machine isn't an instant cure for anything. It's the foundation to many things. In the natural healing paradigm, nothing is considered an instant cure. It's a totally different paradigm, based on the concept of giving the body the tools it needs to heal itself. There are many, many natural foods, herbs, etc. that have been shown to assist the body in its healing process.

Emotional and spiritual issues also come into play. If someone has made the choice on a soul level to be sick or die, then they simply won't know about or choose the physical tools that could heal them physically. There is no single answer that will work for every person in every case. I don't have a solution all laid out for preventing all diseases. But there are lots of other health professionals who are working on those solutions, and have had very promising results. So yes, there are alternatives, even to those nasty plagues.

For starters, here is one book that I do remember:

Homoeopathy in Epidemic Diseases Paperback by Dr. Dorothy Shepherd

Now this discussion will likely turn into a debate about homeopathy. I'll spare you the trouble. The American medical system tells us that homeopathy has been proven to be completely worthless, because they did a meta-study a few years ago that failed to find any efficacy at all, despite previous studies which did.

That meta-study was rigged from the start. (If anyone wants to think I'm a fear-mongering conspiracy theorist for saying that, go ahead and think that, and don't bother reading my reasons. It doesn't matter to me.)

The reason is very simple: They tried to fit homeopathy into a pharmaceutical paradigm. Homeopathy doesn't work like that, so of course their study failed to show any efficacy. It was impossible for homeopathy to work in that framework.

Homeopathy takes the whole person into account - their constitution, which includes emotional and mental aspects, along with subtle symptoms dismissed by the medical system.

For example, if 100 people have a fever, they might have 10 different constitutions, and thus require 10 different homeopathic remedies.

Thus, to test homeopathy, this MUST be taken into consideration. Any homeopath could have told the medical people that. Surely they did.

And yet, the studies were done using a single remedy for all 100 people. Of course it failed for 90% of them. Not because homeopathy doesn't work, but because it was the wrong medicine for those particular people!

The proper way to do a study on homeopathy would be to assess each person individually, and prescribe the correct remedy for their particular constitution.

That is impossible to do in a double-blind study.

Homeopathy doesn't fit into the medical paradigm. Homeopathy is vibrational medicine. I think of it as 4D medicine.

Our medical system shines in acute, emergency situations. They've saved my life twice and I'm very grateful to them! If someone has a car accident or broken bone, gosh, get thee to a hospital! That is where they shine.

But they are stuck in the dark ages, when it comes to chronic illnesses like cancer, and plagues like polio. Alternative practitioners know about MANY effective modalities, some of which are vibrational medicine like homoepathy. They are quietly healing people, while the medical system continues to scoff and discredit them.

Alternative healing doesn't offer an instant pill or injection. That's not how it works.

Dr. Shepherd's results during the polio epidemic were quite noteworthy. A medical system that actually follows the Hippocratic Oath would be aggressively investigating her work, rather than dismissing it.

But homeopathic medicines cost pennies to make.

[Monica]

Homeopath 'immunization' is actually a better example of using a tiny dose to trigger an immune response - the very concept that conventional vaccines are based on - but without the poisons, risks or side effects.

Have they been proven to work? Not conclusively. No drug company is interested in studying them. There's no money in it.

But these remedies are used extensively by doctors in India, Britain, and other places throughout the world. Clinics treat patients with a variety of illnesses, using homeopathy. Many alternative practitioners use homeopathy here in the US. Some are MDs. Homeopathy is still recognized as medicine by the FDA, even though they scoff at it. I know this for a fact because I got prescription homeopathic remedies from an MD many years ago, and there were insurance codes for it. They know it works. But their propaganda machine says it doesn't.

There is probably a lot more clinical evidence available now, that didn't exist 27 years ago. Double-blind studies? No. Those only work for pharmaceuticals. Clinical evidence? Yes, in abundance!

Homeopathic nosodes are available in all the diseases. I had to get them from England 27 years ago. They're now readily available in the US.

Edit: I just discovered that there have been a number of large clinical trials in recent years, that I didn't know about when I posted this. See subsequent posts.

