Gail Kuwahara: Be Responsible To Yourself And Others, And Vaccinate – September 24, 2012

Monday, September 24, 2012

As the school year begins and students are returning to classes, the question many parents are asking is, what vaccines does my child need? In the past few years these requirements have changed. It is not just kindergarten students who need shots, but also students entering seventh grade and college students.

With the passage of Assembly Bill AB354, all children entering seventh to 12th grade are required to receive a Tdap booster in 2011,. In 2012, all children entering seventh grade are now required to get a Tdap booster (and older students if they missed last year). Tdap is the only immunization available in the United States that protects individuals over the age of 10 against pertussis.

Pertussis, more commonly known as Whooping Cough is a serious disease that can be fatal to infants. This year alone there have been 1,154 hospitalizations in the state of California, three-quarters being infants younger than six months of age. Thirteen deaths attributable to pertussis occurred in 2011, most were in infants not old enough to receive the vaccine.

It is important that anyone who is anticipating contact with an infant under the age of six months be vaccinated for this disease to protect the infant from exposure. In teenagers and adults the illness can include a long convalescence and loss of time from school or work.

It is estimated that one case of undiagnosed pertussis can infect up to 17 other people and that 80 percent of all households will be affected by this disease unless family members get vaccinated.

While August and September are the peak season for outbreaks of Whooping Cough in our area, according to Humboldt County there have not been any reported cases in the county so far this year. Pertussis is a viral illness which starts with cold symptoms, mild cough, runny nose and fever which can last up to two weeks. The infected person is most contagious during this time.

The illness progresses to a severe prolonged cough with the classic whooping sound at the end for which it is named; this stage can last up to three months. It is possible that we can attribute the fact that we have not had any reported cases this year to the efforts of the county health department and our local medical providers to get our population vaccinated last year.

Students starting college this year should also receive a Meningitis vaccination. For many of these young adults it is their first time in a group living situation. Residence hall living some newfound freedoms, like kissing, not getting enough sleep, being exposed to smoke, sharing utensils, glasses and water bottles and being in crowed situations for prolonged periods of time put students at risk of contracting this serious illness.

Meningitis is a devastating viral illness that can progress from no symptoms at all to death or disability in just a single day. Meningitis can present with swelling of the brain or spinal cord or as a blood infection. It is difficult to recognize in the early stages because symptoms are very similar to other viral illnesses. About 10 percent of all Americans who get this disease will die from it, while 20 percent who survive the illness are left with serious medical problems including amputation of arms, legs, fingers and toes, brain damage, deafness or kidney damage.

All students should get an influenza vaccine to protect them from this common illness. The CDC has recommended early vaccination this year and it should be available in most medical offices, pharmacies and the health department now. Influenza (the flu as it is more commonly called) can cause mild to severe illness and is easily prevented by vaccination.

Signs and symptoms of the flu include fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headaches and fatigue. It is spread by droplets so always cover your mouth when coughing and sneezing to prevent spreading the disease to others.

Parents please remember this is an exciting time for your child whether they are one of the “big kids now” entering middle school or a young adult heading off to college and getting their first big taste of independence. It is important to keep them safe from illness. Vaccinations are the best defense.

Finally, this is a time of changes for your child and getting established with a local medical provider will give them an opportunity seek needed treatment and discuss physical, emotional and social concerns. A medical provider can be more than someone to visit when you are sick. They can help your child make appropriate health and life style decisions that your child may not feel comfortable talking to teachers or parents about.

Establishing a relationship with a medical provider can assure that your child will continue to make healthy decisions long into the future.

Gail Kuwahara is a mother of four, grandmother of six and has worked at Open Door for 13 years.

Tags: , , ,

214 Responses to “Gail Kuwahara: Be Responsible To Yourself And Others, And Vaccinate – September 24, 2012”

  1. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    Ian, maybe this is a better source for you. "There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children does more harm than good."

    Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the US Federal Drug Admin.)

    #64296
  2. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    Ian, maybe this is a better source for you. "There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children does more harm than good."

    Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the US Federal Drug Admin.)

    #65661
  3. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    Ian, maybe this is a better source for you. "There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children does more harm than good."

    Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the US Federal Drug Admin.)

    #65909
  4. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    Ian, maybe this is a better source for you. "There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children does more harm than good."

    Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the US Federal Drug Admin.)

    #67069
  5. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    Ian, maybe this is a better source for you. "There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children does more harm than good."

    Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the US Federal Drug Admin.)

