Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Vaccination Debate (13 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    I haven't researched this much, but I do not like the tone of the media and it does seem like a very concerted effort to marginalize people who are looking into things for themselves. The tone I am hearing is very dismissive and anti-democratic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court

    From 1988 until 8 January 2008, 5,263 claims relating to autism, and 2,865 non-autism claims, were made to the VICP. 925 of these claims, one autism-related (see previous rulings), were compensated, with 1,158 non-autism and 350 autism claims dismissed; awards (including attorney's fees) totaled $847 million

    Jim Carrey denounces new Calif. vaccine law in Twitter rant

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/...

    Posted 9 years ago #
  2. truthmover
    Administrator

    Just like every topic that calls mainstream convention into question this topic is dominated by those speaking without nuance.

    Sure, we should be skeptical of the health of vaccines. I don't want any mercury at all injected into babies.

    But 1) vaccines are an essential part of 20th century medicine. And 2) when you don't vaccinate your kids you put other people at risk.

    It is strongly in the interest of public health that people vaccinate their kids. And a major majority of people questioning that necessity are very seriously misinformed.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  3. BrianG
    Member

    But consider this: suppose that when you submit your children to the vaccine, it is demanded that you verify your identity. Suppose that after your identity is verified, you have to sit for a couple of hours waiting for the injection. How do you know that a "routine" vaccination has not been converted to a custom-made vaccination just for your children?

    If it's not happening now, it will happen in the future.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  4. mark
    Member

    How many anti-vaccine people even know the difference between bacteria and viruses?

    And regarding the last point, "custom made vaccinations" are not whipped up on the spur of the moment because some malcontent appears at a doctor's office. You have much bigger and more realistic things to be concerned about than this.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  5. truthmover
    Administrator

    Brian, your science fiction would make a cool story bro.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  6. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Probably my favorite person on this issue is Andrew Cutler who has a Phd in Chemistry from Princeton and is an authority on Mercury and its effect on humans. As far as I am aware, the debate (at least in terms of Thimerosal) is whether organic mercury is benign.

    Here is the CDC on this issue:

    What is the difference between ethylmercury and methylmercury? How are they different?

    • When learning about thimerosal and mercury it is important to understand the difference between two different compounds that contain mercury: ethylmercury and methylmercury. They are totally different materials.

    • Methylmercury is formed in the environment when mercury metal is present. If this material is found in the body, it is usually the result of eating some types of fish or other food. High amounts of methylmercury can harm the nervous system. This has been found in studies of some populations that have long-term exposure to methylmercury in foods at levels that are far higher than the U.S. population. In the United States, federal guidelines keep as much methylmercury as possible out of the environment and food, but over a lifetime, everyone is exposed to some methyl mercury.

    • Ethylmercury is formed when the body breaks down thimerosal. The body uses ethylmercury differently than methylmercury; ethylmercury is broken down and clears out of the blood more quickly. Low-level ethylmercury exposures from vaccines are very different from long-term methylmercury exposures, since the ethylmercury does not stay in the body.

    Here is Andrew Cutler:

    I am no Doc nor a chemist, but its my understanding that mercury is by itself neither organic nor inorganic but rather the compound in which it is contained is an oranic or inorganic mercury compound. Not trying to get too technical but gain a better understanding of this.

    The usual terminology:

    liquid mercury and its vapor - the cool silvery looking stuff - is metallic mercury.

    The form of mercury in your amalgam fillings is metallic mercury. Amalgam mercury both evaporates to be inhaled and is also corroded to form inorganic mercury which is swallowed.

    Metallic mercury evaporates readily, the vapors are absorbed into the bloodstream and carried all over the body, and they pass the blood brain barrier easily. Once in the body they are oxidized in a few seconds into the mercuric form of inorganic mercury. This makes the vapors just as dangerous as organic mercury.

    Organic mercury is in the form of a mercury ion (inorganic mercury) with an organic group stuck onto it. Such as the ethyl group in ethylmercuric thiosalicylate, trade name Thimerosal or Merthiolate. Your body slowly converts organic mercury to inorganic mercury. The half life of methlymercury is 44 days - mostly it is converted to inorganic mercury in your body before it is excreted. Organic mercury crosses the blood brain barrier easily.

