s/o: If you think vaccines haven't been tested enough...

[Rivka]

...do you take herbal supplements, homeopathic products, and other packaged "natural remedies"?

 

I've always been curious about what seem to be people's different standards for the pharmaceutical industry and the supplement industry. In the U.S. there's no requirement that supplements be tested to see if they contain what they claim to contain, or to test for toxicity - much less any requirement that they be tested for efficacy.

 

The natural products industry - which makes huge profits - employs lobbyists to fight against any requirement that they provide documentation of safety of efficacy. And that's in the face of independent studies which have repeatedly found that supplements often don't contain the listed active ingredient, or vary hugely in the included dose, or are contaminated with heavy metals and other toxins.

 

I have never understood why people who think that vaccines haven't been studied extensively enough are okay taking supplements and giving them to their children. And I have never understood why people who are suspicious of even the smallest link between a medical researcher and a pharmaceutical company don't seem to have any qualms about information put out by the $27 billion supplement industry.

[ChristusG]

I don't believe vaccines have been tested enough.....and I do not take (or give my family) natural supplements. I'm very hesitant about all those things that are not thoroughly tested.

 

We take vitamins and that's it.

[DawnM]

There is a fairly large group of hsers here who fit your exact description.....I am going to try not to get too involved in discussing their conspiracy theories, but vaccines are in there.

 

They also spend HUGE amounts of money on homeopothy, supplements, alternative medicines and taking any herb their alternative doctor or accupuncturist gives them.

[TammyinTN]

Our family has lived in many different places/countries and we always vaccinated them. We have had no problems. My hubby is a PharmD and we have had many discussions about this. We don't take anything that our doctor hasn't prescribed to us which is rare. Thank goodness we have had healthy kids.

[kewb]

I do not think the more recent vaccines have been tested enough. Nor do I agrree with the combining of shots and the amount of shots kids are expected to receive by the age of 5. I do believe in proper nutrition to keep the body healthy. As close to the tree as possible; That is my motto. Dh takes herbal supplements. He purchases them from reputable companies and has yet to have any ill effects.

[Peela]

You have a good point, and gullibility is common either way.

 

The history of the use of herbal medicines is, however, thousands of years old, and I do not dismiss the whole of the experience of the human race in terms of using plants to heal, just because it hasn't all been "scientifically proven."- yet.

It takes a pharmaceutical company millions of $ to conduct tests on new products/medicines, and they have to have a financial vested interest in order to do so- so they are already biased. They will not test things, such as cancer treatments, that they cannot patent and make a lot of money from. They also have quite a large acceptable collateral damage- a few deaths, a slew of serious complications- these are all quite acceptable if enough people are benefitted. Herbalist producers rarely have access to the type of money that pharmaceutical companies- the richest companies in the world, think about it- have, to conduct rigorous tests. However, that testing IS being done all over the world as demand of scientific confirmation increases.

 

Yet if one person dies of a herbal remedy, there is a huge outcry. Thousands more people die of doctor error than die of natural remedies, let alone pharmaceutical complications. Many thousands die each year of pharmaceutical drugs due to many, many reasons- side effects, wrong dose, wrong drug given, doctor error etc

 

Herbal medicines have a long, long history. If one takes the time to study that history, one will find a rich source of medicine and healing that kept humanity alive enough that we can be here today. A lot of wisdom was passed down over generations. Scientific arrogance makes people dismiss thousands of years of evidence because million dollar studies haven't been done. We live in a very strange age where we trust a very, very new medicine that even has proven side effects such as a certain amount of deaths, but we don't trust medicines that have helped people for far longer than a couple of decades- and which are generally safer than the pharmaceuticals when used as they are meant to be used.

 

But when you get someone off the street who decides to "go natural" but is basically very ignorant and just believes the advertising, or thinks that because it is natural it must be better or safer, or they triple the dose of a powerful herb, or they take it alongside their pharmaceuticals....that is just pure ignorance. And the herbs and natural products themselves should not be blamed for the ignorance of a culture that is sucked along by whatever they are told.

 

No, people should not blindly "trust" natural medicines any more than they should "trust" vaccines and pharmaceuticals. They should get some education, in the basics, and use common sense, and probably consult some experts. In this day and age, they can do research themselves and take back their power from multi national companies that are very, very interested in making lots and lots of money.