[Monica]

A quick search yielded this. This is just a sampling. I'm not going to spend hours posting information which anyone can easily find for themselves. My intention is only to let people know that it's worth investigating. Neither am I going to get into a debate about the credentials of this particular doctor. Decide for yourselves.

Excerpt from Dr. Dorothy Shepherd's book (linked above):

"I must say a few words on Diphtherinum -- the diphtheria nosode -- and its use as a prophylactic instead of the popular immunization of the orthodox school. Our homeopathic prophylactics are far safer and are not complicated by any early or late aftereffects. Diphtherinum , the diphtheria nosode, is an excellent preventive and has been used by other homeopathic physicians as well as by myself in hundreds of cases, with success.

"I have given Diphtherinum CM in unit doses and occasionally Diphtherinum 30 in weekly doses for four to six weeks, and I have not heard of any failures. Of course, it may be argued that these children might not have developed it in any case -- which may be true.

"Which is the best potency to give for protection? I could not lay down any hard and fast rules myself; I have only been feeling my way so far. A French homoeopathic doctor is reported to have conducted an experiment along these lines for years, and when he published his results later, he claimed that the higher potencies give longer immunity: the 1000th(9) gave approximately two and a half years' protection, and the lower ones less, by analogy it follows that the thirtieth would protect for only a few months.

"Doubt has often been expressed, whether Diptherinum or any homeopathic medication can truly prevent diphtheria. Records have been published by Dr. Paterson of Glasgow of the results obtained at the Mount Vernon Hospital for Children (Homeopathic). Diphtherinum in the 200th potency produced definite immunity, as shown by the Schick test.(10) All the cases done in this way gave a Schick negative result within nine weeks, and some as early as three weeks afterwards.(11)

"Dr. Mitchell reports three children who were found to be Schick positive; two doses of Diphtherinum in potency were given; two weeks later two of the children were Schick negative, the third became Schick negative a few weeks later, before orthodox immunization was carried out. Dr. Mitchell adds 'three cases do not prove anything except that immunity can be induced by homeopathic potencies.' "Dr. Paterson was most emphatic in urging that serum should not be given after a homeopathic remedy. Very bad results had followed this method (my emphasis); other doctors stated that when the serum was given first, and the homeopathic remedy second, no evil results had followed.

"Dr. Bodman said that at the Bristol Homoeopathic Hospital some thirty to forty nurses were immunized by the orthodox method. It was noticed hereafter that an enormous amount of sickness followed immediately after the immunization. It temporarily reduced resistance to any infection, and they went down with influenza, German measles, whooping cough, and the sickness rate among the nurses was higher during the six months following diphtheria immunization than in any period in the history of the hospital.

"Personally, as I have stated already on different occasions, I have observed during the last twenty years that immunization is followed in an appreciable percentage of cases by a general lowering of resistance, (my emphasis) and I have seen serious and fatal cases of toxemia coming on within a week or two after diphtheria inoculation. Dermatitis starting from the point of inoculation and spreading all over the arm and to the chest and cheek developed in three children of one family after the inoculation, and the Loeffler bacillus was found in the discharges from the skin. Diphtherinum M in daily doses cleared up the dermatitis in a fortnight, when previously it had gone on spreading for several months, and resisted all sorts of local treatment.

"I am chary of advising diphtheria inoculations as a method of prevention of the disease. I was medical officer at a children's clinic which served a crowded area in South London within the reach of eight big schools, with a population of several hundred scholars in each. We had a daily attendance of over a hundred children for treatment. We always knew when there had been an immunization session at any of the schools nearby, for they flocked in their dozens to us, having their swollen arms, the septic sores, and the dermatitis dressed within a few days. We used to give them -- as a matter of routine -- Diphtherinum 30 in daily doses, and got rapid healing and disappearance of the lesions. Later results in many of the children who bore the brunt of the inoculations well in the early days, were crops of multiple warts(12) on hands, arms, and in their hundreds on the cheeks and face, peculiar dark brown, almost black, minute warts, which went on for months, but cleared up, almost overnight, at any rate in a week or two, with repeated doses of Diphtherinum 30."(13)

There is much more...on other diseases too. More excerpts here: http://www.thinktwice.com/nosodes.htm

[Shawnna]

One strategy used by those who cannot defend their indefensible position is to post volumes of propaganda from questionable sources with the caveat to 'check it out yourself'.

