Pediatricians office. Those silly docs actually expect the parent's of their patients to read this stuff.
Schick test
- Thread starter elohiym
- Start date
Pediatricians office. Those silly docs actually expect the parent's of their patients to read this stuff.
elohiym
Well-known member
Here is the "fact sheet" on diphtheria. Just as I've claimed, there is no comparison of the risks from the vaccine to the risks from the disease. Furthermore, the "fact sheet" contains false statements and doesn't inform parents that it's possible to have naturally immunity to both diphtheria and tetanus.
That "fact sheet" does not give information on the risks associated with injecting those ingredients versus the risks associated with any disease. The first ingredient on the list, Aluminum, has been found to cause motor neuron death in mice. That ingredient is found in the diphtheria vaccine.
Aluminum adjuvant linked to Gulf War illness induces motor neuron death in mice.
elohiym
Well-known member
If you were given the same "fact sheet" that Granite posted, you were not properly informed about the risks to give consent.
elohiym
Well-known member
Why? It doesn't compare the risks from vaccinations to the risks associated with the diseases. Doesn't it concern you there is no fact sheet with that information?
WRONG. All of the negative reactions and percentages were listed. I had to read, date and SIGN prior to the vaccinations being administered. Had I ignorantly refused to do so, the vaccinations wouldn't have been given.
elohiym
Well-known member
Did you sign one of those for the Gardasil vaccine?
Welcome to the age of the internet. I can do a little digging on my own and I can find stuff. Stuff like this. Does it concern me that package inserts do not compare the risks of the vaccines to the risks of the disease? Honestly, not overly much. If I have concerns about this I can talk to the doctor and nurse and research on the internet. Honest research. Research that honestly examines the available data both pro and con.
elohiym
Well-known member
Here is the diphtheria vaccine package insert, Rusha. That's what you signed off on, right? Table 3, the percentages?
What you're asking for is asinine and doesn't exist. Unless you think a questionnaire exists that asks: "Do you want polio?"
elohiym
Well-known member
That's irrelevant to what we are discussing. Start by conceding the obvious: someone who has had measles has lifetime immunity and doesn't need to be vaccinated against measles.
If you don't have that information, you can't know how unsafe a vaccine is. That's playing Russian roulette with your children's health. Better to get a test, if you can, and avoid the vaccine if the child has immunity. Common sense, right?
What information do they have that they haven't already given you?
It shouldn't take any research to know that if you are immune to a disease, you don't need a vaccination for that disease.
How many newborns are immune to measles because they have already had it? None. Your argument is meaningless when trying to determine if you should vaccinate a child or not.
Doctors and nurses have access to additional information. Ask.
elohiym
Well-known member
When I shop for a computer I can view a comparison chart of different models. That's not an asinine idea, is it? It's asinine that people don't expect a comparison chart of the risks between the vaccine and the disease since they need that information to weigh the benefits and risks.
Unless you think a questionnaire exists that asks: "Do you want polio?"
No. I'm thinking of a chart that compares the risk of one complication from the vaccine to the risk of a complication from a natural infection. For example, a side effect of the MMR is thrombocytopenic purpura; the vaccine causes the complication in 1:40,000 doses. A chart should show whether there is a greater risk of thrombocytopenic purpura from measles of the vaccine. For that complication, the risk from the vaccine is greater.
No. That wasn't *the package insert* back in 84/85/89. So sorry that you are unable to understand why I would accept the literature given to me by *actual* doctors whose only motivation is the health of their patients.
From the link I shared above:
3 in 1,000 children develop thrombocytopenia(tendancy for bruising or bleeding) from a natural measles infection[20]
Even using your link of 1 in every 40,000, that is still much lower than 3 in every 1,000.
26 in 1,000,000 children may have thrombocytopenia from a vaccination.[20]
elohiym
Well-known member
They are vaccine ineligible (for the MMR). Newborns that breastfeed gain immunity to measles from their mothers. Unfortunately, it seems measles vaccination has impaired that process and has put newborns at risk.
I don't need to argue that a person with life time immunity to a disease doesn't need a vaccination to that disease. It's common sense, and it's the scientific consensus.
I've worked with doctors and nurses, and they don't have all the answers to important questions. Next time you see your doctor, ask him why he recommends you get a tentanus booster every ten years when the scientific consensus is one has life time immunity after five injections. Other countries only give five injections, no boosters. So ask your doctor why he thinks you should take the risks associated with a vaccination you don't need.
elohiym
Well-known member
If you were immune to syphilis, would you get vaccinated against syphilis?
Quite obviously you are wrong in your assertions about breast milk conveying immunity.
Spoiler
Look at the early years on the chart keeping in mind that during those periods, breast feeding was pretty much the only way woman had to nurse their babies. How well did that convey immunity to their children?
Your problem lies in that you asserting something that is just not true. Nursing does not convey absolute immunity. So if nursing doesn't convey immunity, what does?
You are right that doctors and nurses don't know it all. But there are many doctors and nurses out there so you can always seek a second and third opinion if you so desire.