And they can grow some herbs in their backyard and take back responsibility for their health from doctors and anyone else who tries to disempower them with big words and a superior attitude.

 

Anyone who thinks vaccines can do no harm has obviously not done the research. And I find the anti vaccinators to be treading dangerous waters when they themselves become dogmatic and emotional and do not do the research as well.

 

In Australia, there is a certain standard for herbal medicines and they are frequently tested. With professional grade products, there is a whole lot of information available about each product and it is verifiable. They are also professional grade for a reason- they are often of a high potency, and they are meant to be dispensed by someone who has studied how to use them safely and with skill. I believe they can generally be trusted. But I also believe that the doctors who dispense vaccines also believe in them, genuinely, and believe them to be safe- but I know I would trust something that has been used and its use and side effects recorded for hundreds of years, before I will automatically trust a pharmaceutical product that has limited and biased testing including results that a certain number of people will naturally be injured. Often only one or 2 studies have been done, and many products are recalled after released, when too many people suffer terrible side effects (that is happening right now with many anti depressants which have been clearly linked to increased suicide rates).

 

I think it pays to keep an open mind either way.

[mommaduck]

You have a good point, and gullibility is common either way.

 

The history of the use of herbal medicines is, however, thousands of years old, and I do not dismiss the whole of the experience of the human race in terms of using plants to heal, just because it hasn't all been "scientifically proven."- yet.

It takes a pharmaceutical company millions of $ to conduct tests on new products/medicines, and they have to have a financial vested interest in order to do so- so they are already biased. They will not test things, such as cancer treatments, that they cannot patent and make a lot of money from. They also have quite a large acceptable collateral damage- a few deaths, a slew of serious complications- these are all quite acceptable if enough people are benefitted. Herbalist producers rarely have access to the type of money that pharmaceutical companies- the richest companies in the world, think about it- have, to conduct rigorous tests. However, that testing IS being done all over the world as demand of scientific confirmation increases.

 

Yet if one person dies of a herbal remedy, there is a huge outcry. Thousands more people die of doctor error than die of natural remedies, let alone pharmaceutical complications. Many thousands die each year of pharmaceutical drugs due to many, many reasons- side effects, wrong dose, wrong drug given, doctor error etc

 

Herbal medicines have a long, long history. If one takes the time to study that history, one will find a rich source of medicine and healing that kept humanity alive enough that we can be here today. A lot of wisdom was passed down over generations. Scientific arrogance makes people dismiss thousands of years of evidence because million dollar studies haven't been done. We live in a very strange age where we trust a very, very new medicine that even has proven side effects such as a certain amount of deaths, but we don't trust medicines that have helped people for far longer than a couple of decades- and which are generally safer than the pharmaceuticals when used as they are meant to be used.

 

But when you get someone off the street who decides to "go natural" but is basically very ignorant and just believes the advertising, or thinks that because it is natural it must be better or safer, or they triple the dose of a powerful herb, or they take it alongside their pharmaceuticals....that is just pure ignorance. And the herbs and natural products themselves should not be blamed for the ignorance of a culture that is sucked along by whatever they are told.

 

No, people should not blindly "trust" natural medicines any more than they should "trust" vaccines and pharmaceuticals. They should get some education, in the basics, and use common sense, and probably consult some experts. In this day and age, they can do research themselves and take back their power from multi national companies that are very, very interested in making lots and lots of money.

And they can grow some herbs in their backyard and take back responsibility for their health from doctors and anyone else who tries to disempower them with big words and a superior attitude.

 

Anyone who thinks vaccines can do no harm has obviously not done the research. And I find the anti vaccinators to be treading dangerous waters when they themselves become dogmatic and emotional and do not do the research as well.

 

In Australia, there is a certain standard for herbal medicines and they are frequently tested. With professional grade products, there is a whole lot of information available about each product and it is verifiable. They are also professional grade for a reason- they are often of a high potency, and they are meant to be dispensed by someone who has studied how to use them safely and with skill. I believe they can generally be trusted. But I also believe that the doctors who dispense vaccines also believe in them, genuinely, and believe them to be safe- but I know I would trust something that has been used and its use and side effects recorded for hundreds of years, before I will automatically trust a pharmaceutical product that has limited and biased testing including results that a certain number of people will naturally be injured. Often only one or 2 studies have been done, and many products are recalled after released, when too many people suffer terrible side effects (that is happening right now with many anti depressants which have been clearly linked to increased suicide rates).

