Home

Now she's immune, but will her baby survive?
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Children's Health -> Vaccinations

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


amother




Blonde


Post  Wed, May 15 2019, 10:41 pm
youngishbear wrote:
I'm curious if anti-vaxxers don't see the true eradication of measles as a goal worth working towards.

I understand they prefer "natural immunity" for the measles survivors rather than "forced immunity" for 97% from vaccination. But given the choice of eradicating measles altogether versus children battling the disease while parents hope it doesn't leave lifelong damage, which do they prefer?


I think that's the philosophical issue. Why should I subject my child to 'toxins' to assist in the global mission of measles eradication. "not my battle, not my kid".
Back to top

yerushamama




 
 
 


Post  Wed, May 15 2019, 11:04 pm
Can you post the name here for us to daven for them?
Back to top

JoyInTheMorning




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 1:50 am
yerushamama wrote:
Can you post the name here for us to daven for them?


The OP explained that she isn't comfortable sharing because the the family may wish to safeguard their privacy.

We can daven for them even without their name. Hashem knows exactly whom we are davening for.
Back to top

yerushamama




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 2:40 am
JoyInTheMorning wrote:
The OP explained that she isn't comfortable sharing because the the family may wish to safeguard their privacy.

We can daven for them even without their name. Hashem knows exactly whom we are davening for.


Sorry, I put this up before reading more than the first few posts.
Back to top

amother




Silver


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 2:58 am
youngishbear wrote:
I'm curious if anti-vaxxers don't see the true eradication of measles as a goal worth working towards.

I understand they prefer "natural immunity" for the measles survivors rather than "forced immunity" for 97% from vaccination. But given the choice of eradicating measles altogether versus children battling the disease while parents hope it doesn't leave lifelong damage, which do they prefer?

Yup. We don't believe in sacrificing a few individuals for the greater good. We don't believe that is the way Jews work. Imagine that
Back to top

amother




Silver


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 3:02 am
amother [ Blonde ] wrote:
Should she also have gotten smallpox? Should we bring it back?

There is a difference between a plague and a perennial childhood disease
Arguing with you guys is literally addictive. It is so worthless though. Everyone's mind is stuck in their own belief.
I already blocked imamother on my laptop. I just need to call my filter company to block it on my tablet too
Back to top

mommy3b2c




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 3:07 am
amother [ Silver ] wrote:
Yup. We don't believe in sacrificing a few individuals for the greater good. We don't believe that is the way Jews work. Imagine that


What you do believe in is sacrificing people for no reason at all. That’s amazing.

You are mentally ill. Nothing can help you except some serious psychological intervention or G-d forbid one of your loved ones dying or having serious complications from the measles.
Back to top

amother




Silver


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 3:12 am
mommy3b2c wrote:
What you do believe in is sacrificing people for no reason at all. That’s amazing.

You are mentally ill. Nothing can help you except some serious psychological intervention or G-d forbid one of your loved ones dying or having serious complications from the measles.

We already have a few vaccine damaged children in our family so that definitely helps
Thanks for diagnosing me
Back to top

mommy3b2c




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 3:17 am
amother [ Silver ] wrote:
We already have a few vaccine damaged children in our family so that definitely helps
Thanks for diagnosing me


Tell me exactly how they are damaged and how you know it was caused by the vaccines.
And no problem for the diagnosis. At least you know what’s wrong with you now. Maybe you can start getting yourself some help. And please use your screen name. You’re sure that your right. What’s to be ashamed of?
Back to top

amother




OP


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 3:50 am
amother [ Silver ] wrote:
Yup. We don't believe in sacrificing a few individuals for the greater good. We don't believe that is the way Jews work. Imagine that


This is OP. I don't follow these vaccine debates. I would like you to explain your thinking and ask this respectfully.

Let's say that the individual being sacrificed is your own child and grandchild rather than some strangers, doesn't it make sense to vax the rest of your family? You see first hand the destruction the diseases can do. Why wouldn't you want to spare the rest of your own family?

They also have a slow adult son. He didn't become slow through vaccines because they weren't given to him. They can see there are other causes for slowness.

But why can't the kids get vaccinated when they become older? The mom and her baby would be spared this.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 5:10 am
amother [ Chocolate ] wrote:
Yes. Measles is a childhood disease.


This myth has been debunked many times. During the civil war, Union soldiers died of measles by the thousands. They may have been young adults but they clearly were not children.
One of the people in EY who died of measles was 82. She clearly lived her childhood during a time when most children caught measles.

We can say that it usually affected children or that healthy children from ages 5 to 10 had better outcomes but we can't say that prior to vaccines, everyone caught it at the ideal age.

I also wonder how many deaths from other infectious diseases, prior to the invention of vaccines, had a connection to measles because it leaves the immune system vulnerable. So maybe a child survived measles only to die weeks later from another infection.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 5:21 am
amother [ Silver ] wrote:
There is a difference between a plague and a perennial childhood disease
Arguing with you guys is literally addictive. It is so worthless though. Everyone's mind is stuck in their own belief.
I already blocked imamother on my laptop. I just need to call my filter company to block it on my tablet too


But this is another thing that I wonder; if anti-vaxers would vaccinate if a disease had a higher percentage of death and disability or do they reject the entire notion?

The farm child who recently nearly died of tetanus, returned to the environment where tetanus was a danger but his parents would not allow him to receive a vaccine. His parents were already angry about the use of the vaccine when it was administered to fight the disease.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 5:31 am
youngishbear wrote:
I'm curious if anti-vaxxers don't see the true eradication of measles as a goal worth working towards.

I understand they prefer "natural immunity" for the measles survivors rather than "forced immunity" for 97% from vaccination. But given the choice of eradicating measles altogether versus children battling the disease while parents hope it doesn't leave lifelong damage, which do they prefer?


From what I have read here, they would sacrifice the few for the many the way that they claim we do by vaccinating.
They don't feel that measles should have ever been eradicated but I wonder what they feel about developing nations where the death rates are much higher. Should Bill Gates stop trying to save lives with modern inventions such as vaccines and contraceptives?
Do the anti-vaxers trust big pharma for contraceptives or is there a homeopathic remedy for that?
Back to top

keym




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 6:07 am
I don't understand one thing.

I understand that there are children who are vaccine injured, can't handle the viral load etc.
But why do we assume this child can handle the combined load of the measles disease, mumps disease, rubella disease plus any forms of intervention.
And I mean that with all shots. Can't handle the DTaP but can handle the diseases itself? IPV? Meningitis?
Back to top

JoyInTheMorning




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 6:14 am
amother [ Silver ] wrote:
Yup. We don't believe in sacrificing a few individuals for the greater good. We don't believe that is the way Jews work. Imagine that


We are not sacrificing a few individuals for the greater good. If we were doing that, it would work the following way. For the sake of a simple example, imagine a set of 1,000 individuals or a set of 100,000 individuals. If we were "sacrificing," we would, in this hypothetical case choose 3 individuals from that set, and "sacrifice" them by, say, giving them a toxic substance, while the other 997 or 99,997 children got the "good" substance.

That is not what is happening here! Even imagining a risk of permanent adverse effects of .3% or .003%, every individual child has a much, much greater chance of benefiting from the shot than being damaged by it. So *no one* is being sacrificed. Every individual is getting the shot for an expected benefit for himself. There is also an added advantage of community immunity.

As another example: I have made the decision from now on to take the flu shot, to protect myself and my family, especially my elderly relative. I know that I have a 1 in a million to 2 in a million chance of getting Guillain-Barre syndrome, which of course scares me. But it is a tiny risk. If God forbid I get GBS, I will not have "sacrificed" myself for the greater good or for the sake of my elderly relative. I will have made a decision to take an action that had a good chance of being beneficial to me, but did not work out.

Look, I really understand the fear of doing anything risky, and especially of any risky medical procedure. But to think of getting a vaccine as being sacrificed? You are not being sacrificed.
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 6:15 am
keym wrote:
I don't understand one thing.

I understand that there are children who are vaccine injured, can't handle the viral load etc.
But why do we assume this child can handle the combined load of the measles disease, mumps disease, rubella disease plus any forms of intervention.
And I mean that with all shots. Can't handle the DTaP but can handle the diseases itself? IPV? Meningitis?


I keep wondering the same. I've come across some answers.

1 - (my own assumption) These diseases aren't so common anymore so it's unlikely their kid will catch all of them. (Yeah, well, thanks to all of us who are vaccinating). (Alternative "reason," disease rate today isn't actually lower because of vaccine but because of modern plumbing or something. Right.)

