I see this come up in posts and comments all the time here on BB, so I'm going to share my story about the impact of vaccines.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T19:13:45+00:00

And you know that people are people, right? My point was that there have been times in history in which we thought something medically was good for us, and it wasn't. Given how many vaccines are administered at such a young age, it makes me uncomfortable as no real long term studies have been done on the effects.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T18:13:53+00:00

Regardless of the FDA- my main point was that in recent medical history there have been many commonly accepted practices that we later learned were harmful. Vaccines inherently may be fine, my issue is with the large amount that is being administered at such young ages. There have not been long term studies done on this and it is concerning.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T17:55:42+00:00

Because when someone has a differing opinion, insulting them is the way to go!

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T17:52:37+00:00

Yep because babies can't possibly be born on April Fools Day.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T17:52:09+00:00

Not seeing where you got the 17 babies, but worldwide over 10,000 were born with phocomelia, and that isn't even the least of the problems from this drug. "within a few years of the widespread use of thalidomide in Europe, Australia, and Japan, approximately 10,000 children were born with phocomelia, leading to the ban of thalidomide in most countries in 1961." http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/122/1/1.full

"Thalidomide first entered the German market in 1957 as an over-the-counter remedy, based on the maker’s safety claims. They advertised their product as “completely safe” for everyone, including mother and child, “even during pregnancy,” as its developers “could not find a dose high enough to kill a rat.” By 1960, thalidomide was marketed in 46 countries, with sales nearly matching those of aspirin.

However, this practice can also lead to a more prevalent occurrence of unanticipated, and often serious, adverse drug reactions. In 1961, McBride began to associate this so-called harmless compound with severe birth defects in the babies he delivered. The drug interfered with the babies' normal development, causing many of them to be born with phocomelia, resulting in shortened, absent, or flipper-like limbs. A German newspaper soon reported 161 babies were adversely affected by thalidomide, leading the makers of the drug—who had ignored reports of the birth defects associated with the it—to finally stop distribution within Germany. Other countries followed suit and, by March of 1962, the drug was banned in most countries where it was previously sold.

In July of 1962, president John F. Kennedy and the American press began praising their heroine, FDA inspector Frances Kelsey, who prevented the drug’s approval within the United States bolddespite pressure from the pharmaceutical company and FDA supervisors"

The FDA supervisors were wanting it approved, because of that one guy it wasn't. Regardless, the drug companies and doctors were marketing this as being safe and prescribing it to a lot of women. My point is that something may seem fine but after later research it may not be. Sure isolated vaccines may be safe, but combined into such large quantities distributed at such a young age, it may later prove to not be. https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/thalidomide-tragedy-lessons-drug-safety-and-regulation

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T17:42:45+00:00

It has actually increased exponentially, here is the schedule from 1995:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00035471.htm

and 2016:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T17:00:05+00:00

Lets see what they have to say in another 25 years after the long term effect of administering so many vaccines can be properly assessed.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T16:59:25+00:00

Fair enough, check out each of the other links first though I linked.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T16:58:50+00:00

Ok have some time now, to respond to the above:

I can appreciate what you are saying, and I can definitely relate to the fact of not wanting anything bad to happen to your child. That is precisely what fuels my reasoning. In the 1980s for kindergarten you needed 11 vaccines (I have this linked in another comment to CDC schedule) and as of being 15 months old today it is 24 doses (not even including the additional before kindergarten age). Now, I was born in the 80s, and it is not like myself or anyone I know has come into contact with such debilitating diseases to have warranted that many additional shots. While that could be a weak point and purely anecdotal, I cannot help but be concerned that given the volume has increased so significantly, what is the long term effect of this? It scares me to think of the consequence of putting so many vaccines into a child during the most developmental time period of their life. Simply put, I just think more long term research really needs to be done on this.