[Monica]

I got Dr. Shepherd's book 27 years ago. I had about 10 other books which I loaned to a pregnant friend, and never got them back. (She moved away and we lost contact.)

I don't even remember the titles. But there are a lot of new books on the subject, which I haven't read, but I will pass them on. NOT claiming that any of these are 100% conclusive. There is NO such thing as a 100% guarantee on anything health-related, and that of course applies to conventional medical treatments as well. Nor do I have any direct experience with any of these practitioners. As I said, I got my homeopathic medicines from England and was on my own, without any local support or resources. I offer these info sites as starting points for further investigation.

OK as per your request, Splash, I just did a quick search, and it yielded much. Apparently there is a LOT of new clinical evidence from recent years, that didn't even exist back in my day. I will post this and then I need to quit. I have provided enough info for people to use as a starting point for their own research, if they wish. There is probably a lot more info out there I haven't even found. But just this here is very compelling.

The Solution: Homeoprophylaxis: The Vaccine Alternative Paperback by Kate Birch

Homeopathic Alternatives to Vaccines

Homeoprophylaxis for Free and Healthy Children

Homeopathic Prophylaxis for Childhood Diseases: An alternative to Allopathic Vaccination
by Mikhail E. W. Plettner, Ph.D., M.Sc., L.Ac.

CHILDHOOD VACCINATIONS – A HOMEOPATHIC VIEW

Large scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control” by G. Bracho et al; Homeopathy, Vol. 99, No. 3, pages 156-166; July 2010.

The outcomes of homeopathic immunization (homoeoprophylaxis) have been very successful. Results of a 15-year study done on 2,342 children by immunization expert Dr. Isaac Golden, Ph.D., showed the effectiveness of homeopathic vaccinations as 90%, suggesting homeopathic immunizations are as effective as regular vaccines, but without the hazards of regular vaccine toxicity [iv].

Another study on the effectiveness of homeopathic vaccination took place in October 2007 in Cuba. Researchers and Public Health officials collaborated in the homeopathic immunization of over 2 million persons against epidemic leptospirosis. The homeopathic vaccine was administered to 2.1 million people in the regions at highest risk of disease, where the statistical model had predicted close to a 100% increase for this period in 2007 [ix].

Of the remaining 11 million inhabitants only 15,000 persons (0.6% of the population) received a conventional vaccine. The results were impressive. Within two weeks of administering the homeopathic immunization in the intervention region, a 90% decrease in disease incidence was observed. In the past, the disease incidence always increased during this period, even with the administration of conventional vaccination. In the non-intervention region, the usual increase for this time of year had occurred.

Homeoprophylaxis – A Fifteen Year Clinical Study, Isaac Golden, Ph.D.

Most studies have been in limited numbers of people, but since 2007 we now have evidence involving the use of HP in millions of people in Cuba. Because of the 50 year USA embargo on Cuba it has needed to become self-sufficient in medical education and medical supplies. In fact recent data shows that Cuba now has a lower infant mortality rate than the USA, a real credit for a country which has a per-head GPD (a measure of wealth) of 1/4th of that in the USA. The Finlay Institute in Cuba is a W.H.O. registered vaccine manufacturer and supplies vaccines to South America and Africa. The people who conducted the HP interventions described below were not homeopaths but orthodox scientists and doctors.

In October and November 2007, three provinces of the eastern region of Cuba were affected by strong rainfalls causing widespread floods severe damage to sanitary and health systems. The risk of leptospirosis infection was raised to extremely dangerous levels with about 2 million of people exposed to potentially contaminated water. The Finlay Institute (which manufactures vaccines for South America and Africa) prepared a leptospira nosode 200 CH using 4 circulating strains and following international quality standards. A multidisciplinary team travelled to the affected regions to conduct the massive administration of the nosode. Coordinated action with public health system infrastructures allowed the administration of a preventive treatment. Prevention consisted of two doses (7- 9 days apart) of the nosode to over 2.2 million of people (4.5 million doses). The coverage of the intervention rose up to 95% of total population of the three provinces most at risk.