 

I think it pays to keep an open mind either way.

:iagree:

 

Our doctors were fine with our decisions, due to our medical history and lifestyle, but with the strings attached that we continuously educate ourselves. I've only had two doctors give me a hard time and they were the type that if you didn't instantly agree to vaccinate, they didn't listen to another word you said; they even ignored medical history of vaccination reactions and wanted me to multi dose vaccinate the child that had nearly died from it previously.

 

Yes, herbals can be just as dangerous when a person ignorantly pops anything and everything like candy. That is where education and not believing everything that's advertised comes in. I've known those that were educated in herbals and homeopathic medicine and grew their own plants and made their own tinctures.

 

Many herbs have a long history of use and known facts. My midwife used several with me for various reasons. She knew how much of which to use and when. Using the wrong thing at the wrong time or in the wrong amount is the same as using the wrong drug at the wrong time or in the wrong amount.

Edited June 12, 2011 by mommaduck

[Wheres Toto]

I've wondered about this myself.

 

There seems to be an assumption that Big Pharma is all about profits and will lie, cheat and steal to make the maximum profit. (BTW - not all pharmaceutical companies are "Big"), while the supplement companies are in it out of the goodness of their hearts and the desire to help people, and that profits are purely secondary to saving the world.

 

I don't get it.

[jenangelcat]

No I don't take supplements and such.

 

I have to point out there that there is a huge difference between ingesting something and injecting it into your bloodstream. Huge difference.

[MelanieM]

You have a good point, and gullibility is common either way.

 

The history of the use of herbal medicines is, however, thousands of years old, and I do not dismiss the whole of the experience of the human race in terms of using plants to heal, just because it hasn't all been "scientifically proven."- yet.

It takes a pharmaceutical company millions of $ to conduct tests on new products/medicines, and they have to have a financial vested interest in order to do so- so they are already biased. They will not test things, such as cancer treatments, that they cannot patent and make a lot of money from. They also have quite a large acceptable collateral damage- a few deaths, a slew of serious complications- these are all quite acceptable if enough people are benefitted. Herbalist producers rarely have access to the type of money that pharmaceutical companies- the richest companies in the world, think about it- have, to conduct rigorous tests. However, that testing IS being done all over the world as demand of scientific confirmation increases.

 

Yet if one person dies of a herbal remedy, there is a huge outcry. Thousands more people die of doctor error than die of natural remedies, let alone pharmaceutical complications. Many thousands die each year of pharmaceutical drugs due to many, many reasons- side effects, wrong dose, wrong drug given, doctor error etc

 

Herbal medicines have a long, long history. If one takes the time to study that history, one will find a rich source of medicine and healing that kept humanity alive enough that we can be here today. A lot of wisdom was passed down over generations. Scientific arrogance makes people dismiss thousands of years of evidence because million dollar studies haven't been done. We live in a very strange age where we trust a very, very new medicine that even has proven side effects such as a certain amount of deaths, but we don't trust medicines that have helped people for far longer than a couple of decades- and which are generally safer than the pharmaceuticals when used as they are meant to be used.

 

But when you get someone off the street who decides to "go natural" but is basically very ignorant and just believes the advertising, or thinks that because it is natural it must be better or safer, or they triple the dose of a powerful herb, or they take it alongside their pharmaceuticals....that is just pure ignorance. And the herbs and natural products themselves should not be blamed for the ignorance of a culture that is sucked along by whatever they are told.

 

No, people should not blindly "trust" natural medicines any more than they should "trust" vaccines and pharmaceuticals. They should get some education, in the basics, and use common sense, and probably consult some experts. In this day and age, they can do research themselves and take back their power from multi national companies that are very, very interested in making lots and lots of money.

And they can grow some herbs in their backyard and take back responsibility for their health from doctors and anyone else who tries to disempower them with big words and a superior attitude.

 

Anyone who thinks vaccines can do no harm has obviously not done the research. And I find the anti vaccinators to be treading dangerous waters when they themselves become dogmatic and emotional and do not do the research as well.

 

In Australia, there is a certain standard for herbal medicines and they are frequently tested. With professional grade products, there is a whole lot of information available about each product and it is verifiable. They are also professional grade for a reason- they are often of a high potency, and they are meant to be dispensed by someone who has studied how to use them safely and with skill. I believe they can generally be trusted. But I also believe that the doctors who dispense vaccines also believe in them, genuinely, and believe them to be safe- but I know I would trust something that has been used and its use and side effects recorded for hundreds of years, before I will automatically trust a pharmaceutical product that has limited and biased testing including results that a certain number of people will naturally be injured. Often only one or 2 studies have been done, and many products are recalled after released, when too many people suffer terrible side effects (that is happening right now with many anti depressants which have been clearly linked to increased suicide rates).

 

I think it pays to keep an open mind either way.

 

Excellent post!

[MelanieM]

I have to point out there that there is a huge difference between ingesting something and injecting it into your bloodstream. Huge difference.

 

Absolutely!!!!

[Parrothead]

What Peela said.

[DarlaS]

I have never understood why people who think that vaccines haven't been studied extensively enough are okay taking supplements and giving them to their children.

 

 

I agree for the most part that much of what is spent on supplements is a waste. I'd give people a little credit though. I ask my doctor (MD) about supplements, and there are a few he has recommended to my dh and I. Most of us don't go grab everything off the shelf based on something we overheard or recommendation of a friend w/out looking into it further.

 

Any supplements my family does use are generally plants or plant based or otherwise food derived (My dh takes Saw Palmetto, I've used fish oil.). People have been eating this stuff for thousands of years. I don't do homeopathic. Never been interested in learning about it.

 

Making supplement companies test would only be a way to handi-cap them and make the products less available to people who do not wish to grow their own herbs etc. or forage for them.

 

And how about that 300 billion a year spent on prescription drugs in this country? Think they can't afford a few lobbyists of their own? Poor poor drug companies having to compete with those wingnuts selling those dangerous untested garlic capsules (to the would-be consumers of statin drugs no doubt). :rolleyes:

[nmoira]

 

I have to point out there that there is a huge difference between ingesting something and injecting it into your bloodstream. Huge difference.

Vaccines aren't injected into your bloodstream. Some vaccines have been oral. All manner of things can be absorbed through your digestive system, right into your bloodstream. There is no biological basis for your preference.

[Wheres Toto]

I remember seeing a link a while ago that showed that about 70% of Natural products and supplements were actually made by subsidiaries of pharmaceutical companies.

 

I can't find it through google, anyone remember this?

[wapiti]

. 

 

[Ester Maria]

Our children are properly vaccinated.

 

We don't do alternative medicine... because things that have repeatedly proven to work when tested lege artis and where we understand the mechanisms behind them are no longer 'alternative' medicine, they entered the canon of 'regular' medicine.

 

Not that the pharmaceutical industry is completely innocent in all that it does or did - not really, as it is too profit-based to not have at least some blood on its hands in the process - but vaccines are safe, tested, proven to work and we understand the mechanisms behind them.

[SailorMom]

There are a lot of herbal supplements that can be dangerous. I've heard the Saw Plametto - I believe it is certain dosages early in the pregnancy.

Also - and I found this out here! - Chamomile tea can cause miscarriages. Parsley tea (made from parsley and hot water) can cause them as well.

I think a lot of people fail to remember that a lot of what the drug companies develop is also from nature.

Viagra is made from the leaves of a tree found in Jamaica (as per our Jamaican guide....), antiobiotics are frequently from mold and plant biproducts, asprin - tree bark.

Natural products can be very dangerous. Before we had drug companies, they were the only thing people had, and were frequently used to purposefully abort babies, kill others, and heal others. They are not benign.

I mean - marijuana and magic mushrooms are 100% natural... does this mean they are safe?

Here's my issue as well - before the FDA got involved, yes - it was easier for new meds to get on the market, of course.... however, there was also cocaine in soda - and it was used as a cure all by millions of people - who also gave it to their children. This is not the only example of that.

I don't get the vaccine conspiricists, and I have seen so much proof that the vaccines are tested plenty.

And hey - I'd rather take a infantesimal chance with an allergic reaction to a vaccine that with pertusis, polio, measels, rubella, tetanus.

