baby's brain development--trauma and vaccines and their impact upon future learning

Actually teaching children how to think and science starts at infancy. In fact most important at this stage. Once the baby starts hearing sound then let him hear good sounds as often. When he starts seeing then make him see beautiful images. Same with nice smells and good taste. By 6 or 7 months he should be touching or grabbing and investigating everything. At this age you will know if you've have a good scientist. Do everything to shield the baby from negatives all kinds of negatives. The logic here is that all the senses are connected to a central processing unit or the brain. Every time the senses are use the brain is also thinking, you are essentially teaching him how to think and cultivating his curiosity. Discoveries starts with curiosity guided by the senses which often is express in intuition. If the connection between the brain and senses is solid those intuition will be converted into a conscious knowledge.

Above all "DO NOT VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN"  It destroys the immune system and of course the brain functioning. And there is also this new and maybe as destructive if not more destructive practice called "NEW BORN SCREENING"  Its the process of extracting blood samples from babies 24 hours old. I've seen babies wailing on undergoing this process. So how does it work I mean how does harm the baby? I use to culture mushroom and the process involves sterilizing the planting medium essentially making it a biological vacuum so that when I plant the mycelium it can grow rapidly with no competition. The infants brain is essentially a memory vacuum. WHAT happens when you plant pain on that memory vacuum? Pain leads to trauma almost always then insecurity and depression. I'm aint wondering why there is an increase suicide rate among teenagers in our country. NBS was introduce here some 20 years ago. Of course these are just a product of my flawed imagination so dont believe me. But rather investigate it for yourself be a scientist:)

My husband is a phlebotomist, and does the little blood draws on the babies. At least at his hospital, all he does it poke their foot and let some blood dribble out onto the test sheet. If the plebotomist doesn't warm up the foot well or if the baby just got the vitamin K shot, the blood might not flow as well, and they might have to squeeze it out. It does make the baby cry, but all it is a few drops of blood on a piece of paper. If a phlebotomist is a good one, the baby might sleep right through it. Their feet are just super sensitive at that age. (When I took first aid, we were taught to check to see if a baby was alert/alive by tapping his/her foot--their feet are sensitive like hands, because they've never used them and gained callouses.) Mu husband hates doing the foot pokes, but that's just because he hates seeing the babies cry--they're not actually harmed in the process, and the pain only last for the duration of the blood draw, just like it does for any other blood draw--and they're often more cranky about being away from Mama.

I would suggest to new mothers to nurse or hold their baby while the blood draw is done. A good phlebotomist can do the blood draw while the baby is still swaddled and sleeping with Mama (my husband has done them while the baby is nursing!). If the phelotomist refuses, ask for another one! It's not a time-sensitive draw, and there's usually more than one phlebotomist hired by the hospital. And, having baby comforted by Mama helps them know that they are loved and safe even when in pain. My son was colicky and in pain for the first four months of his life. It was heart-wrenching, and I did everything I could think of to fix his colic, but I made sure to ALWAYS hold him and love him so he'd know that Mama was always there for him. Being in  pain is damaging, but being in pain and abandoned is far worse, I think,

That being said, the blood screening often has it's results submitted to the government and the government has the data of whether or not you child has any of the diseases they test for. But, you get to know if you child has that disease. For me, the concern is more with the privacy of the information, rather than the blood draw itself.

The fact that baby cries when poke means he's hurt. There is pain. I will never submit any baby to that pain. But that's just me and I explained above why. And besides if you read the success rate of NBS its very questionable. False verdict and the likes.

Roald Dahl on his daughters death from Measles.

Measles: A Dangerous Illness
Olivia, my eldest daughter, caught measles when she was seven years old. As the illness took its usual course I can remember reading to her often in bed and not feeling particularly alarmed about it. Then one morning, when she was well on the road to recovery, I was sitting on her bed showing her how to fashion little animals out of coloured pipe-cleaners, and when it came to her turn to make one herself, I noticed that her fingers and her mind were not working together and she couldn't do anything.

"Are you feeling all right?" I asked her.

"I feel all sleepy," she said.

In an hour, she was unconscious. In twelve hours she was dead.

The measles had turned into a terrible thing called measles encephalitis and there was nothing the doctors could do to save her. That was twenty-four years ago in 1962, but even now, if a child with measles happens to develop the same deadly reaction from measles as Olivia did, there would still be nothing the doctors could do to help her.

On the other hand, there is today something that parents can do to make sure that this sort of tragedy does not happen to a child of theirs. They can insist that their child is immunised against measles. I was unable to do that for Olivia in 1962 because in those days a reliable measles vaccine had not been discovered. Today a good and safe vaccine is available to every family and all you have to do is to ask your doctor to administer it.

It is not yet generally accepted that measles can be a dangerous illness. Believe me, it is. In my opinion parents who now refuse to have their children immunised are putting the lives of those children at risk. In America, where measles immunisation is compulsory, measles like smallpox, has been virtually wiped out.

Here in Britain, because so many parents refuse, either out of obstinacy or ignorance or fear, to allow their children to be immunised, we still have a hundred thousand cases of measles every year. Out of those, more than 10,000 will suffer side effects of one kind or another. At least 10,000 will develop ear or chest infections. About 20 will die.

