10 Things I Want Parents Who Don’t Vaccinate Their Kids To Know

I read a blog post today, entitled “10-things-want-parents-vaccinate-kids-know” and I felt the need to respond.

1.Most of the time the diseases we vaccinate for are very mild and unlike vaccine injury, they last only a short time. This is not true. Back when vaccine-preventable diseases were common, disease injury was common. 30% of measles patients suffer complications and many require hospitalization. Some of those will be permanently injured. Back when nearly all children got measles, this mean thousands suffered injury every year.  Polio was also very bad in the 1950s.  “In 1952 alone, nearly 60,000 children were infected with the virus; thousands were paralyzed, and more than 3,000 died. Hospitals set up special units with iron lung machines to keep polio victims alive. Rich kids as well as poor were left paralyzed.”  source  Before the hepatitis V vaccine was recommended for all children in 1994,  30% of infected adults had no risk factors and 10,000, of children under age 10 were found to have Hepatitis B yearly. source

I could go on but, no, these diseases were not mild for everyone and yes they did cause permanent injury.

ebe470907567209186a555034f2e5348

2. Even if you choose to vaccinate, please please make yourselves aware of the adverse events that can occur.  Yes, by all means,  check the vaccine information sheets. If you read the vaccine inserts, be sure to be aware that they do not list side effects. Inserts list adverse events reported during the clinical trials without regard to causation. There is always more to read than inserts. Vaccine information sheets list actual, proven side effects.

3. If you are really are worried about viruses and bacteria, you might want to also read about vaccine ingredients.  Sure, by all means ask questions about vaccine ingredients.  But, know that the dose makes the poison and nothing in vaccines is toxic. MSDS are not helpful, as they refer to pure mercury and pure aluminun, neither of which are in vaccines. Antivaxers will refer to the limit for aluminum in IV feeding  but that is not a helpful thing to read because vaccines are not TPN feeding. The Children’s Hospital of Philadephia has great resources on vaccine ingredients. Remember, the dose makes the poison.

4. Your children will be shedding their live virus vaccines (this includes the measles and chickenpox vaccine) after their shots. Just big fat no. Here is a great article for you to read about why vaccine shedding is theoretically, but not actually, possible. Measles and chicken pox rates are down. Because shedding is myth.

vaxinfographic-WEB_700px

5. The Mawson study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children, found significantly higher rates of autism, allergies, ear infections, learning disabilities and chronic diseases in those vaccinated to the schedule.  The Mawson study is completely invalid.  Don’t just read my take. Read all the links.

6. Vaccines are far from perfect… but there is not a huge failure rate. Many vaccines have 95% or greater efficacy.  Measles vaccine, for example, is 99% effective for life after two shots. Rubella vax is 95% effective for life. Tetanus vaccine is nearly 100% effective but only for ten years.   You can find all the efficacy rates here.

 

7. If you are worried about where to get good and unbiased information from. Look at vaccine inserts, VAERs reports, studies that aren’t funded by pharma companies, and most importantly, parents of vaccine injured children. By all means, look at VAERS reports but understand that nothing about them is valid. They are not valid because no medical information has been analyzed to confirm those reports. Also, most vaccine studies are NOT pharma funded, so using pubmed, you should be easily able to find many studies to read. International scientific consensus will show to you that vaccines have far greater benefits than risks.  Finally, parents are not great resources. We are not medical experts.  For example, if you read the Brian Hooker vaccine injury claim, you will see how one parent, even one with a PHd in a science-field, can make mistakes and miss early warning signs.

8. The people trying to convince you not to vaccinate have only one motivation, and that is to prevent more suffering, because they have either witnessed it first hand in their own family or know someone who has.  Okay, moving past the bad grammar in that sentence, which pains me, the reality is that there are people who have been duped by others into believing everything under the sun is a vaccine injury. And, those doing the duping are shysters and snake oil salesmen and women. They call themselves “experts” but they are really selling you products in lieu of modern medicine.   Be wary. Science should verify the validity and reliability of data. Shysters do not.

journey-of-child-vaccine_sm.png

9. In the time you have spent reading this, more children have been damaged by vaccines, because they believed what Doctors and the government told them. In reality, 5482 vaccine injury claims have been compensated in the last 30 years.  2,845,946,816 doses of vaccines have  been given out in that 30 years. That means that vaccine injury rate is 0.00000195%. That is incredibly rare.

10. It’s not too late to change your mind. I agree. It is never too late to vaccinate.

 

Remember to always think of yourself and verify your claims using valid science.