The epidemiology surveillance after the intervention showed a dramatic decrease of morbidity two weeks after and a reduction to zero mortality of hospitalized patients. The number of confirmed leptospirosis cases remains at low levels, and below the expected levels according to the trends and rain regimens. A reinforcing application of nearly 4,500,000 doses was given in 2008 after the hit of the hurricane IKE but using the nosode potentized to 10-MCH. Strict epidemiologic surveillance was carried out on the targeted provinces. Published results show that the incidence of the disease was unchanged in the three intervened regions (the 3 regions most at risk due to the greatest level of hurricane damage), but rose significantly in the rest of the country where the HP program was not used. It provided overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of the HP intervention. As a consequence, the Cuban Government directed the Finlay Institute to homeopathically immunise the entire country over 12 months of age against Swine Flu in 2009/10 (over 9.8 million people).

This immunization program undertaken by the Finlay Institute (a W.H.O. registered vaccine manufacturer) cost around $400,000US. It indicates that the entire population of Australia could be homoeopathically immunised for around $10,000,000. This cost applies for homeopathic immunization against any infectious disease. In 2009, the Australian Government spent $200,000,000 to purchase vaccines (mostly unused) to vaccinate the Australian population against Swine Flu. In fact, most of this expenditure could have been saved using homeopathic immunization against Swine Flu, and this calculation can be repeated many times given the large vaccination schedule now current in Australia. But further, the homeopathic option is non-toxic, and would remove the risk of using a little tested vaccine. We know in America when mass swine flu vaccination was last used that people died from the vaccine and hundreds were permanently damaged, costing the American Government billions in compensation.

Homoeoprophylaxis – a Proven Alternative to Vaccination By Dr Isaac Golden

What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About™ Children's Vaccinations by Stephanie Cave

Homoeopathy in Epidemic Diseases by Dr. Dorothy Shepherd <<== Note: I trust Dr. Shepherd's work the most because she was an MD who actually used homoepathic medicines as both immunization and treatment, during the height of the polio epidemic. She also had experience with hundreds of patients with whooping cough, diphtheria and other diseases. So her info is clinical, not just theoretical.

Magic of the Minimum Dose: Cases & Experiences of a Homeopathic Doctor by Dorothy Shepherd

More Magic of the Minimum Dose: Further Case Histories by a World Famous Homeopathic Doctor by Dr. Dorothy Shepherd

Edit: Incidentally, according to the WHO statistics, Cuba ranks higher in health and longevity than the US.  :exclamation: (Just an interesting bit of trivia.) I always show the United Nations health statistics document at my presentations and always mention Cuba because the US ranks below them on the chart. The audience always is amazed when they see that Cubans are healthier than Americans!

[Monica]

One strategy used by those who cannot defend their indefensible position is to post volumes of propaganda from questionable sources with the caveat to 'check it out yourself'.

My my you're just full of insults, aren't you? So damned if I do, damned if I don't, eh? If I say "This is true...believe me!" you will say I'm pushing an agenda. But when I say "Here is some info to use as a starting point...don't take my word for it but check it out for yourself and decide for yourself" you have the audacity to say THAT???

WOW

[Minyatur]

One strategy used by those who cannot defend their indefensible position is to post volumes of propaganda from questionable sources with the caveat to 'check it out yourself'.

Another method of propaganda is blindly adhering to the official statements like good sheeple. It's not because you don't want something to be true that it can't.

