Quote: jennifer skeldon

Why hasn't the jump in cancer (that Sarah mentioned) been looked at more analytically? And the side effects. ....

Maybe because, like feeding dogs fresh food, that kind of research would most likely lead to loss of revenue to the pharma houses that make the vaccines and to Hills/SD, respectively.

Similarly, why is cancer research so disproportionately slanted towards treatment rather than prevention?

For example, the U. of Chicago Medical Center estimated in 1997 that funds were spent about four to one in favor of cancer treatment research over prevention research.

There's more than one "why" item, of course, including the excitement and "splash" of discovering a new treatment, but it's JMHO that money is the biggest factor.

There are pros and cons on both side of this issue and no right answer. The best you can do is research from both sides. Read studies which represent pro vaccination and those against vaccination. Somewhere in the middle is probably where the truth lies.

I grew up in the inner city; and I'm sure have seen many more occurrances of these diseases due to close quarters and how contagious they are. The measles and german measles were horrible and I had both and have a severe hearing impairment due to german measles not what I would call nothing. Chicken pox also caused scarring which could be classified as disfiguring to some poor youngsters.

Not as much of a concern if you live where there is not a lot of chance of exposure but more of a concern if you live in a densley populated area.

The only right answer is the one you are most comfortable with. You know your children's circumstances better than anyone else. Do they fall into the category of people more likely to be hurt by the vaccination or would they be more at risk from the disease itself.

With that being said I did vaccinate my children for certain things but opted out on new and untested (in my mind)vaccinations I could not compare long term studies to the risks the disease caused.

No chicken pox (they had it before 1995) no hepatitis not enough research for me and when it became mandatory I was able to turn it down due to having my uncle living with me while undergoing chemo. I don't know if it is even a live virus but living with a chemo patient was considered valid for refusing. And a big huge no to the gardasil.....why is it only being marketed to girls it would prevent boys from being able to spread HPV too.

My childhood doctor Michael Pichichero (pick-eck-ero) specialized in allergies & immunology. My mother told me for many vaccines I received half doses as he recommended that was a better option.

Interview on mercury in vaccines:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/445538

After a looking into him a bit more he does get a LOT of research money from drug companies. Take it with a grain of salt

I did village health care in Africa for almost four years, and the areas that did not get childhood vaccinations had childhood death rates approaching 65% to 70%.
That's six to seven dead children out of ten. Consider those numbers, if you would.

The risks of childhood vaccines is *tiny*, and the likelyhood of serious consequences for not vaccinating a child is *HIGH*. It's a sucker's bet to not vaccinate a child, and it's child abuse as I see it.

 Quote: will rambeau

it's child abuse as I see it.

Thats a little much.

Maybe in the villages you were in it was a better bet.

What you saw in that village does not apply everywhere in the world.

Not minimizing the death rates you saw, but "child abuse"?

 Quote: sheila buckley

And a big huge no to the gardasil.....why is it only being marketed to girls it would prevent boys from being able to spread HPV too.

I saw on the news tonight the drug company that makes gardasil is trying to make this vaccine "mandatory" for boys too.

Unbelievable.

At over 360.00 per person for the 3 vaccine "series" they reported that this is the most expensive vaccine there is so far. Go figure.

 Quote: michael_wise

 Quote: will rambeau

it's child abuse as I see it.

Thats a little much.

Maybe in the villages you were in it was a better bet.

What you saw in that village does not apply everywhere in the world.

Not minimizing the death rates you saw, but "child abuse"?

You can't really compare 3rd world countries with their lack of good food, proper sanitation, clean water and all the things that promote healthy living to life in Wisconsin (which is where the original poster lives).

Like I said before, good health doesn't come in an injection.

If anyone takes the time to watch the documentary I posted at the beginning of this thread you will hear many compelling stories, many of them from pediatricians, scientists and parents. It's very thought provoking.

 Quote: Will Rambeau

I did village health care in Africa for almost four years, and the areas that did not get childhood vaccinations had childhood death rates approaching 65% to 70%.
That's six to seven dead children out of ten. Consider those numbers, if you would.

The risks of childhood vaccines is *tiny*, and the likelyhood of serious consequences for not vaccinating a child is *HIGH*. It's a sucker's bet to not vaccinate a child, and it's child abuse as I see it.

Yes. Children in developing (or undeveloped) nations have incredible (to us) under-five death rates from preventable diseases.

I read in a W.H.O. paper last year that the measles vaccine administered routinely in southern Africa (which, of course, it is not) would reduce the under-five death rate by two-thirds. This is in a country rife with malaria and HIV-AIDS, too.

 Quote: cindy easton rhodes

.... I saw on the news tonight the drug company that makes gardasil is trying to make this vaccine "mandatory" for boys too. .... At over 360.00 per person for the 3 vaccine "series" they reported that this is the most expensive vaccine there is ....

This is the kind of thing that makes every utterance by big pharma suspect to me.