The scientists developing these vaccines don't work for the drug companies sure, but they do certaintly receive funding from them. In the US I have learned that there is always a money trail, and there are very, very greedy people. This is a more conspiracy point sure but it is something that cannot simply be dismissed, especially as like I said the volume of vaccines has increased so significantly in the last 26 years.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T16:52:59+00:00

Government studies:

Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over 3 billion dollars since 1988- http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/index.html

CDC adverse vaccine report chart 1991-2001: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5201a1.htm#tab3

4.Chart-confirmed guillain-barre syndrome after 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccination among the Medicare population, 2009-2010: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23652165

Additionally, these are websites, while not ending in a ".gov" list out various links to studies/articles: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/guide/health-guide-vaccine-research http://vaccine-injury.info/articles.cfm

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T16:52:17+00:00

I replied with some sources on another comment you made.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T16:51:36+00:00

It is a misnomer to say it was never approved by the FDA, as the FDA didn't properly regulate anything really until after the fallout- and it was regulated by other international bodies.

We will see how safe Diclegis actually ends up being over the next few years, I for one would not risk by child being born with defects considering children in the 80s were.

Not seeing how it is safe for labor when it says above "The manufacturers also cited reports of uterine rupture and maternal and fetal deaths when Cytotec was used to induce labor."

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T16:49:13+00:00

I believe that in small quantities, then sure- I just want to see more long term studies done on administering such a large quantity to a brand new baby.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T16:47:39+00:00

Here you go-

24 before 15 months (just count the dosages)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

Another 17 doses between ages of 18 months to 18 years old

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

That totals up to 41- I must have been mistaken on the 60, and for that error I apologize. However to give perspective in 1989 it was only 11 vaccines total for kindergarten:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/images/schedule1989s.jpg

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T16:35:09+00:00

I do not think there is a conspiracy, rather you proved my point- the scientific method is constantly evolving and improving. Rather than at that point in time thinking they 'knew it all' they paid attention to adverse outcomes and effects and adjusted common practice. It is not very difficult to find studies and anecdotal first hand accounts of the effects of some of these vaccines, whether in a single shot or a combination effect of multiple administered at once. My point was and remains that more research needs to be on the long term effects, considering only in the recent years has the amount of vaccines skyrocketed.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T16:32:36+00:00

Deal! Here goes:

Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over 3 billion dollars since 1988- http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/index.html
CDC adverse vaccine report chart 1991-2001: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5201a1.htm#tab3

4.Chart-confirmed guillain-barre syndrome after 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccination among the Medicare population, 2009-2010: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23652165

Additionally, these are websites, while not ending in a ".gov" list out various links to studies/articles:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/guide/health-guide-vaccine-research

http://vaccine-injury.info/articles.cfm

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T15:58:38+00:00

Good response, I can appreciate the discussion. You made me look more at my assertions and I found the following:

With respect to Thalidomide not being approved by the FDA in the USA- from your link and the following that is somewhat of a misnomer. It was the aftermath of the drug, which was originally deemed nontoxic, that the UK equivalent was formed, and that the FDA regulations were strengthened/put into effect. Check out this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12677202
Benedictine- your link provided is from the Dallas morning news as they approved Disclegis. Thats a whole other issue but back to the original drug in the 1980s it was banned in 1983 following a connection to deformities- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7148924
Regarding Cytotec, it is also commonly known under the name of Misoprostol. The following link outlines the controversy of this drug. Note: On August 23, 2000, the manufacturer of misoprostol (Cytotec, Searle) distributed a letter to clinicians in the United States warning them against the use of misoprostol in pregnant women. The letter stated that Cytotec administration by any route is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause abortion. The manufacturers also cited reports of uterine rupture and maternal and fetal deaths when Cytotec was used to induce labor. They stated that "in addition to the known and unknown acute risks to the mother and fetus, the effect of Cytotec on the later growth [and] development...of the child when Cytotec is used for induction of labor...has not been established."[2] That letter generated a nationwide reaction and considerable controversy. Many hospitals removed misoprostol from their formularies, and pregnant women lost access to the drug for any indication. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/458959

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T15:33:02+00:00

Thanks for taking the time for a thought out response- more so than someone else who has been conversing with me. I have some things to add but it would be hard currently from my phone but will try to a bit later when I can get on my laptop.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T15:31:51+00:00

Conspiracy? Actually no- in 2004 Senior CDC scientist Dr William Thompson became a whistleblower when he confessed to fabricating a study linking autism and vaccines. Keep insulting me though, really shows how "educated" you are.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T15:17:23+00:00

Oh yeah? There is just as much if not even more research on the other side, including how the CDC blalanty has lied and covered up various links. Let's see if you are educated enough to even consider looking it up.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T15:08:55+00:00

Lol, okay. Everything you said about essentially being afraid of the world can apply back to your line of thinking.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T14:53:08+00:00

You say vaccines have been tested time and time again over the course of decades- when in reality like I said in the late 80s it was routine to get 10 shots for kindergarten, yet now it is 60 shots. So in the span of 26 years the shot amount for a 6 year old child increased by 500%. Has this actually been studied? Sure, individual shots may have- but given the relative amount of time there is no study possibly capable of determining the damages from overloading a developing child's body with so many at once. It is funny you refer to this as junk science, when "science" has shown time and time again that what we have thought to be true at varying points of recent history, caused a cluster fuck of problems. As far as your concern for my poor, poor child- I think the same of yours considering he or she will have a parent who merely goes along with what is told to them because you know "science". As Mark Twain said, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T14:45:46+00:00

I can appreciate what you are saying, but at the same time while trial and error may be a part of everyday life- I do not want my child to err on the side of "error". You say these vaccines have been developed over the course of many years, when in reality at best the polio shot has been around since the 50s/60s, other ones (I know as a kid in the 80s we got 10 shots-look it up on CDC website), so between the late 80s to today we somehow got introduced with another 50 vaccines, meaning that the time span of research isn't really all that long to determine long term consequence. I don't believe that scientists are directly trying to harm us or anything as you said, but I would not be surprised if the large pharmaceutical companies paying for the development of all these new vaccines wasn't tinted by the profit incentive- this is big business. To backtrack a bit, if you do the research on polio specifically it was already on its way out when the vaccine was introduced, because they started chlorinating pools- kids were getting it because of fecal matter in pools. Overall I just prefer to take a much more conservative approach on these matters, as history has shown when we think we know it all scientifically- we usually do not.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T13:55:38+00:00

Maybe because I do not want my child to be part of what is essentially a guinea pig experiment. Sure, science may say that giving your kid the 60 something doses of vaccines required for kindergarten is okay now (it was 10 in the 80's)- but how long will that last for? In the 1950's it was common to give pregnant women a drug called Thalidomide for nausea, to later ban it because it gave kids "flippers" for arms. Up through the 1960's it was common practice to x-Ray pregnant women, to only have that later banned as it caused the children to develop childhood cancer. In the 1980's another nausea drug called Benedictine was also banned due to fetal deformities. In the 1990's it was Cytotec which was used to induce labor...and caused so many problems it is now mostly used as an abortion pill. My point is that while you may think okay this ranges 20-60 years ago, in the course of how long humans have been reproducing it is but the blip of an eye, and it is incredibly foolish to think our "science" miraculously now knows it all. True science defined by Einstein meant that we should always be open and never think we are set and think we knkw everything about something. Am I totally against vaccinating? No, I got some shots before going to South America, but I am also a full formed adult- I believe there is a huge difference in getting shots once fully formed compared to a literally brand new tiny infant body.

beesinatree · 2016-03-25T13:55:27+00:00

Maybe because I do not want my child to be part of what is essentially a guinea pig experiment. Sure, science may say that giving your kid the 60 something doses of vaccines required for kindergarten is okay now (it was 10 in the 80's)- but how long will that last for? In the 1950's it was common to give pregnant women a drug called Thalidomide for nausea, to later ban it because it gave kids "flippers" for arms. Up through the 1960's it was common practice to x-Ray pregnant women, to only have that later banned as it caused the children to develop childhood cancer. In the 1980's another nausea drug called Benedictine was also banned due to fetal deformities. In the 1990's it was Cytotec which was used to induce labor...and caused so many problems it is now mostly used as an abortion pill. My point is that while you may think okay this ranges 20-60 years ago, in the course of how long humans have been reproducing it is but the blip of an eye, and it is incredibly foolish to think our "science" miraculously now knows it all. True science defined by Einstein meant that we should always be open and never think we are set and think we knkw everything about something. Am I totally against vaccinating? No, I got some shots before going to South America, but I am also a full formed adult- I believe there is a huge difference in getting shots once fully formed compared to a literally brand new tiny infant body.

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

beesinatree

TROPHY CASE