[Monica]

MORE Clinical data on large numbers of people in recent years. Here is the bottom line:

1. THE SAFETY OF VACCINATION

SHORT-TERM: We know that most short-term reactions are fairly mild, including sleeplessness, screaming, tremors, rashes and so on. However we also know that occasionally people are killed or permanently brain damaged by vaccines. Many developed countries (not Australia) have vaccine-damage-compensation schemes. In the USA for example over 2.5 billion dollars has been paid out in vaccine damage compensation payments and hundreds of millions of dollars paid in countries such as the United Kingdom and Japan. Government figures are readily available for those who wish to verify this fact. It is also worth looking at the VAERS website (the USA vaccine adverse event reporting service) as this provides an insight into the short-term safety of most vaccines..

LONG-TERM: To assemble relevant information about long-term vaccine safety it is necessary to collect data with the following characteristics: (i) examine the complete health of participants including intellectual, emotional as well as physical aspects; (ii) compare fully vaccinated and fully unvaccinated participants (the inclusion of “partially vaccinated” participants means that people who have received only one or two vaccines will be included and this may well bias results, as will the failure to make comparisons with children who have received no vaccines at all); (iii) consider only age appropriate participants (the inclusion of very young infants will not provide a reliable indication of chronic health – usually ages between 4 and 14 years of age are considered appropriate). I have never seen a significant study published in orthodox medical journals which complies with these three requirements (Note: I always ask orthodox scientists for this evidence and have never had a meaningful reply – however if someone can provide details of complete and appropriate long-term safety studies I will change the statement I have made). Therefore we do not know with scientific certainly the true long-term impact of vaccination on our complete health.

2. THE SAFETY OF HOMOEOPROPHYLAXIS

Homeopathic medicines are prepared using a process of dilution and succussion (the firm striking of the solution against a hard surface (the remedy does not develop medicinal powers without this action at every stage of dilution). Once a remedy is prepared past the 12th centesimal potency there are no molecules of the original substance left according to Avogadro’s Law in science. So there is agreement that homeopathic potencies are not toxic. However this is also why many orthodox scientists believe that they cannot work as they do not contain molecules of the original substance. This becomes a matter of evidence, which we shall discuss shortly. As part of my doctoral studies I examined the long-term health of children who used vaccination and homoeoprophylaxis as well as those who used constitutional methods to improve health and those who did nothing at all to prevent infectious diseases. The homoeoprophylaxis group was the healthiest, as measured by having the lowest long-term incidence of five conditions, suggesting that it is not only non-toxic but energetically safe.

3. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINATION

The National Health and Medical Research Council produces a book called The Australian Immunisation Handbook which is regarded as the definitive reference regarding vaccination in Australia. Looking at the 10th edition released in 2013 we see that the effectiveness of all vaccines ranges between 44% and 99% depending on the vaccine (or 71% to 99% for the vaccines used in our current schedule). It should be noted that these are best-estimates usually derived from clinical trials, and that even vaccines which are shown to be highly effective vaccines in trials are often shown to be less effective in real-world outbreaks.    

4. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HOMOEOPROPHYLAXIS

We know that homoeoprophylaxis (HP) is non-toxic so the crucial question is “does it work?” Put simply, there is no point in using something which is safe if it doesn’t work. There are four types of evidence now available.

(i) Historical Evidence: Vaccination was first used in 1796 and HP was first used in 1798. There is over 200 years of recorded clinical evidence showing the real-world effectiveness. The founder of Homeopathy, Dr Samuel Hahnemann, was the first to use HP in epidemic situations and it has been used by many masters of homeopathy since then. However much of this information is not collected into statistical studies and does not suggest rates of effectiveness. It has value, but we shall next examine statistical studies.

(ii) Epidemic Studies: There have been a number of studies published in English describing the effectiveness of HP in epidemic conditions. Most have found an effectiveness of around 90%. Other studies from South America and India have yet to be translated. The most thorough study in English undertaken by orthodox practitioners and scientists was from Brazil in 1998.
The Brazilian Experience
In 1998 there was an outbreak of meningococcal meningitis type B in a region of Brazil. Many doctors in that country are also homeopaths. There was no vaccine available at the time there is still no vaccine availble for Meningococcal type B in Australia), so a group of doctors who worked in the region used the meningococcal Nosode to immunize 65,826 children. Another 23,539 children in the region were not immunized. The doctors followed the two groups for 12 months. The efficacy of homeoprophylaxis was 95% after six months and 91% after 12 months. It was a complete and statistically rigorous report and was published in a leading peer reviewed Homeopathic journal, and is available for study (reference:
Mroninski C, Adriano E, Mattos G (2001) Meningococcinum: Its protective effect against meningococcal disease. Homoeopathic Links Winter Vol 14(4); pp. 230-4).

