Vaccinations, Pt 2
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 17:51
VIEWED: 18576
PAGE 5 of 17
Quote:Well put.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So FWIW vaccination sequelae may not all be due to mercury or other adjuvants but to the reaction of the immune system itself, spilling into the brain and wreaking havoc where it doesn't belong. After all, is does that with the natural disease, so why not expect it would do that with the vaccine as well?
I've been reading about chronic microglial activation and neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's. For example,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17956294
or in the case of Gulf War Syndrome and Autism:
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no2/blaylock.pdf
Now in the case of GWS and Autism, over-vaccination is a factor-of-interest in both. Other factors that may play a role include toxins, EMF exposure (which is suspected of making the BBB more permeable), nutritional deficits, emotional and physical stress, comorbid pathogens, other preexisting conditions, and of course, genetics. The complicated interplay of many variables can explain why only some people are unlucky enough to get full-blown neurodegenerative symptoms, and others aren't.
Chronic activation of microglia can result from one immunological event, such as chickenpox or chickenpox vaccination. I would not be surprised if neurological damage resulting from both disease and vaccine share some common mechanisms.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But again, the consequence of chicken pox is much greater than the consequence of chicken pox vaccination. Once you get chicken pox, the herpes virus will live forever in your nerves, and you will be at risk for shingles and other post-pox events. Not so with the vaccination.
I would not be surprised if neurological damage resulting from both disease and vaccine share some common mechanisms.
The same goes for polio. Ever hear of post-polio syndrome?
If you were to assess the complications due to measles, chicken pox, pertussis, smallpox, polio, tetanus, etc versus the complications due to the relevant vaccinations, both for the individual and for the population, what would you find?
And no uni-drectional fingerpointing to vaccines. I know there are adverse events to vaccines, and I can tell you stories too. But I also know there are adverse events to diseases. So let's skip story-telling. This is supposed to be balanced, one side weighed against the other, ratioed. In other words, rational.
Quote:Of course. You DO tend to focus on vaccines. It narrows your thinking. So you missed an important part of Gulf War Syndrome: depleted uranium.
Now in the case of GWS and Autism, over-vaccination is a factor-of-interest in both.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
>_> Statistics are never certain. A one in a million chance might never happen. A one in a million chance of risk isn't intentionally putting people into danger... It's only when risk is underestimated, as measured by real-world impact, that there's a problem.
I don't believe myself that loss of life is something that can be balanced. I believe any medical professional should try for perfection. At the same time, that's not always possible. So I can only hold someone accountable if there's clear indication of wrongdoing. If they knew better, if they falsified data to hide the danger, if they ignored or covered-up signs of something wrong, if they continued to push something dangerous because they were receiving kick-backs.
Most medical professionals I honestly just don't think question the sacred cows of the field. So they fall into the don't know any better category.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte:
Quote:Of course it can. It has to be. This isn't a case of balancing lives lost against NO lives lost. That second option? It doesn't exist. After all, we all die anyway, right?
I don't believe myself that loss of life is something that can be balanced.
We can only balance the cause and timing of death, not the eventual outcome. The eventual outcome is death. Medical perfection? PHHT! Do we live forever? Are we always healthy? Clearly not. Medicine is limited. So are our choices.
Vaccination is a case of balancing some lives lost versus quite possibly a lot MORE lives lost sooner. Like I said, we don't get to live in the best of all possible worlds, we have to live in the REAL world. This is not an issue of some authority telling us to do something, this is an issue of making the best choices out of naturally-limited options. It seems to me, though, that if you choose not to get on board, then you have to get out of the boat.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you asking me? Are we talking again?
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you were to assess the complications due to measles, chicken pox, pertussis, smallpox, polio, tetanus, etc versus the complications due to the relevant vaccinations, both for the individual and for the population, what would you find?
Personally, I am going to stick to the cease fire. No bickering.
I will respond to you only if I can say something positive and constructive about your post.
I suppose if you ask me a direct question, I will answer it sincerely.
If I were to assess the complications due to disease versus the complications due to the corresponding vaccines, both for the individual and for the population, I would find many, many statistics of dubious validity.
My answer is, after looking hard, I still don't know what the risks are for complications of disease vs. vaccinations, population-wise. Many stats compare sequelae rates of diseases back before there was widespread sanitation, refrigeration, good treatments, and nutritional education. Contemporary stats have problems with small sample sizes and drug interferences, for example. No one genuinely looks at stats of vaccine-related adverse events. So, it is all complicated and murky. No good, clean studies. A lot of guesswork biased by political agenda.
Individual-wise, the risks have to take into account family medical history of reactions to both disease and vaccines, preexisting conditions, neuro-immunological complications, allergies, previous reactions to disease/vaccines, etc. It is the sort of detailed and thorough assessment one should get with a trusted health consultant.
That is what I would find. I cannot paint with a broad brush that risks of disease far outweigh the risks of vaccinations, or vice versa. I don't believe the data is there to support either conclusion.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, yes, yes, yes...all this applies to Big Pharma vis-a-vis vaccines. Just one example, SV40 contamination of the polio vaccine.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So I can only hold someone accountable if there's clear indication of wrongdoing. If they knew better, if they falsified data to hide the danger, if they ignored or covered-up signs of something wrong, if they continued to push something dangerous because they were receiving kick-backs.
Sometimes it is not just kickbacks, but a genuine belief that some losses are acceptable in this War on Germs. It is the attitude Siggy is preaching right now: the overwhelming number of lives saved by vaccines justifies the few lives lost to vaccines. The Greater Good.
Quote:Agreed. But I do fault the medical leadership, such as the CDC, AMA, etc. They are in cahoots with Big Pharma.
Most medical professionals I honestly just don't think question the sacred cows of the field. So they fall into the don't know any better category.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is there something wrong with the greater good? What are you suggesting as an alternative then, the greater evil? 
As for your supposed review of the sequelae of vaccination versus disease, and you not finding "good" statistics either way, you only have to compare the death rates of polio, smallpox, measles etc versus the death rates of the vaccines. The statistics do not have to be perfect to be compelling, especially when they are wildly out of balance. If YOU can't see it then
I challenge others to do the comparison: Death rates due to smallpox v death rates due to smallpox vaccine. Death rate due to polio v. death rate due to polio vaccine. etc. Please look this up for yourselves.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let me put that another way then:
*I* personally REFUSE to balance between two potential loses of life, because I consider it Not Good Enough. So whoever is working on this stuff best be researching better ways to bring all those unnecessary deaths - from either cause - to zero.
I figure that's a worthy goal. And if they aren't doing that, at some point they DO become responsible for the people who DO die.
You propose a false dilemma - it is not just the greater good and the greatest evil, there's also the GREATEST GOOD to consider as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do you refuse to balance losing 100,000 lives versus losing 10? Because - and let me repeat- we are not in the best of all possible worlds. If you do not do one, you will have the other. Which do you choose?
Betterment is a worthwhile goal, but we don't have the luxury of waiting for perfection. All we can aim for is... better. Not "best", "better".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Again, false dilemma. Technology can be improved. Only IF technology is being researched and improved will I be placated despite what happens in the transition period.
Are vaccines in a transition period to something that works better, so less people die all around?
If not, perhaps it should be.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME