• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How to Account for Differences in Health Outcomes of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children?

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I would think everyone would agree that we should continue trying to create better vaccinations.

However, my key question is that at this time, isn't it still better to have everyone vaccinated than no one vaccinated?
Mawson et al. obviously didn't find that the vaccinated children were healthier than the unvaccinated ones. Just the contrary.

If you can find a study that shows that children who are in compliance with the current vaccination schedule are healthier than unvaccinated children, please present it. Your question is an empirical question, not a logical one that can be answered in the absence of evidence.

Are you saying our annual flu shot vaccination is even suspected here?
The multi-dose vials of flu vaccine contain a huge amount of Thimerosal per dose, which are given to pregnant women. In fact, if a pregnancy spans 2 different flu seasons, 2 immunizations are recommended. Fetuses appear to be particularly vulnerable to exposure to mercury, aluminum and other heavy metals. Infants and children are likewise injected with flu vaccines brimming with Thimerosal.

I've never had a flu vaccination. I think it's good for a body to be exposed to pathogens and to build an immunity to them. Somehow vaccines don't seem to do that as well as the body's natural response, which (I think) entails both humoral and cell-mediated immunity. Of course, some people undoubtedly cannot have a proper immune response to influenza viruses. That still does not justify injecting heavy metals into anyone.

Actually, according to the data I've seen, in any given year most people who go to their doctor with flu symptoms are not infected with the virus that is being vaccinated for.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Mawson et al. obviously didn't find that the vaccinated children were healthier than the unvaccinated ones. Just the contrary.

If you can find a study that shows that children who are in compliance with the current vaccination schedule are healthier than unvaccinated children, please present it. Your question is an empirical question, not a logical one that can be answered in the absence of evidence.
You did not really answer the question I presented: isn't it still better to have everyone vaccinated than no one vaccinated?

Your answers keep getting back to a mixed vaccinated/unvaccinated population which misses the thrust of my question.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You did not really answer the question I presented: isn't it still better to have everyone vaccinated than no one vaccinated?

Your answers keep getting back to a mixed vaccinated/unvaccinated population which misses the thrust of my question.
I did answer that question to the best of my ability, according to the evidence that I am aware of. That is the only way I know of to answer your question, i.e., according to the evidence acquired by the scientific method.

What is "the thrust" of your question that my answer "misses"?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I did answer that question to the best of my ability, according to the evidence that I am aware of. That is the only way I know of to answer your question, i.e., according to the evidence acquired by the scientific method.

What is "the thrust" of your question that my answer "misses"?
I can go with the idea that unvaccinated people today are healthier than vaccinated people. Fine. HOWEVER, if nobody was vaccinated against polio, small pox, etc., etc.. the world would be a lot worse off with outbreaks of those terrible diseases so it is still the better alternative FOR SOCIETY to have your children vaccinated.
 
Last edited:

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I can go with the idea that unvaccinated people today are healthier than unvaccinated people. Fine. HOWEVER, if nobody was vaccinated against polio, small pox, etc., etc.. the world would be a lot worse off with outbreaks of those terrible diseases so it is still the better alternative FOR SOCIETY to have your children vaccinated.
Well, we can't turn the clock back to the time when "nobody was vaccinated against polio". We have to begin with the circumstance that exists today.

BTW, I believe the smallpox virus was wiped out, so we apparently won't be having major outbreaks of that. And I think the polio virus has been mostly eradicated among humans except for the wild types (which I think the vaccine may have encouraged).

In any case, are you sure that you assimilated the information that what Mawson et al. propose is to "verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health"?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Well, we can't turn the clock back to the time when "nobody was vaccinated against polio". We have to begin with the circumstance that exists today.
Agreed.
BTW, I believe the smallpox virus was wiped out, so we apparently won't be having major outbreaks of that. And I think the polio virus has been mostly eradicated among humans except for the wild types (which I think the vaccine may have encouraged).
OK, that is a key point. Are saying that if children are no longer vaccinated we would not have outbreaks of the diseases they are being vaccinated against because the diseases themselves have been nearly eradicated?
In any case, are you sure that you assimilated the information that what Mawson et al. propose is to "verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health"?
No, I do not feel I fully understood and assimilated it all. I was more asking questions than challenging. Are you saying that Mawson is factoring in the chance of an outbreak of these diseases in his overall opinion on optimizing children's health. Is he saying the cure is worse than the disease at this point in time?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Note that I "liked" your post, except for what I have quote here. to which I ask, "Say what?" "Food sensitivities" are linked to GMOs? Where did you get that?

