|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 5/23/2008 8:56:41 PM
|
|
|
cynthia
Posts: 7745
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Beautiful Puget Sound Region
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Flintejae
(yup, I meant DTap; not the chicken pox vacc. Thanks Donna!)
Okay! That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.
_____________________________
The devil isn't winning, but he wants you to think he is so you will give up and let him win. Often the battle is hardest before the victory. You may get bloody, but that doesn't mean you are losing, it only means you are fighting.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 5/24/2008 9:14:09 AM
|
|
|
godogs
Posts: 21
Joined: 4/18/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Have your children also had measles? How did they do with that? How about polio?
No, they have not had the measles, but my mother said I did. As to polio...."From 1980 through 1999, there were 152 confirmed cases of paralytic polio cases reported. Of the 152 cases, eight cases were acquired outside the United States and imported. The last imported case caused by wild poliovirus into the United States was reported in 1993. The remaining 144 cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused by live oral polio vaccine (OPV)." So you have a better chance of getting the polio by taking the vaccine than if you don't. However, if my children were traveling overseas or on a mission trip we would have them get the vaccine.
quote:
Do you realize that the reason immunizations were developed was because people (mostly children) were dying in huge numbers and others were disabled for life due to what are usually referred to as terrible diseases? Due to mass immunizations, the incidence of diseases has been dramatically decreased. Therefore, our generation has not been exposed to the horror of epidemics of measles, rubella, mumps, whopping cough, small pox, polio, etc.
I think we would all agree with that.
quote:
Comparing immunizations to formula is a grossly inaccurate analogy. Formula isn’t saving millions of lives, but immunizations are. Formula does have its place, but it is an entirely different matter than immunizations. Immunizations are medicines used to prevent diseases.
You're right, not a good comparison. My point however was that you're doctor isn't always right.
quote:
The Lord created a perfect world which has been changed by sin. He has given us tools to overcome many of the troubles brought on by the curse of sin, including teaching us how to avoid many diseases. Vaccination is one of those tools.
Good point
quote:
The diseases mentioned break out in unvaccinated populations. Rarely will a vaccinated person get a disease they were vaccinated against, but those who are not vaccinated are much more vulnerable. Some people do not vaccinate their children who have trouble with vaccinations, which is wise, but then those children are at greater risk for the diseases that vaccinations prevent when there are less vaccinated people in the population around them. Vaccinations protect the group, not just the individuals.
They do break out in unvaccinated places, but that is not the only cause. The uncleanliness in those places make it very advantageous for the spread of disease.
quote:
did not vaccinate my children for a number of years until I had concluded my research on them. Once I had gained understanding, I took my children in and had them vaccinated for all of the diseases that I believe them to be at risk for if they are not vaccinated. All of the web-sites and books that speak against vaccination are full of lies, half truths and illogical conclusions. Yes, I really mean all of them. There is no good reason to avoid vaccinations in healthy children that do not have a family history of trouble with vaccinations. All healthy children without these factors should be vaccinated against the main childhood diseases that are preventable through vaccinations. It not only protects them individually, but it provides protection in the populations around them as well.
"All of the web-sites and books that speak against vaccination are full of lies, half truths and illogical conclusions." Hard to believe you've read them all.
Godogs
BTW, my oldest daughter graduates in a few hours. We have told her the shots she has gotten and if she feels that she needs any of them she is free to get them. Also, I do like your tag line. We home school our children through the 8th grade and then put them in public school.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 5/24/2008 11:15:56 AM
|
|
|
cynthia
Posts: 7745
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Beautiful Puget Sound Region
Status: offline
|
I should have said, "All the web-sites and books that I have read that speak against vaccination are full of lies, half truths and illogical conclusions."
_____________________________
The devil isn't winning, but he wants you to think he is so you will give up and let him win. Often the battle is hardest before the victory. You may get bloody, but that doesn't mean you are losing, it only means you are fighting.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 5/24/2008 3:29:20 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2304
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cynthia
I should have said, "All the web-sites and books that I have read that speak against vaccination are full of lies, half truths and illogical conclusions."
