 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Children's Health
Peanut2
|
 Thu, Jun 06 2013, 6:52 pm
| tissues wrote: | | ally wrote: | | tissues wrote: | | ally wrote: | | tissues wrote: |
Mortality rates for diseases before the introduction of the vaccine must take into account that we have better hygiene, sanitation system, and sewer systems than previous generations.
Scheduling of vaccines is important to the topic. The more vaccines introduced, the greater the possible side effects. If we are to believe that more vaccines = healthier, I want that proven. |
You don't need to take mortality rates from the Middle Ages. If you would like to argue that our superior hygiene would have entirely eradicated these diseases without vaccinations and prevented any epidemics, you will need to prove that no epidemics exist even for more innocuous diseases like the common cold or stomach bugs.
There is no point to discuss scheduling if you have decided indiscriminately that all Vaccines are Dangerous or whatever. Vaccines are not one entity that you can say "more"="healthier" or "more"="greater side effects". They must all be considered separately.
I am going to go with my common sense on this one and bow out of this argument since it is entirely pointless. The only reason I have continued thus far is to attempt to highlight the inconsistency in your arguments for the undecided anonymous viewers. Maybe it helped. If they are going to get their information from anonymous hotlines, G-d help us. |
I'm not talking Middle Ages. I'm talking early to mid 1900s. I don't believe hygiene eradicates diseases but it can prevent epidemics. Just google hygiene and epidemic...
I also believe that if there IS already an epidemic (such as polio in the 50s and mumps more recently), it goes away naturally by spreading to enough people to induce herd immunity for that generation. Epidemics die a natural death, vaccines or not.
Why must vaccines be considered separately? Because you said so? As a general rule, the government doesn't allow for considering them separately: It's either one is up to date on ALL vaccinations or one opts out of vaccinating entirely. I wish we'd have the option of considering each one individually. Then I might be more open to considering the idea at all. A large part of what turns people off from vaccinations is the strategy in which government forces itself onto its citizens and doesn't allow for them to make their own decision about their health, the way in which doctors sometimes go behind the mother's back and inoculate the child with more vaccinations than agreed upon, the way in which more vaccines are added to the mandated schedule with each passing year for diseases we all had and survived (such as chickenpox and a generation ago, measles and mumps) and the clear lack of effectiveness (such as vaccinated children getting the mumps).
The hotline referred to is not anonymous. All the speakers are identified by name and listeners can feel free to do research on the reliability and of these people.
If you bow out, does that mean the cheese stays alone?  |
I'd like to know how hygiene changed so drastically between the 50s and 70s that it managed to eradicate polio (coincidentally with the appearance of the vaccine). And why if hygiene is the answer, any diseases still spread.
You realize that while the epidemic is "dying its natural death" it's killing and maiming people, right? You think that survival of the fittest is a more moral approach than vaccinating to protect the weak and immunocompromised?
Finally, we can't have a logical conversation if you keep lumping 50 issues together. |
50 issues, about one medical procedure. And thus definitely related.
Picture this: A world in which nobody vaccinates. Vaccinations are created not specifically when there is an epidemic, but someone invents it out of the blue. Would you vaccinate? Why? You would need to think through approximately 50 issues that may have you concerned regarding this new idea. Are they 50 separate issues? Yes, but interconnected because they relate to the one step of action on your part.
If there would be only one issue with vaccines, I believe plenty more anti-vaxers would vax. Usually it's not one thing that causes someone to take action nor to intentionally not take action. Rather a combination of factors are at play. Because there are 50 significant issues about this concept, yes, that in and of itself turns people off. |
I'm randomly reading but had to reply. Sorry if someone said this before or after.
A - Vaccines are NOT made out of the blue. They ARE made in response to illness, and especially epidemics. Eg Polio vaccine. You may want to read a little about vaccines and their history.
B - You can TOTALLY opt out of individual vaccines, and you do need to sign for every individual vaccine. My daughter just got one now and I had to sign twice for it.
And to repeat what was said before: When there is an epidemic CHILDREN DIE.
If you don't want to vax do what you want. But please realize that the reason these vaccine were created is because kids were dying and suffering permanent injuries. My mom's best friend got polio at one and was fine. Her brother was crippled and can barely walk.
| |
|
| Back to top |
 0
 2
|
Barbara
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 7:21 pm
In 1952, the United States reported 57,628 polio cases — the worst U.S. epidemic on record.
Of course, as Tissues points out, eventually there would be herd immunity. But that is after how many deaths, and how many injuries. And for how long?
