Lancet retracts study linking autism to vaccines

[Porridge]

Date: 2/3/2010 5:24:26 AM
Author: Pandora II

Date: 2/2/2010 3:05:00 PM

Author: Maisie

I wonder how many children weren''t vaccinated because of that so called research.

Here in London, enormous numbers are not vaccinated and kids are dying of measles - in my borough we''ve had measles epidemics every year for the last 5 years.



There are also lots of university students getting Mumps at the moment due to not having had the MMR - mumps can cause sterility in young men.



Dr Wakefield should be struck off for the damage he has caused.

We are experiencing a measles outbreak here in Ireland too for the same reason. First one in yeeeeaaaaaaars. First one since that man and Jenny McCarthy caused all that damage. Kids are dying. People are so obsessed with conspiracy theories and notions that healthcare workers spend yeeeears in college and looong hours working with the intention of causing sly damage to unsuspecting patients. For god''s sake people...there are far easier ways to cause damage!!!

Phew. Ditto he should be struck off, even if only for his methods.

 

[SapphireLover]

Yay! Some people who agree with sense and reason.

I can''t believe I''ve just been listening to an article on the radio about this. They had Fiona Philips (former breakfast tv presenter turned self styled martyr/ campaigner) was on the radio still saying that autism is caused by MMR. She was so arrogant and indignant about it. It really gets my goat going that she was given so much airtime when the original research has been discredited. FACT. I understand that in American Jenny MacCarthy is doing something similar. It really upsets me how "celebs" get involved in things like this and cause more damage.

 

[VRBeauty]

Date: 2/3/2010 5:24:26 AM
Author: Pandora II

Date: 2/2/2010 3:05:00 PM

Author: Maisie

I wonder how many children weren''t vaccinated because of that so called research.

Here in London, enormous numbers are not vaccinated and kids are dying of measles - in my borough we''ve had measles epidemics every year for the last 5 years.

There are also lots of university students getting Mumps at the moment due to not having had the MMR - mumps can cause sterility in young men.

Dr Wakefield should be struck off for the damage he has caused.

So... I''m assuming "struck off" is different from "knocked off"?



Thanks for posting this, HH. Unfortunately it''ll take more than the discrediting of this one study -- even if it was the basis for the supposed vaccination/autism link -- for that belief to die.

 

[Prana]

Thanks for posting this! I had a feeling there was no relation...

 

[yssie]

It''s about time!

I''m just glad he pulled the plug on his own nonsense - more people will be forced to reevaluate.






I agree that few, if any, practicing physicians/med students I''ve known found it credible anyway.. the dangers are in the few but vocal zealots.

 

[lulu]

Okay, ever since I read that one out of every 100 children will be diagnosed with autism I''ve been thinking about it-almost obsessively. That''s a startling number. I have no medical background and you folks appear to be very knowledgeable. So what theories remain viable?

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 2/3/2010 9:06:49 PM
Author: lulu
Okay, ever since I read that one out of every 100 children will be diagnosed with autism I've been thinking about it-almost obsessively. That's a startling number. I have no medical background and you folks appear to be very knowledgeable. So what theories remain viable?

Nothing vaccine related.

You should also realize that although kids are being diagnosed in higher numbers it does not necessarily mean that there is an actual increase in autism. It may simply be an increase in diagnoses. Prior to autism these kids were usually labelled as mentally ill or in crasser terms, retarded.

And you realize that 1 out of 100 is only 1% right? That's not really a lot. And there is a wide berth on the autistic spectrum. Not all kids will be the child that you think of when you think of an autistic child. Lots of kids are mildly autistic and you would probably never know it.

When we look for things we find them. When we don't look for things we don't. Now we are on the hunt for autism, so we find it.

 

[lulu]

Thanks for putting it into perspective neatfreak. Funny how 1% sound so much better than one out of a hundred! But what are the theories that are still alive and walking?

 

[ksinger]

Date: 2/3/2010 9:25:02 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 2/3/2010 9:06:49 PM
Author: lulu
Okay, ever since I read that one out of every 100 children will be diagnosed with autism I''ve been thinking about it-almost obsessively. That''s a startling number. I have no medical background and you folks appear to be very knowledgeable. So what theories remain viable?

Nothing vaccine related.

You should also realize that although kids are being diagnosed in higher numbers it does not necessarily mean that there is an actual increase in autism. It may simply be an increase in diagnoses. Prior to autism these kids were usually labelled as mentally ill or in crasser terms, retarded.

And you realize that 1 out of 100 is only 1% right? That''s not really a lot. And there is a wide berth on the autistic spectrum. Not all kids will be the child that you think of when you think of an autistic child. Lots of kids are mildly autistic and you would probably never know it.

When we look for things we find them. When we don''t look for things we don''t. Now we are on the hunt for autism, so we find it.

Hey Neat, here is a link that I put in a duplicate thread I accidentally opened in The Hangout. It is VERY interesting and right in line with what you''re saying. I think I called it food for thought.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703422904575039351632663996.html?mod=WSJ-hpp-MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 2/3/2010 9:45:31 PM
Author: lulu
Thanks for putting it into perspective neatfreak. Funny how 1% sound so much better than one out of a hundred! But what are the theories that are still alive and walking?

Genetic predisposition, gene environment interactions, in utero maternal environmental exposure, and many many other possible factors.

If we already know exactly what factors cause this disorder we will all be running to the cure right now. Unfortunately most medical illnesses and scientific puzzle are NOT EASY to understand completely. What we can do is to help ourselves to learn as much as we can in the path to find cure.

 

[RockHugger]

Vocal Zealot here: Like I said in the other thread, I wonder where the money trail starts with this one. With evey 'disproven autism link' study, or retraction, there is a WHO, or pharma honcho footing the bill. But when MERCK publishes a safety study in a journal, they are allowed to site themselves as a referance.

The measles is another thing. The measles vaccine on the market doesnt work. Bacteria and viruses mutate, and the measles has mutated past the capabilities of the vaccine. So instead of taking the blame, pharma companies blame those who dont vaccinate for the outbreaks. Measles are also a very treatable illness. Not the death note we are told it is. How do I know? My 8 year old (who was fully vaccinated against measles) contracted it. She had a bad fever for 3 days, and a rash for 3 days. Then was better. Why is it these illnesses were typical every day illnesses (and they had MEASLES PARTYS 50 yrs ago!) but then when the vaccine comes out it is suddenly a horrible disease? Because of MONEY. Fear=cash. Thats why chickenpox is now considered a killer by doctors.

Anyone who truely believes vaccines are safe, all I ask is to look up the vaccines on the VAERS.HHS.Gov. It is the government vaccine reaction website. The CDC estimates only 10% of reactions are even submitted to Vaers. You know, if a SHAMPOO causes a minor rash on 1% of the people who use it it is RECALLED! But it is OK for THOUSANDS of children to die or be damaged for life with a vaccine?!

The dreaded measles on my smiling baby (3 yrs old). Day 1 of the rash (it got alot darker by day 2-3). Deff. isnt something I am afraid of with my unvaccinated 2 yr old.
ETA: By the way...my child has autism and started showing signs after her DTaP shot at 6 months. So yes, I do think there is a connection and no amount of studies will ever change my mind, or the minds of hundreds of thousands of parents who KNOW why.

 

[RockHugger]

Yeah....1% sounds REAL funny when your child is effected. HA HA.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 2/3/2010 11:49:29 PM
Author: RockHugger
Yeah....1% sounds REAL funny when your child is effected. HA HA.

I understand that it's frustrating to hear when your child is the 1% that is affected by a particular disease. And I understand that of course as a parent with a child with autism that you want to find out the cause. I know if my kids end up being autistic or having any number of conditions I would want answers (and yes I have kids now).

But I would love to know of any credible research that you know of that supports your belief that vaccines and autism are linked? I am serious, if you have research I would love to read it.

This study that is being discussed was biased in every way possible. It's not about money here-the Lancet does not publish retractions everyday and for them to do it there have to be serious allegations against the researcher, which there were. He likely will lose his medical license because of the way he falsified his research. NOTHING about his findings was credible and as far as I know this was the only study that actually has found this link. Other studies that have attempted to replicate his findings have not found any connection whatsoever. I urge you to look this man up and see the charges against him. It is about a lot more than money. He broke every ethical rule in the book and then lied about his results. THAT is why it is being retracted.

Vaccines may not be perfect, but the diseases that they protect against are real threats. There are many children, babies, elderly, and people who are immunocompromised that DO die or are severely disfigured by these diseases every year. The danger of the diseases themselves far outweigh the risks of the vaccines IMO.

 

[CNOS128]

RockHugger, I''m so glad your child did not suffer a severe case of the measles, and in fact had an easily treatable case (n = 1). But many children do die from measles and it should be considered a serious illness -- especially in developing countries, where vaccines are unavailable. And I''m sure the "dreaded measles," as you call it, isn''t so easy to dismiss for those whose children have perished because of it.

 

[RockHugger]

I understand what you are saying...but on the other hand, children are also dying every day from these vaccines. Personally, I would rather take the small risk of a complication from one of these illnesses (and the risk of death from measles, mumps, pertussis, ect is VERY VERY small...UNDER 1%) then inject my child with something I KNOW can kill her (See VAERS) or cause lifelong injury. You mention in developing countries. But people dont die often from the measles in developed countries. So why vaccinate in countries that have a low death rate? Out of convienence? Personally, I would rather have my child in the hospital with an IV for 2-3 days (and have MANY times due to other illnesses) then suffer seizures for the rest of her life, or live with autism. Now in countries that cant handle complications, yes the vaccine would outweigh the risk. But it no longer outweighs the risk in the deveolped countries of the world.

Do you know why there isnt a 'credible' study done on the link to autism or other serious illness blamed on vaccines? Because if there is a 'credible' link to be found, the damages to the medical industry would colapse the whole system. Could you imagin the law suits to doctors, pharmacys, govmt, ect that would result? And the loss of trust to those mentioned? There have been many people higher up in the WHO, CDC and APA who have been proven to recieve money from the pharmacy industry as 'donations'. They wont bite the hand that feeds them.

There have been smaller independent studies done that offer a link (one that pops in my head uses the amish). But they are not labled as 'credible' because of their size, and because they are not done by a big orginazation (see above). In FACT that study done that DISPROVES the link to autism was so outragious, and the people complainted about its 'credibility' to much the CDC posted on its own webpage that it wasnt an accurate study and more need to be done (there was a HUGE money trail proven). Please look it up on CDC.gov. But there have yet to be more studies. Why not? Because there foundation study was proven to be false, and they arnt going to conduct one they know will make them fall.

They do studies up the wazoo on lead, and BPA because of complaints about the effects on out children. Well millions of americans are crying out for a reliable study (with NO money trail to pharma) about the health risks of these heavy metals in vaccines and there has yet to be another one! Why the heck is that?!

Now from a different angle...
If you found out your babys formula contained mercury, aluminim (a neuro toxin), or formeldayde, would you still feed it to him/her?

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

As someone who was raised by a scientific researcher (large-scale NIH studies), I find the previous comments about a big pharma conspiracy to be laughable.

People can have reactions to ANYTHING ingested, injected or applied into/on their bodies. Unfortunately, some people have a stronger reaction than others and it may lead to death or permanent damage. Do I consider the pharma company to be at fault for this? Absolutely not. I think when you decide to vaccinate or treat with medication you have to weigh the pros and cons, the risks and benefits. One risk is that of the unknown.

For me, I will side with science and medicine and trust my doctors and pharmacist. My children will be vaccinated because after researching the topic, speaking with various people in the scientific community, and speaking with acquaintances with children or other family members with autism, I personally do not believe there's a connection. You may view this as naive, and that's ok; but I'm also allowed to view your feeling on the subject to be off-the-wall and unfounded.

RH, I understand your perspective and I respect the experience you've had as a parent of a child with special needs; however, I feel your conspiracy theories are undermining your credibility in this instance.

 

[RockHugger]

Its not a conspiracy theory. It is proven fact! Anyone who does a few hrs of research on the subject will see the money trails. All these medical books doctors are given in college. Look up who makes them and who the credit is given to. MOST of them are MERK or Pfitzer. The 'conspiracy theory' excuse people use, is just an excuse to not believe what is being said, because you dont want to believe it..so you discredit me saying its a 'conspiracy theory'.

And all the parents (or not yet to be parents) who do not have a child with autism...would you seriously not make a link if your child developed symptoms within days or 2 weeks after getting a vaccine? I know I was the same as you HH, till it happened to us. The whole 1 in 100 or 1% makes it sound like its not a huge deal. Intill it happens to your child, and those numbers mean absolutely nothing.

And HH, please answer my question. Would you feed your new born baby formula containing mercury formeldayde or aluminum? I am not picking on you...I ask that to everyone here who is pro vaccine.

 

[MonkeyPie]

OT, but RH, I thought your child had Downs? That is completely different from autism.

I''m not even going to get into the conspiracy theories here, because that is exactly what it is, a THEORY. Unless you have a finger in the pot yourself there is no way to know all the things you are claiming. Yes, it is a real fact that your child got the measles and thankfully, she was able to get over it without any problems. THAT IS NOT THE CASE FOR EVERY CHILD. The FACT is that no vaccine can predict how the masses will react to an illness, it can only prevent what it is able. And the FACT is that before the MMR vaccine came into being, children died very regularly from what is a fairly simple disease. Otherwise why do you think the vaccine even came into being? If it were a simple thing to treat, like a cold, we would have been letting nature take its course all along. That is just not the case, and no amount of conspiracy theory will change that.

 

[princesss]

Date: 2/4/2010 8:41:12 AM
Author: RockHugger
And HH, please answer my question. Would you feed your new born baby formula containing mercury formeldayde or aluminum? I am not picking on you...I ask that to everyone here who is pro vaccine.

Not a parent, but as somebody that is VERY pro-vaccine, if that formula had the same proven results and the same risks as vaccines (because there is risk, and it is unfortunate that some kids react badly to the vaccines), yes. I would shove that bottle in their mouth so fast I'd give the Flash a run for his money.

You ask why vaccinate in a country with low mortality rates? Because it's vaccinating that keeps the mortality rates down. It's not like diseases recognize borders, and having a history of low mortality rates would keep killer diseases at bay. If we (and this is we as a country) fail to vaccinate our children, we put them at far more serious risk than if we don't. Kids die of these diseases in developing countries because they are not vaccinated. That's not a risk I'm willing to take with my (hypothetical) child's life.

 

[RockHugger]

My child has Down syndrome as well as autism. Duo diagnosis.

No no no...I dont mean low death rate in general. I am talking a low death rate in those who CONTRACT the measles. Death rate is VERY low, under 1% in those who CONTRACT the measles. As well as Pertussis, mumps and rubella.
Kids die in developing countries because they dont have the medical treatment available IF a complication occures. We do!
Many developing countries the children are malnourished thus leaving their bodies more suseptable to disease and death.

This quote always bothers me and I hear it all the time "That's why kids die of these diseases in developing countries - because they are not vaccinated.". As if the vaccines are what are keeping us alive. Our bodies are designed to fight off illness and disease, and have been WAY before the invent of vaccines. Yes complications occure, but in contries where we have access to medical care the risk of these severe complications are low.

I wonder if you would feel the same about the formula question after you have kids...

 

[meresal]

Date: 2/4/2010 7:45:28 AM
Author: RockHugger
I understand what you are saying...but on the other hand, children are also dying every day from these vaccines. Personally, I would rather take the small risk of a complication from one of these illnesses (and the risk of death from measles, mumps, pertussis, ect is VERY VERY small...UNDER 1%) then inject my child with something I KNOW can kill her (See VAERS) or cause lifelong injury. You mention in developing countries. But people dont die often from the measles in developed countries. So why vaccinate in countries that have a low death rate? Out of convienence? Personally, I would rather have my child in the hospital with an IV for 2-3 days (and have MANY times due to other illnesses) then suffer seizures for the rest of her life, or live with autism. Now in countries that cant handle complications, yes the vaccine would outweigh the risk. But it no longer outweighs the risk in the deveolped countries of the world.

In one post you say that a 1% risk of Austim isn't so easy to swallow when it is YOUR child who developed Autism... but then in this post you dismiss a 1% chance of DEATH as being nothing to worry about.

It's not that their isn't "risk" in developed countries. It is YOUR opinion that THIS 1% is worth the vaccination.

 

[RockHugger]

Date: 2/4/2010 9:53:55 AM
Author: meresal

Date: 2/4/2010 7:45:28 AM
Author: RockHugger
I understand what you are saying...but on the other hand, children are also dying every day from these vaccines. Personally, I would rather take the small risk of a complication from one of these illnesses (and the risk of death from measles, mumps, pertussis, ect is VERY VERY small...UNDER 1%) then inject my child with something I KNOW can kill her (See VAERS) or cause lifelong injury. You mention in developing countries. But people dont die often from the measles in developed countries. So why vaccinate in countries that have a low death rate? Out of convienence? Personally, I would rather have my child in the hospital with an IV for 2-3 days (and have MANY times due to other illnesses) then suffer seizures for the rest of her life, or live with autism. Now in countries that cant handle complications, yes the vaccine would outweigh the risk. But it no longer outweighs the risk in the deveolped countries of the world.

In one post you say that a 1% risk of Austim isn''t so easy to swallow when it is YOUR child who developed Autism... but then in this post you dismiss a 1% chance of DEATH as being nothing to worry about.

It''s not that thier isn''t ''risk'' in developed countries. It is YOUR opinion that THIS 1% is worth the vaccination.

Your twisting my words. Under 1%. If people are comparing risks of vaccinating and risks of not, the risks of vaccinating are higher. And that is just Autsim. The risk % doesnt include seizure disorders, cancers, deaths, allergic reactions ect.

 

[princesss]

Date: 2/4/2010 9:53:39 AM
Author: RockHugger
My child has Down syndrome as well as autism. Duo diagnosis.

No no no...I dont mean low death rate in general. I am talking a low death rate in those who CONTRACT the measles. Death rate is VERY low, under 1% in those who CONTRACT the measles. As well as Pertussis, mumps and rubella.
Kids die in developing countries because they dont have the medical treatment available IF a complication occures. We do!
Many developing countries the children are malnourished thus leaving their bodies more suseptable to disease and death.

This quote always bothers me and I hear it all the time ''That''s why kids die of these diseases in developing countries - because they are not vaccinated.''. As if the vaccines are what are keeping us alive. Our bodies are designed to fight off illness and disease, and have been WAY before the invent of vaccines. Yes complications occure, but in contries where we have access to medical care the risk of these severe complications are low.

I wonder if you would feel the same about the formula question after you have kids...

I''ve lived in developing countries, and I can tell you that children do die because they do not have vaccines. Period. Children in villages with little or no medical aid available die of things we can vaccinate against. In many cases, vaccines ARE what''s keeping kids alive. No, your kid may not die because they have ready access to hospitals, but for children that don''t these vaccines can keep them from getting fatal diseases.

And as for feeling the same about the formula question, we won''t know until I have kids. But given that I intend to give my children the same life I had, they''ll be getting all the vaccines kids here get and more.

 

[meresal]

Date: 2/4/2010 9:57:30 AM
Author: RockHugger

Date: 2/4/2010 9:53:55 AM
Author: meresal

Date: 2/4/2010 7:45:28 AM
Author: RockHugger
I understand what you are saying...but on the other hand, children are also dying every day from these vaccines. Personally, I would rather take the small risk of a complication from one of these illnesses (and the risk of death from measles, mumps, pertussis, ect is VERY VERY small...UNDER 1%) then inject my child with something I KNOW can kill her (See VAERS) or cause lifelong injury. You mention in developing countries. But people dont die often from the measles in developed countries. So why vaccinate in countries that have a low death rate? Out of convienence? Personally, I would rather have my child in the hospital with an IV for 2-3 days (and have MANY times due to other illnesses) then suffer seizures for the rest of her life, or live with autism. Now in countries that cant handle complications, yes the vaccine would outweigh the risk. But it no longer outweighs the risk in the deveolped countries of the world.

In one post you say that a 1% risk of Austim isn't so easy to swallow when it is YOUR child who developed Autism... but then in this post you dismiss a 1% chance of DEATH as being nothing to worry about.

It's not that thier isn't 'risk' in developed countries. It is YOUR opinion that THIS 1% is worth the vaccination.

Your twisting my words. Under 1%. If people are comparing risks of vaccinating and risks of not, the risks of vaccinating are higher. And that is just Autsim. The risk % doesnt include seizure disorders, cancers, deaths, allergic reactions ect.

I did not intend to twist your words. I am just pointing out that 1% is 1%.

But as in all studies and statistics, you can twist them to benefit whichever side you are trying to argue.

I am not trying to argue, I just wanted you to see that for some of us, that "Under 1%" risk IS indeed worth it. Just like that 1% of Autism is worth it for you to NOT get the vaccine.

ETA: I guess what I don't understand, is instead of hating the vaccine system, why not push for better research to update that vaccines that we do have?

 

[RockHugger]

*Children in villages with little or no medical aid available die of things we can vaccinate against.*

EXACTLY! I am not arguing giving kids in developing countries vaccinations!! I am arguing giving kids vaccinations in developed countries where the risk of the vaccine does NOT outweigh the risks of the disease.

 

[chemgirl]

If it became common practice to not vaccinate, and these diseases were treated with antibiotics, we would end up with a lot of antibiotic resistant bacteria! I''m more concerned with having multiple strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria that are nolonger covered by the old vaccines due to mutation. Vaccines rob these bacteria of the chance to become something far more dangerous than they are currently.

Also, I''m curious as to what is actually in antibiotic as far as toxic material is concerned. I know that bioreactors used to produce certain antibiotics (ie semi synthetic penicillins) require addition of acid and base to maintain their desirable pH. There will be residual salts in the fermentation broth. Separations after the fact is not 100%.

My point is that claiming that we can treat these diseases with antibiotic rather than vaccination isn''t really ideal

 

[RockHugger]

Date: 2/4/2010 10:10:15 AM
Author: meresal

Date: 2/4/2010 9:57:30 AM
Author: RockHugger

Date: 2/4/2010 9:53:55 AM
Author: meresal

Date: 2/4/2010 7:45:28 AM
Author: RockHugger
I understand what you are saying...but on the other hand, children are also dying every day from these vaccines. Personally, I would rather take the small risk of a complication from one of these illnesses (and the risk of death from measles, mumps, pertussis, ect is VERY VERY small...UNDER 1%) then inject my child with something I KNOW can kill her (See VAERS) or cause lifelong injury. You mention in developing countries. But people dont die often from the measles in developed countries. So why vaccinate in countries that have a low death rate? Out of convienence? Personally, I would rather have my child in the hospital with an IV for 2-3 days (and have MANY times due to other illnesses) then suffer seizures for the rest of her life, or live with autism. Now in countries that cant handle complications, yes the vaccine would outweigh the risk. But it no longer outweighs the risk in the deveolped countries of the world.

In one post you say that a 1% risk of Austim isn''t so easy to swallow when it is YOUR child who developed Autism... but then in this post you dismiss a 1% chance of DEATH as being nothing to worry about.

It''s not that thier isn''t ''risk'' in developed countries. It is YOUR opinion that THIS 1% is worth the vaccination.

Your twisting my words. Under 1%. If people are comparing risks of vaccinating and risks of not, the risks of vaccinating are higher. And that is just Autsim. The risk % doesnt include seizure disorders, cancers, deaths, allergic reactions ect.

I did not intend to twist your words. I am just pointing out that 1% is 1%.

But as in all studies and statistics, you can twist them to benefit whichever side you are trying to argue.

I am not trying to argue, I just wanted you to see that for some of us, that ''Under 1%'' risk IS indeed worth it. Just like that 1% of Autism is worth it for you to NOT get the vaccine.

You are right. But that is why people should educate themselves on BOTH sides...not just the pro vax side, and decide what is best for your children children.

 

[RockHugger]

Date: 2/4/2010 10:11:47 AM
Author: chemgirl
If it became common practice to not vaccinate, and these diseases were treated with antibiotics, we would end up with a lot of antibiotic resistant bacteria! I'm more concerned with having multiple strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria that are nolonger covered by the old vaccines due to mutation. Vaccines rob these bacteria of the chance to become something far more dangerous than they are currently.

Also, I'm curious as to what is actually in antibiotic as far as toxic material is concerned. I know that bioreactors used to produce certain antibiotics (ie semi synthetic penicillins) require addition of acid and base to maintain their desirable pH. There will be residual salts in the fermentation broth. Separations after the fact is not 100%.

My point is that claiming that we can treat these diseases with antibiotic rather than vaccination isn't really ideal

Most the vaccine 'preventable' diseases are viruses and would not use antibiotics. For many of the complications, IV fluids and fever control are the treatement.

My youngest (2) has never come into contact with an antibiotic. She has never had a bacterial infection and if she did, I actually use raw garlic smoothies for that (dont get me wrong, I give the 'treatment' 3 days to work, if it doesnt I would use antibiotics...but it has never come to that). It contains Acillin wich is a natural antibiotic (effective against MRSA BTW). I mix raw garlic cloves, veggies, and applecider vinager together and have the kids drink it 2x a day when there is an illness.
As hokey as it sounds it works wonders. I had a MRSA infection and was hospitalized on and off for 4 months on heavy antibiotics including Vancomyacin and Zyvox. I said screw this and invented my 'garlic smoothie'. I have been MRSA free sence. But that is a whole 'nother topic .

 

[princesss]

Date: 2/4/2010 10:10:41 AM
Author: RockHugger
*Children in villages with little or no medical aid available die of things we can vaccinate against.*

EXACTLY! I am not arguing giving kids in developing countries vaccinations!! I am arguing giving kids vaccinations in developed countries where the risk of the vaccine does NOT outweigh the risks of the disease.

The risk TO YOU does not outweigh the risk of the disease. My (again, hypothetical) child having to possibly fight off multiple vicious diseases that can (and do) leave the children disfigured and/or dead, or risking being in the 1% that suffers serious side effects is not a question to me. I'd rather risk being in the one percent than being in the percentage of children that are negatively affected by these diseases (which, and I'm sorry I don't have numbers on me, is obviously higher than 1% since we felt the need to develop a vaccine against them).

Even with medical intervention, there are VERY serious complications from diseases that we vaccinate against, and they would affect far more than 1% of the population if we allowed them to come back.

 

[MonkeyPie]

As I once said in the "other" vaccine thread, if MY child became ill and/or died because someone was sooooo afraid of vaccines that they didn''t get their kids vaccinated, I WILL FREAKING SUE YOU.

Not vaccinating your kids is like shoving your bible down my throat when I don''t believe in your religion, with much more dire consequences.