(iii) Long-term Endemic Studies:  My own research into a long-term HP program for use against potentially serious infectious diseases commonly present in the Australian community collected and examined data from 1986 to 2004. The results of the research have been published and are now available. Please click here to visit the publication site. Please click here to see the list of articles written by Dr Golden.

The research which has been completed comprised two parts:

a. A National Health Survey - this research studied 781 children between 5 and 10 years of age. Through a questionnaire completed by parents, measures of each child's general immune competence (using the diseases of asthma, chronic eczema, chronic ear infections, allergies and behavioural problems) were compared to the method of disease prevention which the child used, including vaccination, homoeopathy, general constitutional treatment, no method at all, or a combination of all of these. The relative safety and effectiveness of the different immunisation methods studied was then calculated.

b. A Twenty Year Clinical Study - using responses from parents whose children used my 5 year homoeoprophylactic program for disease prevention from 1985 to 2004. 2,342 responses were collected, each one covering one year of a child's life. The effectiveness and safety of the homoeopathic option to vaccination is fully discussed, and the actual comments by parents are reported. The single figure measure of effectiveness is 90.4% (95% confidence limits 87.6% - 93.2%). Using national attack rates as a control HP efficacy for three diseases was whooping cough – 86.2%; measles – 90.0%; mumps – 91.6%.

The purpose of this research has been threefold:

1. To provide parents with objective data on which to base what is often the most difficult health decision a parent must make - how to safely and effectively immunize their child.
2. To provide data on which health professionals can base their advice to parents.
3. To provide both State and Federal governments with data that shows that vaccination is not the only valid option to prevent targeted infectious diseases. In fact my doctoral thesis submitted concluded that the best possible system would involve a dual system of immunisation, where parents were freely able to choose either vaccination or homoeoprophylaxis. Figures clearly showed that this would increase the national coverage against targeted diseases (increase herd immunity), and lower the national incidence of certain chronic illnesses, such as asthma and eczema, as well as reduce behavioural problems associated with vaccination.

It is important to note that no one piece of research on its own can ever provide sufficient information – but a base of research is made up of individual studies and allows researchers to see if there is consistency in findings from a variety of independent studies. This is where this part of my research is relevant – it shows a consistency of findings over a variety of studies of around 90% effectiveness.

For interested readers, the following article gives a summary of my research - enough to show readers whether they would like to pursue their study of the option further Click here to see the article (PDF, 32k).

Click here to see the choices you have. (PDF, 20k)

It should be noted that the Australian Register of Homeopaths directs homeopaths not to make recommendations against vaccination, and to provide patients with balanced information about HP and sign a statement saying that they have received balanced information from their practitioner
Click here to see the AROH position. I fully support the AROH position. It is not up to any type of practitioner to direct parents, but to support them with objective data.

from http://www.homstudy.net/Research/

[Monica]

post volumes of propaganda from questionable sources

Furthermore, News Flash! Propaganda is used by large, powerful entities to influence the public.

Did you know that the top 10 Fortune 500 pharmaceutical companies make more profit than the other 490 Fortune 500 companies put together?

So...you seem to be choosing to trust info you get from the largest money-makers in the world, while claiming that normal, average families telling their stories is...propaganda.

The largest money-makers in the world aren't guilty of propaganda, but John and Jane Smith whose child was injured, are?

The drug companies have billions - BILLIONS - of profit but what they say isn't propaganda? While John and Jane don't profit at all when others do or don't vaccinate, and thus have no reason to spread propaganda, but you say they are the ones guilty of propaganda?

OK got it.  

[Monica]

I wonder if vaccines were even included in these stats.