[Gailmegan]

You have a good point, and gullibility is common either way.

 

The history of the use of herbal medicines is, however, thousands of years old, and I do not dismiss the whole of the experience of the human race in terms of using plants to heal, just because it hasn't all been "scientifically proven."- yet.

It takes a pharmaceutical company millions of $ to conduct tests on new products/medicines, and they have to have a financial vested interest in order to do so- so they are already biased. They will not test things, such as cancer treatments, that they cannot patent and make a lot of money from. They also have quite a large acceptable collateral damage- a few deaths, a slew of serious complications- these are all quite acceptable if enough people are benefitted. Herbalist producers rarely have access to the type of money that pharmaceutical companies- the richest companies in the world, think about it- have, to conduct rigorous tests. However, that testing IS being done all over the world as demand of scientific confirmation increases.

 

Yet if one person dies of a herbal remedy, there is a huge outcry. Thousands more people die of doctor error than die of natural remedies, let alone pharmaceutical complications. Many thousands die each year of pharmaceutical drugs due to many, many reasons- side effects, wrong dose, wrong drug given, doctor error etc

 

Herbal medicines have a long, long history. If one takes the time to study that history, one will find a rich source of medicine and healing that kept humanity alive enough that we can be here today. A lot of wisdom was passed down over generations. Scientific arrogance makes people dismiss thousands of years of evidence because million dollar studies haven't been done. We live in a very strange age where we trust a very, very new medicine that even has proven side effects such as a certain amount of deaths, but we don't trust medicines that have helped people for far longer than a couple of decades- and which are generally safer than the pharmaceuticals when used as they are meant to be used.

 

But when you get someone off the street who decides to "go natural" but is basically very ignorant and just believes the advertising, or thinks that because it is natural it must be better or safer, or they triple the dose of a powerful herb, or they take it alongside their pharmaceuticals....that is just pure ignorance. And the herbs and natural products themselves should not be blamed for the ignorance of a culture that is sucked along by whatever they are told.

 

No, people should not blindly "trust" natural medicines any more than they should "trust" vaccines and pharmaceuticals. They should get some education, in the basics, and use common sense, and probably consult some experts. In this day and age, they can do research themselves and take back their power from multi national companies that are very, very interested in making lots and lots of money.

And they can grow some herbs in their backyard and take back responsibility for their health from doctors and anyone else who tries to disempower them with big words and a superior attitude.

 

Anyone who thinks vaccines can do no harm has obviously not done the research. And I find the anti vaccinators to be treading dangerous waters when they themselves become dogmatic and emotional and do not do the research as well.

 

In Australia, there is a certain standard for herbal medicines and they are frequently tested. With professional grade products, there is a whole lot of information available about each product and it is verifiable. They are also professional grade for a reason- they are often of a high potency, and they are meant to be dispensed by someone who has studied how to use them safely and with skill. I believe they can generally be trusted. But I also believe that the doctors who dispense vaccines also believe in them, genuinely, and believe them to be safe- but I know I would trust something that has been used and its use and side effects recorded for hundreds of years, before I will automatically trust a pharmaceutical product that has limited and biased testing including results that a certain number of people will naturally be injured. Often only one or 2 studies have been done, and many products are recalled after released, when too many people suffer terrible side effects (that is happening right now with many anti depressants which have been clearly linked to increased suicide rates).

 

I think it pays to keep an open mind either way.

 

:iagree:

 

I trust thousands of years of effective treatment over ten years of self-serving trials any day.

 

That being said, I am not completely against vaxes. We selectively vax and we delay them significantly.

 

We also take very few supplements: vitamins and krill oil are the only ones right now. We get our nutrition from whole organic foods. But I have used herbs to increase breastmilk supply and to help with pregnancy symptoms.

 

I also am blessed to have a SIL with a Masters in Herbal Medicine, who makes all of her own salves, tinctures, oils, etc. So if I need something, I know exactly where it came from, what is in it, and how it was made. I know what she gives me is not for her profit, but for my health.

[patchfire]

Short answer: no, we don't.

