Whether to vaccinate or not

chanab

Fri, Jul 22 2005, 10:32 am

Quote:

The quote that you posted from Murphy is interesting, to put it nicely. I wonder how he feels about homeopathy which consists exactly of introducing mildly harmful agents into the body in an effort to show that a bit of what made you sick in the first place will make you well again. And that field is not controlled by scientific research or studies to any extent. So I think it is funny that he goes off on how vaccines introduce harmful agents and we don't know how much.

Actually, it would be hard or even impossible to find the "original" substance in a homeopathic remedy because its been so highly diluted. The medicinal quality of the remedies relies on the "energy" of the original substance (and the concept that "like cures like" just like vaccines) which is why the medical community cannot prove it. The stronger the medicine the MORE it is diluted.....
Vaccines also have other toxins in them besides the original "disease" so to speak and that is what disturbs many non-vaccinators(is there such a word?) as well.

Quote:

I am not saying that all of you anti-vaccinators are like that, but I do think that I would have more respect for your opinions if you could somehow understand the pros and cons of each position. Because that would show that you really did the research and are making an informed decision after analyzing the pros and cons.

I understand the pros and cons and respect anyone who wishes to vaccinate their children. On the other hand I feel that I am making an informed choice based on my personal circumstances and philosophy. As I said before their are risks on BOTH sides of the coin.
Also, I think the majority of people who vaccinate (majority-not all) are doing so without making an informed choice(research etc) while majority of non-vaccinators have definitely done research.

sarahd

Fri, Jul 22 2005, 11:17 am

Quote:

Vaccines are portrayed as being indispensable and somehow better at disease protection than what our innate biological defenses and nutritional resources have accomplished for thousands of years. I think it’s the height of arrogance for the medical profession to think that they have duplicated a biological process that has taken care of people since the beginning of time. People can deal with infectious diseases without vaccines. Before the introduction of the measles and mumps vaccines, children got measles and they got mumps, and in the great majority of cases those diseases were benign.

This is what really turns me off to Murphy's argument. Obviously, Murphy didn't live in pre-vaccine times and equally obviously he either never heard of what went on then or willfully ignores history. I didn't either live then, but being a reasonably well-informed person, I have heard of polio epidemics which killed thousands of children each year and drove parents to keep their children off the summer streets for fear of contracting the disease. I have also heard of smallpox epidemics, which if they didn't kill their victims left them horribly scarred for life. I have also heard of diptheria and whooping cough epidemics, which killed thousands.

It might be true that mumps and measles were benign in many cases, but in many other cases they killed their victims or (mumps) left boys sterile. Besides, other illnesses were even more lethal. More children died of these diseases in one year than have died from the effects of vaccine in all the years since vaccines have been given.

It is ridiculous to say that in the past our nutritional resources and biological defenses kept us safe. They did not. Why do you think the idea of vaccines caught on to begin with? Because parents were aware of the horrible death and disfigurement toll of childhood diseases and jumped at the opportunity to save their children from them.

Does Murphy want to bring us back to the days of sky-high child mortality? What do you think those kids were mostly dying of?

BTW, last year there was an outbreak of measles in the Breslov community in Jerusalem, where many parents did not vaccinate their children for philosophical or such reasons. Seven children died. The danger of not vaccinating children is not imaginary.

Mandy

Fri, Jul 22 2005, 3:09 pm

Quote:

if someone has come to that point, where they don't vaccinate, its b/c, I imagine and assume that THEY DID look at both sides of the coin. how can you say that thats not so?????

Calm down, please. I am not trying to say that you did or did not do your research. I am not commenting on whether you are a good mom or not. I'm sure that you are a very intelligent, caring, thorough parent. That is completely not my point. My point is that making extreme sounding statements such as "everyone who vaccinates their kids is poisoning them" suggests that you ( or whoever said that) did not do enough research to understand the other point of view. After all, if I came here and said some ridiculous thing like " everyone who doesn't vaccinate their kids is a terrible parent and should be fined for potentially burdening society with the introduction of new illnesses", you might conclude that I don't know anything about the anti-vaccination movement because of my extreme position. Whether or not you did the research is beside the point. I am just saying that inflammatory rhetoric like suggesting that all the parents who vaccinate are really poisoning their kids, that inflammatory rhetoric just works against you and your cause.

I do agree, by the way, that most parents who vaccinate their kids probably did not research the topic.

deedee

Fri, Jul 22 2005, 3:12 pm

Quote:

However, they don't seem to have a position on exposing other kids to those diseases. That point has been buried in this thread

or u mean the point got burried in these threads since there are 2 its very hard to keep track of what is going on. I specifically remember quoting somewhere that I am worried about vaccinated kids exposing my daughter to those diseases since a vaccinated child is contagious!!!
"Studies now show that a vaccinated individual can actually transmit the contaminate to others via body fluids."

Rivka

Sat, Jul 23 2005, 7:20 pm

Recently with this not giving vaccines arising, there have been more cases of things like meningitis, measles, mumps. Mumps in boys is dangerous and can cause them to be infertile, which halachically makes them illegible to get married. Would you want to stop a whole generation because you didn't want to vaccinate?? Measles kills. Meningitis kills. All these things kill children. I think the risks of having these viruses far outweighs the side affects which don't always happen. Do you not give your child paracetamol (tylenol) when they have a fever?? Read the side affects. And I can tell you in high doses it kills. BUt then again the small dose you give does not, but it could have side affects, fever also has a nasty side affect...if the temeperature soars too high then it can cause brain damage. So what do you do?
Relatively this is all the same, it's dealing with medication in your child.