I don't think I've ever seen a vaccine site that tells the possible side-effects of vaccination (that was meant to inform) that actually just informed. Just like the original post...I think it was using the "these are the facts" doctrinaire to get us to believe that vaccines are evil, by using "education" and "research."
What's sad to me is that I see Christian sites/books do this too, and I fully believe they know that what they say hasn't been proven... they just want people to believe the way that they believe. Vaccine sites aren't the only ones like that. I also find it horrible that (some) people with "Dr." in front of their names misuse that to spread their agendas. I've seen doctors publish anti-vaccine "facts" in Nature (hard to get into, even for doctors), then a few months later you see that they fabricated their information-- I think, in his case, he had some $$ in it if he could prove some harmful effects of vaccines. No one would normally know that, but his "facts" probably did trip some people up...and it turns out they were based on nothing but what he decided to make up. And I've heard of some anti-vaccine organizations (maybe individual people) pay off doctors to try to publish the evils of vaccines. I'm sure that goes the other way too (pro-vaccine people pay off others somtimes to publish positive info). It goes on with more than just vaccines.... many doctors do it with meds, new medical device testing, etc. when there is money involved. I think many people forget that or just never knew how much it goes on. It's responsible for some things in the FDA being approved when they really unsafe for use or have not been through enough testing.
(Not to say that medications [including vaccines] don't have any side effects.)
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
"Sometimes I Wonder Why" (Blog entry)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 5/24/2008 5:43:35 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2304
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
I think the person people most know right now might be Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his so-called anti-vaccine "study." Later on he retracted his statements (I think), but he had financial interest from the outside, then later admitted many of the things he'd lied about.
Here's a quick quote and a link (it's long, but detailed). He's probably all over the 'net though...since he was published in a good scientific journal (Lancet) before people knew what was going on. He's been discussed in the thread before, but it was so far back I didn't feel like looking. It's easier to find online rather than looking through pages. 
To understand Wakefield's conduct, it's hard to overlook his hidden financial interests. To the later declared surprise of his colleagues [mp3 audio], two years before the Lancet paper was published, his research on the children had begun, not just with a desire to collaborate with Barr, but with a lucrative financial contract to join the team preparing the lawsuit. In February 1996, Wakefield agreed to work for Barr at a rate of £150 an hour - a great deal of money for a retained expert at that time - in addition to his Royal Free salary. And as the Sunday Times investigation revealed in February 2004, the proposal submitted to the Legal Aid Board [now the Legal Services Commission] in June 1996 meant money to support Wakefield's work.
Shunning competing explanations for how MMR might cause injuries, and without any medical or scientific review, Barr was authorised to pay Wakefield a maximum of £55,000 from public funds to perform the research in the June 1996 proposal. This was to provide for "clinical and scientific" tests on ten client children in the hunt for evidence for the lawsuit. Interviewed by Brian Deer in 2004, Barr - by now working for the larger law firm Alexander Harris - confirmed that he'd arranged finance [mp3 audio] for the study published in the Lancet of February 1998. But then, after public uproar followed the first Sunday Times reports, he avoided any further comment.
Even some of Wakefield's closest collaborators voiced concern over this new information. "We were shocked by the revelations in the Sunday Times," said Professor John O'Leary, a controversial Dublin-based Wakefield associate, and former business partner, in a statement issued through his lawyer. "We were not made aware, nor were we aware, of any liaison between Dr Wakefield and Mr Richard Barr of Alexander Harris Solicitors that apparently existed since 1996. In addition, we had never been informed that the LSC had funded Dr Wakefield."
Walker-Smith also denied all knowledge, despite being the study's senior clinical investigator. In an email, circulated at the Royal Free on 27 February 2004, in response to The Sunday Times investigation, he said:
"No financial details of Andy's work was ever discussed with me by anyone and I was totally unaware of the grant of £55,000 that had been paid to him in an NHS Trust Fund, until Deer told me to my astonishment in December 2003."