Ask yourself why foods are being genetically modified in the first place? When huge corporations like Monsanto 'engineer' their seeds to be sterile, just so that they can have customers for life (no farmers can gather their own seeds now, when they used to do that routinely) you begin to understand what drives this initiative......
money1.gif
Little thought is given to any future potential for introducing a food that has a foreign element that might create problems for those who ingest it over time.

Here is a quote from..... Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies (Part One) - Institute for Responsible Technology

"The huge jump in childhood food allergies in the US is in the news often, but most reports fail to consider a link to a recent radical change in America’s diet. Beginning in 1996, bacteria, virus and other genes have been artificially inserted to the DNA of soy, corn, cottonseed and canola plants. These unlabeled genetically modified (GM) foods carry a risk of triggering life-threatening allergic reactions, and evidence collected over the past decade now suggests that they are contributing to higher allergy rates. . . .

Scientists have long known that GM crops might cause allergies. But there are no tests to prove in advance that a GM crop is safe. That’s because people aren’t usually allergic to a food until they have eaten it several times. “The only definitive test for allergies,” according to former FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, “is human consumption by affected peoples, which can have ethical considerations.” And it is the ethical considerations of feeding unlabeled, high-risk GM crops to unknowing consumers that has many people up in arms. . . .

The introduction of genetically engineered foods into our diet was done quietly and without the mandatory labeling that is required in most other industrialized countries. Without knowing that GM foods might increase the risk of allergies, and without knowing which foods contain GM ingredients, the biotech industry is gambling with our health for their profit. This risk is not lost on everyone. In fact, millions of shoppers are now seeking foods that are free from any GM ingredients. "

There is so much that we are not told.......we would be furious if we knew how much they gamble with our health. :(

 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I can go with the idea that unvaccinated people today are healthier than vaccinated people. Fine. HOWEVER, if nobody was vaccinated against polio, small pox, etc., etc.. the world would be a lot worse off with outbreaks of those terrible diseases so it is still the better alternative FOR SOCIETY to have your children vaccinated.

There is some very good information here....
History and Science Show Vaccines Do Not Prevent Disease

Sometimes its important to see beyond the propaganda to the real incentive behind most vaccination programs.

"Health Impact News Editor Comments:

In the vaccine debate currently raging in modern society, seldom, if ever, is the basic presupposition that vaccines prevent diseases ever questioned. It is assumed by the government and the medical system that this presupposition is a scientific fact. Without this presupposed “fact”, the justification to force people to receive vaccinations completely falls apart. The acceptance of sacrificing certain children and others due to vaccine harm for “the greater good” also loses its justification, if vaccines actually do not prevent disease. So it is easy to see why those who profit from vaccines. . . . do not want to debate this issue."

This was interesting too.... Let’s Go Find Unvaccinated Children with Autism

"The CDC tells us that 1 in every 68 children in the U.S. has autism and a recent government survey pegged the incidence of autism even higher at 1 in 45 children. We are told repeatedly that autism is genetic and vaccines don’t cause autism. All we need to do is go find groups of unvaccinated children and count those with autism. . . .

Let’s try Amish children. They are mostly unvaccinated. Dr. Frank Noonan is a doctor who treats Amish children in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. He has said that he has seen no cases of autism in the thousands of Amish children he has treated over 25 years. “You’ll find all the other stuff, but we don’t find the autism. We’re right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and that’s just the way it is.” Dr. Heng Wang is a neurologist and the director of the Clinic for Special Needs Children in Ohio, another area where there is a large Amish population. He has estimated the rate of autism in the Amish community to be 1 in 15,000.

There is a huge 'industry' behind vaccinations....they are very wealthy, powerful and influential. They use their power and influence to suppress the truth. :(

 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
After all, if vaccines truly worked, then why would vaccinated kids be at risk?
This question is borderline stupid.

Let's use Diptheria as an example. The vaccine is given at 2 months. The first thing that should be said is that children less than 2 months old are protected when everyone 2 months and older is vaccinated, because there will be less potentially infected people able to spread the infection.

If there are unvaccinated kids letting the infection develop and spread, this could cause a more powerful version of diptheria... let's call it "Diptheria 2.0" to be transmitted.... vaccinated kids are vaccinated against Diptheria, not Diptheria 2.0. So not only are the unvaccinated kids at risk, you're creating a new risk for those who are vaccinated.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
@Poisonshady313 The CDC reported....in 2012. . . .

"About 1 in 68 children has been identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) according to estimates from CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network."
Firstly, your claim was 1 in 48, not 1 in 68.
Secondly, and more to the point, what source do you have to claim that the US is #1 in autism rates?
If the CDC doesn't get it right then who can you believe?
It's interesting to hear that question come from you, considering your position on this subject.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
That's a lot to read; I didn't even get around to understanding what your intention is with this thread.