    Inorganic mercury has 2 forms. One of these, mercurous mercury, isn't very important since it isn't stable in your body. It is also very poorly absorbed from the intestinal tract. Old laxatives used to contain it in the form of calomel (Hg2Cl2). Rarely, people who took calomel laxatives daily for decades would get mercury poisoning.

    The important form of inorganic mercury for our discussion is mercuric mercury, Hg++. This is stable in your body. The organic and metallic mercury that get into your brain and are oxidized there are turned into this form of mercury. Since inorganic mercury does not cross the blood brain barrier at all well, this means that once the metallic or organic mercury gets into your brain and is oxidized there it doesn't come out. Inorganic mercuric mercury doesn't evaporate and is not very well absorbed from the intestine - maybe 10%. Thus it is considered less toxic than metallic or organic mercury, but more toxic than mercurous mercury.

    Mercurochrome contains inorganic mercury.

    All forms of mercury are absorbed reasonably well through the skin. Organic mercury being very well absorbed.

    The inorganic mercuric mercury is what does the actual damage - it is an oxidation catalyst. Organic mercury is innocuous as long as it is organic. The damage happens when it is turned into inorganic mercury. This is why people who get organic mercury poisoning don't show symptoms right away. It is also why fish can have enough mercury in them to poison people but be perfectly healthy themselves. Fish turn inorganic mercury into organic mercury and thus passivate it. Mammals don't turn inorganic mercury into organic mercury - we go the other way.

    Hope you wanted an explanation like this.

    Andy Cutler

    Posted 9 years ago #
  7. mark
    Member

    My understanding is mercury is rarely used now due to the obvious toxic impacts.

    At least that's what I've been told by actual doctors, as opposed to the anti-vaccine crowd who are skeptical of medicine.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  8. truthmod
    Administrator

    I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere with this debate, but I am most definitely skeptical of Western capitalist medicine. When I go to the doctor, they almost never ask about my nutrition or psychological state. Their main concern seems to be getting me out of the office as fast as possible. They truly do not seem to care about getting to the bottom of a health issue. They find their standard diagnosis and prescribe the standard test or pharmaceutical. There is nothing creative or even aware about the way most Western doctors practice medicine. It may be cliche, but they are almost exclusively interested in treating symptoms rather than root causes. Most doctors in this country are thoroughly integrated into the consumerist paradigm and would never dare think independently.

    Doctors have given the ok on all kinds of terrible things over the years. When I found out a few years ago that those "silver" fillings in my mouth were actually made up of 50% mercury, I felt deceived. Why would they put a hugely poisonous substance in my mouth and why wouldn't it be made clear what these fillings were actually made of?

    Why is there a war on drugs, why is medical marijuana just now starting to be accepted? The people in charge are not to be trusted. Look what they've done with the world. Of course, we can take this skepticism too far, but ridiculing the "anti-vaxxers" along with the mainstream media is not something I'm going to be doing. How about ridiculing the insanely corrupt and diabolical nature of our economy and institutions first.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  9. mark
    Member

    Part of modern medicine is excellent, part is not.

    Some doctors understand nutrition, some don't.

    Some "alternative" treatments are good, some are quackery.

    The modern industrial health care paradigm has numerous flaws, to be polite, but there are aspects to it that are beneficial.

    Some claims for 9/11 complicity are real, others are hoaxes.

    Being skeptical of EVERYTHING is not wise. Critical thinking is important.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  10. truthmover
    Administrator

    People who don't vaccinate their kids should be sent to forced re-education camps.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  11. BrianG
    Member

    My "science fiction" is based on my internet experience. In the course of debate with advocates of CIT flyover theories I was lured into clicking on a link. My computer went dead. I got an old laptop out the basement and clicked on the link and that computer went dead.

    When Microsoft chooses to update my operating system on its own schedule and without my permission, I have no way of knowing whether their updates are the same as everyone gets or have perhaps been customized for me and people on the same list as me to provide access enhancements to DHS and others.

    In the same way, clinics could have red label and yellow label vaccines for people on different lists. That's just a fact

    Posted 9 years ago #
  12. truthmod
    Administrator

    Did you know that the percentage of Cesarean Section births in the US is about 33%? And it's not because women are opting for them; it's because our capitalist medical system does not promote health.

    http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck...

    Reasons for the High Cesarean Section Rate

    The following interconnected factors appear to contribute to the high cesarean rate.

    Low priority of enhancing women's own abilities to give birth

    Care that supports physiologic labor, such as providing the midwifery model of care, doula care providing continuous support during labor, and using hands-to-belly movements to turn a breech (buttocks- or feet-first) baby to a head-first position, reduces the likelihood of a cesarean section. Quite a few cesareans are carried out because the fetus seems large, even though this estimate is often wrong and a cesarean has not been shown to offer benefits in this situation. The decision to switch to cesarean is often made during labor when caregivers could use watchful waiting, positioning and movement, comfort measures, oral nourishment and other approaches to facilitate comfort, rest, and labor progress. Providing more women with such care would lower the cesarean section rate.

    Side effects of common labor interventions

    Current research suggests that some labor interventions make a c-section more likely. For example, labor induction among first-time mothers and/or when the cervix is not soft and ready to open appears to increase the likelihood of cesarean birth. Continuous electronic fetal monitoring has been associated with greater likelihood of a cesarean. Having an epidural early in labor or without a high-dose boost of synthetic oxytocin ("Pitocin") seems to increase the likelihood of a c-section, and epidural analgesia appears to increase the likelihood of cesareans performed in response to "fetal distress."

    Refusal to offer the informed choice of vaginal birth

    Many health professionals and/or hospitals are unwilling to offer the informed choice of vaginal birth to women in certain circumstances. The Listening to Mothers survey found that many women with a previous cesarean would have liked the option of a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) but did not have it because health professionals and/or hospitals were unwilling (Declercq et al. 2013). More than nine out of ten women with a previous cesarean section are having repeat cesareans in the United States. Similarly, few women with a fetus in a breech position have the option to plan a vaginal birth, and twins are increasingly born via planned cesarean section.

    Casual attitudes about surgery and variation in professional practice style

    Our society is more tolerant than ever of surgical procedures, even when not medically needed. This is reflected in the comfort level that many health professionals, insurance plans, hospital administrators and women themselves have with cesarean trends. Further, the cesarean rate varies quite a bit across states and areas of the country, hospitals, and maternity professionals. Most of this variation is due to "practice style" rather than differences in the needs and preferences of childbearing women (Baicker et al. 2006, Clark et al. 2007).

    Limited awareness of harms that are more likely with cesarean section

    Cesarean section is a major surgical procedure that increases the likelihood of many types of harm for mothers and babies in comparison with vaginal birth. Short-term harms for mothers include increased risk of unintended surgical cuts, infection, blood clots, emergency hysterectomy, going back into the hospital, a challenging recovery, and death. Babies born by cesarean section are more likely to have breathing problems and to develop several chronic diseases: childhood-onset diabetes, allergies with cold-like symptoms, and asthma in childhood and beyond. Perhaps due to the common surgical side effect of scarring and "adhesion" formation, cesarean mothers are more likely to have ongoing pelvic pain and to have infertility in the future. Of special concern after cesarean are various serious conditions for mothers and babies that are more likely in future pregnancies. For mothers, these include ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, placenta accreta, placental abruption, emergency hysterectomy, and uterine rupture. Babies in future pregnancies are more likely to need breathing help and have extended hospital stays. Preliminary research suggests that many other harms are more likely with cesarean section, and more studies are needed (Childbirth Connection 2012).

    Incentives to practice in a manner that is efficient for providers

    Many health professionals are feeling squeezed by tightened payments for services and increasing practice expenses. The flat "global fee" method of paying for childbirth does not provide any extra pay for providers who patiently support a longer vaginal birth. Some payment schedules pay more for cesarean than vaginal birth. Even when payment is similar for both, a planned cesarean section is an especially efficient way for professionals to organize their hospital work, office work and personal life. Average hospital payments are much greater for cesarean than vaginal birth, and may offer hospitals greater scope for profit.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  13. truthmod
    Administrator

    My uninformed opinion is that many or most of the vaccines are probably helpful or even critical. But I find something distasteful in this backlash against the skeptics. Much of it seems to come from people who also seem to be uninformed, but who are very rigid and dismissive in their reactions. I tend to give some credence to the stories about harm done by some vaccines and I would expect the authorities to react in the way they have. Perhaps a bit more honesty in the media about the net benefits of vaccines in relation to the real but rare risks would be helpful.

    If you want to talk reason, science and the establishment, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on.

    Posted 9 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.