The explosive revelation about Wakefield's £55,000, however, only scratched the surface of his pecuniary advantage. On the legal front, in December 2006, the Legal Services Commission answered a Freedom of Information Act request from Brian Deer with a spreadsheet of fees to paid witnesses in the MMR lawsuit, stating that, since joining Barr ten years previously, Wakefield had been paid £435,643 [about $780,000], plus expenses, for his role in backing the generic case against MMR. This money - which is believed to have been augmented by yet more, still undisclosed, for work on individual children's records - was drawn against the cash-limited UK legal aid fund, intended to help poor people gain access to justice. During this period, Wakefield and his wife built a house on land purchased adjacent to their home, which was offered for sale in March 2007 priced £2,950,000 [$5,677,550].
Like many biomedical journals, the Lancet had strict rules requiring authors to report potential conflicts of interest. But neither the nature of the collaboration with Barr, the money Wakefield received, nor the children's litigant status, were disclosed to the journal and its readers. Nor did Wakefield reveal the true situation when repeatedly offered the chance. In March 1998, for instance, at a meeting convened by the UK Medical Research Council, he was asked where he got the children. The minutes of the exchange accurately reflect a full transcript, in Brian Deer's confidential possession:
"Members were interested in how the children had come to be referred to the RFHMS team, as this had a bearing on the issue of bias in the generation of the case series. Mr Wakefield explained that originally the parents of the children had come to the group without any connection through any other organisation. Latterly, following media attention, parents had heard of the RFHMS group's work either directly or through other organisations. All patients who had been reviewed to date had been referred by their general practitioner or paediatrician by the standard route."
In May 1998, two months after this meeting, the Lancet published a reader's letter speculating that lawyers were involved [pdf version]. Then, in April 2000, Wakefield was asked at a US congressional committee, with reference to material he'd presented, which included the Lancet 12:
"Who funded your study?"
And, in March 2001, he was asked again at an Irish parliamentary committee to identify the source of his finance. When Wakefield dodged the question, a deputy pressed him:
"I genuinely wanted to know who is funding the research."
On any of these occasions, Wakefield might have made the position clear: that a lawyer employed him to produce evidence against the vaccine…
This call had no scientific basis. As Wakefield would later admit during an interview for an online presentation by London's Science Museum, he didn't know himself how to justify it. In a text, submitted for his approval before being posted on the web in June 2003, museum staff asked about his call for single vaccines. "What's his reasoning?" they asked.
He said:
"It's purely empirical - we have no idea. It's the public health people's job to look into that."
Wakefield's call in 1998, however, had created the false impression that it was backed by the "findings" in The Lancet of 28 February. And it fitted Barr's strategy for pursuing the litigation - which was rooted in UK consumer legislation, focused specifically on combined vaccine products. As a confidential Barr newsletter, sent to the lawyer's clients, explained in May 1997:
"If the MMR vaccines are withdrawn, then that of course will be a great leap forward for the cases...'" From THIS link
It's fairly easy for me to see why a doctor would lie to go pro-vaccine...investment, money, being on the boards, and personal opinion. But people also pay doctors off to lie going the other way. They *might* be on boards whose goals include anti-vaccine theories...but I think when someone is trying to go against vaccines, money is the biggest one there (like with Dr. Wakefield), then pressure, and also heavy personal opinion (I believe what I believe and I'll "prove" it; have a hypothesis and make some way for the result to match it), even with a medical doctor or scientist. I've even seen my peers do that...grad students do that...professionals do that. Doctor Wakefield happened to get caught... I suspect there are too many more out there who do not.
There was a doctor recently who fabricated blood test results because he felt "commercial pressure," so he said. He was giving inadequate, split MMR vaccines (I think he was trying to prove with the blood tests that the vaccines worked, but he knew his vaccines were defective-- or he just didn't give them but SAID he had, then forged the blood tests to prove he'd given the vaccine), but I'll have to try to find an article or something about it. I've forgotten his name.