But I'll throw in.

Here's Jenny McCarthy, a vocal member of the anti-vaxxer movement:

msg-128196352626-3.jpg


Hard to argue with that.
nah ... it's pretty easy. She's a moron.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
A new peer-reviewed study comparing health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, provisionally published in the journal Frontiers in Public Health and assigned a DOI number (a digital object identifier given by publishers to identify content and provide a persistent link on the internet), confirmed what parents . . . have observed: that completely unvaccinated children have less chronic disease and a lower risk of autism than vaccinated children.”

Study: Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated Kids — Doctors Agree


"The numbers can be very confusing, but this chart accurately shows the difference between the vaccine schedule in 1962, 1983 and 2016 recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.....

1*09ZOpENHBoBqC-5nWl2wcw.jpeg


"Most people struggle to believe a vaccine can injure a child. The narrative generally used is that vaccines are “safe and effective.” Yet, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is very much alive and well and run by the U.S. government, and has paid more than $3.3 billion for vaccine injury. "

Diabolically dishonest: Lewin Group’s MMR-Autism sibling study

Are we being conned by the ones who stand to gain financially from our ignorance? :shrug:
Health Impact News is a known "fake news" outlet rated as "quackery" by most medical fact/check sites. Don't believe a word they claim on that site.
Health Impact News
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
A new peer-reviewed study comparing health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, provisionally published in the journal Frontiers in Public Health and assigned a DOI number (a digital object identifier given by publishers to identify content and provide a persistent link on the internet), confirmed what parents . . . have observed: that completely unvaccinated children have less chronic disease and a lower risk of autism than vaccinated children.”

Study: Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated Kids — Doctors Agree


"The numbers can be very confusing, but this chart accurately shows the difference between the vaccine schedule in 1962, 1983 and 2016 recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.....

1*09ZOpENHBoBqC-5nWl2wcw.jpeg


"Most people struggle to believe a vaccine can injure a child. The narrative generally used is that vaccines are “safe and effective.” Yet, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is very much alive and well and run by the U.S. government, and has paid more than $3.3 billion for vaccine injury. "

Diabolically dishonest: Lewin Group’s MMR-Autism sibling study

Are we being conned by the ones who stand to gain financially from our ignorance? :shrug:
Got any reputable sites that make this claim rather than the National Inquirer of health/medicine sites? lol.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
A new peer-reviewed study comparing health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, provisionally published in the journal Frontiers in Public Health and assigned a DOI number (a digital object identifier given by publishers to identify content and provide a persistent link on the internet), confirmed what parents . . . have observed: that completely unvaccinated children have less chronic disease and a lower risk of autism than vaccinated children.”

Study: Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated Kids — Doctors Agree


"The numbers can be very confusing, but this chart accurately shows the difference between the vaccine schedule in 1962, 1983 and 2016 recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.....

1*09ZOpENHBoBqC-5nWl2wcw.jpeg


"Most people struggle to believe a vaccine can injure a child. The narrative generally used is that vaccines are “safe and effective.” Yet, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is very much alive and well and run by the U.S. government, and has paid more than $3.3 billion for vaccine injury. "

Diabolically dishonest: Lewin Group’s MMR-Autism sibling study

Are we being conned by the ones who stand to gain financially from our ignorance? :shrug:
I'm sorry, but it is EXTREMELY irresponsible to spread dishonest conspiracy reporting like this without verifying the claims with reputable sources. The anti-vaccine movement has been proven stupid time and time again. It is an extremely dangerous idea to spread.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Are saying that if children are no longer vaccinated we would not have outbreaks of the diseases they are being vaccinated against because the diseases themselves have been nearly eradicated?

No, I do not feel I fully understood and assimilated it all. I was more asking questions than challenging. Are you saying that Mawson is factoring in the chance of an outbreak of these diseases in his overall opinion on optimizing children's health. Is he saying the cure is worse than the disease at this point in time?
Neither Mawson et al. nor I have proposed that vaccinations be eliminated. In the first sentence of the paper, Mawson et al. state unequivocally that "vaccinations have prevented millions of infectious illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths among U.S. children," and in the last 2 sentences of the paper, they advocate that the detrimental factors be identified in order to optimize the impact of vaccinations on children. There is no reason to believe that the higher ratio of chronic conditions seen in vaccinated children in the study are an unavoidable aspect of vaccinations--except perhaps in those cases of bacterial replacement such as seen with pneumococcal vaccines. (At least one of those vaccines is not effective anyway. See: Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis Hillary Clinton had both of the current pneumococcal vaccines and still came down with pneumonia last fall.)