In 1955 to 1957, after the vaccine became available, U.S. polio cases drop by 85-90 percent. Hmmmmm.
The last case of polio from the "wild" virus in the US was reported in 1979. So no wild virus cases in nearly 35 years. But Tissues would apparently have us believe that is just a coincidence.
Its pretty easy to sit in 2013 and say "the risks from the vaccine are higher than the risks from the disease," because everyone else is getting the vaccine and lowering the risk. It would look awfully different if there were 50,000 cases.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
10
|
MaBelleVie
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 8:07 pm
|
Oh, Barbara. Don't you know that 55-57 were the years that we made huge strides in hygiene? It's purely coincidental that the vaccine happened to come out then. Polio cases would have decreased that quickly regardless. Don't believe everything big pharma claims.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
10
|
tissues
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 8:36 pm
| Peanut2 wrote: | | tissues wrote: | | ally wrote: | | tissues wrote: | | ally wrote: | | tissues wrote: |
Mortality rates for diseases before the introduction of the vaccine must take into account that we have better hygiene, sanitation system, and sewer systems than previous generations.
Scheduling of vaccines is important to the topic. The more vaccines introduced, the greater the possible side effects. If we are to believe that more vaccines = healthier, I want that proven. |
You don't need to take mortality rates from the Middle Ages. If you would like to argue that our superior hygiene would have entirely eradicated these diseases without vaccinations and prevented any epidemics, you will need to prove that no epidemics exist even for more innocuous diseases like the common cold or stomach bugs.
There is no point to discuss scheduling if you have decided indiscriminately that all Vaccines are Dangerous or whatever. Vaccines are not one entity that you can say "more"="healthier" or "more"="greater side effects". They must all be considered separately.
I am going to go with my common sense on this one and bow out of this argument since it is entirely pointless. The only reason I have continued thus far is to attempt to highlight the inconsistency in your arguments for the undecided anonymous viewers. Maybe it helped. If they are going to get their information from anonymous hotlines, G-d help us. |
I'm not talking Middle Ages. I'm talking early to mid 1900s. I don't believe hygiene eradicates diseases but it can prevent epidemics. Just google hygiene and epidemic...
I also believe that if there IS already an epidemic (such as polio in the 50s and mumps more recently), it goes away naturally by spreading to enough people to induce herd immunity for that generation. Epidemics die a natural death, vaccines or not.
Why must vaccines be considered separately? Because you said so? As a general rule, the government doesn't allow for considering them separately: It's either one is up to date on ALL vaccinations or one opts out of vaccinating entirely. I wish we'd have the option of considering each one individually. Then I might be more open to considering the idea at all. A large part of what turns people off from vaccinations is the strategy in which government forces itself onto its citizens and doesn't allow for them to make their own decision about their health, the way in which doctors sometimes go behind the mother's back and inoculate the child with more vaccinations than agreed upon, the way in which more vaccines are added to the mandated schedule with each passing year for diseases we all had and survived (such as chickenpox and a generation ago, measles and mumps) and the clear lack of effectiveness (such as vaccinated children getting the mumps).
The hotline referred to is not anonymous. All the speakers are identified by name and listeners can feel free to do research on the reliability and of these people.
If you bow out, does that mean the cheese stays alone? |
I'd like to know how hygiene changed so drastically between the 50s and 70s that it managed to eradicate polio (coincidentally with the appearance of the vaccine). And why if hygiene is the answer, any diseases still spread.
You realize that while the epidemic is "dying its natural death" it's killing and maiming people, right? You think that survival of the fittest is a more moral approach than vaccinating to protect the weak and immunocompromised?
Finally, we can't have a logical conversation if you keep lumping 50 issues together. |
50 issues, about one medical procedure. And thus definitely related.
Picture this: A world in which nobody vaccinates. Vaccinations are created not specifically when there is an epidemic, but someone invents it out of the blue. Would you vaccinate? Why? You would need to think through approximately 50 issues that may have you concerned regarding this new idea. Are they 50 separate issues? Yes, but interconnected because they relate to the one step of action on your part.
If there would be only one issue with vaccines, I believe plenty more anti-vaxers would vax. Usually it's not one thing that causes someone to take action nor to intentionally not take action. Rather a combination of factors are at play. Because there are 50 significant issues about this concept, yes, that in and of itself turns people off. |
I'm randomly reading but had to reply. Sorry if someone said this before or after.
A - Vaccines are NOT made out of the blue. They ARE made in response to illness, and especially epidemics. Eg Polio vaccine. You may want to read a little about vaccines and their history.
B - You can TOTALLY opt out of individual vaccines, and you do need to sign for every individual vaccine. My daughter just got one now and I had to sign twice for it.