LET THAT SINK IN.

Every year around 20 children will die in Britain from measles.

So what about the risks that your children will run from being immunised?

They are almost non-existent. Listen to this. In a district of around 300,000 people, there will be only one child every 250 years who will develop serious side effects from measles immunisation! That is about a million to one chance. I should think there would be more chance of your child choking to death on a chocolate bar than of becoming seriously ill from a measles immunisation.

So what on earth are you worrying about? It really is almost a crime to allow your child to go unimmunised.

The ideal time to have it done is at 13 months, but it is never too late. All school-children who have not yet had a measles immunisation should beg their parents to arrange for them to have one as soon as possible.

Incidentally, I dedicated two of my books to Olivia, the first was 'James and the Giant Peach'. That was when she was still alive. The second was 'The BFG', dedicated to her memory after she had died from measles. You will see her name at the beginning of each of these books. And I know how happy she would be if only she could know that her death had helped to save a good deal of illness and death among other children.

In the thread about research integrity you sought advice on how to verify that what you are reading is valid, well researched, reliable etc... and I recommended that you read the book Bad Science. You posted that you were reading it.

How did that reading go? Bad Science has a LOT of material on medical research and evidence, and specifically covered vaccinations. I find it strange that you have come back after reading that book making such strong and dangerous claims, with no supporting evidence to back it up. You have essentially just done the exact thing you were worried about in that other thread - pushing your own ideas with no evidence or research.

If you do have evidence, please can you share it with us, as no one should be accepting such claims without serious investigation.

julian Gerona wrote:
The internet has make publishing way to easy for anyone. How do I know that research actually existed in the first place. Right now I could make a bogus research and publish it. I can also publish many that corroborate. And then when it comes to scientific research that requires laboratory and expensive gadgetry, how do I verify the alleged results and claims? Its very risky to believe by faith. There should be a better way. I'm reading bad science perhaps that will give an idea.

Thanks for trying to help I appreciate your effort.  

julian Gerona wrote:The fact that baby cries when poke means he's hurt. There is pain. I will never submit any baby to that pain. But that's just me and I explained above why. And besides if you read the success rate of NBS its very questionable. False verdict and the likes.

Well I guess we shouldn't be cutting the umbilical cord, then, eh? Wouldn't want to cause pain to the little bundle.

I am pretty sure that the type of testing that would qualify as scientific to back up claims of post-natal trauma would also qualify as inhumane, so verification of that particular claim might not go well.

Why don't we look at historical norms.

Historically, huge swathes of the populace would die, usually either in infancy, childhood, in old age, or as a compromised case in adulthood, and fairly regularly, as epidemic disease would sweep through. They had all kinds of colourful names to describe these things, like the red death and the black death, just to paint a cheery picture.

Also, people's lives would be forever altered by peripheral exposure to disease, pregnant mothers either losing children in utero or having them born deaf or with other disabilities, and survivors of disease left wheelchair-bound or bedridden.

And these were the normal, day-to-day diseases everyone had to contend with, like chickenpox in recent years, except with worse health consequences. Mumps, rubella, measles, polio, pertussis, the list continues. The reason vaccines were developed and widely adopted for these and other diseases is because of the devastating loss of life and quality of life, and the cost to millions of sufferers.

I met an elderly polio survivor a couple of years back. The reason it was likely my first encounter with one such is the great success of vaccines in eliminating this childhood scourge. She could still walk around a bit, but she was literally hunched over at a 90 degree angle, needing to crane her neck sideways to look up. For decades. I think she would have gladly welcomed some post-natal trauma if it had meant being able to skip that particular chapter in her life.

Perhaps a little perspective would help, from the point of view of a newborn baby.

So you've just finished a gruelling 18-hour birth, being slowly squeezed and eventually extruded into the cold, bright, harsh light of the world outside of the womb. The process nearly crushed you, and even the feeling of the cold air on your new skin is borderline painful, if you had any frame of reference to distinguish between pain and other sensation.

So after being thrust out into the bright cold world, and then bundled up and brought back again to the only familiar presence you've ever known, are you really going to even register the tiny prick of a needle on your foot? And how did it compare to being born, and then having what was literally your lifeline in the womb severed?

And what was the life experience of untold millions of people born throughout history, for whom crying at birth was a joyous sign that the baby was alive? Is it likely that their post-natal experience was kinder and gentler for them, or were their experiences as uncomfortable and filled with pains as any child born today, for those few that survived?

It is widely known that the historical reason for having many children is so that at least two of them would escape the childhood disease environment, right, and that the only reason people have the ability to be at all conflicted about the safety and efficacy of vaccinations today is because vaccination programs have been so successful that we often never see the face of disease as was normal in the days that preceeded vaccination?

It used to be a point of pride to listen to one's elders, to gain perspective we otherwise lack. How many people old enough to remember polio speak up against childhood vaccinations? None that I speak to do, nor can they understand how, in the face of a resurgence of a disease that was supposedly eradicated in North america the year 2000, people can be at all conflicted. That's because they might remember dead siblings and friends they lost in childhood, or may have had deaf children as a result of an illness during the pregnancy, or could have been rendered incapable of having children because of an adult case of the mumps or something.