    #67874
  6. Ian Ray

    The article "A Budget of Dumb Asses" helped modify my thinking on flu vaccine in particular.
    http://tinyurl.com/8hbwff3

    #64298
  7. Ian Ray

    The article "A Budget of Dumb Asses" helped modify my thinking on flu vaccine in particular.
    http://tinyurl.com/8hbwff3

    #65639
  8. Ian Ray

    The article "A Budget of Dumb Asses" helped modify my thinking on flu vaccine in particular.
    http://tinyurl.com/8hbwff3

    #65887
  9. Ian Ray

    The article "A Budget of Dumb Asses" helped modify my thinking on flu vaccine in particular.
    http://tinyurl.com/8hbwff3

    #67047
  10. Ian Ray

    The article "A Budget of Dumb Asses" helped modify my thinking on flu vaccine in particular.
    http://tinyurl.com/8hbwff3

    #67852
  11. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    heres a few quotes ,all by m.d's for ya ,Again , I seek not to convince but just to show those who choose not to vaccinate are not just doing it because ust we want to, but because we see what is being said by doctors. http://www.vaclib.org/basic/quotes.htm

    #64300
  12. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    heres a few quotes ,all by m.d's for ya ,Again , I seek not to convince but just to show those who choose not to vaccinate are not just doing it because ust we want to, but because we see what is being said by doctors. http://www.vaclib.org/basic/quotes.htm

    #65663
  13. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    heres a few quotes ,all by m.d's for ya ,Again , I seek not to convince but just to show those who choose not to vaccinate are not just doing it because ust we want to, but because we see what is being said by doctors. http://www.vaclib.org/basic/quotes.htm

    #65911
  14. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    heres a few quotes ,all by m.d's for ya ,Again , I seek not to convince but just to show those who choose not to vaccinate are not just doing it because ust we want to, but because we see what is being said by doctors. http://www.vaclib.org/basic/quotes.htm

    #67071
  15. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    heres a few quotes ,all by m.d's for ya ,Again , I seek not to convince but just to show those who choose not to vaccinate are not just doing it because ust we want to, but because we see what is being said by doctors. http://www.vaclib.org/basic/quotes.htm

    #67876
  16. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    "Official data shows that large scale vaccination has failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection" – Dr. Sabin, developer of Polio vaccine.

    #64301
  17. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    "Official data shows that large scale vaccination has failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection" – Dr. Sabin, developer of Polio vaccine.

    #65664
  18. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    "Official data shows that large scale vaccination has failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection" – Dr. Sabin, developer of Polio vaccine.

    #65912
  19. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    "Official data shows that large scale vaccination has failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection" – Dr. Sabin, developer of Polio vaccine.

    #67072
  20. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    "Official data shows that large scale vaccination has failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection" – Dr. Sabin, developer of Polio vaccine.

    #67877
  21. Ian Ray

    I have seen that Sabin quote before. It is allegedly from an Italian newspaper called "La Stampa" in 1985 supposedly describing a lecture. Two things to keep in mind here:
    1. If the quote even exists, the anti-vaccine Web is vaguely referencing it for their own agenda. They say "hey, a doctor said this so believe it", not "hey, a doctor said this, here is the source, think for yourself."

    2. Even if Sabin did say this in 1985 which is doubtful considering he had paralysis by 1983 and I can't find an actual record of his lecture, polio vaccination was still only ~20% in the mid-1980s and people were still getting polio in good numbers. Currently, polio vaccinations are much higher and polio has a lower incidence.

    Diseases have been lowered through other sanitation knowledge and treatments. Nobody is going to argue not to wash your hands (I suppose someone might). People who believe statistics believe there is a causal link between vaccination and lowered incidence of disease. If you don't believe the numbers relate to each other, that is your opinion, but no amount of flimsy quotes will convince someone who agrees with numerical data.

    #64303
  22. Ian Ray

    I have seen that Sabin quote before. It is allegedly from an Italian newspaper called "La Stampa" in 1985 supposedly describing a lecture. Two things to keep in mind here:
    1. If the quote even exists, the anti-vaccine Web is vaguely referencing it for their own agenda. They say "hey, a doctor said this so believe it", not "hey, a doctor said this, here is the source, think for yourself."

    2. Even if Sabin did say this in 1985 which is doubtful considering he had paralysis by 1983 and I can't find an actual record of his lecture, polio vaccination was still only ~20% in the mid-1980s and people were still getting polio in good numbers. Currently, polio vaccinations are much higher and polio has a lower incidence.

    Diseases have been lowered through other sanitation knowledge and treatments. Nobody is going to argue not to wash your hands (I suppose someone might). People who believe statistics believe there is a causal link between vaccination and lowered incidence of disease. If you don't believe the numbers relate to each other, that is your opinion, but no amount of flimsy quotes will convince someone who agrees with numerical data.

    #65665
  23. Ian Ray

    I have seen that Sabin quote before. It is allegedly from an Italian newspaper called "La Stampa" in 1985 supposedly describing a lecture. Two things to keep in mind here:
    1. If the quote even exists, the anti-vaccine Web is vaguely referencing it for their own agenda. They say "hey, a doctor said this so believe it", not "hey, a doctor said this, here is the source, think for yourself."