And to repeat what was said before: When there is an epidemic CHILDREN DIE.
If you don't want to vax do what you want. But please realize that the reason these vaccine were created is because kids were dying and suffering permanent injuries. My mom's best friend got polio at one and was fine. Her brother was crippled and can barely walk. |
A - You completely misunderstood. I was giving a theoretical scenario to demonstrate a point.
B - Depends on which state , and ETA, of course which country, you live in.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Hashem_Yaazor
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 9:06 pm
Tov she'brofim l'gehennom source is kiddushin pey bais amud alef
Last edited by Hashem_Yaazor on Thu, Jun 06 2013, 10:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
Ema of 5
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 9:08 pm
|
I don't want to get Ito the whole vax/anti-vax debate, but why has no one answered the AMOTHER who said that she would rather her kid get something that Hashem decided, rather than something self inflicted, like SIDS or ADHD or autism? (I think she wrote death in there too, but I'm not sure) EVERYTHING is from Hashem, the good and the bad, whether it was caused naturally or if it was self inflicted. That just seems like a reduce loud argument to me, and I can't believe hat no one called her on it.....
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
yummymummy
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 9:10 pm
| Hashem_Yaazor wrote: | | Tov she'brofim l'gehennon source is kiddushin pey bais amud alef |
did you look up how any mefarshim explain this statement?
Rashi offers three explanations: (1) they are unafraid of illness and unsubservient to the Omnipresent; (2) they kill people; and (3) they are able to heal the poor, but fail to do so.
Rambam, points out that the condemnation applies only to those who are negligent. But medicine is assuredly a source of merit for the diligent practitioner.
Marasha explains that when the Gemorah says "good doctors" it refers not to the best doctors, but rather to those who consider themselves the most qualified physicians. Such doctors are too proud to consult with other, more qualified specialists and, as a result of this, their patients suffer. It is for this reason that such doctors are so severely punished.
These are just the first few I found; no one advocates for doctors to stop practicing medicine, for letting the sick suffer and die or for not doing our hishtadlus to try and prevent illnesses in the first place.
Last edited by yummymummy on Thu, Jun 06 2013, 9:27 pm; edited 2 times in total
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
5
|
amother
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 9:14 pm
| eema of 3 wrote: | | I don't want to get Ito the whole vax/anti-vax debate, but why has no one answered the AMOTHER who said that she would rather her kid get something that Hashem decided, rather than something self inflicted, like SIDS or ADHD or autism? (I think she wrote death in there too, but I'm not sure) EVERYTHING is from Hashem, the good and the bad, whether it was caused naturally or if it was self inflicted. That just seems like a reduce loud argument to me, and I can't believe hat no one called her on it..... |
 and therefore, you will stand in the middle of the road because Hashem can cause no cars to come??? In what way is this relevant to the decision not to take unnecessary risk?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Ema of 5
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 9:25 pm
| amother wrote: | | eema of 3 wrote: | | I don't want to get Ito the whole vax/anti-vax debate, but why has no one answered the AMOTHER who said that she would rather her kid get something that Hashem decided, rather than something self inflicted, like SIDS or ADHD or autism? (I think she wrote death in there too, but I'm not sure) EVERYTHING is from Hashem, the good and the bad, whether it was caused naturally or if it was self inflicted. That just seems like a reduce loud argument to me, and I can't believe hat no one called her on it..... |
and therefore, you will stand in the middle of the road because Hashem can cause no cars to come??? In what way is this relevant to the decision not to take unnecessary risk? |
No, that was not what I said at all. I refuse to be drawn into a debate here, but my only point was that one thing is not MORE from Hashem Than something else. We need to do our hishtadlus, WHATEVER that may be. But to say that SIDS and ADHD are self inflicted is just wrong. Cutting yourself is self inflicted.
And now I'm leaving, and not returning, because there is absolutely nothing civilized going on in this thread.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
2
|
amother
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 9:32 pm
| eema of 3 wrote: | | amother wrote: | | eema of 3 wrote: | | I don't want to get Ito the whole vax/anti-vax debate, but why has no one answered the AMOTHER who said that she would rather her kid get something that Hashem decided, rather than something self inflicted, like SIDS or ADHD or autism? (I think she wrote death in there too, but I'm not sure) EVERYTHING is from Hashem, the good and the bad, whether it was caused naturally or if it was self inflicted. That just seems like a reduce loud argument to me, and I can't believe hat no one called her on it..... |
and therefore, you will stand in the middle of the road because Hashem can cause no cars to come??? In what way is this relevant to the decision not to take unnecessary risk? |
No, that was not what I said at all. I refuse to be drawn into a debate here, but my only point was that one thing is not MORE from Hashem Than something else. We need to do our hishtadlus, WHATEVER that may be. But to say that SIDS and ADHD are self inflicted is just wrong. Cutting yourself is self inflicted.
