Formaldehyde, leukaemia linked

[dArKeR]

Formaldehyde, the pungent chemical used in everything from insect preservation to film manufacturing, may boost rates of leukaemia in exposed workers, a major US analysis finds.

And a new study from the United Kingdom suggests such workers also face a greater lung cancer risk from formaldehyde exposure, although they only face a tiny risk of some rarer cancers.

The debate continues
While the US researchers acknowledge other studies haven't been as definitive about the potential risk, the new reports are certain to fuel the debate over the use of the chemical in factories.

However, some experts continue to call for less research and more restrictions.

http://www.health24.co.za/news/Cancer/1-898,25332.asp

What about all the kids that played with formaldehyde biology class for the last 60 years?

[mzmolly]

1. Guess what else contains formaldehyde? Vaccinations!!!!!

Yes, lets begin injecting 2 month olds with this substance, shall we?

Thanks for sharing.

[treepig]

4. a few micrograms in a vaccine

is much different than chronic industrial exposure (perhaps a little common sense is in order? - after all there are studies that show that injecting rats with water under certain conditions causes cancer - and horror of horrors, alot of vaccines also contain water!!)

[mzmolly]

6. There is no known 'safe' amount to inject into the human body ...

Why that doesn't concern the medical community, I'll never know.

Are you in the medical profession?

I have 3 RN friends who either stopped vaxing or never vaxed their children. I have a healthy child who is not vaxed "horror of horrors" :eyes:

Oh ... and vaccines contain more then justwater and the now harmless, formaldehyde.

They contain animal piss, mercury, msg etc. see here if you'd like to learn more.

http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/ingredie.html

http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html

http://www.nmaseminars.com/

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons has some surprising positions on vaccinations. Scroll down to the bottom and click on vaccines here.

http://www.aapsonline.org/

"First do no harm," remember?

I find this list alarming, doens't sound like your concerned ... so be it.

[GAspnes]

7. I am mildly horrified, yes.

If everyone does what you did, diptheria, measles and polio will reappear among our grandchildren.

If only you and a few friends avoid vaccination, you shift the risk burden of secondary effects onto everyone elses' children, thus neatly avoiding doing your public health duty and making suckers of the rest of us who take the risk of vaccination to protect *your* children.

Seems pretty selfish to me.

[mzmolly]

9. Bull, we are replacing permanent immunity with vaccination and 'temporary'

immunity. How this is 'helping in the long run' I'll never know.

The best way to protect children from disease is to breastfeed. However, I dont impose my personal medical beliefs on others, nor should you.

Also, I resent being called selfish. I took TWO plus years to make my decision, and spoke with countless government authorities about this issue. I read numerous books on the issue, and made an INFORMED and very NON SELFISH decision for my daughter.

I disagree with you that disease would return in droves if people stopped vaccinating. In fact there are highly vaccinated populations that have not seen a decrease in disease in spite. The reason being they dont have the sanitation/water standards systems that we do in the US.

In addition, I'd much rather my daughter contract measles then diabetes, cancer, autism etc... which have all been linked to vaccines by reputable medical journals!

I have an autistic nephew who survived stage 4 pediatric cancer, and a diabetic husband, so please don't lecture me about being selfish.

[trotsky]

10. Umm

All those babies back in the first half of the 20th century were pretty much 100% breastfed, yet polio claimed lungs, limbs, and lives. Please don't be so violently anti-vaccination.

[mzmolly]

16. I'm not violently anti-vaccination, I'm violently pro information/choice.

Also, polio was in a decline when the vaccine was introduced. In addition, the only modern cases of polio in the western hemisphere are now caused by the vaccine.

Thus, they should abandon it.

BTW, I'm really respectful of the choice of parents to vaccinate OK. I honestly don't want to appear otherwise.

[trotsky]

27. Do you have any stats to back that up?

"Polio was in decline when the vaccine was introduced"

Just curious.

[mzmolly]

56. Will it change your mind if I show them to you? nah.

Do some research, you'll find out ;)

[trotsky]

69. Yes, it just might.

But when you play coy, it doesn't exactly convince me of anything. You claim to have done this extensive research, it shouldn't be hard to post a link, cite a source, something.

[mzmolly]

80. Here is some information from various medical journals ... for starters.

http://chetday.com/novacarticles.html

http://www.all-creatures.org/cb/a-vaccines.html

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/prevnar2.htm

http://www.haciendapub.com/article37.html

I have a hard time with providing information to someone who calls me selfish and insane but...

Do me a favor, read the information and scroll down to the 'references' section in the articles I linked, you will find they note medical journals.

I didn't expect you to actually read them, but when it's obvious you haven't it's a bit difficult to want to provide you with more information.

I tried to leave this discussion, but I have a hard time being called selfish and insane because I don't believe in "human sacrifice."

[trotsky]

97. Don't take this the wrong way, but...

I don't want to have to wade through all those links just to find the hard, concrete answer to back up your assertion that polio was in decline by the time the vaccine was introduced.

Please just provide the exact source that demonstrates your claim is true. Don't make me dig through a mass of references just to verify your claim. You made it, now back it up.

[mzmolly]

99. Here you go.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/casedeath99.pdf

http://thinktwice.com/s_polio.htm

The Polio Death Rate Was Declining Before the Vaccine Was Introduced:

Alderson, Michael. International Mortality Statistics (Washington, DC: Facts on File, 1981), pp. 177-78.

I also posted at length on this subject below.

You will note a similar trend in other diseases.

But, I am not asserting vaccines are not effective, I do believe they are to a certain extent. I just don't think there as safe as were led to believe. I also don't think there as effective as were led to believe.

[trotsky]

103. Are you kidding me?

That counts as a cite?

Who is Michael Alderson? Where can I find this paper? Can I see the text of it?

And the CDC chart - ummm, the vaccine was introduced in 1954.

1952 (year of the big polio outbreak): 57879 cases, 3145 deaths.
1953: 35592, 1450
1954: 38476, 1368

So how does your claim that polio was in decline when the vaccine was introduced jibe with the numbers that show an INCREASE from 1953 to 1954? After an outbreak, as was seen in '52, populations generally DO see a decline, simply because so many people were affected, there aren't as many uninfected left! But as more people are born, the "uninfected" pool increases, and you WILL see a recurrence. But after the polio vaccine came out, we see an incredible decline.

mzmolly, your "science" is atrocious.

[mzmolly]

108. In 1950 there were twice the no. of cases

of polio then there were in the following year *amazing drop inspite of a lack of vaccination*.

As for Michael Alderson see "International Mortality Statistics" (Washington, DC: Facts on File, 1981), pp. 177-78. Do some web research or call the Gov I dont have the report...

Some more information to ponder.

And keep in mind, this isn't MY science, it's the science of people in the 'scientific' community. I'm an accountant by trade ;)

"Vaccination Myth #6:

"Polio was one of the clearly great vaccination success stories..."

...or was it?

Six New England states reported increases in polio one year after the Salk vaccine was introduced, ranging from more than doubling in Vermont to Massachusetts' astounding increase of 642%; other states reported increases as well.

The incidence in Wisconsin increased by a factor of five. Idaho and Utah actually halted vaccination due to the increased incidence and death rate. In 1959, 77.5% of Massachusetts' paralytic cases had received 3 doses of IPV (injected polio vaccine).

During 1962 U.S. Congressional hearings, Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Dept. of Biostatistics for the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, testified that not only did the cases of polio increase substantially after mandatory vaccinations -- a 50% increase from 1957 to 1958, and an 80% increase from 1958 to 1959-but that the statistics were deliberately manipulated by the Public Health Service to give the opposite impression.

It is important to understand that the polio vaccine was not universally accepted, at least initially. Despite this, polio declined both in European countries that refused mass vaccination as well as in those that employed it.

According to researcher-author Dr. Viera Scheibner, 90% of polio cases were eliminated from statistics by health authorities' redefinition of the disease when the vaccine was introduced, while in reality the Salk vaccine was continuing to cause paralytic polio in several countries at a time when there were no epidemics being caused by the wild virus.

For example, cases of viral and aseptic meningitis, which have symptoms similar to polio, were routinely diagnosed and recorded as polio before the vaccine, but were distinguished and removed from polio statistics after the vaccine.

Also, the number of cases needed to declare an epidemic was raised from 20 to 35, and the requirement for inclusion in paralysis statistics was changed from symptoms that lasted for 24 hours to symptoms lasting 60 days (many polio victims' paralysis was temporary).

It is no wonder that polio decreased radically after vaccines-at least on paper. In 1985, the CDC reported that 87% of the cases of polio in the US between 1973 and 1983 were caused by the vaccine, and later declared that all but a few imported cases since were caused by the vaccine-and most of the imported cases occurred in fully vaccinated individuals.

Jonas Salk, inventor of the IPV, testified before a Senate subcommittee that nearly all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine.

At a workshop on polio vaccines sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Samuel Katz of Duke University cited the estimated 8-10 annual US cases of vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) in people who have taken the oral polio vaccine, and the absence of wild polio from the western hemisphere.

Jessica Scheer of the National Rehabilitation Hospital Research Center in Washington, D.C., pointed out that most parents are unaware that polio vaccination in this country entails "a small number of human sacrifices each year."

Compounding this contradiction are low adverse event reporting and the NVIC's experiences with confirming and correcting misdiagnoses of vaccine reactions, which suggest that the actual number of VAPP "sacrifices" may be 10 to 100 times higher than that cited by the CDC. For these reasons, the live polio virus is no longer in widespread use.

To be sure, polio as it was known in the first half of the 20th century does not exist today. However, declines following polio peaks in the late 1940's and early 1950's had been underway again for a period of years by the time the vaccine was introduced."

Vaccination Truth #6:

"The polio vaccine temporarily reversed disease declines that were underway before the vaccine was introduced; this fact was deliberately covered up by health authorities. In Europe, polio declined in countries that both embraced and rejected the vaccine."


http://www.sumeria.net/health/myth2.html

[treepig]

113. What about the WHO - are they suspect too?

http://www.who.int/inf/en/pr-2002-25.html

Polio pushed to lowest levels in history – But Experts warn opportunity to stamp out disease must be grasped now due to unstable global situation

Washington, London, Geneva, Nairobi - With only 537 polio cases reported globally in 2001, efforts to eradicate the disease have driven the incidence of polio to its lowest point in history. However the expert panel overseeing the initiative warns that given the current prevalence of conflict, the last vestiges of polio must be extinguished now, as any delay will jeopardize the success of the entire effort.

"When we began the eradication effort in 1988, polio paralysed more than 1000 children each day. In 2001, there were far fewer than 1000 cases for the entire year," said Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Director-General of the World Health Organization. "But we’re not finished yet and the past year has reminded us that we live in a world where security and access to children cannot be guaranteed. So I urge the world to finish the job. Eradicate polio while we still have the opportunity."

From 2000 to 2001, efforts of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, spearheaded by the World Health Organization, Rotary International, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and UNICEF, have reduced the number of polio-endemic countries from 20 to 10. The number of new cases globally was slashed by more than 80%, from 2979 in 2000 to 537 in 2001.* This represents a greater than 99.8% reduction since 1988, when polio paralysed more than 350 000 children in 125 countries.

but who's sponsoring this evil vaccine-based effort?

polio eradication coalition includes governments of countries affected by polio; private foundations (e.g. United Nations Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as an editorial note - hasn't bill gates already done enough harm so why doesn't he just give it a rest?); development banks (e.g. World Bank); donor governments (e.g. Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, the United States of America and the United Kingdom); the European Commission; humanitarian and nongovernmental organizations (e.g. the International Red Cross and Red Crescent societies) and corporate partners (e.g. Aventis Pasteur, De Beers). Volunteers in developing countries also play a key role; 10 million have participated in mass immunization campaigns.

[mzmolly]

122. I dont think vaccination efforts are 'evil'...

I just dont think there is adequate science to prove their long term or even short term efficacy.

As for the #s above, as you said disease rates wax and wain on their own. If the disease spikes in a couple years, no one will claim the vaccines are 'inneffective' however they use anecdotal science to point to vaccines effectiveness.

[treepig]

105. infectious diseases such as polio naturally wax and wane

for example the huge influenze pandemic of 1918/19 eventually "waned" on it's own. however, with today (somewhat sporadic) flu shots, chances are the 18 million deaths would have been averted (seriously, do you claim that 18 million people have died from flu shots?).

here's a bit more information about polio - apparently incidence had peaked about a decade before the vaccine became available BUT note that there has been no recurrence of epidemic proportions due to vaccines:

http://museum.pharmacy.pitt.edu/salk/

With the dawn of the twentieth century, larger epidemic outbreaks of infantile paralysis began to occur in industrialized countries in Europe. In 1909, Dr. Karl Landsteiner made the seminal discovery that the cause of infantile paralysis was a virus. Paradoxically, it had been advances in sanitation that changed polio from a minor, sporadic, endemic disease into a devastating epidemic disease. Under unsanitary conditions, newborn infants were infected with poliovirus but were still protected by antibodies in their blood from their mothers. Although the infants were infected, they did not become ill. The infants' immune systems were sufficiently stimulated to develop lifelong antibodies. With improvements in sanitation, this source of natural immunization was eliminated so that entire generations remained susceptible to paralysis.
Early Twentieth Century

In 1916, the first major U.S. epidemic struck, paralyzing young children and horrifying the nation. Following the 1916 epidemic, increasing numbers of epidemic outbreaks began to occur each year in the United States, gradually including older children and young adults. Each summer brought the fear of polio, for it was in the summer season that epidemics struck. The incidence of polio in the United States rose steadily, with a marked increase in the 1940s. Swimming pools, movie theaters, beaches, and other public places closed throughout the country in fearful reaction to the disease. Hospital wards were filled with row after row of iron lungs. Tens of thousands were treated for polio, many of whom were left crippled and fitted with leg braces. As the virus continued to take its toll, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, himself a wheelchair-bound polio victim, in 1938 created the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, known today as the March of Dimes, to support care and treatment of polio victims and scientific research about polio. As the twentieth century unfolded, the search for a prevention of polio became a national rallying cry.

During the first three years of widespread use of Salk's polio vaccine (1955 - 1957), the incidence of polio in the United States fell by 85 - 90%. Before 1962, when an oral live poliovirus vaccine developed by Albert Sabin began to be widely used in the United States, the incidence of polio had decreased by 95%. With the use of these two polio vaccines, naturally occurring poliomyelitis was eradicated from North and South America and western Europe. To eliminate the remaining occasional cases of paralytic poliomyelitis caused by the live polio virus vaccine in the United States, the U.S. Public Health Service recommended in 1999 that its routine use be discontinued in favor of the killed poliovirus vaccine that had originally been developed at the University of Pittsburgh. The goal of the World Health Organization is to eradicate poliovirus from the world so that vaccination is no longer needed. Salk's team brought under control an escalating health problem and a dreaded virus that had inflicted fear and suffering well into the twentieth century. In addition, their scientific breakthrough established that basic principles of immunology could be applied to develop effective noninfectious vaccines. For these reasons, the Salk vaccine is considered one of the most significant medical achievements of the twentieth century.

[mzmolly]

111. These claims do not seem to parellel with the information I from the CDC

The same could be said before the vaccine. Between 1952 and 1955 it fell 75%.

It also increased 80% between 1972 and 1973.

I'll check back later, company has arrived :)

[treepig]

114. hey, you forgot to mention the huge 167% increase

from 1993 to 1994.

if that's not definite proof that vaccines are ineffective, what would be?

(on the other hand, if you consider the actual numbers, an increase of 5 cases (from 3 to 8 - and compare that number to the pre-vaccine number of cases - over 50,000) a different conclusion might be reached - that's the problem with the websites you cite - constant sensationalism and misrepresentation of data).

[mzmolly]

121. Actually I don't argue they are completely ineffective. I just don't

think they're safe.

I hadn't noticed the 167% increase thanks ;)

I am again, just planting seeds of thought.

[Occulus]

126. My understanding of polio

is that the doctors of the time believed polio was on the verge of becoming an airborne virus. Since necessity is the mother of invention, it seems suspicious at the least that polio could have been on a decline when the vaccine was introduced.

Ok, so let me see if I can get your logic sorted out, 'cause I'm sick with both a mild cold and a lotta stress today, and I'm a bit muzzy-headed as a result:

The only modern causes of polio exist as a result of the vaccine. Soooo... if I'm not vaccinated, and someone else got polio from the vaccine, doesn't that mean I can get it from them?

Am I correct here?

Exactly how does polio spread? It's not airborne...

Sorry. If you refuse to vaccinate your child from polio, you're putting them at direct risk. Not only that, but if the child in question ever did get polio, they'd be putting everyone else around them who isn't vaccinated at risk as well.

Yup... extremely selfish. You should be ashamed.

[mzmolly]

140. Do your own research, I resent being told I should be 'ashamed'

You should be ashamed for judging me on a subject you know so LITTLE about.

Poke around here for starters.

http://66.70.140.217/vaccines/polio3.html

Also ask the CDC your questions. You'll be surprised at what you learn.

[NickB79]

25. Breast milk does not provide permanent vaccination

Text straight out of my 1-yr old immunology textbook:

"Breast milk contains secretory IgA and many other molecules that help to protect the newborn against infection during the first few months of life."

Notice the timeframe given. Passive immunity is not permanent; it will wear off over time.

Sanitation has little to do with most diseases we vaccinate against. What does sanitation have to do with whooping cough, measles, mumps, and a host of other diseases we vaccinate for? Sanitary conditions have nothing to do with the spread of these diseases, because even those living in clean environments can contract and spread the disease amongst themselves. The diseases that are linked to poor sanitation, such as cholera, are the ones we usually do NOT vaccinate for.

[mzmolly]

50. Uhm, neither do vaccines. But it does provide protection while an infant

nurses provided her mother was allowed to have natural lasting immunity by contracting diseases 'naturally'. In otherwords, I protected my daughter from Chicken pox because I contracted the disease as a child, and had 'permanent' immunity. I did not have to subject her to the 'dangers' or not of vaccines because of that. Now, had I been vaccinated as a child against chx pox, I would NOT have had lasting/permanent immunity KWIM?

Regarding sanitation it is most important in preventing disease. I don't want to spend the evening here battling the 5 of you so I shant continue. I don't suspect I'll change/open any minds anyhow. ;)

There is a discussion board on mothering.com *a natural parenting website* and they have a vaccination section. There are many helpful folks there. In addition, check with your chiropractor, you may be surprised that many if not most, dont vaccinate their children.

Peace

[trotsky]

71. Need to correct your error.

No one has "permanent" immunity from anything, really. Even chicken pox, and EVEN when you contract it naturally. The virus hides in your nervous system like herpes, and can re-emerge to cause shingles later in life. If people had "permanent" immunity, they couldn't get shingles.

I think it's frustrating discussing this with you because you are misinformed about several things. Even the basic immune reaction, which goes something like: pathogen introduced, immune system detects, immune system creates antibodies, immune system destroys pathogen.

That basic chain of events is absolutely NO different whether the pathogen is introduced via a vaccination or by contact with a sick individual. Depending on the illness, the immune system can "remember" the antibodies to fight the pathogen for a time. That time may be months to a year, it may be decades.

Please, if you're going to try and sound like an expert, get your basic facts right.

[mzmolly]

144. You are incorrect.

Your technically right that no one has permanent immunity, however you asserted that the whole cell vaccine 'gives permanent' immunity, and I knew what you meant.

In addition you said:

"That basic chain of events is absolutely NO different whether the pathogen is introduced via a vaccination or by contact with a sick individual. Depending on the illness, the immune system can "remember" the antibodies to fight the pathogen for a time. That time may be months to a year, it may be decades."

This is not true. Disease is not 'injected' it enters the body in a much different way then vaccines do. In addition, disease isn't contaminiated with formaldehyde, mercury, animal DNA etc...

There is more information on this out there, use the internet and do some research if your interested in a different perspective. You will find much information from scientists who disagree with your beliefs.

Lastly, I'm not trying to sound like an expert, as I said I'm not a scientist, I'm a friggin accountant.

[trotsky]

164. Try again.

Disease is not 'injected' it enters the body in a much different way then vaccines do.

Oral polio and nasal flu vaccines stand out as two glaring examples contradicting your statement.

[mzmolly]

170. These are 2 of several vaccines we have available.

In addition, the oral vax for polio is not preferrable because it's been linked to causing the disease.

I would love to see more nasal vaccines though. I'll always examine new products.

[Occulus]

127. You sound a lot like

a parent who would send their kid to their friend's house to contract chicken pox so they can become immune 'naturally'.

What people who do this don't realize is that chicken pox can be fatal.

Oh, and sorry for the comment about being selfish I made above. Just.... don't bring your kid anywhere near my local public school.

Ever.

[mzmolly]

148. Well guess what chicken pox can be fatal and we are now transferring

the disease into the adult population where it is dangerous.

Here you go: "Happy Vaxing"

http://www.minnesotanaturalhealth.org/vaccines/cpsumm.htm

"Children who receive the vaccine in childhood may be vulnerable to getting the disease in adulthood, when the vaccine "wears off." Chickenpox in adulthood is often a serious disease, and much more likely to result in hospitalization or even death. In Japan, where the vaccine has been used for over 20 years, there now appears to be an increase of chickenpox in adults."

Amazing, I lived through chicken pox as did my sister and many friends.

Most people who 'die' from chicken pox are immuno compromised and would likely die from the vaccine as well. The CDC figures do not indicate vaccine status nor do they indicate whether a person is compromised immunologically speaking.

[GAspnes]

28. just this response

Also, I resent being called selfish. I took TWO plus years to make my decision, and spoke with countless government authorities about this issue. I read numerous books on the issue, and made an INFORMED and very NON SELFISH decision for my daughter.

For your daughter. Not for everyones' daughters. That's pretty unselfish.

[mzmolly]

33. If I had my way everyones daughters would *not* be vaccinated.

But I respect your choice to make that decision for your family.

Tell the mothers who's kids are dead for the 'cause' how much you appreciate their unselfish contribution to society wont you? Although, many are not aware that vaccines caused the death of their child.

By the way, did you know that Chicken Pox if now the most deadly of the so called vaccine preventable diseases? :scared:

http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content4/chickenpox.html

In 20 years we'll all be afraid of Chicken Pox because they developed a vaccine. :eyes:

I realize, I'm fighting a losing battle here as I am now 'insane' however, please respect my right to make an informed medical decision for my family.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/risk.html

[GAspnes]

36. so it was 'informed', but selfish? (n/t)

[mzmolly]

41. Nope, informed and unselfish.

:)

[GAspnes]

46. interesting

you have a different dictionary than I have.

[mzmolly]

60. What does your dictionary say about a womans right to safe legal abortion?

Selfish or Unselfish?

Why must I think like you? Why must I make the same medical decisions you do?

[GAspnes]

64. ummm...because it's a society?

Because your reckless decision endangers *my* children? Because you made a selfish, self-interested evaluation of what *may* be best for your progeny in the face of good evidence that the risk of vaccination is far less than the risk *all* children are exposed to if we all do as you did?

C'mon. You must know you made an entirely self-interested choice. If you don't, I weep for you.

(and why the abortion red herring?)

[mzmolly]

83. MY decision endangers YOUR child?

What's "wreckless" is injecting countless children with substances we know so little about. We are conducting one big medical experiment without regard or even tracking long term consequences.

We aren't even training medical personell to recognize vaccine related deaths. Instead they are diagnosing sids, shaken baby syndrome etc...

If you like the idea of injecting your child with cow piss, formaldehyde, MSG, Mercury, animal tissue etc, good for you!

You call me selfish for making an informed medical decision, so sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

Perhaps you can answer these questions.

How many children are dying from the long term effects of our social experiment?

How many children die each year due to being vaccinated-in the short term?

How many children die from so called vaccine preventable illness each year?

The CDC can answer the last question for you, but you wont find any answers from them on the first two.

I have located some information on the answers to all these questions if your interested. But, I wont continue a conversation in which I am insulted for making different medical decisions then you do.

[GAspnes]

92. I've made my point

hammering it won't change your mind.

[mzmolly]

94. Riddle me this GAspnes

How do I protect other children by vaccinating mine when:

1. Vaccines have a waining effect

2. Most of the population is considered 'unprotected' because of that

3. Children are exposed to people of all ages and many/most are no longer considered protected from the jabs they got as children

I don't suspect you can answer these questions as the CDC could not.

[trotsky]

98. Easy

1) What you define as a "waining (sic) effect" is seen even when you have natural immunity to something. That's why booster shots are needed for tetanus, and it's why you can get shingles years after you had chicken pox, even though it's caused by the very same virus.

2) As long as you have a significant enough portion of the population currently vaccinated, the disease is controlled. This point has been made many times in this thread.

3) I fail to see the point here. People may no longer have immunity to certain diseases, whether they got that immunity from a vaccine OR had the disease naturally.

I suspect the receptionist at the CDC did not have these answers, and so you gave up.

[mzmolly]

101. I spoke to an "expert" at the CDC who asked her boss....

However you missing the point....

You said~ 2) As long as you have a significant enough portion of the population currently vaccinated, the disease is controlled. This point has been made many times in this thread.

Yes, but you are over looking a few important things.

Vaccines have a waining effect, there is no permanent vaccine.

Tetanus is recommended to 'boost' because it's considered a danger to the adult population and even the disease does not offer immunity.

The various other diseases we vaccinate against are not a danger to the adult population *except chicken pox* and thus a booster is not needed.

THUS MY CASE IS MADE. The majority of people exposed to YOUR child are in fact NOT immune to the diseases you so fear.

you also said ~ 3) I fail to see the point here. People may no longer have immunity to certain diseases, whether they got that immunity from a vaccine OR had the disease naturally.

Ah ha! This is the point. However, most diseases offer permanent immunity *with rare exception* and vaccines only offer temporary immunity. So, in essence we are less protected today then we were before vaccines because we have replaced permanent immunity with temporary immunity.

Many diseases have come and gone with out the 'help' of vaccines any thoughts?

[trotsky]

104. Again, I challenge you to back up what you say.

most diseases offer permanent immunity *with rare exception* and vaccines only offer temporary immunity

This is completely bogus, and yet your argument has shifted to now use it as your foundation for reasoning.

[mzmolly]

107. It is not bogus. Call the CDC and ask them...

What part of that statement do you disagree with.

Disease 'generally speaking' offers permanent immunity.

Vaccines offer only temporary immunity.

It's a fact.

Contact the CDC here.

1-800-232-2522 English

Note: The reason the CDC doesn't require boosters for all vaccines is because many adults are not considered vulnerable to the diseases we vax against.

The CDC does claim that the Chicken pox and MMR "most likely" offer long term or permanent immunity - though they have no studies to indicate as such.

[trotsky]

110. Backtracking and mis-stating.

By failing to make a distinction, you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

KILLED virus vaccines are temporary.

LIVE ones are permanent - as if you had contracted the disease.

The more you talk, the less inclined I am to accept anything you say.

[mzmolly]

116. And thus your theory protecting society with vaccination goes POOF

because as you noted the live vaccines are being phased out.

[trotsky]

143. Where did I note that?

Now you're just dancing around.

I really think that when you lash out at us, claim our minds are closed (or brainwashed), etc. that you should take a good long look in the mirror.

You obviously do not understand the dynamics of having an immunized population, and how important it becomes to society AS A WHOLE that the immunization rate is as high as possible. (Remember? We liberals tend to value society?) You are evidently incapable of comparing the risks of vaccination to the risks of disease. And, when confronted with medical reports and research that contradict your stance, the best you can do is claim (but not prove) bias of some sort.

You have made up your mind, based on the sensationalist advocacy websites you've found, and because you made one phone call to the CDC and talked to an "expert" who talked to her boss, that's the final word, and somehow you're better than all of us because you won't inject these supposedly unknown toxins into your child while we foolishly pump "known" carcinogens into ours.

Pardon me while I remain firmly unconvinced. I hope, for your child's sake, that she is never exposed to the pathogens for which you have failed to provide her protection.

[mzmolly]

123. By the way the CDC doesn't even assert what you do....

"KILLED virus vaccines are temporary.

LIVE ones are permanent - as if you had contracted the disease."

Call them and press for answers, you'll be surprised at how shallow the science really is.

[Occulus]

129. you spelled 'waning' wrong again

[mzmolly]

133. Oh, there goes the whole case...

:eyes: "W-A-I-N-I-N-G"...

[Occulus]

136. well,

if "potatoe" can make a fool of a sitting veep....

[mzmolly]

138. Oh well, if that's the best you can do.....

:)

[treepig]

47. there definitely is some risk in vaccines

anything that humans do on the scale of billions of times involves risks, if for no other reason than through simple incompentence that is bound to manifest itself from time to time, through the greed of unregulated corporations (or whatever).

also, statistical models show that vaccination is effective at preventing the spread of disease if between 75% and 95% of people are vaccinated (depending on the disease, population density, etc). therefore, the 75-95% take a small risk for everyone's benefit and the remainder of the people, who are protected by everyone else assuming the risk involved with vaccination, could indeed be considered to be selfish because they choose to not assume the risks, but still hope for the benefits (i.e., not catching the disease).

[mzmolly]

51. I'm familiar with the heard immunity theory. However, if vaccines are so

effective, then not to worry right, as your child is 'protected'.

As I've said, I have spent years on this issue. I could debate it until the cows come home, and I have.

I can't believe liberals who defend a womans right to choose, are calling me selfish for making a different choice?!
@!#%* GRRRRR!

Here is some information to 'ponder' for the open minded.

Click on the links and prepare not to believe any of it ;)

http://www.hrnjad.net/health/vaccMyths.htm

[treepig]

54. you can cite advocacy websites all day long

or spend years and years doing so, and it's just not convincing. as i pointed out in another post, science works by peer-review and consensus, not by selective cherry picking of individual research studies and bizarre misrepresentation of basic facts

[mzmolly]

57. The people noted and referenced on the sites I linked are 'peers'

but you are not giving them consideration I see.

[treepig]

67. the sites you list do not cite peer-reviewed literature

instead they are sensationalist and misleading - for example one of the websites mostly cited congressional testimony - yeah, like that's going to be scientifically accurate!?!?

if anyone wants to find legitimate information, the national institutes of health provides a free search engine at

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

if you search on vaccines you find 108746 entries (in this case they're almost all in peer -reviewed journals, which means that before publication they work was vetted by at least two experts in the field. By contrast, any kook can start a website and prey on the vast majority of people out there who seem to have obtained a Kansas-style education in biology).

to narrow the search somewhat, enter more key words, such as "vaccine safety" - in this case you get only 3885 returns, abstracts from two of the recent papers are:

Paper number 1

Vaccine. 2003 Dec 8;22(1):1-6. Related Articles, Links


Communicating science to the public: MMR vaccine and autism.

Offit PA, Coffin SE.

Division of Infectious Diseases, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Abramson Research Building, Room 1202C, 34th St. and Civic Center Blvd., 19104, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Media attention and consequent public concerns about vaccine safety followed publication of a small case-series of children who developed autism after receipt of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Many well-controlled studies performed subsequently found no evidence that MMR vaccine causes autism. However, despite these studies, some parents remain concerned that the MMR vaccine is not safe. We will discuss the origins of the hypothesis that the MMR vaccine causes autism, studies performed to test the hypothesis, how these studies have been communicated to the public, and some suggested strategies for how this communication can be improved.

Paper number 2

Vaccine. 2003 Dec 1;21(32):4700-3. Related Articles, Links


Public opponents of vaccination: a case study.

Leask J, McIntyre P.

National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance, Children's Hospital at Westmead, University of Sydney, Locked Bag 4001, 2145, Westmead, Australia

Opposition to mass childhood vaccination is a world-wide phenomenon, particularly in industrialised countries. Unfounded claims about vaccination are perpetuated by parental lobby groups and individual spokespeople, some of whom have a medical or scientific background. This article focuses on one such spokesperson who has achieved particular notoriety. Dr. Viera Scheibner is a retired micropalaeontologist, without any formal training in health-related sciences, who tours the world claiming that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous and lead to a host of ills such as cancer and asthma. Professionals in public health or the clinical arena are from time to time called upon to publicly respond to her, or similar, claims disseminated during tours of Europe, North America or Australasia and in books and articles. Health professionals have expressed at how such spokespersons misrepresent the evidence on vaccine safety, resulting in the potential to undermine public confidence in immunisation. Media coverage, or proposed coverage, particularly of her more extreme claims, often makes health professionals engaged in immunisation feel obliged to respond. This paper describes Viera Scheibner's approach, which follows a repetitious path and is representative of that taken by other public opponents of immunisation. We conclude by suggesting how health professionals might respond in the public arena.

[mzmolly]

81. Are you looking at the references? Doesn't sound like it.

http://www.all-creatures.org/cb/a-vaccines.html

http://www.rense.com/general7/onlysafe.htm

You should really examine the information I sent you. I dont expect you to change your mind, but I do expect you to read the information I submit if you ask for it.

Keep in mind, closed minds don't conduct meaningful research.

[treepig]

85. i did have a look at them

the first link is based on references that are almost all over ten years old (i think there might be one from 1994) - science has moved a long ways since then.

the second link is a bunch of anecdotal quotes - no doubt full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

as i pointed out elsewhere, there are something like 108,000 legitimate scientific studies on vaccines. and no one disputes that there are some risks involved with vaccines, and no doubt a few % of the papers deal with these risks. let's assume that only 1% of the papers are negative - that'd still be almost 1,100 - and if compiled together in one anti-vaccine website (while ignoring the 99% of the studies that offer a contray view) they'd appear to offer overwhelming proof that vaccinations were unsafe. somehow you sadly seem to have fallen for these tactics.

[mzmolly]

88. Vaccines are much the same as they were in 1994 my friend.

I could literally scream when I read your posts about me falling for tactics.

Also you have not looked at all the links. There are NUMEROUS medical reports about the dangers of vaccines and the incomplete science surrounding their approval.

All I ask of you is to keep an open mind and not criticize me for my choice.

There are countless books on the subject written by SCIENTISTS/DOCTORS, who have come out against the mainstream. The quotes I provided you are from many of these sources.

You may also call the NVIC for more information.

Phone: 703-938-DPT3

The NVIC office is open Monday-Friday

9:00 am to 5:00 pm e.s.t.

http://909shot.com/About.htm

~Peace

[treepig]

91. vaccines are the same as in 1994? now that's just plain silly

in the past decade vaccine production has largely moved to rDNA-based methods and away from the use of live/attenuated pathogens.

i'm surprised your extensive research didn't inform you of recent advances in vaccine technology?

[mzmolly]

93. That much is true BECAUSE of the pro information movement.

However vaccines were said to be 'safe' in 1994 were they not? Detractors were called 'insane' and selfish in them days too. ;)

And, not all vaccines have progressed very much in that time. Additionally, the 1994 information was "one" piece of the puzzle. You chose to ignore the rest.

The CDC says they are now making safer vaccines, though they never admited there was anything unsafe about them in the past. The main reason for the change was because of the DPT shot being linked to sids and other complications. Again, it was never admitted as a potential cause these complications and death, but there is anecdotal evidence that the vax was a key player.

I did not intend to 'change' minds here with any of the information I posted. I only intended to plant seeds of respect for people who make different choices then yourselves. I have hundreds of pieces of data/information from medical journals old and new. I have countless information from scientists and doctors.

But, I would encourage you to begin your own research if your interested. I respect your choice as an individual too much to bombard you with information (you wont likely read anyhow.)

[treepig]

109. automobile manufacturers also claim to be making safer products

now compared to the 1980's

and they're probably correct.

however, that vast majority of people clearly judged that the dangers associated with automobiles (then and now) were worth the risk of using these deathtraps (as i suspect you must characterize something that kills 30,000+ people a year).



similarly, vaccines are getting safer - that doesn't mean they were outrageously unsafe in the past, but there's definitely room for improvement. for example, although the trace amounts of formaldehyde found in some vaccines do not pose a health hazard for 99.9999% of the people, it's just common sense to develop altenative methods if they're available.

[mzmolly]

124. I agree, and I'm glad to see the improvements. However Improvements would

not have been made however, were it not for 'looneys' like myself.

[Occulus]

130. yes, yes,

but a woman's right to choose doesn't put my kid at risk. Your decision does, if my child is unvaccinated as well.

Let me explain something to you. If my kid ever got, say, polio from yours, I sue your ass right into the ground. Gross negligence leading to the spread of an infectious disease resulting in the sever debilitation or death of another person.

Could even make a case for manslaughter in such a case.

[mzmolly]

132. NO my decision DOES NOT put your child at risk!

If it does, then the vaccines you have so much faith in are not effective!

Make a case for manslaughter?! You are absurd! In my state (believe it or not) making medicals decisions is actually legal.

[Occulus]

139. You didn't read my whole post.

My statement only applies if my child is unvaccinated as well. You'd know that if you actually read my post, but you obviously didn't. That, or your cognitive skills are such that you just didn't get my point. So, let me spell it out, very, very carefully so as to be certain you understand the hypothetical I'm lobbing at you:

1. Your child, unbeknownst to you, has just contracted a deadly infectious disease she could have been vaccinated for.

2. Your child comes over and plays with my also unvaccinated child. I don't know your kid is unvaccinated as well; we're all two big, happy, vulnerable families.

3. My kid gets YOUR kid's disease, and dies.

Given the above hypothetical, how can you possibly take the position that leaving your daughter unvaccinated is a responsible decision that doesn't put anyone else at risk?

And why are you putting your own flesh and blood at risk in this way in the first place?

[Occulus]

141. to my mind

what you've done is one very short step away from manslaughter. Were I with social services, I'd be lobbying to remove your daughter from your home.

And again, I ask of you... do you think your daughter will be thanking you if she ever gets one of these diseases?

Well?

[mzmolly]

151. Would you move to have this child removed from her home?

http://www.909shot.com/Kids/anna.htm

Her parents vaccinated. Were they neglectful?

Guess what, my daughter is very healthy and I resent your abusive posts.

How dare you really!

[treepig]

168. your child is healthful exactly because of the sacrifice

made by parents of children such as anna

[mzmolly]

171. I think Anna's parents would disagree with you. I would venture to guess

they won't be vaccinating any more of their children. *Irresponsible ba$stards!* :eyes:

[alarimer]

48. no vaccination

This is a very dangerous, ignorant idea. I have heard all the UNSCIENTIFIC nonsense about vaccines causing more problems than they solve and it is just not true. Sometimes a vaccine can cause a reaction but it is generally not serious. If no one were vaccinated, many children would die before age five as they did before the invention of vaccines and as they do in third world countries. It is a good thing that most kids have to be vaccinated before going to school.

[mzmolly]

53. You are officially brainwashed. ;) Actually I wouldn't impose my

beliefs on others really. I was being sarcastic. What you decide to do for your family is fine by me.

Whether or not you vaccinate is your decision. Also, most states have waivers available and one can decline to vaccinate.

Poke around here a bit. All I ask is that YOU respect MY decision to make health decions for me and mine.

http://home.globaleyes.net/chiliast/vaccine/dvm1.htm

[alarimer]

75. I don't respect it

What you are doing is dangerous for public health. The information that you use is completely unscientific and wrong.

[mzmolly]

95. Nope, the information I reviewed is SCIENTIFIC and right.

You have obviously not reviewed much of it. Do check the references. I could provide you with more, but this was not the thread topic, and I don't want to take over.

*Closed minds do not conduct meaningful research*

Here is some information for you to ponder. These are quotes from DOCTORS AND 'SCIENTISTS' ON THIS SUBJECT.

Most of them are now 'insane and selfish too'...

http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web3.html

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/manu.htm

More "scientific" studies can be found here - click on the links.

http://thinktwice.com/studies.htm

http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/immune_suppression.htm

http://inquirer.gn.apc.org/vaccio.html

http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html

Again, I don't expect to change minds, but at least respect my right to listen to scientists and doctors who disagree with mainstream thought on this issue.

The long term risks of vaccination are not known, and no body seems interested in finding out. In addition, it's interesting that the CDC can't tell parents how many children die each year from vaccinations. Apparently they are not interested in collecting such data. They say things like "there is very little risk" or "the benefits outweigh the risk" but you wont get clear numbers from them.

They do have a passive reporting system called VAERS which is a data base that doctors can and should report information to. However it's estimated that only 1-10% of vaccine injuries actually are reported.

By their own estimates then, anywhere from 1000-10,000 children die each year from 'known' vaccine related injury. The unknowns are yet to be tabulated.

[treepig]

119. interesting, from the mercola website you list

we find that

Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year

what a bunch of quacks - i'm going back to leeches and avoidance of night air, that'll keep me healthy!

[mzmolly]

125. You may want to locate the source of that 'correct' and startling

information. IT'S THE JAMA!

"Is US health really the best in the world? Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(4), 483-485." Obtain full reprint here.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/

Search for this article;

"Is US health really the best in the world" I believe it's the second article.

However, I don't agree with mercola on every subject ;)

Read the information here and check the references.

http://www.mercola.com/2003/jan/15/doctors_drugs.htm

http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm

In fact one of the refs is a site you like to link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9555760&dopt=Abstract

I am very glad we have doctors and modern medicine personally. Heck, I support Dean for President :)

[Occulus]

128. If you had your way

you'd put my kid at risk of a contracting a deadly infectious disease or ten?

How very kind. Really.

[mzmolly]

134. MY way is that YOU have a choice...

Apparently that's not YOUR way.

I actually think it's up to you to make informed health decisions for you and yours.

[alarimer]

49. cite your sources

Which medical journals?

[mzmolly]

55. JAMA for starters.

Look over the links I've provided. They will take you to much of the information you request.

This was a long journey for me. And, others I know would look at the information I have and may draw a different conclusion.

I do ask why your all so threatened by my decision?

[trotsky]

72. Threatened?

I wouldn't call it threatened, more like annoyed. Probably because of a number of reasons:

1) Your arrogant attitude, attacking us for not being open-minded about your decision not to vaccinate, and mocking us for buying into the "establishment" thinking.

2) Your misstatements of fact.

3) Your over-reliance on non-peer-reviewed sources and insistence on putting those sources on the same footing as true scientific inquiry.

Just to name a few.

[mzmolly]

84. See my other replies. You won't believe it anyway.

:shrug:

We've all been too brainwashed to believe that vaccines may in fact be doing more harm then good.

[goddess40]

174. I would vaccinate my son's if I could do it over again

There is no reason that these poisons have to be in these shots. Both my sons have Nonverbal Learning Disorder, sometimes refered to as a mild form of autism.
I am fairly certain that the mercury had something to do it.

[treepig]

11. and smallpox too!

oh wait, that disease was completely eradicated via an aggressive vaccination program. guess waiting for five million years for evolutionary processes to get rid of it naturally just wasn't quite long enough!

[mzmolly]

17. When there is an outbreak of smallpox, I'll weigh the decision again.

:eyes:

[NickB79]

26. And you have vaccinations to thank

That you likely will never have to make that decision. Ironic, no?

[mzmolly]

43. I am not anti vaccine, I am pro information. MMMK?

:shrug: Why the hard time respecting my right to make my own medical decisions. This is a bit like the RW telling wpregnant women they don't have 'choices' KWIM?

[trotsky]

73. No, it's not.

This is a bit like the RW telling wpregnant women they don't have 'choices'

Not in the least. You insist on bringing this red herring into the discussion, when the circumstances are completely different. Vaccination is a public health issue; abortion is a personal medical issue. A woman can have an abortion without affecting the health of the population at large. You cannot say the same thing about people who decline to vaccinate.

Can you admit the difference, or will you continue comparing us to right-wing anti-choice fanatics?

[mzmolly]

86. No, there is no difference, you calling someone who weighed the info

for two years very carefully a 'fanatical insane selfish' person and calling a mother who opted for abortion a murderer. It's an accurate comparison.

Additionally I can say that MY decision has not harmed ONE person PERIOD! My daughter is also among the most healthy children I know of. She has only needed antibiotics ONCE in her life at the age of 5. And, I am not anti antibiotic :eyes:

I see sick children all around me, ear infections, asthma, chronic illness, autisim, ADHD ect.. And I feel good about my choice.

I can guarantee you that MY decision has yet to adversely impact ONE individual.

Also, the RW would claim that the mother is harming another 'human' being with her decision,would they not? They claim there are countless people waiting to adopt children and the mother should 'help' society by carrying her pregnancy to term...

You are indeed a hypocrite trotsky.

I'd ask how long you researched your medical decision to vaccinate your child?

[treepig]

8. umm, the topic was formaldehyde . .

and comparing formaldehyde to water is much more appropriate than comparing it to mercury as far as its potential harmful effects are concerned. formaldehyde is a crosslinking agent (therefore it widely used a preservative - or in some cases as an adhesive agent). after it has crosslinked its target molecule it becomes completely inert - therefore it's completely harmless in formaldehyde-produced products that general public is exposed to (as listed in post #2 below). the only conceivable case where it could be a health hazard is in chronic instances of high exposure to the raw material, such as in the exposure of industrial workers.

if you wish to go an a half-baked anti-vaccine rant, that's fine (maybe start a thread on this topic in the science forum . . ?) like anything in life there are potential dangers to vaccines - but the dangers are far outweighed by the benefits, i think any sane person in or out of the medical profession realizes that. if you wish to be an alarmist, why don't you provide a detailed cataloged list of all the highly toxic chemicals used to produce almost any pharmaceutical product?

[mzmolly]

14. Ahhhh So your calling me insane?

Me and many in the medical community. You can add the AAPS "American Association of Physicians and Surgeons" to your list of the insane as well.

http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/costs.htm

Afterall, If were not 'sheep' we must be insane right? however, remember that at one time (not so long ago) it was the 'insane' that were concerned with mercury in vaccines.

BTW, I noted formaldehyde was in vaccines, thus I thought it related to the suject matter as most 'sane' people are not aware of that.

If you can find information that indicating what amount of formaldehyde is 'safe' to inject into a human being, I'd be interested in finding out. The CDC had no information for me when I called.

[treepig]

52. yeah, basically

it's a bit difficult to take anyone seriously who links vaccines with shaken baby syndrome and sids.

but anyhow, i don't think it's any big secret that some vaccines consist of formalin-inactivated biological samples (such as an antigenic capsule protein from a virus). it's also not a secret that formalin is what formaldehyde is called when its in a solution with water.

so trying to needlessly raise alarms about formaldehyde is a bit insane.

and it's not that difficult to find information on the toxicity of formaldehye - did you try doing a msds (material safety data sheet) search, even through google? If you did, you'd find information such as:

Reported fatal dose for humans: 60 - 90mls.

For Formaldehyde:

Oral LD50 (rat): 800 mg/kg

Inhalation LC50 (rat): 590 mg/m3

so maybe if you had a few thousand vaccinations in the same day, you'd be exposed to enough formaldehyde to start being concerned about the health effects.

and just so you're safe, i should point out that intake of water at a rate of 17 ml/min over an extended time period is fatal (kidney failure will result!! - damn, we're surrounded by danger)

[mzmolly]

61. there is no known threshold level below which there is no threat of cancer

What Are the Health Effects?
"Formaldehyde is normally present at low levels, usually less than 0.06 ppm (parts per million), in both outdoor and indoor air. When present in the air at levels at or above 0.1 ppm, acute health effects can occur including watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose and throat; nausea; coughing; chest tightness; wheezing; skin rashes; and other irritating effects. Formaldehyde affects people in various ways. Some people are very sensitive to formaldehyde while others may have no noticeable reaction at the same level of exposure. Sensitive people can experience symptoms at levels below 0.1 ppm. The World Health Organization recommends that exposure should not exceed 0.05 ppm. Colds, flu, and allergies can cause symptoms similar to some of those produced by exposure to formaldehyde. Formaldehyde has caused cancer in laboratory animals and may cause cancer in humans; there is no known threshold level below which there is no threat of cancer. The risk depends upon amount and duration of exposure."

Again, I say if you want to inject your child with these substances, I don't fault you. Why fault me if I dont.

http://www.nsc.org/ehc/indoor/formald.htm

[kodi]

65. good grief, you know broccoli has higher levels of H2CO then regs allow?

your own body produces formaldehyde and is released in each breath you exhale in the ppm range.

did anyone even notice the inconsistency of the details of the paragraph posted?

baseline levels ...natural baseline levels are in the range of 0.06 ppm and yet the "The World Health Organization recommends that exposure should not exceed 0.05 ppm."

okay.. discuss how humans are to scrub the natural world of formaldehyde to comply with the regs.

your hearts are in the right place but you are sitting on your brains.

[treepig]

68. if the information you provided below on aspartame is correct

specifically, the link you provided that calculates the amount of formaldehyde created as a metabolic breakdown product of aspartame ( or about 60 mg per serving) the trace amount of formaldehyde in vaccines is vanishing small.

now i personally hate aspartame and try to avoid it, but not because of the health hazard. to further put the risks of formaldehyde in context, consider the relative risks involved from the water in the soda, and the formaldehyde that might be metabolically produced.

if you survey material data safety sheets (i provided some data in this thread below), a toxic dose of formaldehyde (if taken at one time) is around 50 - 100 grams. therefore, you'd have to drink about one thousand sodas to get this dose - let's say you drink as fast you can and are able to drink this much in a 24 hour period (it's about 95 gallons of soda). well, the toxicity of water is about 6 gallons when ingested over a 12-18 hour period (you'd then die from kidney failure) - therefore you'd die from the water about 10-15 time sooner than from the formaldehyde.

sure, this example might be silly, but a careful risk analysis of vaccines will lead to similar, but much more dramatic results - specifically there's a very small risk from vaccines, and a very high risk from not vaccinating (unless you're mooching off all your neighbors who are considerate enough to vaccinate).

[mzmolly]

82. I really resent you calling me a mooch for my decision.

I have carefully weighed the evidence and made a very difficult decision for my family. It's much easier to be a sheep then to think, but I prefer the later. It would be easy to take my daughter in to vaccinate to avoid the scorn from uninformed zealots like you. However, she is worth the price I pay.

You call your decision to vaccinate 'considerate.' Perhaps you can contact these parents and thank them for being considerate as well.

I prefer to make decisions for my family based on science and statistics, not based on what my f'ing neighbors do.

http://www.909shot.com/Kids/terry.htm

http://www.909shot.com/Kids/richie.htm

http://www.909shot.com/Kids/anna.htm

http://www.909shot.com/Kids/nicky.htm

[treepig]

89. you may have carefully weighed carefully-selected evidence

that supports what you already believe.

and that evidence is basically that thanks to the large majority of people adhering to suggested vaccination schedules you have the luxury of avoiding disease due to their risk taking.

however, if no-one was being vaccinated, and exposure to disease was a real threat, what would you choose:

a one-in-several-million chance of the tragic side effects of vaccines that occasionally occur (and exploited in the links you give)

or

a one-under-ten (i.e., almost certain) chance of contracting a deadly strain of influenza, polio (etc).


i bet if the threat of these diseases were more imminent, you'd start weighing the actual evidence just a bit more carefully!!

[mzmolly]

96. I went into this open minded, which is why my decision took two years.

I bet if you knew the number of deaths caused by vaccination each year, you'd start weighing your decision more carefully.

I have statistics so called 'vaccine preventable deaths' here. The data goes back to 1950. The vaccination status of these individuals is unknown. In other words, there may be fully vaccinated individuals who perished in these figures.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/casedeath99.pdf

Vaccines may very well have saved lives, but we really don't know if they have saved more lives then they have taken. Again, nobody is interested in finding that out.

Note Varicella = Chicken pox. You sound like you probably know that though ;)

"Clinical trials of IPV began in 1954, and results were dramatic: the cases of polio in the vaccinated test groups fell amazingly, and permission for IPV distribution was quickly granted by the US government in 1955. In 1987, a new, more potent version of inactivated poliovirus vaccine was introduced that is grown on human cell culture and contains greater antigenic content than the original vaccine."

Lets take the example of polio. From 1950-1955 polio cases were cut in half. The vaccine was not widely used then. Clinical trials only began in 1954. That would indicate that the disease was 'waining' on it's own due to natural immunity. In addition, the polio vaccine has been linked to cancer (sv40) by some scientists and that cancer can be passed on to our children. SUPER!

A bit of information here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/02/002bookchin.htm

The CDC says 'more research is needed'.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/cancer/

Again, I am not saying the information I site is true or not, I'm saying the verdict is out, and the Government isn't interested in finding out the truth. Generally they will 'counter' any negative science with the money machine and poo poo anything that doens't fit neatly into the vaccines are safe and effective mime.

All I ask is that my decision NOT to experiement on my daughter be respected. And, vaccination one mass medical experiment the way I see it.

[treepig]

117. try citing up-to-date information

the atlantic article about the sv40 virus is a decade old.

here's some recent information:


J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Apr 2;95(7):532-9.

Cancer incidence in Denmark following exposure to poliovirus vaccine contaminated with simian virus 40.

Engels EA, Katki HA, Nielsen NM, Winther JF, Hjalgrim H, Gjerris F, Rosenberg PS, Frisch M.

Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD 20892, USA. [e-mail]

BACKGROUND: Early poliovirus vaccines were accidentally contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40). In Denmark, poliovirus vaccine was administered to most children from 1955 through 1961. SV40 DNA sequences have been detected in several human malignancies, including mesothelioma, ependymoma, choroid plexus tumors, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. To clarify whether SV40 infection increases risk of these cancers or of cancers arising in children, we examined cancer incidence in three Danish birth cohorts. METHODS: Population-based cancer incidence data from 1943 through 1997 were obtained from the Danish Cancer Registry. The relationship between exposure to SV40-contaminated vaccine and cancer incidence was evaluated by examining incidence in birth cohorts that differed in exposure to SV40-contaminated vaccine. In addition, cancer incidence was examined in children who were 0-4 years of age before, during, and after the period of vaccine contamination. Incidence was compared using Poisson regression, adjusting for age differences. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: After 69.5 million person-years of follow-up individuals exposed to SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccine as infants (i.e., born 1955-1961) or children (i.e., born 1946-1952) had lower overall cancer risk (age-adjusted relative risk = 0.86, 95% confidence interval = 0.81 to 0.91 and RR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.84, respectively; P<.001 for both) than unexposed individuals (i.e., born 1964-1970, after the vaccine was cleared of SV40 contamination). Specifically, SV40 exposure was not associated with increased incidence of mesothelioma, ependymoma, choroid plexus tumor, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. After 19.5 million person-years of follow-up, incidence of all cancers combined, of intracranial tumors, and of leukemia among children aged 0-4 years was also not associated with SV40 exposure. Ependymoma incidence was higher during the exposed period than during the unexposed period (RR = 2.59, 95%CI = 1.36 to 4.92; P =.004 versus the period before contamination); however, incidence peaked in 1969, after the vaccine was cleared of SV40. CONCLUSION: Exposure to SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccine in Denmark was not associated with increased cancer incidence.

[mzmolly]

131. Here is some more current information.

Additionally... "The Lancet published clear evidence that contaminated polio vaccine is responsible for up to half of the 55,000 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cases per year.

This should outrage nearly anyone who reads this. We trusted these experts to provide us with protection from polio, and instead they planted the seeds of a deadly cancer that kills over 20,000 people every year in the US."

http://www.thelancet.com/search/search.isa ~ March 2002 "The Lancet"

"Interpretation SV40 is significantly associated with some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. These results add lymphomas to the types of human cancers associated with SV40."


Let me give you the official response of the CDC on this pending issue.

"If I have one of these cancers does it mean that SV40 caused it?

"The possible role of SV40 in human cancers is not fully understood and is the topic of continued research."

I don't argue one way or another here, but again, I am not going to experiment on my child when the long term risks of vaccination are not understood.

Also, as you know, scientific data is subject to interpretation.

Here is a bit more information.

http://www.anellomedicalwriting.com/SV40-%20HMS%20Beagle.doc

"Other studies, however, detected positive changes in cancer rates associated with individuals receiving contaminated vaccines. In 1967, the Innis study compared 706 children hospitalized with malignancies to a comparable control group matched for age and sex, and found that the frequency of poliovirus vaccination was slightly higher in the children with malignancies.

In another study, Heinonen followed 50,000 pregnant women between 1959 and 1965. The study found that the rate of malignancies was nearly twofold greater in children born to mothers who were immunized with killed vaccines during their pregnancy.

http://www.anellomedicalwriting.com/SV40-%20HMS%20Beagle.doc

The data seems to revolve around 'which' study we choose to believe. Me, I'm still undecided.

And it appears, so is the Government.

April 2003...

http://www.nci.nih.gov/newscenter/sv40

"The Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a report in October 2002, which concluded that the scientific evidence was insufficient to prove or disprove the theory that exposure to poliovirus vaccine contaminated with SV40 resulted in cancer in humans (http://www.iom.edu/iom/iomhome.nsf/pages/Sv40+Report?OpenDocument). The IOM is one of the National Academies to which the nation's leaders often turn for conducting independent scientific studies."

The Government is still funding research on this controversial issue.

http://researchportfolio.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/projectlist.pl?SID=96876

[treepig]

167. the lancet link you provide doesn't work

could you kindly give me the issue and page number because the two articles i can find from march 2002 that discuss sv40's role in cancer in the lancet do not provide

clear evidence that contaminated polio vaccine is responsible for up to half of the 55,000 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cases per year

these articles are:

Volume 359, Issue 9309 , 9 March 2002, Pages 851-852
Presence of simian virus 40 DNA sequences in human lymphomas.


Volume 359, Issue 9309 , 9 March 2002, Pages 812-813
Simian virus 40 and non-Hodgkin lymphoma

in any event, these studies have absolutely nothing with the occurrence of polio today because sv40 has not been in polio vaccines since 1963.

[mzmolly]

172. I don't link the SV-40 to causing polio.

It is said to cause cancer. The lancet link worked for me?

Search the lancet for sv40 and lymphoma.

[treepig]

177. oops

what i said was "in any event, these studies have absolutely nothing with the occurrence of polio today because sv40 has not been in polio vaccines since 1963."


what i intended to say was "in any event, these studies have absolutely nothing with the occurrence of cancer as a result of polio vaccines admininistered today because sv40 has not been in polio vaccines since 1963."


i did searh lancet and came up with two articles that found the 5 to 6% of the lymphoma's in question (out of a total sample size of 235) contained sv40 sequences whereas none of 40 control samples did. the author's strongest in Lancet was that there appeared to be a statistical correlation between sv40 and the occurence of this type of cancer. nowhere did they make any claim remotely like:

The Lancet published clear evidence that contaminated polio vaccine is responsible for up to half of the 55,000 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cases per year

upon re-reading your previous post i see that somebody (quite falsely) attributed this finding to the study in Lancet - knowing full well that 99% of the gullible people reading their google-found website would never go back and check the primary literature to see if the research actually supported this conclusion.

from what i can tell is all of your "scientific" sources are from the the type of website you find from a google-type search engine - none of it is based on an unbiased analysis of the primary literature itself.

in a class i teach, i illustrate the dangers of googling for your scientific information by presenting information from the following website (which looks like a legitimate site presenting "scientific" information):

http://www.lifeshare.org/education/types.html

that purports that blood type antigens determine personality:

Type O You want to be a leader, and when you see something you want, you keep striving until you achieve your goal. You are a trend-setter, loyal, passionate, and self-confident. Your weaknesses include vanity and jealously and a tendency to be too competitive.

Type A You like harmony, peace and organization. You work well with others, and are sensitive, patient and affectionate. Among your weaknesses are stubbornness and an inability to relax.

Type B You're a rugged individualist, who's straight forward and like to do things your own way. Creative and flexible, you adapt easily to any situation. But your insistence on being independent can sometimes go too far and become a weakness.

Type AB Cool and controlled, you're generally well liked and always put people at ease. You're a natural entertainer who's tactful and fair. But you're standoffish, blunt, and have difficulty making decisions.

clearly, these association are absurd but nicely illustrate the dangers of not too much information (and unfortunately it is highly representative of non-peer-reviewed sites out there - such as those that deal with many important medical issues).

[Occulus]

135. "However, she is worth the price I pay."

You sound a lot like my mom. And if you read the thread I started a couple nights ago about her, well... you already get the idea.

I wonder if your daughter will be thanking you if she ever gets one of the diseases you failed to vaccinate her for.....