    2. Even if Sabin did say this in 1985 which is doubtful considering he had paralysis by 1983 and I can't find an actual record of his lecture, polio vaccination was still only ~20% in the mid-1980s and people were still getting polio in good numbers. Currently, polio vaccinations are much higher and polio has a lower incidence.

    Diseases have been lowered through other sanitation knowledge and treatments. Nobody is going to argue not to wash your hands (I suppose someone might). People who believe statistics believe there is a causal link between vaccination and lowered incidence of disease. If you don't believe the numbers relate to each other, that is your opinion, but no amount of flimsy quotes will convince someone who agrees with numerical data.

    #65913
  24. Ian Ray

    I have seen that Sabin quote before. It is allegedly from an Italian newspaper called "La Stampa" in 1985 supposedly describing a lecture. Two things to keep in mind here:
    1. If the quote even exists, the anti-vaccine Web is vaguely referencing it for their own agenda. They say "hey, a doctor said this so believe it", not "hey, a doctor said this, here is the source, think for yourself."

    2. Even if Sabin did say this in 1985 which is doubtful considering he had paralysis by 1983 and I can't find an actual record of his lecture, polio vaccination was still only ~20% in the mid-1980s and people were still getting polio in good numbers. Currently, polio vaccinations are much higher and polio has a lower incidence.

    Diseases have been lowered through other sanitation knowledge and treatments. Nobody is going to argue not to wash your hands (I suppose someone might). People who believe statistics believe there is a causal link between vaccination and lowered incidence of disease. If you don't believe the numbers relate to each other, that is your opinion, but no amount of flimsy quotes will convince someone who agrees with numerical data.

    #67073
  25. Ian Ray

    I have seen that Sabin quote before. It is allegedly from an Italian newspaper called "La Stampa" in 1985 supposedly describing a lecture. Two things to keep in mind here:
    1. If the quote even exists, the anti-vaccine Web is vaguely referencing it for their own agenda. They say "hey, a doctor said this so believe it", not "hey, a doctor said this, here is the source, think for yourself."

    2. Even if Sabin did say this in 1985 which is doubtful considering he had paralysis by 1983 and I can't find an actual record of his lecture, polio vaccination was still only ~20% in the mid-1980s and people were still getting polio in good numbers. Currently, polio vaccinations are much higher and polio has a lower incidence.

    Diseases have been lowered through other sanitation knowledge and treatments. Nobody is going to argue not to wash your hands (I suppose someone might). People who believe statistics believe there is a causal link between vaccination and lowered incidence of disease. If you don't believe the numbers relate to each other, that is your opinion, but no amount of flimsy quotes will convince someone who agrees with numerical data.

    #67878
  26. Laura Cooskey

    To Kevin (and other true believers): You call the connection between immunizations and death or serious side effects "anecdotal." Here are a couple of anecdotes for you: It was worth about $6 million for a clinic in Naselle, WA, to pay off my friend, whose child, immunized with the pertussis vaccine a couple of weeks before the officially "safe" lower age limit, went from a healthy, happy 3-month-old to a virtual vegetable, handicapped mentally and physically, in a wheelchair and with the mental capacity of a 3-year-old until his early death as a teenager. Sure, they administered the vaccine too early… but if it can do that to a kid at all, why take a chance? There's also a severely handicapped young woman I know in southern Humboldt, whose family blames the pertussis vaccine she got as a baby about 20 years ago. Another anecdote: about 18 years ago, a wave of whooping cough swept through Petrolia. Most of the kids got it, including my two sons. They all coughed a lot. End of story.

    Now they want everyone to get a chickenpox vaccine. Can they be serious? I guess I belong to the get-tough school of oldtimers, because I got chicken pox, my siblings got it, and… then we got over it. In fact, I got shingles at the age of 40 or so, and it hurt a lot; I took some interesting painkillers, then it went away. I actually believe sickness has a place in this life… but they want to eliminate that, too. The big glossy magazine ads now urge everyone to get a shingles vaccine, as if there's some crime in being slowed down for a couple of weeks. Human hubris!

    If you want to talk about "socially irresponsible," consider what it means to continually weaken the gene pool via immunizations. I'm not actually saying I'm in favor of allowing cruel nature to continue shaping the healthy state of the human immune system by weeding out the immunologically weak; it's a tricky question, the ethics of disease treatment, and every single road entails death and/or suffering for someone (and eventually everyone!)–but we have to be able to talk about it without ridiculing people who have different well-intentioned beliefs. Is it better to have a generally sickly population who can only survive if treated with vaccines that everyone must have, that will absolutely adversely affect some people, and that will be outdated when the viruses have mutated to survive? Look at the big picture and don't take the easy road of the pharmaceuticals' line.