In any case, if adjuvant-aluminum were found to be the cause of neurodevelopment disorders and other chronic conditions, and removing it from vaccines left some of them less effective, I believe it is better to not administer stuff that is harmful. After all, humans survived for many thousands of years without vaccinations for whooping cough.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Let's use Diptheria as an example. The vaccine is given at 2 months. The first thing that should be said is that children less than 2 months old are protected when everyone 2 months and older is vaccinated, because there will be less potentially infected people able to spread the infection.
The various combination vaccines for diptheria seem to contain significant amount of aluminum as an adjuvant, and several recent if not current formulations contain Thimerosal.

If there are unvaccinated kids letting the infection develop and spread, this could cause a more powerful version of diptheria.
Bacteria and viruses mutate in the presence of vaccines also.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Health Impact News is a known "fake news" outlet rated as "quackery" by most medical fact/check sites. Don't believe a word they claim on that site.
Health Impact News
The article you quoted from Deeje's post summarized the Mawson et al. study. You don't have a problem with that, do you? How do you account for the findings of the Mawson study?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Ask yourself why foods are being genetically modified in the first place?
Plants are genetically modified, inter alia, to increase their nutrient profile, to increase yield, to require less water (survive drought conditions), to be resistant to herbicides, and even to eliminate allergens. From the Union of German Academics of Sciences and Humanities (my underlining):

Based on the published scientific literature, this report examines the potential hazards and risks of consuming genetically modified (GM) plant products. Toxicity, carcinogenicity and food allergenicity, and the possible effects of consuming foreign DNA (including antibiotic resistance genes) are all taken into account. The report concludes that food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.

[. . .]

Conventional maize cobs are often infected with the fungus Fusarium moniliforme, resulting in production of the fungal toxin fumonisin. For more than a century, “mouldy corn disease” has been recognised as a hazard for horses, pigs and other livestock, with entire herds dying after being fed corn infected with Fusaria. Sixteen years ago, the fumonisin was identified as the cause of the disease. It is known to induce liver cancer in rats. Fumonisin is thus a serious problem; it so stable that it survives processing and can sometimes be found in cornflakes. In the UK in September 2003 the analysis of 30 samples of maize products in supermarkets led to the removal of ten of them because of excessively high levels of fumonisin content; the contaminated samples with the highest fumonisin contents were those labelled “organic”.

Several studies have found contamination with fumonisin to be greatly decreased in insect-resistant (Bt) GM maize; whereas in conventional maize plants the fungi proliferate in cobs injured by insects, in GM maize there is much less insect damage and hence less fumonisin. These findings indicate that food from GM maize is more healthy for humans than that from conventionally grown maize.

Is there a higher risk of food allergy from eating food derived from GM plants than from conventional food?

Estimates suggest that 5-8% of children and of 1-2% adults are allergic to certain conventionally produced foods. Peanuts, for instance, are known to contain 12 allergenic proteins.

While there is no legal requirement for the testing of foods from conventional varieties, strict allergy tests are mandatory for GMO products. The WHO (World Health Organisation) has introduced a protocol for detailed GMO allergenicity tests, both for the plant products concerned and also for their pollen. This protocol is being constantly improved. Tests of this sort on one occasion alerted scientists to the fact that the introduction of a gene from brazil nut into soy bean, in the hope that it would improve quality, would be allergenic for certain persons. As a result, further development of that GMO was abandoned by the company involved prior to any commercialisation, demonstrating that the safety regulation system functions well.

Our collective experience to date shows the strict allergenicity tests of GM products to have been very successful: not one allergenic GM product has been introduced onto the market. In conventional breeding, in which genes are altered at random by experimentally caused mutations or unexpected gene combinations generated by crossings, such tests are not legally required. For this reason the risk of GM plants causing allergies can be regarded as substantially lower than that of products from conventional breeding. Furthermore, intensive gene technology research is already under way with a view to removing allergens from peanuts, wheat and rice.​


Food From GM Plants Appears to be Superior with Respect to Health
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
The article you quoted from Deeje's post summarized the Mawson et al. study. You don't have a problem with that, do you? How do you account for the findings of the Mawson study?
It was a fraudulent study that was retracted and proved false. The entire scientific community lashed out at the Mawson study as being "quackery". It's complete and utter dishonesty by a fraud.

Two (now retracted) studies purporting to show that vaccinated children are sicker than unvaccinated children show nothing of the sort
The Mawson “vaxed/unvaxed” study retraction: The antivaccine movement reacts with tears of unfathomable sadness
A horrendously bad “vaxed/unvaxed” study rises from the dead yet again
Why this vaxed v. unvaxed study is not valid: Update: Study retracted AGAIN.
Updated: Vaccine-autism study retracted - again - Retraction Watch
 
Top