And now I'm leaving, and not returning, because there is absolutely nothing civilized going on in this thread. | I don't think anyone said something is more from Hashem. But we still have bechira, we must act according to the laws of nature, and each of us will apparently make different decisions as to how that will be...
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
amother
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 9:34 pm
| amother wrote: | | eema of 3 wrote: | | amother wrote: | | eema of 3 wrote: | | I don't want to get Ito the whole vax/anti-vax debate, but why has no one answered the AMOTHER who said that she would rather her kid get something that Hashem decided, rather than something self inflicted, like SIDS or ADHD or autism? (I think she wrote death in there too, but I'm not sure) EVERYTHING is from Hashem, the good and the bad, whether it was caused naturally or if it was self inflicted. That just seems like a reduce loud argument to me, and I can't believe hat no one called her on it..... |
and therefore, you will stand in the middle of the road because Hashem can cause no cars to come??? In what way is this relevant to the decision not to take unnecessary risk? |
No, that was not what I said at all. I refuse to be drawn into a debate here, but my only point was that one thing is not MORE from Hashem Than something else. We need to do our hishtadlus, WHATEVER that may be. But to say that SIDS and ADHD are self inflicted is just wrong. Cutting yourself is self inflicted.
And now I'm leaving, and not returning, because there is absolutely nothing civilized going on in this thread. | I don't think anyone said something is more from Hashem. But we still have bechira, we must act according to the laws of nature, and each of us will apparently make different decisions as to how that will be... |
the laws of nature? the laws of nature say that if you vaccinate you won't get a potentially deadly or debilitating disease! or you could just let everyone else vaccinate and assume the minor risks involved while you enjoy all the benefits of being a FREE RIDER.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
Hashem_Yaazor
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 10:06 pm
| yummymummy wrote: | | Hashem_Yaazor wrote: | | Tov she'brofim l'gehennon source is kiddushin pey bais amud alef |
did you look up how any mefarshim explain this statement?
Rashi offers three explanations: (1) they are unafraid of illness and unsubservient to the Omnipresent; (2) they kill people; and (3) they are able to heal the poor, but fail to do so.
Rambam, points out that the condemnation applies only to those who are negligent. But medicine is assuredly a source of merit for the diligent practitioner.
Marasha explains that when the Gemorah says "good doctors" it refers not to the best doctors, but rather to those who consider themselves the most qualified physicians. Such doctors are too proud to consult with other, more qualified specialists and, as a result of this, their patients suffer. It is for this reason that such doctors are so severely punished.
These are just the first few I found; no one advocates for doctors to stop practicing medicine, for letting the sick suffer and die or for not doing our hishtadlus to try and prevent illnesses in the first place. |
I have a typo, should say gehennom.
I'm not making any statements based on this chazal, just someone asked for the source so I provided it.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
2
|
Bruria
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 10:17 pm
|
There is nothing to discuss actually. All doctors agree that vaccination is the only way to prevent. All other opinions are not based on science, but based on opinions. Therefore, I cannot even see a reason for such a debate.The people that do not vaccinate their children are endangering other people, and the people who promote this, what can they say?A person with no scientific knowledge should not be giving their opinion in the 1st place!!
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
8
|
shirtsandskirts
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 10:35 pm
| amother wrote: | | GreenEyes26 wrote: | | amother wrote: | Look up VAERS. Read.
That should be enough to understand why chayecha kodmin may apply here.
If you don't "believe" in vaccine damages, why do you "believe" in their efficacy?
Have you ever seen a double-blind study (inert placebo, not another vaccine) with vaccines?
Anyone who believes that there is ANY medication without side effects is a certain kind of nuts.
It is my job to decide for my children if the risk of serious side effects outweighs the chance of disease injury.
Thank you. |
I 100% do not negate the possibilities of side effects in vaccines, and that some children (a MUCH smaller percentage than the anti-vaxers would have you believe) are damaged. I still get a sick feeling in my stomach when I bring my DC to the dr for shots.