2 - The problem isn't the viral load, but the other stuff inside the vaccine (none of which are given in high enough doses to cause problems, and stuff like mercury is no longer in vaccines, so there).

My conclusion: anti-vaxxers are pro-disease, and are playing dice with their children's health because they believe it's safer even though the numbers are stacked against them.
Back to top

JoyInTheMorning




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 6:25 am
Keym and youngishbear, from what I read, it seems the anti-vaxxers have this idea that being sick with these diseases is good for the body because it promotes the growth of a robust immune system. Never mind that measles wipes out the immune system. Never mind the possibility of devastating consequences.

I have never seen this hypothesis stated in any way that could be scientifically evaluated, and I have never seen any evidence to support this hypothesis, except for vague claims that we used to be healthier back in the old days. You know, the old days when people died younger, sometimes were in iron lungs or had to wear leg braces to even achieve a halting walk, were institutionalized if they were brain damaged from encephalitis. Those good old days.
Back to top

keym




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 6:27 am
youngishbear wrote:
I keep wondering the same. I've come across some answers.

1 - (my own assumption) These diseases aren't so common anymore so it's unlikely their kid will catch all of them. (Yeah, well, thanks to all of us who are vaccinating). (Alternative "reason," disease rate today isn't actually lower because of vaccine but because of modern plumbing or something. Right.)

2 - The problem isn't the viral load, but the other stuff inside the vaccine (none of which are given in high enough doses to cause problems, and stuff like mercury is no longer in vaccines, so there).

My conclusion: anti-vaxxers are pro-disease, and are playing dice with their children's health because they believe it's safer even though the numbers are stacked against them.


I used to believe #1. But now all these posters are popping up saying that they want their kid to catch the disease- lifelong immunity and all. Measles parties and all.
So why aren't they afraid of the virus itself triggering a reaction?

The only answer I have is that they aren't as "well researched" as they claim. Because every anti-vaxxers I've come across ends up falling on "monkey brains, fetal matter. Do you know what are in those dangerous shots? "
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 6:32 am
About measles being "good for the immune system," according to what I've read, it actually wipes it out, sort of resets it. It stands to reason that someone who has allergies, eczema, or other immune issues will see changes after measles, and possibly even positive changes.

That still doesn't mitigate the danger of measles complications and the lowered immune system following recovery.

It's an unwise gamble.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
 


Post  Thu, May 16 2019, 6:37 am
youngishbear wrote:
I keep wondering the same. I've come across some answers.

1 - (my own assumption) These diseases aren't so common anymore so it's unlikely their kid will catch all of them. (Yeah, well, thanks to all of us who are vaccinating). (Alternative "reason," disease rate today isn't actually lower because of vaccine but because of modern plumbing or something. Right.)

2 - The problem isn't the viral load, but the other stuff inside the vaccine (none of which are given in high enough doses to cause problems, and stuff like mercury is no longer in vaccines, so there).

My conclusion: anti-vaxxers are pro-disease, and are playing dice with their children's health because they believe it's safer even though the numbers are stacked against them.


The real problem is magical thinking. An anti-vax person that I know embraced one MLM alternative medicine product after another and tried to convince a cancer patient to use blue-green algae instead of chemo but luckily the person with cancer chose the chemo and survived.
This way of thinking is both dangerous and costly but these people are united to save the world against big pharma so they are part of an army with leadership and instant acceptance. It attracts a certain type, kind of like militias and political extremist groups do and I have noticed that some like to gamble. They will blow money that they don't have at auctions and casinos because magical thinkers do that.
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 5 of 8 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Children's Health -> Vaccinations

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Bris when baby's father isn't Jewish
by amother
11 Yesterday at 6:39 am View last post
Don't know what to do about baby wanting pacifier all day
by amother
17 Sun, Aug 18 2019, 9:50 am View last post
1-2 hours from Brooklyn with baby
by renslet
3 Sun, Aug 18 2019, 8:12 am View last post
[ Poll ] Did you/ would you pierce your baby's ears?
by amother
97 Sun, Aug 18 2019, 6:37 am View last post
Baby name you love but will never use?
by amother
109 Fri, Aug 16 2019, 4:16 am View last post
by nchr

Jump to: