This is mostly for arugla since she seems to have done the most in depth study of medicine but for everyone else who wants to chime in too.

Thanks!

All of them!

I took microbiology and I don't want my kids to get any of those horrible diseases that I read (and saw pictues) about.

none. i did not give any, i would not give any. many of them are no worse to contract than chickenpox (there's a vaccine for that too now), many of them haven't been seen in north america for decades (polio, not since the 50's-60's), and many of them are worse than the disease they are supposed to prevent. oh yes, and many of them offer ineffective prevention as well while they go about suppressing the natural immune system as it is developing at a very early age.

the vaccine guide by nuestradder (sp?) is a very good book, he's an MD and offers a terrific balanced view on the subject.

good luck N, this is a tough decision to make for sure. mothering magazine has some great articles and a pretty good parenting forum to check out. there is a raw kids forum on allisa's site too, rawfoodtalk.com.

None here. Scary business. After educating ourselves on them we couldn't possibly let someone inject that vile stuff into our child, and for the reasons coco mentioned why would we.



My naturopath said the only one she would/did give is tetanus. I didn't get a chance to ask her about that.

Good luck!

Here is a good online text of medical microbiology
[gsbs.utmb.edu]

It's not the same as taking a course, or having a nice big cuddly textbook with lots of pretty (or horrifying) pictures (I have Tortorra, Funke, and Case 2007) but it's a start.

You can take it at a local community college with no prerequisites.

This site has the chapters from the books in ppt format. Scroll to the bottom of the page to view them. If you do not have powerpoint, there is a powerpoint viewer that you can download from somwhere, google for it.
[faculty.sdmiramar.edu]

You can make more informed decisions this way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2008 02:00AM by arugula.

i just read a book called the Autoimmune Epidemic
on top of my other research
and have only been reinforced in my ideas against vaccinations
the author is very pro-vaccination

if parents fight the standard protocol- which hurts many children- a better standard must be set-

i'm not completely against vaccinations, but whenever i ask my doc which one is absolutely necessary at this visit to give my child, he says none. my children are healthy and not at risk of dying from any disease they might be exposed to. this includes measles and mumps and whooping cough- which have all gone around our area. he's very pro-vaccination, but is willing to look at individual situations and make decisions accordingly.

my son (2 years old) got polio and Hib vaccines- Hib is linked with juvenile diabetes. my daughter has none.

i have a very strong feeling that as time goes on, more and more people will find problems with vaccines as they currently exist. then they will change. our children and their children will look back and be shocked at what we do to our children. they'll wonder how we could be so archaic and trusting of a system with so many problems. like we look back on so many medical practices which have proven more harm than good (research lobotomy- the inventor got a Nobel prize).

if my children get vaccinated- it will be much later in life, when their bodies are more capable of handling the illnesses, and because they need to be. current sanitation and other advances in our culture make epidemics far more unlikely than in the past. and what we are seeing as epidemics are more evolved than say measles- MRSA.

peace-

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All of them!

Care to be more specific?

Also, why get vaccinated against polio, for example, when polio doesn't even exist in the Americas?

They still rec polio and diptheria for kids. But those are almost eradicated. As far as the rest: hep A, hep B, various flus, measles/mumps/rubella, pneumoccocus, meningococcus, rotavirus, tetanus, whooping cough, varicella, zoster for adults, and for girls HPV.

I would do them all unless there were contraindications, like COPD, diabetes, renal problems, immunosuppresion, or previous adverse reactions. For people who have anaphylactic reactions (food, excipients in meds, latex, wool, etc.) they can be dangerous.

What about homeopathic vaccinations?

I tend to believe homeopathy is mostly BS but I'm still curious.

> What about homeopathic vaccinations?

I'd stick with things that passed peer review (not much but better than nothing) with a pretty good body of evidence supporting. That is not the case for homeopathy.

Make sure your kid grows up with animals, cats or dogs at least, that seems to help the immune system in most cases. Unless they are rabid.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Make sure your kid grows up with animals, cats or
> dogs at least, that seems to help the immune
> system in most cases. Unless they are rabid.

Yeah definitely. Outdoor cats & playing in the dirt and all that good stuff. I'd like to get goats someday if I can!

I don't wish to get into debating vaccines, but honestly... This being a raw forums, which caters to a community that are open to alternative health concepts which do not necessarily conform with the big $$$ medical industries contrivances. I find it just a little supprising that such a topic can be discussed as having any merit at all.

One does not need to look very far, to find at least enough condemning information on vaccines to warrent due caution, let alone a desire to be as far away from them as possable. Any non politically, non monetarily motivated investigative information which I have seen relating to vaccines paints a gloomey picture indeed.

Here is a link with some er... alternative perspectives on them [search.freefind.com]

I would agree, although certainly not an expert, my best guess is that a baby is best served by strengthening it's immune system through breast milk and close contact with the mother and father, as well as a certain degree of food hygiene once older. I think this will give it greater immunological benefits than vaccines, which contain many toxic compounds, especially for an infant. I'm not sure it's good for infants to be around animals (pets) either. I've read quite a few things relating that to increased incidence of various illnesses, parasites, etc... in kids. I suppose if the animals were in perfect health it would probably be ok, but I would also guess that most pets are in far from perfect health and would only contribute to the ill health of the children exposed to them. In general vaccinations is a topic I would like to look into more at some point, in order to have a more informed opinion.

Cheers,
J

Zero.
No.
Never.
Nyet.
None.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
and
> for girls HPV.
>
i`m torn over this one. i have a 9 year old daughter. are there not 100`s of strains that can cause hpv? sort of like the flu shot?
patty

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All of them!
>
> I took microbiology and I don't want my kids to
> get any of those horrible diseases that I read
> (and saw pictues) about.

arugula
` Miro bio yes also history!

`Conspiratorial connection between the world wide alarm over avain flu pandemic `and Donald Rumsfields financil interst.

Donald Rumsfield makes $5 million killing on bird flu drug.

Donald Rumsfield made chairman of Gilead 1997.

Rumsfield Profits from Hoax.
`Your Govorment whoud not lie, Now would you please role up your sleve?????????

Bird do do is coming help us Rumey.

instead of vaccinations
i would concentrate on building immunity to the highest degree

that is the best protection

if infected by x y or z

i would focus on detoxing x y or z
out of the bloodstream

these two protocols are still in alignment with the tenets of microbiology

<<<instead of vaccinations
i would concentrate on building immunity to the highest degree

that is the best protection

if infected by x y or z

i would focus on detoxing x y or z
out of the bloodstream

these two protocols are still in alignment with the tenets of microbiology>>>

That has been our decision.

Autism

All my kids are vaxed, but not the chicken pox one (chicken pox -- big deal!) and no flu shots or HPV. I spaced my kids' vaxes out and made sure there was no thimerosol (mercury) in them, and I tell my kids to do the same with their kids. If I had it to do over, I'd rethink it -- maybe I would; maybe not. Also, I'm all about ramping up their immune systems by diet, sunshine (not a big believer in sunscreen but use it on my daughter sometimes, but never on myself), and staying away from antibiotics and loading up on probiotics.

it's time to move on from the mercury arguement and focus on the other, and more important, health issues surrounding vaccinations. there is no longer mercury in vaccines, if that is one's only objection and grounds for not doing it than it's a useless arguement because it's no longer an issue. there are many other reasons to question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, especially for children.

<<<there is no longer mercury in vaccines>>>


[articles.mercola.com]
Are ALL Vaccines Now Mercury-Free?

NO! They’re NOT!

That’s another cry you hear over and over again: that “we’ve now removed mercury from all vaccines.”

But a more accurate statement would be that mercury has been removed from MOST vaccines – not all – and several still contain traces of mercury, at a level so low the actual amount doesn’t have to be stated.

Here is the most current schedule (updated January 28, 2008) disclosing the amount of thimerosal and mercury contained in U.S. vaccines. It’s also available as a printable PDF.
[articles.mercola.com]

<<<there are many other reasons to question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines>>>

Hey coco,

I could not agree with you more...here is my recap from a really good article by Alex Loglia...

Now, the theory of vaccinations is based on four basic principles.

Number one: Vaccinations are relatively harmless;
Number two: Vaccinations are effective;
Number three: Vaccinations are responsible for the decline of infectious diseases, and
Number four: Vaccinations are the only practical and dependable way to prevent both epidemics and potentially dangerous diseases.

But, ladies and gentlemen, every single one of these assumptions is totally false.

Number one: Vaccinations are relatively harmless:

Besides introducing foreign proteins and even live viruses into the bloodstream, each vaccine has its own preservative, neutralizer and carrying agent, none of which are indigenous to the body. For instance, the triple antigen, DPT, which is the Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus vaccine, contains the following poisons: Formaldehyde, Mercury, and aluminum phosphate, and that's from the Physician's Desk Reference, 1980. The packet insert accompanying the vaccine, lists the following poisons: aluminum potassium sulfate, a mercury derivative called Thimersol and sodium phosphate. The packet insert for the polio vaccine lists monkey kidney cell culture, lactalbumin hydrozylate, antibiotics and calf serum. The packet insert for the MMR vaccine produced by Merck Sharp and Dhome which is for measles, mumps and rubella lists chick embryo and neomycin, which is a mixture of antibiotics.

Now chick embryo, monkey kidney cells and calf serum are all foreign proteins which are biological substances composed of animal cells which because they enter directly into the bloodstream can become part of our genetic material. They can become part of our genetic material, folks, remember that, it's going to be important later. These foreign proteins, as well as other carriers and reaction products of a vaccine are potential allergens and can produce anaphylactic shock. Folks, anaphylactic shock is a nice word for brain damage.

Another problem with vaccines is that they go directly into the blood stream without filtering by the liver. ...Most of your vaccination serums and proteins are not filtered by the liver, consequently vaccinations can be a terrific shock to the system. Injections of foreign substances like viruses, toxins and foreign proteins into the blood stream via vaccinations, have been associated with diseases and disorders to the blood, brain, nervous system and skin.

Number two: Vaccinations are effective:

Statistics from around the world show unequivocally that infectious diseases like small pox, diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, etc., began to disappear long before vaccinations ever came on the scene. Now I'm quoting World Health Statistics Annual 1973-1976, Volume II. "There has been a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries."

Number three: Vaccinations are responsible for the decline of infectious diseases:

I'll bet you didn't know that, folks, and I'll bet you didn't know this either, but I do know this from my research and from my own experimentation; personal hygiene and diet stop diseases, folks, not injecting virulent free-floating genetic material into your veins with all kinds of poisonous cancerous carrying agents which is what vaccines are. I'm going to now give you a key as to why you've been conned into believing that vaccines do stop diseases. I'm looking at a chart from Australian Nurses Journal from June of 1981. A top chart shows a curve of deaths per million children under 15 attributable to scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles. We're looking at a graph here. The graph runs the years from 1860 to 1965, and the death rate just goes down, having peaked in 1860 at 6,000 fatalities per million, and bottoming out near zero in 1965. So, it's just a downward sloping line going down from 6000 to 0 from 1860 to 1965. It looks really impressive, like could all of these communicable diseases have been wiped out.

However, the only problem is that immunizations were introduced into this picture in the 1940s when the number of fatalities per million had already dropped from 6000 to 1000, thus from looking at the nearly straight line of the curve, you see that the vaccinations did absolutely nothing, because there is no alteration in the rate of disappearance of these diseases from the vaccinations, at the time when the vaccinations first started to be administered.

A similar chart below it refers to tuberculosis and typhoid from 1900 to 1960, and again the line's a straight slopes downward, and you can see that the epidemics simply ran their course naturally, and are totally unaffected by the vaccination programs, but the medical industry wants you to believe that vaccines are what wipe out diseases and that is totally a bold-faced lie.
not only did polio increase substantially after the introduction of mass and frequently compulsory immunization programs, but statistics were manipulated and statements made by the Public Health Service to give the opposite impression.

You have been lied to folks. The polio vaccine caused more polio than it protected people from.

Other ways polio statistics were manipulated to give the impression of Salk vaccine success follow:

1- Redefinition of an epidemic.
2- Redefinition of the disease.

There is a natural tendency for doctors to under-report whooping cough when it occurs in a vaccinated population, and to over report it when it appears in an unvaccinated population.

Number four: Vaccinations are the only practical and dependable way to prevent both epidemics and potentially dangerous diseases.

When immunity to a disease is acquired naturally, [and again, from Walene James' book] the possibility of reinfection is only 3.2%, according to journalist Marion Thompson. If the immunity comes from a vaccination, however, the chance of reinfection is 80%.
However, perhaps the strongest statement against the effectiveness of artificial immunization comes from Dr. William Howard Hay. It is nonsense to think that you can inject pus, which is most of the serums that we're talking about, into a little child, and in any way improve its health. There is no such thing as immunization, but we sell it under that name. If we could, by any means, build up a natural resistance to disease through these artificial means, I would applaud it to the echo, but we cannot do it.

The body has its own methods of defense. These defense methods depend upon the vitality of the body at the time. If it is vital enough, the body will resist all infections. If it isn't vital enough, it won't and you can't change the vitality of the body for the better by introducing poisons of any kind into it.

excellent, excellent info John, thank you very much. these are the reasons that i chose not to vaccinate my children. that and the fact that my younger brother nearly died from them and our cousin has brain damage from them as well.

John-

you have the best put-together of the info i've absorbed but not actually taken the time to arrange.

THANKS

i get weak b/c it seems when i try to research what i know, i get more and more paranoid/skeptical and start to doubt what i know. people and propaganda are rather convincing.

thank you thank you thank you- i'm going to return to this thread when i need reinforcement.

peace-

John, every post I read of yours is dead on!

I couldn't agree more with all your info. keep it coming!