The first question healthcare providers should ask themselves is "why is it important to learn about ADRs?" The answer is because ADRs are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in health care. The Institute of Medicine reported in January of 2000 that from 44,000 to 98,000 deaths occur annually from medical errors.1 Of this total, an estimated 7,000 deaths occur due to ADRs. To put this in perspective, consider that 6,000 Americans die each year from workplace injuries.

However, other studies conducted on hospitalized patient populations have placed much higher estimates on the overall incidence of serious ADRs. These studies estimate that 6.7% of hospitalized patients have a serious adverse drug reaction with a fatality rate of 0.32%.2  If these estimates are correct, then there are more than 2,216,000 serious ADRs in hospitalized patients, causing over 106,000 deaths annually. If true, then ADRs are the 4th leading cause of death—ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile deaths.

These statistics do not include the number of ADRs that occur in ambulatory settings. Also, it is estimated that over 350,000 ADRs occur in U.S. nursing homes each year.3 The exact number of ADRs is not certain and is limited by methodological considerations. However, whatever the true number is, ADRs represent a significant public health problem that is, for the most part, preventable.

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentAppr...110632.htm

(Note to Shawnna: I assume you consider the FDA's official site to be 'accurate and unbiased', so I'm using that.)

The lab I work for has a simple DNA test which can predict how the person will metabolize the drug. The vast majority of medications metabolized by the liver are included in the analysis. This can drastically reduce ADR's.

I haven't seen anything about vaccines though. I'm going to ask them about it. I suspect it won't work with vaccines because of the way vaccines are preserved...they are specifically designed to stay in the system, rather than being metabolized and excreted like other poisons.

[Monica]

More resources. (Not proof...resources for further study!!!)

The Prevention of Epidemic Diseases by Homoeopathy © David Little 1996-2007

Some History of the Treatment of Epidemics with Homeopathy by Julian Winston

Homeopathy in Epidemics and Pandemics - Scientific Research in Homeopathy Conference

Lives saved by Homeopathy in Epidemics and Pandemics January 23, 2013

There Is a Choice: Homeoprophylaxis by Cilla Whatcott (Author), Dr. Isaac Golden (Foreword)

The Vaccine Court: The Dark Truth of America's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Wayne Rohde

A Worldwide Choice for Disease Prevention: Homeoprophylaxis by Cilla Whatcott

The Homeopathic Treatment of Influenza - Special Bird Flu Edition: Surviving Influenza Epidemics And Pandemics Past, Present, And Future With Homeopathy by Sandra J. Perko

Homeopathy for Epidemics Perfect by Eileen Nauman

Vaccine Free: Prevention and Treatment of Infectioius Contagious Disease with Homeopathy Paperback by Kate Birch

Vaccines: What CDC Documents and Science Reveal by Dr. Sherri J. Tenpenny

Vaccination & Homoeoprophylaxis?: A Review of Risks and Alternatives - 7th Edition by Dr Isaac Golden

The Complete Practitioner's Manual of Homoeoprophylaxis: A Practical Handbook of Homeopathic Immunisation by Dr Isaac Golden

Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children by Louise Kuo Habakus

Let’s Look at Homeopathic Immunisation (Homeoprophylaxis)

The Indian government controls epidemics of malaria, Japanese encephalitis, dengue fever, and epidemic fever with homeopathy
The Cuban government now depends on homeopathy to manage its leptospirosis epidemics and dengue fever outbreaks
The Brazilian government funded two large trials that successfully reduced the incidence of meningococcal disease in those given the homeopathy prophylactic
The governments of Thailand, Colombo and Brazil use homeopathy to manage dengue fever outbreaks and epidemics
(References and sources for these and other instances are found at: http://homeopathyplus.com.au/Homeoprophy...Trials.pdf) Isn’t it time our governments researched the homeopathic option? Under the circumstances, it is the only reasonable and sensible thing to do.

(That's not even counting the work of Dr. Dorothy Shepherd during the polio epidemic, with diphtheria, and others in the last century.)

Here is a more comprehensive list:

http://homeopathyplus.com.au/Homeoprophy...Trials.pdf