 

Kathy

 

 

All vaccine infographics come from here

 

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “10 Things I Want Parents Who Don’t Vaccinate Their Kids To Know

  1. Hi Kathy, just regarding your #3 comment:
    “…But, know that the dose makes the poison and nothing in vaccines is toxic. ”
    Can you confirm that with some study as well?

    Also, what about results by Gatti investigation (doi: 10.15406/ijvv.2017.04.00072 )? “Inorganic foreign bodies” were found in all 44 vaccines analyzed. Is not it suspicious, this kind of information is omitted everywhere you look for vaccine ingredients?

    Like

    • Yes, I understand that wasn’t a quality PubMed study, but still it’s started a discussion in different channels about vaccine compositions including this blog, why it’s bad?

      Is not it a good opportunity to actually do a proper study on this? I mean, at least confirm that’s a controlled consistency of these particles being that small in all batches, also, no combined effects for multiple injections and long term accumulation is happening? Does the concentration of those particles will matter for the body mass, etc? Or was it done already?

      Sorry, if I sound too naive with my questions or repeat them.

      “…why you did not question why someone would go into all that trouble to find teeny tiny itsy bitsy bits of stuff in a solution…”

      Well, I don’t want to focus on anything political, sadly it happens both ways and we all always left to speculate with Media heating things up for the sake of ads views or whatever. Not worth of energy to question ‘who’s bad’, tomorrow/in 10 years will be new article anyway proving someone wrong again and to blame, duh, seen this all.

      Who knows now what were the initial motives of these researches…maybe they have to produce/publish anything once in a while to justify their pay or use of new equipment etc. even if it’s written on a knee, haha. Now it’s blown out of all proportions, unnecessary…but both sides using this now to prove “the point”.

      Like

      • It is not “political”, it is basic chemistry. The more dilute something is the less chance of it to have an effect, because “the dose makes the poison.”

        They went into lots of effort to find stuff, when in fact it could be just not interpreting the image from the electron microscope. This is something that is common with many motivated researchers, hence this Ig Nobel award winning research:
        https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobel-prize-in-neuroscience-the-dead-salmon-study/

        Liked by 1 person

      • “…what makes you think vaccine ingredients do not have toxicity studies done on them…”

        Why do you think it does:) I was actually asking where to look for the studies.

        “Consult the EPA IRIS database for toxicity information and studies.”

        Thanks! Studies, do you mean vaccine studies in this database? Sorry, not quite sure here what are you saying…or I have to search by each component separately in a database and then judge on toxicity of a vaccine as a whole?

        Like

      • “I was actually asking where to look for the studies.”

        You would need search back through PubMed over the past century of indexed studies. That has been going on for quite a while, especially if you look at the history of the FDA (hence the book I suggested). By the way, you can find some gems if you search back a ways, like this: A STATISTICAL STUDY OF MEASLES (1914)

        There are several other books on the history of public health that I could suggest, where they find that something gets contaminated that there needs to be a solution. This is where reading Deborah Blum’s first book would be useful. There is also a great little book about the poisons Agatha Christie used in her stories: A is for Arsenic: The Poisons of Agatha Christie by Kathryn Harkup. It turns out she had worked in a hospital pharmacy.

        There is no one source to look it up. There is an entire history starting about 150 years ago when chemistry was becoming an actual scientific discipline. Another book about science actually getting organized: The Age of Wonder: How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science by Richard Holmes.

        While that is all fascinating reading, it still boils down to understanding the dose make the poison and the relative risk between the vaccine to the actual disease. The only studies you really need to worry about are the large epidemiological studies that have been done that show the vaccines are much safer than getting pertussis, diphtheria, rotavirus, tetanus, measles, etc. The ones that used the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink would probably narrow it down for you.

        Like

  2. “The more dilute something is the less chance of it to have an effect, because “the dose makes the poison.””

    But we don’t know what’s ‘the dose’ exactly and any possibility these metals/particles could be a toxic if injected…Why not to look further into this and do a PubMed level study?

    The first article is a bit old…and, sorry, I don’t see how it proves “nothing in vaccines toxic” statement.

    Like

    • You may not know, but those of us who have passed our high school and college chemistry classes have more of a clue. Those are known substances and there has been plenty of work to establish the safe levels.

      Early in the 20th century the start of the FDA included a group of chemists, the Poison Squad, who tested the toxicity of many substances that were being added to food. I read about in the book Protecting America’s Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation by Philip J. Hilts. There is also the entertaining book by Deborah Blum: The Poisoner’s Handbook which touched on it. Now I hear she has a new book about the Poison Squad: https://gastropod.com/keeping-it-fresh-preservatives-and-the-poison-squad/

      What “first article” is a bit old. The first one I listed was from 2017 and actually about the paper you posted. The last one is actually the earliest, and it is about seeing things that are not really there when you look with both motivation and equipment you don’t fully understand. Which is exactly what they did to find those teeny tiny itsy bitsy bits of stuff (which may not have actually been there).

      Probably before “questioning everything” you can get yourself to the library and read up on the subjects. The things you “question” have often been answered.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Yes, I understood your opinion on this, all clear, no questions further.

    Just to defend myself, I’ve also completed my degree, but I believe that people are still able to self-educate themselves just about any topic that interest to them without ‘rediscovering’ the science and allowed to conclude things based on discovered knowledge on their own. Why do you think I am not reading on the subject, well, I do, but we all have to start somewhere.

    Sorry, If the ‘question everything’ sounds annoying…I am “late to the party”, learning rules along the way:)

    Agree, library is a better resource than blog posts. However, I see blogs like yours as “Look, this is my subjective opinion on this topic and see for yourself how I came to this”. Then, I am free to use your referrences to understand your point of view or ask questions and it opened to discussion, or what was an intention?

    Like

    • “However, I see blogs like yours..”

      I do not have a blog. Also, I did not just give you my subjective opinion, I pointed you to several blog posts and three books.

      My question is why you do not understand that they used equipment they did not know how to use to find itsy bitsy tiny bits of various things… and you think that is significant. No, it is not. It just proves that you can find whatever you want if that is your intention and using equipment you do not understand.

      Also, if those itsy bitsy teeny tiny bits of stuff were a problem, why has it not shown up in the larger epidemiological studies? The real question is the relative between the diseases and the vaccines. So exactly how do those itsy bitsy teeny tiny bits of stuff in a DTaP vaccine cause more harm that diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis? Because in reality that is what really needs to be compared.

      Like

      • Missing word: “The real question is the relative risk between the diseases and the vaccines.”

        Here is a fun fact: if you survive either tetanus or diphtheria you can get them again in no time. There is no “natural immunity” to either of those diseases (by the way, that also happens with strep infections!). Plus, after coughing your lungs out with pertussis for two months… you can get it again in just five years (or twenty, depending on how lucky you are).

        Yeah, worrying about itsy bitsy teeny tiny bits of stuff that are diluted to close to Avogadro’s Number is pretty pointless.

        Just out of curiosity you said: “Just to defend myself, I’ve also completed my degree,…”

        In what? Because I know not many disciplines require a full year of college chemistry. It was not a requirement for my degree, but I did it anyway (long story, it also includes why I took oceanography).

        Like

    • Also the blog posts I posted were very well referenced (with hyperlinks). I used them because it seems that you needed the limitations of that study focusing on itsy bitsy teeny tiny bits explained to you. The first one clearly explained the difficulties of using that electron microscope.

      The back of the books that I mentioned are also well referenced with lots of notes at the end of the book. The two by Deborah Blum are much more approachable than the first book.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Hi Cris, sorry, I have assumed you moderate this blog as well as you comment quite often here and you also have replied to the initial question. Thanks, I will check the book references you gave me as well.

    What I have expected from the answer, is an opinion about the study and some sort of clear explanation, why it is nothing to worry about and maybe some link (official study, CDC or some note from manufacturers, anything like that), where it’s been stated or just said so officially (not only in regard of that study, just re all components + toxicity in vaccines being manufactured). I am sure it has to be on a plain sight somewhere.

    Then, I haven’t tried to argue or start a debate, just was curious about metals they found and was it checked before that the numbers like you said. On vaccine label it sounds like ‘this is a definitive list of everything that may be’….so just fair to see that “nothing” consistently stays nothing and there is a process in place to control that.

    Like

  5. “(official study, CDC or some note from manufacturers, anything like that), where it’s been stated or just said so officially ”

    Why would the CDC care about a self published study done outside the USA by a pair of researchers they had never heard of? The only folks that have pushed this was the group, CMSRI, founded by the Dwoskin family, which has its own agenda. This was clearly stated in the first blog post I listed, which is written by a medical doctor with a PhD in biochemistry.

    But what you really needed to understand, other than who was claiming this was “significant”, was some basic chemistry and how to understand math notations of very small fractions. Especially what Avogadro’s Number means, and how the dose makes the poison.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s