How do we know that those first traumatic events aren't priming the brain for further experience? How do we know that their first experience of pain isn't programming their pain receptors, such that they do their job when required, many years later, when that child reaches out and touches a hot stove, or a sharp piece of broken glass?

And apart from trauma is the idea that vaccines cause autism, like autism didn't exist prior to immunization. When reading historical or fictional accounts, it isn't uncommon to come across people described as "slow" or as "lackwits." These aren't cases of the writer being mean. These are historical cases of either brain damage due to physical trauma, like being kicked in the head by a horse or falling from a height and hitting one's head, or due to non-traumatic causes like autism.

So vaccines didn't create autism. As to "bringing it out" in people "prone to autism," when someone can show me clearly defined evidence that vaccines are what's causing an upswing (if there actually is an upswing, rather than just an increase in overall numbers caused by an increasing global population), rather than one of the many now-ubiquitous chemicals in our air, water, and food supplies, I will most certainly look at that evidence, the study that contains it, and studies done around the world to challenge the results. I am more likely to believe that glyphosate in our food is responsible.

In the end, I think we need to look at a simple cost/benefit analysis. Is cutting the umbilical cord traumatic? Perhaps. Is it necessary? At least as necessary as giving birth. Is a tiny prick of pain in the foot going to even register on the trauma scale after hours of being extruded through a very tight and muscular passage, especially if the child-to-be shares any aspect of the pain and stress the mother is feeling? Probably not.

I would say that circumcision is a practice that needs to be examined in terms of its effect on babies, mostly because it's medically unnecessary and occurs far after the trauma of birth has passed.

I really hope the world has reached peak-denial. There are just too many things people are still fence-sitting on so much so that the ass-splinters are structural, or have fallen off that fence into the toxic shit on the other side. There's being cautious and informing onesself as to potential dangers so as to mitigate them, and then there's useless obstructionism. What is the goal, here? Are we so concerned that humans are no longer evolving that we need to increase human deaths per capita? Are we trying to bring back culling-by-epidemic?

And which segment of the populace will be culled by this new natural selection? What, for instance, will be the effect on average human credulity? How will that affect population?

I somehow get the impression that we might have been a bit swifter in the past, when doctors swatted the baby's bottom to induce breathing. I had my bottom swatted, and peed on the first nurse available. Maybe we ought to stop coddling our children's sensory experience.

-CK

julian Gerona wrote:Pain leads to trauma almost always then insecurity and depression. I'm aint wondering why there is an increase suicide rate among teenagers in our country. NBS was introduce here some 20 years ago. Of course these are just a product of my flawed imagination so dont believe me. But rather investigate it for yourself be a scientist:)

I'm in my 50's and everyone my age got that smallpox vaccination that leaves the scar.  I'm sure that vaccination was painful, although I'd be lying if I said I remember it.  By your line of "reasoning", almost everyone my age should be insecure and depressed.  My own line of reasoning tells me that smallpox, measles, polio, and any number of other diseases are far more damaging than the pain of a vaccination.  I do remember falling several times as a young child and tearing my skin off my knees.  I remember wailing like someone was killing me for a few minutes.  Do you wrap your child in bubblewrap to save them from this awful trauma as well, or does it only apply to life-saving vaccinations and blood tests?

One of my concerns with subjects like this, is how quickly people seem to polarize to the extremes.
Julian's concern about trauma to newborns and in the first year of life has its place. The medical establishment used to believe that young children either didn't "feel pain" like an adult, or wouldn't remember it, so wouldn't have any long-term consequences. That's been reliably proven wrong. But the solution *isn't* to protect baby from every little bit of pain - it is to provide humane responses (such as heel-pricking while nursing - I totally approve of that one!), or at least providing lots of parental contact right after. Our local hospital has "volunteer baby cuddlers" trained to handle premies when family can't and they've seen very positive results from this program.

As for immunizations, the quote from Roald Dahl states that the ideal time for a measles vaccination is 13 months. I don't know how he determined that, but I do know from research I did in the past that at one time immunization was generally started closer to 2 years of age than 2 months which is now the norm in Canada. I also know that they're putting more immunizations in the first appointment than they used to. That really concerns me knowing what I remember about the development of human immune systems. Just the fact that a 2 month old baby weighs considerably less than a 2 year old child suggests that the older child would have more resources to deal with any problems. Also, the risk is not the same for all diseases. In other words, people who are worried, shouldn't feel as if the only response is, "do not immunize". I *really* doubt that a 2 month old is likely to catch tetanus, but with lots of Himalayan Blackberry on our property, I recently checked my 25 year old's records and he promptly made an appointment for his update. Measles keeps showing up intermittently and as Mr. Dahl experienced, it *is* deadly. Measles immunization also has an excellent track record for safety and I double-checked that my son's was up to date when I read about the current outbreak. (In BC, they now give a measles booster in the mid-teen years. People born before 1994, should consider checking their records to see if a booster is advisable.) Similarly, my doctor did a titration for rubella when I got married and was planning on starting a family and determined that a booster was not required.

What I'm trying to say is that immunization does *not* have to be an all-or-nothing argument of polarized opposites. There is plenty of good research supporting immunizations and proof that the most inflammatory report was faked. There is also *absolute* proof that certain diseases can kill or permanently disable children (and adults for that matter.) For people who are *really* concerned about immunizations, there are some with better/longer track records than others, and some diseases that have higher risks based on location/time. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Michael Cox wrote:In the thread about research integrity you sought advice on how to verify that what you are reading is valid, well researched, reliable etc... and I recommended that you read the book Bad Science. You posted that you were reading it.

How did that reading go? Bad Science has a LOT of material on medical research and evidence, and specifically covered vaccinations. I find it strange that you have come back after reading that book making such strong and dangerous claims, with no supporting evidence to back it up. You have essentially just done the exact thing you were worried about in that other thread - pushing your own ideas with no evidence or research.

If you do have evidence, please can you share it with us, as no one should be accepting such claims without serious investigation.

julian Gerona wrote:
The internet has make publishing way to easy for anyone. How do I know that research actually existed in the first place. Right now I could make a bogus research and publish it. I can also publish many that corroborate. And then when it comes to scientific research that requires laboratory and expensive gadgetry, how do I verify the alleged results and claims? Its very risky to believe by faith. There should be a better way. I'm reading bad science perhaps that will give an idea.

Thanks for trying to help I appreciate your effort.  

Does not mean I read the book I am convince of it. Google "dangers of vaccine". I have 8 children and 1 grandson we dont vaccinate. Everyone is doing well. 7 university scholars out of 8 seldom visit doctor etc. That proof is more than enough for me not necessarily a proof to you or anyone.

The quote from Dahl was from 1982 - I imagine the nitty-gritty of what exactly constitutes best practice has changed on 30 years.  I don’t think it in anyway undermines the core of his message.

julian Gerona wrote:

That proof is more than enough for me but of course not for you.

What diseases have your children and grandson been exposed to? Have measles, polio or rubella been through your community or are you isolated enough that they have never been exposed? Or are you aware that they got the disease and were lucky enough to both live *and* have no permanent damage? There were people who survived the Black Plague in Europe, and this article, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/black-death-survivors-and-their-descendants-went-on-to-live-longer/ supports the old saying, "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger", but it killed 30 to 50% and with most North American and European families having only 1 or 2 children, it changes people's attitude toward death and disability. Living on a finite ball called, Earth, I personally have done the math and approve of small families that will gradually reduce the human population and allow nature to recover (although that will only work if more people live a permaculture lifestyle!) I'd prefer that happen through quality food and medical care, rather than through an event such as the Black Death (Yersinia pestis bacterium) or the Spanish flu. We all make choices - mine was to vaccinate later than 2 months, focusing on the greatest risks and most reliable vaccines first.

Jay Angler wrote:julian Gerona wrote:

That proof is more than enough for me but of course not for you.

What diseases have your children and grandson been exposed to? .

All kinds i guess. Thats 8 children going into the mix of city people everyday. of the 8 the last hospital visit was 3 years ago. Operated for appendices. A day after discharge she was back to school. I was like, "No you cant do that". But she insisted she's ok. My kids very seldom gets flu. If they did. Its 1 day or two. And no meds just water. Real tough kids.

By the way the not university scholar is because the university he went into does not offer scholarship. But he was accelerated two grades up in primary. No vaccine brain damage I guess.

julian Gerona wrote:.....No vaccine brain damage I guess.

As opposed to the 85% of the world that is vaccinated and does have vaccine brain damage?

In the long term, you either vaccinate or don't.

If you don't and don't get sick, you never develop an immunity, and don't have a hope of passing one on to your children. So when, eventually, your descendants are exposed to a disease environment for which they are entirely unprepared, and get a taste of the epidemics of years past. Nearly everyone dies.

If you don't and do get sick and die, well that's the end of it.

If you don't and do get sick, but survive, there is the possibility that your unborn children will benefit from your immune system's knowledge of that disease, and will pass on an immunity, or at least knowledge enough of the disease that it can be fought against successfully. This is how the European disease environment in the pre-Columbian era evolved to become so lethal to those with no exposure to it.

If you do vaccinate, you may or may not get symptoms of the disease against which you've been immunized. But again, it's possible that your immunity will convey an advantage to your unborn children against the disease environment. And while it's possible for it to not work completely, such that a vaccinated person still contracts the disease, in such cases, it is likely that their immunity was boosted by that vaccine in any case, such that a potentially lethal case becomes one that barely requires attention at all.

So if we're choosing to not vaccinate, we are either accepting the possibility that our offspring will contract horrible, potentially lethal, completely preventable diseases so that they kill off the weak ones for the benefit of future generations, or we are seeking to guard our offspring, and their offspring, from all disease exposure, ever, until one day, their descendants decide vaccination is easier than a complete multi-generational quarantine. Or until that generational quarantine proves ineffective and nearly everyone dies.

As to the timing of vaccinations, I think a lot depends on the ubiquity of individual diseases. If the diseases we vaccinate against were easily trackable and everyone vaccinated, it's likely that, except that babies are generally born in hospitals where the sick are tended to, their individual likelihoods of exposure would be low. That's the key, I think, to safely being able to defer immunization until the child is older and more capable of dealing with adverse reactions.

If there's no chance of exposure to the disease, there can be some argument for at least postponing vaccination. As long as one is immunized far enough before contraction of the disease, the goal is met.

So the key here seems to be the likelihood of exposure. At home, with mom, dad, and some occasional family, there is a great deal of individual control. You're not going to let some symptomatic individual near your unvaccinated baby. But once they start daycare, pre-school, and kindergarten, they are thrust into environments that honestly couldn't really be designed to better transmit disease. The likelihood of contracting a disease rises.

My concerns with vaccines have more to do with ensuring that there are no allergenic ingredients, and that if there are safer alternative ingredients than what is common, that they be investigated. The only area other than this that I think is really debatable is the scheduling thing, as I have outlined.

I think that it would be good if vaccines could be tailored to specific DNA, ultimately. If we could directly update or upgrade the immune system, rather than triggering it to happen by getting sick or by exposure to a weak or dead form of that disease, I think that would be best.

Imagine a stripped-down flu virus engineered to go in and update our immune definitions directly. One injection, and our private VirusGard systems get the new shiny update, and no actual bits of virus involved, and no actual triggering of the immune response, the severity of which is what is likely to kill the at-risk.

This is a complicated and non-trivial area of discussion. Let's ensure we're taking the long view, too.

-CK

julian Gerona wrote:

Jay Angler wrote:julian Gerona wrote:

That proof is more than enough for me but of course not for you.

What diseases have your children and grandson been exposed to? .

All kinds i guess. Thats 8 children going into the mix of city people everyday. of the 8 the last hospital visit was 3 years ago. Operated for appendices. A day after discharge she was back to school. I was like, "No you cant do that". But she insisted she's ok. My kids very seldom gets flu. If they did. Its 1 day or two. And no meds just water. Real tough kids.

By the way the not university scholar is because the university he went into does not offer scholarship. But he was accelerated two grades up in primary. No vaccine brain damage I guess.

And on the balance, the arguments and justification of anti-vaxxers cause my brain more damage than vaccines ever did.

Oh, and I was fully vaccinated as a child, as were millions of people worldwide who live their unafflicted, unscarred, healthy lives without brain impediment of any sort. I don't pretend to any especial genius, but I'm no slouch. Vaccine brain damage is a hoax, I guess.

-CK

I think with vaccines, there's a sort of roll of the dice, a weighing of risks and benefits. That's a scary thing to do as a parent.

My husband has Crohn's, and has had flare-ups from vaccinations. There's data  showing that autoimmune diseases can be set off by a multitude of things, from antibiotics to poor food choices, to extreme stress and even vaccines (study on auto immune diseases and vaccines "Although the vaccines are generally safe, with a low incidence of serious systemic adverse events, numerous reports highlighted the occurrence of neurological (Guillain Barre syndrome, multiple sclerosis, autism), articular (arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis), and autoimmune untoward effects (systemic lupus erythematosus, diabetes mellitus) after single or combined multivaccine procedures")

My children both show signs of IBS, with loose stools, undigested food, gut pain when they eat the wrong food, horribly stinky farts...pretty much everything that my husband had before he developed Crohn's. I think we can all agree that Crohn's is horrible stuff. People lose large sections of their digestive systems, are malnourished, in extreme pain, and some even die. Is it worse that chicken pox or mumps? Probably. Is it worse than polio or small pox or tetanus? Probably not. But, my children do not have Crohn's yet, and so do not qualify for a medical exemption, so I have to weigh the risks and benifits and figure out how to keep my kids at the lowest risk of developing debilitating/life-threatening diseases like Crohn's, polio, tetanus, etc. Is the risk of my kids getting Hepatitis B fresh out of the womb higher or lower than them developing complications from that vaccine?

I'm thinking that if a mother has Hepatitis B, than the baby getting the shot right out of the womb makes a fair bit of sense. I'm thinking that if the babies parents don't have it, then the chances of the baby getting a disease that is transmittable by blood, is pretty low. The chances of a vaccine complication in a newborn getting that disease, is probably higher.

I think we parents have to weigh the risks and benefits. When thinking about trauma with our children, which pain is more terrible and traumatic: (A) the short lived pain of a shot with a low chance of them developing health conditions from it, perhaps even resulting in death, (B) the longer pain of a measles infection with a low chance of developing pneumonia or having the infection spread to the brain, resulting in death?

Are there ways to lower the risks all around? My children's doctor spoke about how she was so confused by parents scared of the ingredients in vaccines, that are at the same time feeding them processed junk, soda and McDonalds. In her mind, there's far more harmful junk in a hostess treat or McDonalds burger than in one vaccine, and the kids get less of the vaccine junk if it's a multi-shot vaccine. If vaccinations are delayed to when the child's health and immune system is more developed, does it reduce the chance of it causing a negative reaction? If the vaccines are spread out, allowing more time for the body to deal with the shot, does that help? A Hostess treat once every few months probably won't do horrible, long lasting effects to a child, especially if combined with a bunch of anti-inflammatory foods--but 20 Hostess treats in a month probably would, especially if the rest of the child's diet isn't healthy. Is it the same with vaccines?  Does getting a crazy amount of them. Currently, in the USA, a child will be getting 25 different vaccinations in the first six months of their life, in the course of 19 shots (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/easy-to-read/child-easyread.html). Is that a bit much? Would the risk to a child's health be less if those were spread out so that they get those--and the 19 other shots needed by age 5-- spread out over the course of 5 years? Do they all really need 3 HEP-B shots in those years?

In many ways, I wish there was a lot more research on these questions.

Sometimes, when someone is trying to convince me of this or that, I don't have time to hear all of it. So instead I rely on their past history.

If my conspiracy theorist brother tells me something, I don't even bother investigating his latest piece of absolutely essential news. If a person is something that I consider a real doctor and I have a fairly narrow view of what that is, then I will consider their opinion. I have relatives who frequent Faith Healers. They are anti-vaxxers. For me there's a guilt-by-association factor. The same thing if some celebrity tells me that I should do this or that with my health. Toni Braxton thinks that vaccines gave her child autism. But she has also speculated that it was the wrath of God because of an abortion she had earlier in life. I always like to consider the source, and at that moment, I knew I was done with Toni. I will ignore anything she might say in the future.
......
Chris covered all of the points that I would have, and I suspect the points that anyone trained in medicine or statistics would have.

My time in Kenya gave me the opportunity to observe some families who are only one generation into vaccinations. So they have aunts and uncles and parents with horrible scars or an odd shuffle caused by childhood diseases that are now avoidable and that killed some of their brothers and sisters.

When I talked about the pushback with vaccinations here, jaws dropped. Just about every Kenyan who earns good money by working abroad, sets up some sort of vaccination thing in their home village. It's considered a civic responsibility. They were absolutely shocked to find that people who have easy access to these life-saving marvels of modern medicine, would turn it down because of something they saw on Facebook.

I dislike the polarization of calling people anti-vaxxers or pro-vaxxers.  Like many things in this world, there is a spectrum of beliefs that is often minimized to make it seem like "us vs them".  My opinion has shifted in the last few years from pro vaccine to a bit more against.  I'll take a shot at a reasoned explanation...

Treatment free bees are a good thing.  Treatment free veggies are a good thing.  Treatment free humans are a bad thing?

Mark Brunnr wrote:The doctor who "published" the one and only study making this spurious claim that others latched onto later admitted that he falsified the results and lost his medical license as a result.

The doctor is Andrew Wakefield.  He and 12 other researchers published the paper (not a study), knowing it would attract unwelcome attention because the conclusion was inconvenient. Dr. Wakefield and one of his co-authors, Dr. Walker-Smith, did lose their medical licenses, but not for falsifying data. Dr. Walker-Smith appealed and had his license reinstated. Dr. Wakefield couldn't afford to appeal. The paper was retracted because the eleven other co-authors feared for their careers, but they didn't back away from the paper's conclusions. Wakefield's experience probably scares some doctors into towing the line.  But in the end, this happened about 20 years ago and much has happened since.

Regarding it being the "one and only" study, here's a newer one: https://archive.fo/PwUrN

Mark Brunnr wrote:Perhaps some people prefer the idea that others/governments are out to get them and that there are world-wide conspiracies. I think it far more likely that fear is a great motivator, and people out to make money find they can sell more to a fearful customer.

If you hear the terror in the news about measles, it would seem like someone sure is using fear to sell their vaccines.

Has anyone noticed that the media hasn't reported deaths or severe injuries from measles in the US or other countries with good health care, sanitation and nutrition?  News reports also aren't mentioning whether the people catching measles are OK with it (remember chicken pox parties?).  Vaccines are not the only way to achieve immunity.

One thing that concerns me about the measles outbreak is the precedent being set by mandating the measles vaccine, as is being done in New York.  A vaccination is a medical procedure.  Medical procedures are supposed to be voluntary.

My personal concerns are with the safety of the ingredients in some vaccines, the lack of placebo controlled testing and the lack of a government-funded study showing vaccinated vs unvaccinated people's health outcomes.  

Some vaccine ingredients:

Aborted human fetal cells (WI-38 and MRC-5)

dog kidney cells

monkey kidney cells

aluminum

themerasol (mercury), just to name a few.

Testing:

Vaccines are tested for days to weeks before they go to market, so long-term effects aren't known.

Vaccines are not compared against an inert placebo before they go to market.  They are compared against other vaccines or aluminum.  A legitimate comparative (control) for someone actually interested in vaccine side effects would be a saline injection.  Read the vaccine package inserts if you don't believe me.

 
Study:

The CDC has plenty of data about the ongoing health of people that are vaccinated to varying levels in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.  It seems like it would be relatively easy to compare the health outcomes of unvaccinated and vaccinated people.  That the government has the data but hasn't run the numbers is telling to me.  Studies they tout compare vaccinated and partially vaccinated people.

Quote - "Treatment free bees are a good thing.  Treatment free veggies are a good thing.  Treatment free humans are a bad thing? "

As for treatment free bees, a local "natural" beekeeper put several beehives on my property. They all died.

As for treatment free veggies, since I grow my own food I have plenty of experience in this field. And I see plenty of failures.....dead, diseases, stunted veggies which I remove from the gardens as quickly as possible in an attempt not to spread the problem everywhere.

As for treatment free people? Who is comfortable with removing and eliminating sick people from society, like a diseased veggie plant? Who is comfortable with just letting nature takes its course and letting the people die, like a sick beehive? Face it, prior to "modern medicine" and vaccines, lots of people died. Lots. Perhaps banning medicine and vaccines could be a way to reduce the excess world population, the natural way.