< Message edited by solo_soprano22 -- 5/24/2008 5:49:37 PM >
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
"Sometimes I Wonder Why" (Blog entry)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 5/24/2008 6:44:58 PM
|
|
|
PrincessDonna
Posts: 10188
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Cow country, Upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
The remaining 144 cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused by live oral polio vaccine (OPV)." So you have a better chance of getting the polio by taking the vaccine than if you don't.
Oral polio vaccine is no longer given, since I believe 1999 or 2000. Inactive polio vaccine is not the active virus and cannot cause polio.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 5/24/2008 7:22:13 PM
|
|
|
Jenny-Fair
Posts: 6622
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: WA
Status: offline
|
I don't think that is entirely accurate, Donna. ALL vaccines have the potential to cause the virus against which they are supposed to protect you. We sign a waiver to that effect before we or our children are given the shots. The live polio vaccine, however, was much more likely to do so.
_____________________________
Tony: Ziva, did you kill Houdini?
Ziva: It is possible. I do not remember all their names.
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 5/24/2008 8:53:37 PM
|
|
|
PrincessDonna
Posts: 10188
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Cow country, Upstate NY
Status: offline
|
According to what I have read, in more than one source, it is true that you cannot get actual polio from the IPV. You may have a reaction to the IPV (though it is low on Dr. Sear's reactivity list), but the reaction is just a reaction, NOT polio.
We did have a little boy locally get polio from the old vaccine (OPV). They lived in the same trailer park as we did at the time, it was our doctor who gave the outdated vaccine (at the instruction of the hospital that employs him  ), and it was a year before our oldest was born. The little boy lived a few months on a respirator and then died. 
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 5/24/2008 9:24:00 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2304
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
I don't see how you could get HPV from the vaccine, just from knowing how it's made. There's no live virus in the vaccine...just proteins. Are there any more vaccines made that way?
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
"Sometimes I Wonder Why" (Blog entry)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 5/24/2008 10:12:39 PM
|
|
|
PrincessDonna
Posts: 10188
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Cow country, Upstate NY
Status: offline
|
I sure hope you can't get HPV from the IPV shot. That would cause some major problems.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 5/27/2008 4:45:48 PM
|
|
|
godogs
Posts: 21
Joined: 4/18/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrincessDonna
quote:
The remaining 144 cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused by live oral polio vaccine (OPV)." So you have a better chance of getting the polio by taking the vaccine than if you don't.
Oral polio vaccine is no longer given, since I believe 1999 or 2000. Inactive polio vaccine is not the active virus and cannot cause polio.
I did a little internet research (sorry) and I think you're right. When I did my initial research (my oldest just graduated) they were still giving the live vaccine. I need to rethink my position on this one.
Godogs
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 7/2/2008 11:59:01 PM
|
|
|
Mrs.Wifey
Posts: 4808
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The Gorgeous plains of Colorado
Status: offline
|
How about THIS?
I also read something about a rise in shingles outbreaks in young children because of the prevalence of the varicella vax... Gotta find the info on that one.
_____________________________
Ryanne
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 7/3/2008 12:04:13 AM
|
|
|
Jenny-Fair
Posts: 6622
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: WA
Status: offline
|
Please do find it, since on of the reasons they say you SHOULD vax is to prevent shingles.
_____________________________
Tony: Ziva, did you kill Houdini?
Ziva: It is possible. I do not remember all their names.
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 7/3/2008 12:27:15 AM
|
|
|
Mrs.Wifey
Posts: 4808
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The Gorgeous plains of Colorado
Status: offline
|
HERE is part of what I read. The rest was just a blurb(for lack of a better word) from a pediatrician on another forum.
quote:
The CDC has info on this, but you have to dig to find it. I'm not sure shingles is even reportable yet, or if it is, how long the data has been collected or how easy it is to find. The research is there, though.
In a nutshell, the working theory is that widespread use of the vax is perfectly capable of causing (or even likely to cause, according to some) an increase in shingles among the general population as a whole, no matter whether each individual acquired the wild virus or had the shot. The evidence we have now suggests that people develop shingles because of waning immunity. That waning immunity was more typical in the elderly because (at least in part) they were far less likely to be exposed to wild varicella, for a variety of reasons. OTOH, shingles was far less common in younger people because they tended to be around young children more frequently, thus exposing them to varicella frequently. [This idea is backed up by studies showing that pediatricians, in particular, are significantly less likely to develop shingles at any stage of life.] That exposure acted as a natural booster of sorts -- people could be "infected" without showing symptoms, and their antibodies stayed at levels consistent with immunity and held shingles at bay.
Therefore, it's logical to expect that drastically decreasing the circulation of the wild virus through vaccine use will mean people aren't going to get that natural booster effect, and you're going to see more cases of shingles, period. It's probably not a stretch to say, too, that it's going to appear worse in people who got the vax because 1) it looks like vax immunity is much more short-lived than first believed, and 2) those who got the vax are in a population in which you normally wouldn't see shingles -- but the fact is that everyone who isn't exposed to varicella frequently enough is vulnerable. [I know this is anecdotal, but I have personally heard of more cases of shingles this year among acquaintances than I can EVER remember hearing about before. Out of five that I can think of off the top of my head, only one person is elderly.]
What boggles my mind is that researchers have held this theory of the wild varicella/shingles connection for quite some time, and yet everyone involved took a total "damn the torpedos" approach to mandating this vaccine anyway -- and all to combat a disease for which the mortality rate in children is calculated in small fractions of one percent. This is one vaccine that I feel very strongly about taking off the regular schedule/mandated lists, pronto, before the damage is too severe to counteract. There is quite a bit of solid scientific evidence that it may be doing or could do more harm than good, and yet I see absolutely no professional/official prudence being exercised with its use whatsoever.
If anybody wants to see something interesting, check out the MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) and find the stats on varicella. From what I've been able to find, reported CP cases have dropped drastically since the introduction of the vaccine; consequently, mortality from CP has dropped accordingly. OTOH, the relative mortality rate from CP appears to have actually doubled. There are a variety of possible reasons for this, but when you combine that fact with what we know about varicella exposure, shingles, and waning vax immunity, I don't understand how even proponents of mass immunization programs couldn't conclude that there's -- at the very least -- good reason to scrutinize this vaccine's widespread use very, very carefully.
_____________________________
Ryanne
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 7/6/2008 5:43:26 PM
|
|
|
cynthia
Posts: 7745
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Beautiful Puget Sound Region
Status: offline
|
I do not know anything about the group Judicial Watch, but they have come out with a report on Gardasil. Click here for report on Gardasil. I find this quite disturbing. For one thing, I didn't realize that Gardasil was still in the testing phase. I have two daughters, ages 14 and 11. My husband and I decided, when it first came out, that we will not have our daughters vaccinated with Gardasil. We did not feel it was safe or necessary for them. Now that more information is coming out, I am very glad that we didn't and cannot imagine doing so at any time in the future.
_____________________________
The devil isn't winning, but he wants you to think he is so you will give up and let him win. Often the battle is hardest before the victory. You may get bloody, but that doesn't mean you are losing, it only means you are fighting.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 7/6/2008 5:47:16 PM
|
|
|
Mrs.Wifey
Posts: 4808
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The Gorgeous plains of Colorado
Status: offline
|
That's the same info they used in the link I posted earlier. It's just appalling.
quote:
The organization's work uncovered reports of about one death each month since last fall, bringing the total death toll from the drug to at least 18 and as many as 20. There also were 140 "serious" reports of complications including about three dozen classified as life-threatening, 10 spontaneous abortions and half a dozen cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
From HERE
And another article, HERE
Here is the blog of Jenny, a 14 yo girl who dying nueromuscular disease that may have been triggered by the vaccination.