Just because you don't see these viruses raging round in society because they have been controlled, with a lot more people not giving their children vaccines they are increasing the risks of these viruses happening.
Also having a vaccine doesn't necessarily mean you won't get them, what it means is that your body already has the anti-bodies to fight them, so the virus will not be fatal. So that may explain why people get polio even with the polio vaccine.

chanab

Sat, Jul 23 2005, 9:07 pm

Quote:

Do you not give your child paracetamol (tylenol) when they have a fever??

Nope....

(couldn't resist)
Acc/ to homeopathy and a host of alternative beliefs fever is GOOD.It is a sign that your body is fighting the infection and why would you want to weaken that defense machanism?On the other hand if you let the fever run its course(obviously I am in constant contact with my doc over how high its getting)the body gets strenghthened to fight the next bout of illness. Believe me, you have to experience this to know its true.My kids haven't taken tylenol in YEARS and although its hard to watch a child feeling really lousy and knowing you could take the short-cut of tylenol, ultimately I know I am doing whats best for them.

chavamom

Sat, Jul 23 2005, 11:35 pm

Rivka wrote:

A couple of mistakes here. First of all, the bacterial menegitis vaccine is very new and is only given to kids that will be in dorm situations, college, army, etc. So lack of vaccinations is definately NOT responsible here. Also, to my knowledge, rates of bacterial menegitis have not increased.

Mumps almost always, if it causes a problem at all, will only cause a problem with one testicle. It is rare for mumps to affect the testicles at all and it is very, very, very rare for it to cause sterility by affecting both of them. In fact, there is a suspicion that some 'unexplained' fertility in the past was actually a retrospective diagnosis of 'oh, we don't know why you can conceive, maybe it's from your husband having mumps.' BTW - there were men in the past told that they were sterile b/c of hx of mumps who later became fathers! There are some very famous cases even in this day and age when paternity can be proven.

Mumps is no longer common, yet the rate of sterility in men has not changed. Our abilty to detect *where* the problem originates has improved vastly.

deedee

Sun, Jul 24 2005, 6:58 pm

Quote:

Several decades ago, in the field of medicine, it was discovered that the body can avoid certain illnesses if a person is vaccinated - I.e. inoculated with a radically weakened strain of those diseases. Through this process, the body produces antibodies - custom-made weapons to guard against the illness.
The principles of healing the body, according to Maimonides, apply equally to remedies of the soul.[18] This can provide us with a positive way of viewing minor difficulties in the execution of an important project. A weak dose of opposition early on in a venture can serve as a "vaccine" against more severe and difficult adversity later on.

Igros Kodesh of the Rebbe, Vol. 11, p. 58

this is quoted from the Lub Rebbe.
thak u motek!

deedee

Sun, Jul 24 2005, 10:32 pm

its a blend that mimics, as close as possible, the vaccines. builds up the bodies immune system to help with prevention. next week I'H my daughter is going for her polio drops. here is a quote from the article that my doc gave me.
"most of the homeopathic listed in the tables below are called 'nosodes', which are potentised preprations of diseased substances(eg pertussin is the potentised expectoration from a whoping cough patient). when a person acquires immunity through natural exposure to a virus the quantity of the virus is minute, yet it causes changes on a dynamic level. similiary with the homeopathic nosode, which is in effect the virus potentised to a purely dynamic and non-material degree. thus, unlike vaccines, homepathic preparations copy the process of nature, and in practice have similiar effects."

ElTam

Tue, Aug 16 2005, 10:38 pm

Quote:

Quote:
How many children have died from vaccines ? How many have died from polio and whooping cough ?

Here are some interesting figures from the Centers for Disease Control:

In 1901 there were 147,271 deaths from pertussis aka whooping cough. In 2001 there were 5,396 deaths of the disease. (Interestingly, states with laxer rules on vaccinations for schoolage children are seeing epidemics of this disease.)

In 1901 503,282 children died of measels, 152,209 died the mumps. 175,885 died from diptheria.

Good numbers to compare with the CDC numbers on adverse reactions from vaccines.
Between 1986 and 2004, the CDC had 1775 reports to its Vaccine Injury and Compensation program, which tracks incidents of injury or chas v'shalom death fromvaccines. There were 68 million babies born during that time, all but a tiny minority of whom were vaccinated. Compare those risks to the death rates when there weren't vaccines.

One more number to think about. From 1991 to 2001, 1.9 vaccine doses were given. 2,281 allergic reations were reported.

I'm not going to risk my child dying from a preventable disease or chas v'shalom passing it along to another child and killing or hurting that child on the basis of those numbers. Yes, there is a risk, and I accept that as the smartest option.

I would also advise mothers to consult a rav on this issue. Some rabbaim have ruled that because we all benefit from what is called "herd immunity" because of wide-spread vaccination programs, it is ossur for a person to choose not to put their child at the (admittedly small) risk of vaccination while benefitting from the fact that the other parents in the community are taking on that risk.[/quote]

Last edited by ElTam on Fri, Aug 19 2005, 4:03 pm; edited 2 times in total

chavamom

Tue, Aug 16 2005, 11:26 pm

ElTam wrote:

In 1901 503,282 children died of measels, 152,209 died of mumps. 175,885 died of diptheria.

There is something weird about these numbers. I suspect that these must be worldwide numbers, first of all, b/c otherwise you would have hardly had any children left by 1902. Also, mumps is rarely deadly. That is a huge number for a disease that is best know for the (also rare) complication involving men and their reproductive ability. And measles was a disease that mothers used to purposely expose their children to in order to 'get it over with'. Polio was more rare than that and you didn't have mothers trying to expose their children to the virus, but quarentining them away from their neighbors to protect them.