Me thinks the analogies could be better.

Sure, analogies could always be better.  I was just trying to spur some thought.  I see a lot of talk about letting nature run its course and having robust plants/bees/landraces in our permaculture enterprises.  We also want to avoid all the toxins of the conventional agriculture world getting into our bodies (herbicides, pesticides, etc).  I'm just juxtaposing that with an injection to prevent disease.  

Having worked in veterinary medicine all my life, I see most vaccines as being favorable. Not all, but many.

I'm old enough to have witnessed the results of no vaccines being available to prevent polio, measles, etc. The results of getting severe disease can be devastating.

I suggest that people opposed to vaccination see firsthand cases of tetanus, polio, whooping cough, rabies, etc----- but I know that you won't for a number of reasons.

By the way, I wonder if anti-vaxxers vaccinate their pets and other animals?

My hunch is that someone who is hesitant about vaccines would probably wonder if the cure is worse than the disease.  Some diseases are much worse than others.  Some cures have many more side effects than others.  In my case, I think I would get the polio vaccine.  I know I won't get another flu shot.  

My other hunch is that if someone is hesitant about vaccinating their child, they probably would also think twice before vaccinating their pet.  They are making these decisions because they love their child/pet/self, not because they want to harm them.  Shaming them doesn't help the reduce divisiveness of the issue.

This thread reminded me about some vaccinations that need to be done in the Philippines. I sent the money an hour ago. So something has been accomplished here.

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Mark Brunnr wrote:My biggest concern about not vaccinating babies is that not only are they put at risk for death and permanent disability due to lack of proper immunization, but they can also be carriers that infect those too young or weak to be immunized, and can cause the death of others as a result.

Yes.  Those who choose not to immunize their children must be fine with their children being potential carriers of disease which may disable or kill others.  Do the parents feel the responsibility of these potential deaths, or do they never even think of it, or are they just fine with killing others as long as their own children (if lucky) never become disabled or killed?

I know for myself, this weights on me heavily. I've had some friends who are nurses tell me that because of my family's history, it makes sense for my children to not be fully vaccinated, and kids like mine are the reason everyone else needs to be vaccinated...to protect my kids. That's a hard pill for me to swallow, especially as today's generation of children are far more prone to cancer and auto-immune diseases and all sorts of things. There's just SO MANY toxins in our world now--from the microplastics and estrogen and medications and lead in many public waters, to the smog we breath, to the round-up in most food, to phlalates on receipts and plastic containers, to the flame retardants on kids beds and couches and clothes. Kids are more unhealthy and exposed to so many toxins, that they're probably a lot more prone to having reactions to vaccines than children 30 or 50 years ago. And, they're getting a WHOLE lot more vaccines than I did 30 years ago. There's just such a greater load on these kids than kids previously had.

So, who am I to say to another parent, "You must vaccinate your child and risk them having a reaction, so my child doesn't have to have the vaccine and can stay safe"? What makes my child so special?

It's hard to make the right decision for my children. It's even harder to make the right decision for everyone's children. And, what IS "right"? We all have our different opinions on that, and why should I be able to tell other people what is right and make them abide by it?

Various comments above about "why haven't people crunched the numbers on this" and "why haven't these studies been done?"

Overwhelmingly the answer is that they have been done. Exhaustively done. Anyone telling you that such and such a result has never been tested is likely to either be bullshitting you, or does not understand how medical research operates.

Picking just one specific point to respond to.

One of the requests above has been "why haven't placebos been used as controls?"
In ethical medical trials doctors are always looking for a net benefit to health above the best current treatment. No research doctor is looking to determine if a particular medical intervention is better than a placebo - they are looking to see if treatment X (the current best) is better or worse than treatment Y (the new contender). In this case the control group is going to be the group of patients receiving treatment X, not the group that receive some kind words and a cup of tea!

Not only would a trial comparing placebo to the new treatment knowingly give a group of patients a worse treatment (unethical), but it would also be useless of medical professional who are trying to choose between the two options X and Y.

This is a fairly common "gotcha" that gets thrown around in ant-vax literature and discussion, and it illustrates that the authors have a fundamental misunderstanding of how medical research functions.

If you hear the terror in the news about measles, it would seem like someone sure is using fear to sell their vaccines.

If your concern is that media reporting is biased that I strongly advocate consulting a qualified medical professional directly and seeking their advice. Better still consult with a dozen different ones in your area and get a range of views. Unless you truly believe that all medical professional are corrupt, motivated by personal profit, and are getting kickbacks from the pharmaceutical industry (hint - they are not. Such kickbacks are HIGHLY illegal and would be a massive massive scandal if it were happening).

A friend of mine has three children all of whom have very rare genetic immune disorders. Vaccines do not work on them. They can be given the vaccinations but their bodies do not develop appropriate anti-bodies and the immunity does not "stick".

Worse still, if they get exposed to disease they get very severe versions and afterwards STILL don't have immunity. They have been incredibly fortunate not to get serious diseases like measles so far, which given their condition would almost inevitably be life altering for them. Unlike most people they could catch it over and over again through their lives. These children lives depend on those around them being vaccinated so that they are protected from exposure in the first place.