    #64304
  27. Laura Cooskey

    To Kevin (and other true believers): You call the connection between immunizations and death or serious side effects "anecdotal." Here are a couple of anecdotes for you: It was worth about $6 million for a clinic in Naselle, WA, to pay off my friend, whose child, immunized with the pertussis vaccine a couple of weeks before the officially "safe" lower age limit, went from a healthy, happy 3-month-old to a virtual vegetable, handicapped mentally and physically, in a wheelchair and with the mental capacity of a 3-year-old until his early death as a teenager. Sure, they administered the vaccine too early… but if it can do that to a kid at all, why take a chance? There's also a severely handicapped young woman I know in southern Humboldt, whose family blames the pertussis vaccine she got as a baby about 20 years ago. Another anecdote: about 18 years ago, a wave of whooping cough swept through Petrolia. Most of the kids got it, including my two sons. They all coughed a lot. End of story.

    Now they want everyone to get a chickenpox vaccine. Can they be serious? I guess I belong to the get-tough school of oldtimers, because I got chicken pox, my siblings got it, and… then we got over it. In fact, I got shingles at the age of 40 or so, and it hurt a lot; I took some interesting painkillers, then it went away. I actually believe sickness has a place in this life… but they want to eliminate that, too. The big glossy magazine ads now urge everyone to get a shingles vaccine, as if there's some crime in being slowed down for a couple of weeks. Human hubris!

    If you want to talk about "socially irresponsible," consider what it means to continually weaken the gene pool via immunizations. I'm not actually saying I'm in favor of allowing cruel nature to continue shaping the healthy state of the human immune system by weeding out the immunologically weak; it's a tricky question, the ethics of disease treatment, and every single road entails death and/or suffering for someone (and eventually everyone!)–but we have to be able to talk about it without ridiculing people who have different well-intentioned beliefs. Is it better to have a generally sickly population who can only survive if treated with vaccines that everyone must have, that will absolutely adversely affect some people, and that will be outdated when the viruses have mutated to survive? Look at the big picture and don't take the easy road of the pharmaceuticals' line.

    #65640
  28. Laura Cooskey

    To Kevin (and other true believers): You call the connection between immunizations and death or serious side effects "anecdotal." Here are a couple of anecdotes for you: It was worth about $6 million for a clinic in Naselle, WA, to pay off my friend, whose child, immunized with the pertussis vaccine a couple of weeks before the officially "safe" lower age limit, went from a healthy, happy 3-month-old to a virtual vegetable, handicapped mentally and physically, in a wheelchair and with the mental capacity of a 3-year-old until his early death as a teenager. Sure, they administered the vaccine too early… but if it can do that to a kid at all, why take a chance? There's also a severely handicapped young woman I know in southern Humboldt, whose family blames the pertussis vaccine she got as a baby about 20 years ago. Another anecdote: about 18 years ago, a wave of whooping cough swept through Petrolia. Most of the kids got it, including my two sons. They all coughed a lot. End of story.

    Now they want everyone to get a chickenpox vaccine. Can they be serious? I guess I belong to the get-tough school of oldtimers, because I got chicken pox, my siblings got it, and… then we got over it. In fact, I got shingles at the age of 40 or so, and it hurt a lot; I took some interesting painkillers, then it went away. I actually believe sickness has a place in this life… but they want to eliminate that, too. The big glossy magazine ads now urge everyone to get a shingles vaccine, as if there's some crime in being slowed down for a couple of weeks. Human hubris!

    If you want to talk about "socially irresponsible," consider what it means to continually weaken the gene pool via immunizations. I'm not actually saying I'm in favor of allowing cruel nature to continue shaping the healthy state of the human immune system by weeding out the immunologically weak; it's a tricky question, the ethics of disease treatment, and every single road entails death and/or suffering for someone (and eventually everyone!)–but we have to be able to talk about it without ridiculing people who have different well-intentioned beliefs. Is it better to have a generally sickly population who can only survive if treated with vaccines that everyone must have, that will absolutely adversely affect some people, and that will be outdated when the viruses have mutated to survive? Look at the big picture and don't take the easy road of the pharmaceuticals' line.

    #65888
  29. Laura Cooskey

    To Kevin (and other true believers): You call the connection between immunizations and death or serious side effects "anecdotal." Here are a couple of anecdotes for you: It was worth about $6 million for a clinic in Naselle, WA, to pay off my friend, whose child, immunized with the pertussis vaccine a couple of weeks before the officially "safe" lower age limit, went from a healthy, happy 3-month-old to a virtual vegetable, handicapped mentally and physically, in a wheelchair and with the mental capacity of a 3-year-old until his early death as a teenager. Sure, they administered the vaccine too early… but if it can do that to a kid at all, why take a chance? There's also a severely handicapped young woman I know in southern Humboldt, whose family blames the pertussis vaccine she got as a baby about 20 years ago. Another anecdote: about 18 years ago, a wave of whooping cough swept through Petrolia. Most of the kids got it, including my two sons. They all coughed a lot. End of story.