_____________________________
Ryanne
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 7/6/2008 5:59:02 PM
|
|
|
cynthia
Posts: 7745
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Beautiful Puget Sound Region
Status: offline
|
Thanks, Ryanne.
Here's another article on the subject.
We are doing everything we can to guard our children against HPV and other STD's. We do this by intensive purity training. Even our eight year old boy is being instructed in purity. There are some diseases that are better protected against by avoiding the obvious causes of transmission. My husband and I were thinking that it might be a good idea to have our daughters vaccinated in case they end up marrying a man that had previous sexual relationship(s), but now we think getting the vaccine could be worse than getting the disease. Besides that, one article pointed out that some girls have actually broken out in genital warts after receiving the vaccine!
This is just another example of how we have to be paying attention and making our decisions on each items rather than thinking all vaccinations are the same. There are vaccinations I would not skip and others that we have avoided altogether.
_____________________________
The devil isn't winning, but he wants you to think he is so you will give up and let him win. Often the battle is hardest before the victory. You may get bloody, but that doesn't mean you are losing, it only means you are fighting.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 7/6/2008 6:06:59 PM
|
|
|
Mrs.Wifey
Posts: 4808
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The Gorgeous plains of Colorado
Status: offline
|
I have HPV that I got from DH and quite honestly, it has not been the end of the world. Yeah, the testing can be invasive but I would much rather go through the testing and treatment then to have received that vaccination.
I think not only purity teaching, but also proper preventative exams should be taught in homes. I started getting PAP's when I was 16(due to health reasons) and it was good that I had a regular exam history of good results to compare the abnormal ones with. It's going to be a long road to get my cervix back to normal, but sure beats the heck out of seizures or neuromuscular diseases.
_____________________________
Ryanne
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 7/6/2008 7:47:13 PM
|
|
|
PrincessDonna
Posts: 10188
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Cow country, Upstate NY
Status: offline
|
I would not be surprised if that vaccine ends up being pulled from the market soon. What is ridiculous is all those commercials urging people to be "one less" and not telling them the risks of the vaccine or that it is still under testing.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 7/6/2008 7:56:29 PM
|
|
|
cynthia
Posts: 7745
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Beautiful Puget Sound Region
Status: offline
|
We switched doctors when we got good insurance. The previous doctor asked me if we wanted to vaccinate our girls with Gardasil and I told her we weren't interested and saw no need for it, at least at this point. She never mentioned it was still in the testing phase. It really irks me that they are so agressively marketing a product that is in the testing phase, particularly since I don't like messing with medicines. I am pretty cautious and don't just give my children medication willy nilly.
_____________________________
The devil isn't winning, but he wants you to think he is so you will give up and let him win. Often the battle is hardest before the victory. You may get bloody, but that doesn't mean you are losing, it only means you are fighting.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vaccines:The truth behind the shot - 7/7/2008 12:08:56 AM
|
|
|
Brandy
Posts: 1634
Joined: 4/7/2005
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
|
Just had a discussion with my mom about Gardisil and my 18 year old sister.
They were already thinking no, she isn't at risk.
I armed her with some info and it clinched it.
I told her the same thing Ryanne said, I'd rather deal with HPV than the side effects of the vaccine. So not worth it.
ug.
Purity and safe practices are our goal. It sounds like a weird balance but if they aren't going to follow good purity choices, I want them to know safe practices.
____
I finished reading Sears' Vaccine book the other day.
I loved it.
Totally going with his alternative schedule. I just cannot see why to give so many at once.
We don't do that in vet med so why would I do that to my daughter?
The only other question I have about vaccines - I know they go in the thigh mostly but if getting more than one do they use both thighs and record which went where?
I will be calling our Ped next month to find out what manufacturers they use for their vaccines in case I need them to special order one for us.
_____________________________
~Brandy
<--- Isabel Grace born 6/24
 | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