But - and this is one of my BIGGEST issues with anti-vaxers - the ONLY reason you have the luxury of deciding if the vax "outweighs the chance of disease" is because vaccines eradicated them in the first place. If polio or smallpox were still killing children by the dozens, you wouldn't hesitate to protect your child. But because everyone gets vaxed, the diseases have almost been eradicated - and they would be COMPLETELY eradicated if people would stop no vaxing their children. And so, since other people are taking the chance and vaccinating their children even at the small risk of complications, you have the luxury of leaning back in your seat and saying, "You know what, I think I'll let my neighbors kids take the chance with vaccinations. They'll keep my kids safe." But you know what? It's kids like that who contract and spread the diseases these mothers took the chance to protect in the first place. So not only do they do their due diligence, some idiot's kid comes around, gets measles because their mother didn't vax them, and spreads it around to everyone because vaccines are not foolproof.
It's such a selfish attitude, it boggles the mind. |
I guess I am selfish for doing the research and keeping it to myself? Should I enlighten to you how many vaccine injured children there are? To me I see that there are 85% vaccine damaged children , and I don't need my children to be part of the statistics, so I guess I am selfish for not wanting my kids damaged.
They knew in the early 1900' s that the vaccines don't make sense, but hoped to push it enough so brainwash everyone that they need it. I am sure you will give your kids the HPV vaccine to protect them from cervical cancer, but don't realize that children don't get cervical cancer, and if you keep the hilchos niddah you don't get cervical either.
It boggles my mind when people are ready to sacrifice their children for the Church of modern medicine. I guess this is the Avodah Zara for this generation. To worship doctors and mediSIN . |
Actually it has nothing to do with nidda, rather not being with a s-xual partner who has HPV. You can keep nidda just fine and a spouse/partner can give you HPV.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
amother
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 10:38 pm
|
I went to the doctor with my 8 week old not sure if I wanted to vaccinate. there was a 17 month old boy who acted like a 7 month old cause he hade meningitis. made my decision much easier
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
MaBelleVie
|
Thu, Jun 06 2013, 11:03 pm
| amother wrote: | | I went to the doctor with my 8 week old not sure if I wanted to vaccinate. there was a 17 month old boy who acted like a 7 month old cause he hade meningitis. made my decision much easier |
So you decided to do the hib vax?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Cookies n Cream
|
Fri, Jun 07 2013, 7:55 am
| amother wrote: | | I went to the doctor with my 8 week old not sure if I wanted to vaccinate. there was a 17 month old boy who acted like a 7 month old cause he hade meningitis. made my decision much easier |
So are you saying that you did or did not vaccinate?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
tissues
|
Fri, Jun 07 2013, 11:32 am
| Bruria wrote: | | There is nothing to discuss actually. All doctors agree that vaccination is the only way to prevent. All other opinions are not based on science, but based on opinions. Therefore, I cannot even see a reason for such a debate.The people that do not vaccinate their children are endangering other people, and the people who promote this, what can they say?A person with no scientific knowledge should not be giving their opinion in the 1st place!! |
I love people who enter the discussion at the end and effectively cut it off by saying there's nothing to discuss. If there would be nothing to discuss, we wouldn't be discussing it , right?
And all doctors agree? Please edit that to say most doctors agree. You know there are MDs on the other side of the controversy, right?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
2
|
tissues
|
Fri, Jun 07 2013, 11:34 am
| Cookies n Cream wrote: | | amother wrote: | | I went to the doctor with my 8 week old not sure if I wanted to vaccinate. there was a 17 month old boy who acted like a 7 month old cause he hade meningitis. made my decision much easier |
So are you saying that you did or did not vaccinate? | I understood that she did because she saw what meningitis looked like and wanted to prevent it. JOOC, amother, do you know if the child with meningitis had been vaccinated for it or not?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
flowerpower
|
Fri, Jun 07 2013, 11:45 am
| amother wrote: | | I went to the doctor with my 8 week old not sure if I wanted to vaccinate. there was a 17 month old boy who acted like a 7 month old cause he hade meningitis. made my decision much easier |
There was a child that I worked with that was brain damaged because he got meningitis as a baby. His family doesn't believe in vaccinating.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
| Related Topics |
Replies |
Last Post |
|
|
Picking up an unaccompanied minor... WWYD?
|
7 |
Sun, Apr 21 2024, 1:26 am  |
|
|
Desperate for help picking paint colors
|
7 |
Wed, Mar 27 2024, 4:36 pm |
|
|
How to get dd to stop picking at crumbs and pieces of food
|
22 |
Sat, Mar 02 2024, 9:10 pm |
|
|
Not picking up on colors
|
28 |
Thu, Feb 29 2024, 3:15 am |
|
|
Brain-less books recommendations
|
0 |
Wed, Jan 31 2024, 12:30 pm |
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