    Now they want everyone to get a chickenpox vaccine. Can they be serious? I guess I belong to the get-tough school of oldtimers, because I got chicken pox, my siblings got it, and… then we got over it. In fact, I got shingles at the age of 40 or so, and it hurt a lot; I took some interesting painkillers, then it went away. I actually believe sickness has a place in this life… but they want to eliminate that, too. The big glossy magazine ads now urge everyone to get a shingles vaccine, as if there's some crime in being slowed down for a couple of weeks. Human hubris!

    If you want to talk about "socially irresponsible," consider what it means to continually weaken the gene pool via immunizations. I'm not actually saying I'm in favor of allowing cruel nature to continue shaping the healthy state of the human immune system by weeding out the immunologically weak; it's a tricky question, the ethics of disease treatment, and every single road entails death and/or suffering for someone (and eventually everyone!)–but we have to be able to talk about it without ridiculing people who have different well-intentioned beliefs. Is it better to have a generally sickly population who can only survive if treated with vaccines that everyone must have, that will absolutely adversely affect some people, and that will be outdated when the viruses have mutated to survive? Look at the big picture and don't take the easy road of the pharmaceuticals' line.

    #67048
  30. Laura Cooskey

    To Kevin (and other true believers): You call the connection between immunizations and death or serious side effects "anecdotal." Here are a couple of anecdotes for you: It was worth about $6 million for a clinic in Naselle, WA, to pay off my friend, whose child, immunized with the pertussis vaccine a couple of weeks before the officially "safe" lower age limit, went from a healthy, happy 3-month-old to a virtual vegetable, handicapped mentally and physically, in a wheelchair and with the mental capacity of a 3-year-old until his early death as a teenager. Sure, they administered the vaccine too early… but if it can do that to a kid at all, why take a chance? There's also a severely handicapped young woman I know in southern Humboldt, whose family blames the pertussis vaccine she got as a baby about 20 years ago. Another anecdote: about 18 years ago, a wave of whooping cough swept through Petrolia. Most of the kids got it, including my two sons. They all coughed a lot. End of story.

    Now they want everyone to get a chickenpox vaccine. Can they be serious? I guess I belong to the get-tough school of oldtimers, because I got chicken pox, my siblings got it, and… then we got over it. In fact, I got shingles at the age of 40 or so, and it hurt a lot; I took some interesting painkillers, then it went away. I actually believe sickness has a place in this life… but they want to eliminate that, too. The big glossy magazine ads now urge everyone to get a shingles vaccine, as if there's some crime in being slowed down for a couple of weeks. Human hubris!

    If you want to talk about "socially irresponsible," consider what it means to continually weaken the gene pool via immunizations. I'm not actually saying I'm in favor of allowing cruel nature to continue shaping the healthy state of the human immune system by weeding out the immunologically weak; it's a tricky question, the ethics of disease treatment, and every single road entails death and/or suffering for someone (and eventually everyone!)–but we have to be able to talk about it without ridiculing people who have different well-intentioned beliefs. Is it better to have a generally sickly population who can only survive if treated with vaccines that everyone must have, that will absolutely adversely affect some people, and that will be outdated when the viruses have mutated to survive? Look at the big picture and don't take the easy road of the pharmaceuticals' line.

    #67853
  31. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    If you had bothered to read the "quotes" some are numerical data, from medical journals… here was a small sample…"In the May 24, 1996, New Zealand Medical Journal, J. Barthelow Classen, MD, a former researcher at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the founder and CEO of Classen Immunotherapies in Baltimore, reported that juvenile diabetes increased 60 per cent following a massive hepatitis B vaccination campaign for babies six weeks or older in New Zealand from 1988 to 1991. In the October 22, 1997, Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice, Classen showed that Finland's incidence of diabetes increased 147 per cent in children under five after three new vaccines were introduced in the 1970s, and that diabetes increased 40 per cent in children aged 5 to 9 after the addition of the MMR and Hib vaccines in the 1980s. He concluded that "the rise in IDDM [juvenile onset diabetes] in the different age groups correlated with the number of vaccines given." Just because you ignore the data, doesn't mean it does not exist.

    #64305
  32. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    If you had bothered to read the "quotes" some are numerical data, from medical journals… here was a small sample…"In the May 24, 1996, New Zealand Medical Journal, J. Barthelow Classen, MD, a former researcher at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the founder and CEO of Classen Immunotherapies in Baltimore, reported that juvenile diabetes increased 60 per cent following a massive hepatitis B vaccination campaign for babies six weeks or older in New Zealand from 1988 to 1991. In the October 22, 1997, Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice, Classen showed that Finland's incidence of diabetes increased 147 per cent in children under five after three new vaccines were introduced in the 1970s, and that diabetes increased 40 per cent in children aged 5 to 9 after the addition of the MMR and Hib vaccines in the 1980s. He concluded that "the rise in IDDM [juvenile onset diabetes] in the different age groups correlated with the number of vaccines given." Just because you ignore the data, doesn't mean it does not exist.

    #65666
  33. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    If you had bothered to read the "quotes" some are numerical data, from medical journals… here was a small sample…"In the May 24, 1996, New Zealand Medical Journal, J. Barthelow Classen, MD, a former researcher at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the founder and CEO of Classen Immunotherapies in Baltimore, reported that juvenile diabetes increased 60 per cent following a massive hepatitis B vaccination campaign for babies six weeks or older in New Zealand from 1988 to 1991. In the October 22, 1997, Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice, Classen showed that Finland's incidence of diabetes increased 147 per cent in children under five after three new vaccines were introduced in the 1970s, and that diabetes increased 40 per cent in children aged 5 to 9 after the addition of the MMR and Hib vaccines in the 1980s. He concluded that "the rise in IDDM [juvenile onset diabetes] in the different age groups correlated with the number of vaccines given." Just because you ignore the data, doesn't mean it does not exist.

    #65914
  34. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    If you had bothered to read the "quotes" some are numerical data, from medical journals… here was a small sample…"In the May 24, 1996, New Zealand Medical Journal, J. Barthelow Classen, MD, a former researcher at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the founder and CEO of Classen Immunotherapies in Baltimore, reported that juvenile diabetes increased 60 per cent following a massive hepatitis B vaccination campaign for babies six weeks or older in New Zealand from 1988 to 1991. In the October 22, 1997, Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice, Classen showed that Finland's incidence of diabetes increased 147 per cent in children under five after three new vaccines were introduced in the 1970s, and that diabetes increased 40 per cent in children aged 5 to 9 after the addition of the MMR and Hib vaccines in the 1980s. He concluded that "the rise in IDDM [juvenile onset diabetes] in the different age groups correlated with the number of vaccines given." Just because you ignore the data, doesn't mean it does not exist.

    #67074
  35. RasMike Wilmeth Cmt

    If you had bothered to read the "quotes" some are numerical data, from medical journals… here was a small sample…"In the May 24, 1996, New Zealand Medical Journal, J. Barthelow Classen, MD, a former researcher at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the founder and CEO of Classen Immunotherapies in Baltimore, reported that juvenile diabetes increased 60 per cent following a massive hepatitis B vaccination campaign for babies six weeks or older in New Zealand from 1988 to 1991. In the October 22, 1997, Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice, Classen showed that Finland's incidence of diabetes increased 147 per cent in children under five after three new vaccines were introduced in the 1970s, and that diabetes increased 40 per cent in children aged 5 to 9 after the addition of the MMR and Hib vaccines in the 1980s. He concluded that "the rise in IDDM [juvenile onset diabetes] in the different age groups correlated with the number of vaccines given." Just because you ignore the data, doesn't mean it does not exist.

    #67879
  36. Ian Ray

    A few things wrong with this.

    Yes, the old pertussis was more dangerous than the acellular version, but which is more dangerous: pertussis or whole cell pertussis vaccine? The smart money is on whole cell vaccine.

    Why bring up lawyers? Lawyers can sue for anything the law allows. Think about Prop 65.

    The term "true believer" is usually reserved as a derogatory term for people who buy into some sort of fallacious reasoning while rejecting the body of evidence to the contrary. Using it in the reverse case is quite peculiar.

    #64306
  37. Ian Ray

    A few things wrong with this.

    Yes, the old pertussis was more dangerous than the acellular version, but which is more dangerous: pertussis or whole cell pertussis vaccine? The smart money is on whole cell vaccine.

    Why bring up lawyers? Lawyers can sue for anything the law allows. Think about Prop 65.

    The term "true believer" is usually reserved as a derogatory term for people who buy into some sort of fallacious reasoning while rejecting the body of evidence to the contrary. Using it in the reverse case is quite peculiar.

    #65674
  38. Ian Ray

    A few things wrong with this.

    Yes, the old pertussis was more dangerous than the acellular version, but which is more dangerous: pertussis or whole cell pertussis vaccine? The smart money is on whole cell vaccine.

    Why bring up lawyers? Lawyers can sue for anything the law allows. Think about Prop 65.

    The term "true believer" is usually reserved as a derogatory term for people who buy into some sort of fallacious reasoning while rejecting the body of evidence to the contrary. Using it in the reverse case is quite peculiar.

    #65922
  39. Ian Ray

    A few things wrong with this.

    Yes, the old pertussis was more dangerous than the acellular version, but which is more dangerous: pertussis or whole cell pertussis vaccine? The smart money is on whole cell vaccine.

    Why bring up lawyers? Lawyers can sue for anything the law allows. Think about Prop 65.

    The term "true believer" is usually reserved as a derogatory term for people who buy into some sort of fallacious reasoning while rejecting the body of evidence to the contrary. Using it in the reverse case is quite peculiar.

    #67082
  40. Ian Ray

    A few things wrong with this.

    Yes, the old pertussis was more dangerous than the acellular version, but which is more dangerous: pertussis or whole cell pertussis vaccine? The smart money is on whole cell vaccine.

    Why bring up lawyers? Lawyers can sue for anything the law allows. Think about Prop 65.

    The term "true believer" is usually reserved as a derogatory term for people who buy into some sort of fallacious reasoning while rejecting the body of evidence to the contrary. Using it in the reverse case is quite peculiar.

    #67887
  41. Ian Ray

    Oops, I meant pertussis is more dangerous.

    #64307
  42. Ian Ray

    Oops, I meant pertussis is more dangerous.

    #65675
  43. Ian Ray

    Oops, I meant pertussis is more dangerous.

    #65923
  44. Ian Ray

    Oops, I meant pertussis is more dangerous.

    #67083
  45. Ian Ray

    Oops, I meant pertussis is more dangerous.

    #67888
  46. Laura Cooskey

    The lawyers, the money: the clinic paid while admitting that the vaccine was exactly what caused the problem. Read that again: the medical professionals basically said, "Sorry we ruined your kid. We made a mistake. The vaccine did it, but we administered it."

    I used the term "true believer" to mean people in the mainstream who would rather believe what "experts" (sorry about the quotation marks; it was shorter than writing "so-called experts") tell them, when (just like lawyers who can sue for anything) it's in their interests to keep the entire world dependent on as many saleable drugs or services as possible. Obviously, i am more of a "true skeptic." I live among people who tend to think the way i do. In such a population, where there is very little vaccination, we have our own statistics. We're like an experimental group whose results have not been published. And we found that in a population of about 30 children of an age to be severely enough impacted by pertussis to even know it was whooping cough (many adults with colds/coughs can't tell if it's "Humboldt Crud" or pertussis)– of those 30 children, probably about 20 caught it. And 20 survived just fine. Why is that not some sort of evidence?

    It's not as if we're against all immunizations across the board, just to be anti-something. I would go with an immunization against rabies, and do, for my pets. Or against malaria, if it were around here. They don't have an immunization for Scarlet Fever, which killed dozens of kids in our Valley in the 1880s. My son got Scarlet Fever when he was about 5, and luckily they had antibiotics for it… it was scarey, and i was glad i lived in the 1990s. Just saying, it's not like a complete prejudice against modern medicine; it's about doing something only when occasioned. I'd take a vaccine for probably about anything, if i had a previously compromised immune system.

    But for normal healthy people, against pertussis, chicken pox, shingles, the flu, or the common cold? Not worth it to someone who is a true skeptic about fixing what ain't broke.

    #64308
  47. Laura Cooskey

    The lawyers, the money: the clinic paid while admitting that the vaccine was exactly what caused the problem. Read that again: the medical professionals basically said, "Sorry we ruined your kid. We made a mistake. The vaccine did it, but we administered it."

    I used the term "true believer" to mean people in the mainstream who would rather believe what "experts" (sorry about the quotation marks; it was shorter than writing "so-called experts") tell them, when (just like lawyers who can sue for anything) it's in their interests to keep the entire world dependent on as many saleable drugs or services as possible. Obviously, i am more of a "true skeptic." I live among people who tend to think the way i do. In such a population, where there is very little vaccination, we have our own statistics. We're like an experimental group whose results have not been published. And we found that in a population of about 30 children of an age to be severely enough impacted by pertussis to even know it was whooping cough (many adults with colds/coughs can't tell if it's "Humboldt Crud" or pertussis)– of those 30 children, probably about 20 caught it. And 20 survived just fine. Why is that not some sort of evidence?

    It's not as if we're against all immunizations across the board, just to be anti-something. I would go with an immunization against rabies, and do, for my pets. Or against malaria, if it were around here. They don't have an immunization for Scarlet Fever, which killed dozens of kids in our Valley in the 1880s. My son got Scarlet Fever when he was about 5, and luckily they had antibiotics for it… it was scarey, and i was glad i lived in the 1990s. Just saying, it's not like a complete prejudice against modern medicine; it's about doing something only when occasioned. I'd take a vaccine for probably about anything, if i had a previously compromised immune system.

    But for normal healthy people, against pertussis, chicken pox, shingles, the flu, or the common cold? Not worth it to someone who is a true skeptic about fixing what ain't broke.

    #65676
  48. Laura Cooskey

    The lawyers, the money: the clinic paid while admitting that the vaccine was exactly what caused the problem. Read that again: the medical professionals basically said, "Sorry we ruined your kid. We made a mistake. The vaccine did it, but we administered it."

    I used the term "true believer" to mean people in the mainstream who would rather believe what "experts" (sorry about the quotation marks; it was shorter than writing "so-called experts") tell them, when (just like lawyers who can sue for anything) it's in their interests to keep the entire world dependent on as many saleable drugs or services as possible. Obviously, i am more of a "true skeptic." I live among people who tend to think the way i do. In such a population, where there is very little vaccination, we have our own statistics. We're like an experimental group whose results have not been published. And we found that in a population of about 30 children of an age to be severely enough impacted by pertussis to even know it was whooping cough (many adults with colds/coughs can't tell if it's "Humboldt Crud" or pertussis)– of those 30 children, probably about 20 caught it. And 20 survived just fine. Why is that not some sort of evidence?

    It's not as if we're against all immunizations across the board, just to be anti-something. I would go with an immunization against rabies, and do, for my pets. Or against malaria, if it were around here. They don't have an immunization for Scarlet Fever, which killed dozens of kids in our Valley in the 1880s. My son got Scarlet Fever when he was about 5, and luckily they had antibiotics for it… it was scarey, and i was glad i lived in the 1990s. Just saying, it's not like a complete prejudice against modern medicine; it's about doing something only when occasioned. I'd take a vaccine for probably about anything, if i had a previously compromised immune system.

    But for normal healthy people, against pertussis, chicken pox, shingles, the flu, or the common cold? Not worth it to someone who is a true skeptic about fixing what ain't broke.

    #65924
  49. Laura Cooskey

    The lawyers, the money: the clinic paid while admitting that the vaccine was exactly what caused the problem. Read that again: the medical professionals basically said, "Sorry we ruined your kid. We made a mistake. The vaccine did it, but we administered it."

    I used the term "true believer" to mean people in the mainstream who would rather believe what "experts" (sorry about the quotation marks; it was shorter than writing "so-called experts") tell them, when (just like lawyers who can sue for anything) it's in their interests to keep the entire world dependent on as many saleable drugs or services as possible. Obviously, i am more of a "true skeptic." I live among people who tend to think the way i do. In such a population, where there is very little vaccination, we have our own statistics. We're like an experimental group whose results have not been published. And we found that in a population of about 30 children of an age to be severely enough impacted by pertussis to even know it was whooping cough (many adults with colds/coughs can't tell if it's "Humboldt Crud" or pertussis)– of those 30 children, probably about 20 caught it. And 20 survived just fine. Why is that not some sort of evidence?

    It's not as if we're against all immunizations across the board, just to be anti-something. I would go with an immunization against rabies, and do, for my pets. Or against malaria, if it were around here. They don't have an immunization for Scarlet Fever, which killed dozens of kids in our Valley in the 1880s. My son got Scarlet Fever when he was about 5, and luckily they had antibiotics for it… it was scarey, and i was glad i lived in the 1990s. Just saying, it's not like a complete prejudice against modern medicine; it's about doing something only when occasioned. I'd take a vaccine for probably about anything, if i had a previously compromised immune system.

    But for normal healthy people, against pertussis, chicken pox, shingles, the flu, or the common cold? Not worth it to someone who is a true skeptic about fixing what ain't broke.

    #67084
  50. Laura Cooskey

    The lawyers, the money: the clinic paid while admitting that the vaccine was exactly what caused the problem. Read that again: the medical professionals basically said, "Sorry we ruined your kid. We made a mistake. The vaccine did it, but we administered it."

    I used the term "true believer" to mean people in the mainstream who would rather believe what "experts" (sorry about the quotation marks; it was shorter than writing "so-called experts") tell them, when (just like lawyers who can sue for anything) it's in their interests to keep the entire world dependent on as many saleable drugs or services as possible. Obviously, i am more of a "true skeptic." I live among people who tend to think the way i do. In such a population, where there is very little vaccination, we have our own statistics. We're like an experimental group whose results have not been published. And we found that in a population of about 30 children of an age to be severely enough impacted by pertussis to even know it was whooping cough (many adults with colds/coughs can't tell if it's "Humboldt Crud" or pertussis)– of those 30 children, probably about 20 caught it. And 20 survived just fine. Why is that not some sort of evidence?

    It's not as if we're against all immunizations across the board, just to be anti-something. I would go with an immunization against rabies, and do, for my pets. Or against malaria, if it were around here. They don't have an immunization for Scarlet Fever, which killed dozens of kids in our Valley in the 1880s. My son got Scarlet Fever when he was about 5, and luckily they had antibiotics for it… it was scarey, and i was glad i lived in the 1990s. Just saying, it's not like a complete prejudice against modern medicine; it's about doing something only when occasioned. I'd take a vaccine for probably about anything, if i had a previously compromised immune system.

    But for normal healthy people, against pertussis, chicken pox, shingles, the flu, or the common cold? Not worth it to someone who is a true skeptic about fixing what ain't broke.

    #67889

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.