Above was a comment about how low the death rates are in the US and developed countries. This is true, modern medicine is excellent and deaths due to measles are down to about 1 in 1000 infections. There have been nearly 1000 infections in the US already this year, so we would expect one of those children to die on average. But this misses the point - it won't be my robust child with strong immune system who dies. It will be my friends three daughters. And there will be very very little that doctors will be able to do to help them, as their immune systems simply don't have the capacity to fight it off.

And lastly - given treatment free bees has been brought in, and that is my thing -

Treatment free beekeeping uses natural selection to ensure that each subsequent generation has increasing robust resistance to disease. Notice the "subsequent generation" bit. This depends on weak colonies dying and replacements being raised from the survivors.

Treatment free people-keeping? Let weak people die and raise replacements from the survivors!

Clearly what we tolerate with bees is different from what we tolerate with humans.

Nicole Alderman wrote:

Kids are more unhealthy and exposed to so many toxins, that they're probably a lot more prone to having reactions to vaccines than children 30 or 50 years ago

Following that reasoning,  children are also a lot more prone to catching the diseases the vaccines would protect them from.

I just looked at the title again. We seem to have gone down the vaccine rabbit hole, without fully determining whether a minor prick in the foot or somewhere else will ruin a child for life.

I doubt that there's a way to test for this, given that children suffer a thousand bumps and bruises and other things that teach them how to avoid that particular sensation.

People suffer various tramas, as babies, toddlers children and adults. And I'm sure that some of these things do help to shape their future. But with all the millions of things happening to people throughout their lives, how do we determine which thing caused them to be messed up? I can't see that there would be any way to narrow it down to a particular event, unless it was some sort of earth-shattering event. People bounce back from many little things that happen to them.

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Mark Brunnr wrote:My biggest concern about not vaccinating babies is that not only are they put at risk for death and permanent disability due to lack of proper immunization, but they can also be carriers that infect those too young or weak to be immunized, and can cause the death of others as a result.

Yes.  Those who choose not to immunize their children must be fine with their children being potential carriers of disease which may disable or kill others.  Do the parents feel the responsibility of these potential deaths, or do they never even think of it, or are they just fine with killing others as long as their own children (if lucky) never become disabled or killed?

Since it was once again vaccine time for kids in school, One of my children was confronted by a teacher for refusing to take vaccine.

Teacher: If you dont vaccinate then you post a risk to your classmates.

My son: But teacher, If my classmates been immunize then they are immune. How can they be at risk?

Mike, I do think that the conversation polarises very quickly, and that makes getting anything hashed out difficult.

I was trying to single-out and identify anti-vaxxer arguments, not anti-vaxxers themselves. It is the incomplete or obfuscating arguments that I find less useful than even such polarity.

-CK

julian Gerona wrote:

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Mark Brunnr wrote:My biggest concern about not vaccinating babies is that not only are they put at risk for death and permanent disability due to lack of proper immunization, but they can also be carriers that infect those too young or weak to be immunized, and can cause the death of others as a result.

Yes.  Those who choose not to immunize their children must be fine with their children being potential carriers of disease which may disable or kill others.  Do the parents feel the responsibility of these potential deaths, or do they never even think of it, or are they just fine with killing others as long as their own children (if lucky) never become disabled or killed?

Since it was once again vaccine time for kids in school, One of my children was confronted by a teacher for refusing to take vaccine.

Teacher: If you dont vaccinate then you post a risk to your classmates.

My son: But teacher, If my classmates been immunize then they are immune. How can they be at risk?

If immunisation rates drop below something like 90%, we lose what is referred to as "herd immunity," where the high level of immunity within the population makes it hard for the diseases themselves to propagate throughout the population, making it safer for those for whom immunisation won't work or is too much of a risk.

The statistical models bear the argument out. I know it's a lot to take in, but it really isn't that complicated on the level we're talking about.

Vaccines are safe for most people. Maybe they can be made safer, so I think it's a good idea for more study to be done in this space by people who study disease, immunity, contagion, and vaccination. I would be happiest if the studies doing this were designed without the influence of the companies set to make and sell said vaccines, for more than just the appearance of impartiality.

My bias must also be acknowledged. I don't want to see a return to the pre-vaccination-era childhood disease environment. I don't want to lose children in utero, nor have them injured or scarred or hampered by debility, when it's completely preventable.

By extension, I am in favour of minimally-invasive blood tests for newborns. As I sketched out, the trauma of a little pinprick to the heel vanishes in comparison to the trauma of a normal, healthy birth of any kind. If you don't believe me, ask a mother.

So I am comfortable dismissing the trauma argument categorically. Life is pain; pain is for the living. Yes, torture is bad. No, a historically normal childhood isn't torturous, except in certain specific cases. I am more concerned with people becoming parents who aren't temperamentally or materially prepared for it, because it's their right to do so, just as it's their right to determine what constitutes appropriate medical care. That sounds to me like, not a guarantee, but a recipe for a potentially torturously abusive environment. Yes, there are lots of parents who aren't temperamentally or materially prepared who get their shit together enough to be exemplary parents. And there are those who don't. I would worry about those who don't over a little prick in the heel any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

-CK

Herd immunity?

Such threads that have a huge potential to violate standards be in cider press? Am I missing something?

Edit: It is in cider press. Interesting.