[mzmolly]

142. Well given the fact that most are 'treatable' and 'obsolete' I'd say the

odds are in my favor. In addition, will your daughter thank you if she has a long term chronic illness from a vaccine now thought safe?

How dare you verbally abuse me because of issues you have with your MOTHER.

*feel free to correct any spelling errors* :eyes:

[Occulus]

147. Not verbal abue.

Just pointing out a personally disturbing similarity.

[mzmolly]

152. Perhaps that explains your unwarranted animosity towards me?

Your dislike of your mother?

You know nothing about me so tread carefully in comparing me to anyone.

[treepig]

70. from a link in the link you cite

Laboratory tests have shown that formaldehyde can cause nasal cancers in rats exposed to a concentration of 14.3 ppm of formaldehyde for 24 months. Mice exposed to the same concentration of formaldehyde did not develop a statistically significant increase in cancers. In humans, numerous epidemiological (causes of death) studies have been done on various groups of workers exposed to formaldehyde. These have included morticians, garment workers, wood workers, foundry workers, painters, and barbers, among others. To date, there do not appear to have been any statistically significant increases in cancers at any site in humans. Many of these studies have suffered from lack of exposure and smoking history data. Due to cancers found in animal studies, and the limited and controversial human epidemiological studies, both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) consider formaldehyde to be a possible human carcinogen, and regulate it accordingly.


http://www.meridianeng.com/formalde.html


and to the point of there being no known threshold doesn't mean that it doesnt' exist. in fact, there are likely doses at which formaldehyde (and most other toxins, such as water which i've explained elsehwere is deadly if ingested at a rate greater than 17 mL/min over a period of several hours) are actually beneficial:

The Delaney cancer clause states that an agent should be considered carcinogenic '...if it is found, after tests which are appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of food additives, to induce cancer in man or animal...' The limits of 'tests which are appropriate' were repeatedly exceeded in overzealous efforts to find dietary and environmental carcinogens. The flawed concept remains: any agent which is carcinogenic at high doses is considered to be carcinogenic in minute doses. Interpolation of results obtained with large doses to zero is much less expensive than performing difficult experiments with small or minute doses. Acceptance of small amounts of some proven carcinogens in our food followed discovery of their existence in common foods, e.g., cholesterol, formaldehyde, or nitrostamines, or conviction that it was an essential nutrient, e.g., selenium. Selenium. long known to be poisonous and now accepted as essential, is carcinogenic in high doses and is anticarcinogenic in low doses. (Frost 1972)

"The phrase '...tests which are appropriate...' was indirectly acknowledged by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the Associated Press (Philadelphia Inquirer May 17, 1989, p.7A) when they rejected the carcinogenicity of bladder implanted chemicals as an index of ingested food additives. Cyclamates were approved 20 years after appropriate tests had been submitted. This precedent should waken both liberal and conservative groups to the possibility that high and low doses of the same agent produce dramatically opposite results. This was inadvertently accepted when FDA beefed up the control group in tests showing red dye #2 was carcinogenic: the mice which had been fed small amounts of the dye, found to be carcinogenic in large doses, were added to the control group to provide increased numbers for better statistics.

[mzmolly]

106. These groups are not injecting formaldehyde are they?

Also, it sounds like at best the verdict is out. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and I'd prefer not to inject it into my child,again feel free to do so with your children.

:shrug:

You forgot this part...

Many of these studies have suffered from lack of exposure and smoking history data. Due to cancers found in animal studies, and the limited and controversial human epidemiological studies, both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) consider formaldehyde to be a possible human carcinogen, and regulate it accordingly."

I think we can agree at best - the verdict is not in. Especially if you read the OP huh?

[trotsky]

13. Say, you might want to be careful with your links.

The AAPS does have a rather surprising position on vaccinations - surprising in that it completely contradicts yours.

http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/mandvac.htm

"AAPS does not oppose vaccines. AAPS has never taken an anti-vaccine position, although opponents have tried to paint that picture. AAPS has only attempted to halt government or school districts from blanket vaccine mandates that violate parental informed consent."

[mzmolly]

15. The AAPS supports the right of parents to choose.

http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/hepbstatement.htm

In addition, they are realistic about the cost/benefit risk.

Please see their information here:

http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/vaccr.htm

Look over their cost/benefit information also.

In addition, I suggest you read all the links they provide regarding vaccines, as they are a fair and impartial source. Thus, I was careful in posting that link.

I arranged for a seminar by the president of that organization in my state, I'm very familiar with their position.

[trotsky]

18. Sounds to me like you're spinning.

AAPS: "AAPS has only attempted to halt government or school districts from blanket vaccine mandates that violate parental informed consent."

Your further link talks ONLY about the hepatitis B vaccine, not vaccines in general. You are spinning their parental consent stance into a stance against vaccines.

[mzmolly]

19. Sounds to me like you haven't examined their website.

http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/costs.htm

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/aaps.html

" U.S. Newswire - A leading national physician organization is calling for a moratorium on all government mandated vaccines and has passed a resolution to that end at their annual meeting. Members of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) voted this week at their 57th Annual Meeting in St. Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single "no" vote."

[trotsky]

22. I think at this point...

it's best to back off.

You evidently have chosen to interpret their stance as an anti-vaccine one, which it is clearly not. (Their own words - not those from a link posted at their site - say so.) Arguing with you will go no further.

[mzmolly]

24. Im not 'anti vaccine' that is a term much like 'pro abortion'.

I share the AAPS position that vaccines should be a matter of choice period. I share their position that vaccines carry risks and should be examined by each parent.

I have many friends/family that vaccinate and of course I respect their decision. Funny thing is they respect mine also.

~Peace

[NickB79]

21. Dangerous

"I have 3 RN friends who either stopped vaxing or never vaxed their children. I have a healthy child who is not vaxed "horror of horrors""

Actually, that is a horror of sorts. You are lucky most families still do vaccinate their children to provide a buffer for your child and your friends children, or your child would be at risk of contracting a number of potentially lethal diseases.

Since you are an adult, that means you and your friends were almost certainly vaccinated as children against at least some diseases, no? Possibly even vaccines no longer given today, such as smallpox. And most likely got vaccines made with far worse chemicals than the ones used today. Do you or any of your friends suffer effects from these vaccinations today?

[mzmolly]

29. We had about 5 vaccines as children, now kids have over 30...

I've heard some have up to 52. Funny we lived in spite of that lack of protection huh? ;)

As far as whether or not me or any friends suffer today, that can't be determined, as there have never been double blind studies done. However, vaccines have been linked to:

Asthma

Cancer *various* *which can be passed from generation to generation via SV-40 and the polio vax*

Autism

Diabetes

Shaken baby syndrome

Sids

chronic fatigue syndrome

HIV

ETC...

Again, we don't really know for sure, and there is anectodal evidence 'published' in medical journals that backs up the claims above.

I would rather my daughter contract a very treatable childhood illness then cancer or ??? That is my view. I am not anti anything. I am pro choice on vaccines and other medical decisions.

[trotsky]

31. This site would be a really good read for you.

From the American Medical Association.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/1824.html

"One of the greatest public health success stories is the remarkable decrease that has been seen in infectious diseases due to the use of vaccines. Vaccines are available for 20 different infectious diseases and vaccines against 10 deadly diseases are recommended for use in all United States children. Unfortunately, the immense success of vaccination in America has lulled many parents into complacency with regard to vaccine preventable diseases, like measles, meningitis, polio and diphtheria. In order for our previous successes to be maintained, it is essential that the public and their appointed legislators continue to realize that these diseases still exist and can still debilitate and kill."

[mzmolly]

37. I did research on vaccines and the conflict of interest... so I'm glad you

brought this up.

Here is a we bit of information.

Believe me I've researched this issue to death. And, I'm confident I made the right decision. Again, I support your right to disagree with me.

http://www.whale.to/m/quotes9.html

"We suspect financial ties between vaccine manufacturers and medical groups such as the American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) which endorse the (hep B) vaccine," says Dr. Orient, pointing to a substantial donation to AAP from Merck & Co. "And the federal government pays the state a bonus up to $100 for every "fully" vaccinated child. What’s their motive -- money or medicine?" ~ Jane Orient M.D.

If you'd read the information I provided previously you'd know that the AMA and the AAP both take $$ from vaccine manufacturers. The whole process of approval is very tainted.

[trotsky]

40. Again you try to shift the subject.

Your quote once again specifically only deals with the hep B vaccine, which is highly controversial all on its own.

I don't think you're being completely honest in all this.

[mzmolly]

44. It deals with conflict of interest in the vaccine approval process.

Why is that so hard for you to believe?? Money and corporations control our Government, vaccines are no different.

Did you check out the links??!

There is an abundance of information and links to articles here. Please take a moment to do so. I dont expect you to change your mind, but at least respect my right to a CHOICE in this regard.

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/articles2.html

[Occulus]

145. it's very possible

to research something to death... and still end up being wrong.

However, in your case, being wrong could easily kill your own daughter.

[mzmolly]

154. OMG! I can't believe a person would say such a thing!

You have crossed the line.

That was your last abusive post to me. YOU ARE NOW IGNORED.

I have weighed the statistics and have 3 RN friends who have made the SAME decision for their children.

Look over my links to the deaths from vaccine 'preventable' diseases. Read the information, you may actually learn a thing or two.

[trotsky]

158. ???

Abusive?

You've called people hypocrites or "brainwashed," and basically told us that we're much worse parents than you because we choose to vaccinate.

And you're flinging accusations of verbal abuse?

[mzmolly]

159. Look back, those were 'defensive' comments. I respect your right/decision

to vaccinate FULLY!

I have said that REPEATEDLY. In addition, I never asserted that YOUR child should be removed from your home for your personal decsision to vaccinate.

I was called selfish, insane, neglectful and now criminal all in this thread!

I have appreciated our 'largely' civil debate ;)

Again, I respect a parents right to choose on this issue as does the AAPS.

Additionally, Call your local chiropractor and ask if they vaccinated their children? The ignored poster will be removing many children from many homes.

[trotsky]

162. Believe me, you don't want to open the can of worms...

known as chiropractors.

You may respect my decision to vaccinate, but your attitude and tone have been very condescending, that somehow we just aren't as informed as you, and are foolishly choosing to inject our children with harmful substances. You should not be surprised when people react the way they do, when they are spoken to in that manner.

What you repeatedly have failed to acknowledge is that your decision NOT to vaccinate has not been made in a vacuum. Because the vast majority of us DO choose to vaccinate, you are benefiting from our decisions. If none of us vaccinated, YES, deaths from polio, measles, mumps, etc. would be just as commonplace if not moreso (as is readily seen in areas of the world that do not have access to the vaccines).

But because vaccines have been SO successful, parents such as yourself now have the luxury of opting out. I think you should be immensely grateful to those of us who have vaccinated our children, and have helped protect YOUR child in the process.

[mzmolly]

165. I dont agree ...

MY SINCEREST APOLOGY FOR MY ADDITUDE AND TONE. I felt I was attacked and simply fighting back. In this thread I've been called 'insane' and told my child should be taken from me so I'm a bit 'punchy'.

I still feel defensive when you say things like this:

"What you repeatedly have failed to acknowledge is that your decision NOT to vaccinate has not been made in a vacuum. Because the vast majority of us DO choose to vaccinate, you are benefiting from our decisions. If none of us vaccinated, YES, deaths from polio, measles, mumps, etc. would be just as commonplace if not moreso (as is readily seen in areas of the world that do not have access to the vaccines).

But because vaccines have been SO successful, parents such as yourself now have the luxury of opting out. I think you should be immensely grateful to those of us who have vaccinated our children, and have helped protect YOUR child in the process.

First, I did not mean to imply that your decision was a lesser decision then mine. However, you appear to continue to imply that my decision does not merit respect.

First the implication here is:

1. I vaccinated so you should too.

2. If 'everybody' thought like you, we'd be in a huge mess.

3. Vaccines are the reason for a decline in disease.

Diseases came and went before vaccination, and we don't know the long term effects of the choice to vaccinate.

I would have NO problem if we stopped vaccinating PERIOD personally. I think the medical community should quarantine disease instead as it used to. I also think that many of the diseases we get are quite treatable. In addition, we don't seem to 'fear' many common diseases until they mandate a vaccine, why is that?!

For example the flu kills far more people per year then many other diseases combined.

"An estimated average of 36,000 people die from flu-related complications each year in the United States, up from 20,000 in previous estimates, according to data published in Wednesday's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/01/07/flu.deaths/

Should we all run out and get our children the flu shot now? :shrug:

And, why the increase, does this demonstrate the vaccine is not effective *gasp* ;)

Also, what are we trading for protection from measles, KWIM? Is it cancer, diabetes, sids etc.. We just plain don't know.

Again I ask can you respect my decision to make a medical choice for my daughter that differs from yours?

[trotsky]

175. I'm afraid you still don't get it.

Sure, "diseases came and went before vaccination", and when they did, they took hundreds of thousands, sometimes MILLIONS, of lives with them. Are you forgetting that?

I'm pretty sure your logic is such that with the supposedly unknown risks of vaccination, vaccines are somehow responsible for more death & injury than the diseases they were intended to prevent. Since your position is non-falsifiable (you place the burden of proof on vaccine proponents to PROVE that vaccines DON'T cause other problems), it's quite secure. And when presented with countless studies that show no link between vaccinations and possible complications, you can simply claim bias and cover your ears. Quite convenient.

For the record, I don't think children should be vaccinated against the flu. They are far less likely to have the serious symptoms that adults can have. However, if they have compromised immune systems or other conditions which would be aggravated by a flu episode, by all means, they should get it.

I would restate your 1-2-3 as follows:

1) I vaccinated because I believe in a strong public health system in which disease is difficult to spread. The more people that vaccinate, the better that system will be, and the more people who really CAN'T be vaccinated will benefit. So yes, I think you should vaccinate. And since you are an advocate of quarantine, surely you can appreciate if someone doesn't want your unprotected child near theirs.

2) If no one vaccinated, I'm sorry, but we WOULD be in a huge mess. It is sad, in a way, that we are so far removed from the ravages of these diseases as when they were real threats to the general populace. You have no idea what it was like back then, but you are quite willing to trivialize the situation and insist that we could somehow magically treat and live with these diseases.

3) Vaccines ARE the reason for decline in disease. If you have any facts whatsoever to the contrary, please feel free to state them clearly and concisely. Until then, I'm inclined to take the word of the numerous Nobel Laureates, accomplished medical professionals, and prestigious medical organizations which have signed on to the Sabin Institute's Open Statement on Vaccines as found here: http://www.sabin.org/programs_open_vaccine.htm

Why the increase in influenza? Because not everyone gets vaccinated! Funny, in trying to prove your point, you end up supporting mine, namely that if we ease up significantly on vaccinations for various diseases, we will see increased occurrence and death.

Your fear of the unknown unfortunately outweighs your fear of the known. And I, and numerous others, fear for the public health consequences of your decision, especially should more and more people start making that decision. And oddly, it's not my children's health I fear for, since mine are vaccinated. It's out of concern for YOUR child.

So I'm sorry, but while I can accept your decision, I cannot respect it.

[bleedingheart]

20. As the parent of an asthmatic with a slight immune deficiency

I am thankful for vaccines.

My mother recalls a time when diptheria, thyphoid and polio killed and when classmates didn't return the next year to school because of these and other horrid illnesses.

There are loads of things that will kill us, overeating, alcohol, smoking, drinking too much water and worrying too much....

However people who work daily with dangerous chemicals should be protected and that is something that Republican admins have never cared about since it costs the corporations money to protect workers.

[mzmolly]

23. Vaccines are linked to asthma also???

EEK.

But I do respect your decision to vaccinate.

Also, diptheria, and polio are now all but obsolete so why are we still vaccinating? :shrug:

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/asthma.html

"It is very likely, that the obvious improvements of her child's health was achieved by him finally developing whooping cough in its acute form --any parents report either a marked improvement or disappearance of 'asthma' after their vaccinated children developed acute whooping cough. Medical research demonstrated that having whooping cough prevents asthma. One must wonder how much of that 'asthma' is just a chronic whooping cough as a result of the vaccinated child's immune system being deranged by vaccination and not being able to mount a proper, acute, immune response."---Viera Scheibner

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/scheibner3.html

I'm not trying to freak anyone out here ok? I realize that this goes against everything "Amerikun" as vaccines are next in line to "Apple Pie," according to most "Amerikuns." I simply feel the decision should be left up to parents, as there are risks/benefits to any and all medical procedures. I am surprised to find such scorn from my "liberal" friends.

With this post, I shall leave. It is clear I am not a favorite in this thread ;) :hi:

Thanks for stating your position in a respectful manner bleedingheart. :)

[NickB79]

34. Widespread pertussis vaccinations were introduced in the mid-40's

But asthma rates have only begun to dramatically increase since the late 70's/early 80's. For ~30 yrs after the medical community began vaccinating against whooping cough, the rate of asthma remained fairly stable. This suggests there is, at the least, another component to the rising asthma rate than simply whooping cough vaccination.

"Also, diptheria, and polio are now all but obsolete so why are we still vaccinating?" Because the viruses that cause these infections are still present in the soil and water around us. Passive immunity conferred via breastfeeding would not confer lifelong immunity to the next generation born but not vaccinated.

[mzmolly]

39. But, how then do you explain the low incidence of these diseases in spite

of the fact most people are no longer immune to these diseases *due to the vaccines having a waining effect*? In other words the vaccines 'wear off' and we are not having epidemics of these diseases. I think there was one case of diptheria in the past 5 years or so. I have all the stats somewhere.

The CDC said "that's a good question when I posed that question to them?"

I'll check back tomorrow. off to ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

[bleedingheart]

45. Pertussis still strikes

My daughter became very ill with what started like a simple cold. She couldn't stop coughing. I took her to the ER since her asthma is aggravated by respiratory illnesses. When the MD did a pertussis test I told them that she had been vaccinated. They explained that you can still become ill even if the vaccine is administered and that with so many children not being vaccinated they were seeing a rise in more mild forms of whooping cough in those vaccinated children exposed to children who did get pertussis as a result of not being vaccinated.

My sister's brother-in-law is 45 years old and a polio victim because his mother refused to have him vaccinated when he was a child. He still suffers from the ravages of that disease.

[mzmolly]

58. My father in law had polio also, and people have contracted

it from the vaccine. In fact, it's the only way it's being contracted in the western hemisphere today.

I'm really not arguing vaccines effectiveness though, I'm saying they carry risk.

[bleedingheart]

38. My son's asthma got better after his pnemonia vaccine

in fact prior to that vaccine he had pneumonia more than 6 times. The vaccine seemed to do a great deal of good for him. If he continued to get pneumonia too many times he would have needed monthly gamma-globulin IV therapies..

Asthma and eczema run in both my husband's and my family. Our grandparents had problems with both and the only vaccines they received were polio and smallpox vaccines because of the times. My great-grandmother smoked marijuana on occasion to help her asthma as it can act like a bronchodialator...

[mzmolly]

59. I'm glad to hear that.

My daughter has eczema and is at greater risk for vaccine reactions which is one reason I opted out.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

76. MUST READ.......plywood contains it used..... to adher the layers together

pressed wood products, such as softwood plywood ... contain PF resin generally emit formaldehyde...any new furniture or things made of pressedwood/plywood pollute your indoor air and could be harmful to your family

Pressed wood products containing formaldehyde resins are often
a significant source of formaldehyde in homes. Other potential ...
www.cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_8.htm

[Don_G]

2. Also....

Indoor carpeting, fiberboard, plywood, adhesives, plastics and Lysol as I recall.

[toska]

5. Food additives too

Don't forget nutrasweet. One of its main compounds is Formaldehyde.

[treepig]

12. umm, again,

nutrasweet:



formaldehyde:



(do people just post anything on this forum, assuming all readers are idiots and won't know any better?)

[mzmolly]

30. Well???

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/embalm.html

Your gonna LOVE me now ;) I don't do nutrasweet. SURPRISE!

[trotsky]

35. Another perspective.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blasp.htm

[mzmolly]

62. I've seen it thanks. I imagine the nutrasweet makers have mucho $$

to put out loads of propaganda. However, I dont drink it because of headaches, it has nothing to do with the 'nutri-scare'...

[trotsky]

74. Heh, no, I don't think you've seen it.

Because in it, they comment on the "it's just a big money conspiracy to keep peddling a dangerous chemical" mentality that you exhibit.

[mzmolly]

102. I make no assertions about nutrisweet personally :)

I dont' really care to research it at length as drinking it is not mandated by the feds ;) I only posted food for thought on that subject as did others.

I prefer good old fashioned *immune compromising* sugar myself.

[treepig]

42. so formaldehyde results from metabolic breakdown of nutrasweet?

that's mightily different from saying that formaldehyde is a major component of nutrasweet!

and if you wish to cite "scientific" studies - perhaps a scientific source for your citations would be more convincing?

such as the national institutes of health's PUBMED search engine where you can retrieve peer-reviewed papers, here's the conclusion of one such paper:

Threshold concentrations of formaldehyde, a metabolite of methanol, that affected the i and cellular glutathione content were slightly higher than the blood concentrations of methanol previously reported in subjects administered abuse doses of aspartame. It is suggested that aspartame at abuse doses is harmless to humans.

from Cell Biol Toxicol. 2002;18(1):43-50. Related Articles, Links


Cytotoxic effects of methanol, formaldehyde, and formate on dissociated rat thymocytes: a possibility of aspartame toxicity.

Oyama Y, Sakai H, Arata T, Okano Y, Akaike N, Sakai K, Noda K.

Laboratory of Cellular Signaling, Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokushima, Japan

note - you can do your own search at:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

and also note that science works by consensus - if you pull up 100 research papers and 90 have one view, 5 have another, and the remainder are unsure - then the scientific consensus is accepted. sure, you can cherry pick the 5% of out-liers to support that global warming is not occurring, that vaccinations are the greatest health hazard ever (or whatever) but that's just plain intellectually dishonest.

[GAspnes]

32. well, they both have carbon, hydrogen and oxygen

therefore nutrasweet, being more complex, is derived from formaldehyde. QED.

(I think you're right -- people will believe anything.)

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

66. Rumsfeld's conflict of interest and ASPARTAME

-if Rumsfeld got aspartame approved and was paid big bucks for doing it I want no part of it.
It gives me headaches--I know that Rumsfeld tried to sell us on WMD's, he's a lying sob at heart.


snip-


Rumsfeld's conflict of interests and ASPARTAME: Rumsfeld was president of
Serle corporation in 1977, maker of aspartame, then, part of Reagan
transition team, and got aspartame 'legalized' by appointing a defense
department contractor (Hayes) as head of FDA!........



In October 1980 the Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) impaneled by the FDA to
evaluate aspartame safety found that the chemical caused an unacceptable
level of brain tumors in animal testing. Based on this fact, the PBOI ruled
that aspartame should not be added to the food supply.-------

http://csf.colorado.edu/envtecsoc/2002/msg00440.html

[Junkdrawer]

112. Umm, the Aspartate / Formaldhyde linkage is quite well established...

This experiment was conducted in 1997. It has been repeated many times and yet, ignored by Monsanto and the FDA. The study proves that there are significant amounts of the chemical, formaldehyde in Diet Coke - more if the pop has been stored at room temperatures or higher (and it's often stored in hot warehouses in the South and Southwest). A 2000 JAMA study established that intaking even trace amounts of formaldehyde, can cause damage to several areas of the body, yet this is Monsanto's excuse - "yes we know diet pop has formaldehyde in it but it's in such small amounts as to not be dangerous". Aspartame/Nutrasweet is in some 6000 foods and OTC medications. Formaldehyde is on the FDA list of cancer causing chemicals. On some foods, nutrasweet is not listed however, all foods having nutrasweet in them must carry a warning about "phenoketinuria". If you see this warning, you might want to say "no" to the food or medication.



http://suewidemark.freeservers.com/aspartame-formaldhyde.htm

(do YOU assume all readers are idiots and won't know any better?)

[treepig]

118. the degradation of nutrasweet to form some formaldehyde

is well discussed in this thread.

in any event this topic, while interesting, is rather tangential to the unelaborated claim that was originally made that formaldehyde is a major component of nutrasweet.

[mzmolly]

137. Give toska a break, not everyone is a scientist ;)

;)

[Occulus]

146. *giggle*

[DUreader]

3. Oh goody , more debate

[mzmolly]

63. OK IM LEAVING NOW... BYE

:hi:

SORRY THIS THREAD GOT SO OFF TOPIC. I didn't mean to make it a vaccine conversation.

[Catherine Vincent]

78. I'm glad you guys were off topic with the vaccine talk.

It was interesting reading the different opinions. I have a sister that became a Muslim and she did not vaccinate her child. My mom didn't understand why she would do such a thing. We all assumed the minister of the muslims told her not to. But I guess gather he may have given them info regarding vaccinations and to do some research. She probably did and decided otherwise.

But my family respect her choice. It is her child and if my sister and her husband decide against vaccinations, then so be it.

[trotsky]

79. And I think why a lot of us get upset by that choice...

is that it's a really selfish choice. If you get immunized, you benefit. But society benefits too, because then you can't catch and transmit the disease. The more people immunized, the less likely those who aren't immunized will get sick, since there just isn't an unbroken chain of carriers to transmit the disease - the "secondary benefits" referred to previously in this thread.

If you choose not to vaccinate, it's a selfish choice. You are benefiting from the vaccine because of the large number of people who DO vaccinate, but if too many people start to make your choice, these diseases WILL return.

The risk we take in vaccinating is incredibly small, but it's there. In taking that risk, you end up benefiting not only your family but society at large. The rest of us are taking that risk, and helping YOUR child in the process, whether you choose to vaccinate or not.

IMHO, people who refuse to vaccinate are kind of like people who don't want to pay taxes, yet go about driving on roads, using the post office, going to parks, etc.

Unfortunately, it is due to the overwhelming success of vaccinations that people now question their necessity. I can't imagine that if you laid out all the known statistics (including those AGAINST vaccines) in front of someone from the early 20th century, who has full knowledge of the ravages of polio, measles, mumps, etc., that they would ever choose NOT to vaccinate. But because we are so far removed from the death and debilitation of those diseases, a lot people figure the risks of vaccination are too great. Pah, not even remotely close when compared to the damage done by disease.

[mzmolly]

90. Trotzky you know NOT of what you speak.

I hope you will consider opening your mind a bit.

Search for books on this subject ok?

Off to have a tea party with my little one.

I hope you will proceed in finding out more. I did not intend to open a can of worms here. I could argue this for 20 hours, and provide much more compelling information but

A) I dont have time.

B) I am not interesting in beating my head against a wall.

Sometime in the future I'll start a thread with mucho info for people who are interested.

~Peace

[trotsky]

100. Your tactics are disappointing, mzmolly.

You claim that I have personally called you "insane" and "selfish" (which I never did), and then you label me a hypocrite.

Sad, really. Didn't really do your cause much good.

And you know what? I *did* research vaccines quite extensively when I had my children, and I felt the tiny risks associated with vaccination were far less than the REAL risks of being susceptible to outbreaks. It's your attitude in this thread which has hardened people's stances against what you are trying to argue.

And your lone comeback is "I've done the research, you all have closed minds, end of discussion."

Fine. End of discussion.

[mzmolly]

178. I must have confused you with the other vicious remarks I've endured.

Sorry bout that.

You said ~ "And you know what? I *did* research vaccines quite extensively when I had my children, and I felt the tiny risks associated with vaccination were far less than the REAL risks of being susceptible to outbreaks."

Good for you. I commend your doing so. And I hold nothing against parents who don't. They are following the advice of their physicians and society at large.

I do resent being castigated for coming to a different conclusion then you have however.

I'd like to provide you with my reasoning if I may.

I will list the number of deaths related to so called vaccine preventable diseases. Then I will list the number of deaths 'estimated' from KNOWN vaccine injury.

I will use the information from 1999 as it is the most current information I can locate from the CDC online, they are generally a bit behind as they have to 'verify' the numbers and such:

Deaths from so called "vaccine preventable diseases" in 1999.

Diptheria 1

Tetanus 7

Pertusis 7

Polio 0

Measles 2

Mumps 1

Rubella 0

Varicella / chix pox 48

Now add all of these up excluding chicken pox and we have 18 deaths from so called vaccine preventable illness in one year. These figures give or take a few, have been quite steady for several years in the US.

Contrast that to the number of "reported" vaccine related deaths in that same year. *165* Now let's assume that the CDC is correct in their assumption that vaccine related incidents are reported by doctors only 1-10% of the time. That figure of *165* now becomes 1,650 - 16,500 deaths from vaccination in the US. This is using their data mind you. In addition, this does not account for the blind faith in vaccines and the refusal of the medical community to consider vaccines as a plausable cause of death. Deaths are 'diagnosed' at times and docs are not trained to look for vaccine related deaths KWIM? Also, we don't know the long term effects/deaths related to vaccines *thus the figure of *1,650 - $16,500 grows a great deal.

I honestly belive that vaccines are doing more harm then good in our society. I respect your right to disagree with me.

Some Refs below.

http://www.vaers.org/data.htm

http://freespace.virgin.net/ahcare.qua/literature/medical/vaccination.html

http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/statistics.htm

http://www.whale.to/v/quackwatch.html

Why can't you respect my right to reach a different conclusion then you have?

[Bridget Burke]

115. No problem, really....

If the diseases most of us have been vaccinated against make a big comeback, the kids who were not vaccinated will be the first to suffer.

[trotsky]

120. And it's sad that mzmolly doesn't understand...

that's why a lot of us are so disappointed in her "decision."

[mzmolly]

173. Riiiiiiiiiighhhhhhhhht!

:eyes:

[Occulus]

153. just a slight aside here

"IMHO, people who refuse to vaccinate are kind of like people who don't want to pay taxes, yet go about driving on roads, using the post office, going to parks, etc."

The USPS doesn't use tax dollars to my knowledge... and I'd know; I work for 'em.

Not important to your overall point, but I thought I would correct that statement. It's a very common misconception for which you are cheerfully forgiven :)

[trotsky]

156. Really?

Thanks for pointing that out. I thought they received some sort of subsidy from the government, how else could mailing a letter be so CHEAP? (Literally! You want to find out how expensive postal service can be, go to Europe. You'll pay more than we do for a stamp to send a letter to the next town down the road.)

[Occulus]

149. Perhaps not,

but you certainly did press the issue once you jacked the thread, huh?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

77. cosemetics/makeup/beauty products contain formaldehyde

Cosmetics containing formaldehyde
... Cosmetics containing formaldehyde. ... Although not an original constituent in such products,
formaldehyde is formed when tenside softeners are oxidised by air - in ...
www.arbetslivsinstitutet.se/workinglife/98-1/cosmetic.asp

OSHA Report on formaldehyde
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/formaldehyde/

Formaldehyde exposure is most common through gas-phase inhalation. However, it can also occur through liquid-phase skin absorption. Workers can be exposed during direct production, treatment of materials, and production of resins. Health care professionals; pathology and histology technicians; and teachers and students who handle preserved specimens are potentially at high risk. Consumers can receive exposures from building materials, cosmetics, home furnishings, and textiles.

Short-term exposure to formaldehyde can be fatal; however, the odor threshold is low enough that irritation of the eyes and mucous membranes will occur before these levels are achieved. Long-term exposure to low levels of formaldehyde may cause respiratory difficulty, eczema, and sensitization. Formaldehyde is classified as a human carcinogen and has been linked to nasal and lung cancer, and with possible links to brain cancer and leukemia.

[kimchi]

87. Since we are already off topic...

I vaccinated my child UNTIL she had a horrible reaction. She was listless, cranky, and had a high fever for days. I was told to give her tylenol, which made the fever go down to 102-103. Acceptable for a baby, I'm told. Never mind that the fever is a byproduct of the vaccination, since the entire point is to get the immune system to fight the disease--with fever.

There have been cases of brain damage from (forgot the medical term) when a baby goes dazed/listless/zombie-like. She will not finish that particular course of immunizations until she is at least 2.

It upsets me that some are calling those who choose not to vaccinate irresponsible.

So yes, parents have the right and responsibility to do what is best for their child. Just because the overall effect is beneficial to the population does not mean that there aren't exceptions to the rule. If someone not vaccinated contracts a disease, those who are vaccinated normally either will not get it, or will get a reduced episode. The only thing that would be truly irresponsible would be to not seek medical attention immediately.

I trust parents who have researched the issue, especially those whose children or relatives have been harmed previously by a vaccine, to make the right decision for their families.

[mzmolly]

163. THANKYOU! THANKYOU! THANKYOU! I am almost in tears for

carefully weighing an important decision and being 'trashed' here because of it.

Your support and respect for my decision means much.

[Snow]

150. Two thoughts at the end of this thread

First, we all worry a lot about chemicals. They sound scary. But most of the research around leukemia is in fact looking at infectious agents.

Second, MzMolly said something dangerously mistaken when she stated that most diseases that children are immunized against are not dangerous to adults. To list a few of the more conspicuous, paralytic polio is a disease of the older child or teenager, measles and mumps can both have much more severe consequences in adults than in children, and diptheria is a major mess regardless of your age - I have actually seen the "gray throat" once, and it's pretty damn scary. Pertussis is much milder and more common in adults, but I had to help with a pertussis outbreak in children once because the county school superintendent refused to enforce the vaccination laws. Scores of children sick, several died.

[Occulus]

155. And that is the tragic end result

of the ignorance and wilful blindness of people who take mzmolly's position.

[mzmolly]

157. Do you have links to the scores of children who 'died' I'd be curious to

see documentation. Also, do you know what percentage of the dead were vaccinated?

In addition, I correct my previous statement and say 'many' diseases we vaccinate against are not considered dangerous in the adult population *according to the CDC* Additionally, Chicken Pox is MORE dangerous in the adult population.

It's amazing you saw diptheria as it is so rare, only 26 cases and 3 deaths from 1989 - 1999. In that same 10 year span there were 17 deaths from whooping cough * most of which were probably under 6 monts old and too young to be vaxed, right?*

When did this massive outbreak occur of which you speak?

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/casedeath99.pdf

Edited out snide mocking of epidemiologist. :)

[trotsky]

160. LOL, mzmolly

Do you realize that you're currently mocking an epidemiologist?

I think he might have a little more knowledge and experience than you or I could ever hope for.

[mzmolly]

161. I'm not mocking anyone. I know of epidemiologists who agree with me

on the vaccination issue however. ;)

I really want to see the data. Edited out possible mocking... *blush*

I also want to know what percentage of the dead were vaccinated? I am curious why the CDC doesn't have the information on 'scores' of dead children as well???

I'm out for now. I've had enough name calling for one afternoon, also my MIL is leaving shortly so I have a child to care for.

Peace I think :shrug:

[Snow]

166. A correction - I didn't say "scores dead"

and a little more information - the big pertussis outbreak was in southeastern Kentucky, a county which shall remain nameless because I don't remember it, in 1976. Since, as you might guess, records keeping was pretty poor in that time, place, and situation, nobody had any idea how many of the kids had been vaccinated.

The case of diptheria I saw not in the US but in Korea. I was working in tuberculosis control at the time.

[mzmolly]

169. There were a total of 7 deaths in that year and 1010 cases in the entire.

country according to the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/casedeath99.pdf

And, in fact in 1999 there were 7288 cases and 7 deaths in the entire US. I am curious if you have any hypothesis as to why were seeing an increase in this disease in spite of vaccination efforts? I find that curious as the vaccination rates are surely greater now then they were 20 years ago? Some feel the diseases are becoming stronger due to vaccination resistance *much like antibiotic overuse* I dunno?

But, It appears that pertussis has been on the increase 'steadilly' over the last 20 years *though thankfully the death rate remains at a steady low - generally less then 10 per year* in spite of that fact.

Also, I believe so called vaccine preventable deaths have been reported quite well in modern times have they not so I would imagine Kentucky would have reported the outbreak and it would be included in my figures above?

I tried to locate specifics on the Kentucky case, and have not been able to sorry.

Thanks for your insight.

[TahitiNut]

176. I'm locking this thread.

It has devolved into a flamefest (aka "pissing contest") and no longer focuses on the specifics of the news story.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
TahitiNut - DU moderator