 

Longer answer: I will at times drink herbal tea that's reputed to help with certain things, but in general I view it as nutritional support, not an actual attempt to 'cure' anything. When we're sick, we don't reach for packaged herbal remedies OR OTC meds... we drink a lot of water, we sleep and nap, and we avoid going out in public as much as possible. It's amazing how many things are gone just as quickly that way. ;)

[mommaduck]

Our children are properly vaccinated.

 

We don't do alternative medicine... because things that have repeatedly proven to work when tested lege artis and where we understand the mechanisms behind them are no longer 'alternative' medicine, they entered the canon of 'regular' medicine.

 

Not that the pharmaceutical industry is completely innocent in all that it does or did - not really, as it is too profit-based to not have at least some blood on its hands in the process - but vaccines are safe, tested, proven to work and we understand the mechanisms behind them.

 

That's why my daughter nearly died from one...so very safe that it nearly killed her.

[Ester Maria]

That's why my daughter nearly died from one...so very safe that it nearly killed her.

Which one and why (allergy to a specific component?)?

[silliness7]

]...do you take herbal supplements' date=' homeopathic products, and other packaged "natural remedies"?[/b']

 

I've always been curious about what seem to be people's different standards for the pharmaceutical industry and the supplement industry. In the U.S. there's no requirement that supplements be tested to see if they contain what they claim to contain, or to test for toxicity - much less any requirement that they be tested for efficacy.

 

The natural products industry - which makes huge profits - employs lobbyists to fight against any requirement that they provide documentation of safety of efficacy. And that's in the face of independent studies which have repeatedly found that supplements often don't contain the listed active ingredient, or vary hugely in the included dose, or are contaminated with heavy metals and other toxins.

 

I have never understood why people who think that vaccines haven't been studied extensively enough are okay taking supplements and giving them to their children. And I have never understood why people who are suspicious of even the smallest link between a medical researcher and a pharmaceutical company don't seem to have any qualms about information put out by the $27 billion supplement industry.

 

No. I don't even take vitamins, even when pregnant.

[mommaduck]

Which one and why (allergy to a specific component?)?

 

We don't know why. We were told that it was believed to be a genetic trigger. We were told to not vaccinate her further. It was the MMR. We were also advised not to vaccinate the sibling group, but consider only neccesary vaccinations once they were near adulthood and based on life circumstances (aka, they homeschool so the doctor is not concerned with many vaccinations. Also, if my oldest, a who did well with his shots, were to go to Mexico, we would vaccinate selectively. The child who reacted would not receive any more, period. She has already selected her career, will be training in a few years, and is to keep on top of health precautions).

 

My point though is that you cannot make a blanket statement of "vaccines are safe". They aren't for everyone. And so far, no one has been willing to find the genetic triggers to be able to test for them in the future. When you are shooting up infants before they are even three days old, and children receiving most of their vaccinations in the first two years, there is no time to know if the child has possible allergies or other triggers.

Edited June 12, 2011 by mommaduck

[justasque]

My point though is that you cannot make a blanket statement of "vaccines are safe".

 

A better statement would be that studies have concluded that the chance of harm from a vaccine is lower than the chance of harm from the disease it is intended to prevent. Any mom who has read the patient info knows that most vaccines are not without possible side effects. The gamble is that the risk of serious harm from the vax is lower than the disease.

[MelanieM]

Not that the pharmaceutical industry is completely innocent in all that it does or did - not really, as it is too profit-based to not have at least some blood on its hands in the process - but vaccines are safe, tested, proven to work and we understand the mechanisms behind them.

It depends on how you define safe, tested, and proven to work. The vaccine inserts themselves list plenty of risks that come with vaccinating, and some have higher statistical chance of side effects than the actual disease. Testing is also up for debate, as often a part of the testing process is actually putting the vaccine to market and seeing what happens in a wider segment of the population; not everyone is comfortable being a guinea pig for new vaccines. Lastly, proven to work also needs to be defined, as not all vaccines are statistically that effective. For example, I recall a few years back reading the statistical analysis for the flu shot at the end of the season and it was deemed approximately 3% more effective in preventing the flu than no shot at all, which is basically statistically irrelevant.

[nmoira]

 

A better statement would be that studies have concluded that the chance of harm from a vaccine is lower than the chance of harm from the disease it is intended to prevent. Any mom who has read the patient info knows that most vaccines are not without possible side effects. The gamble is that the risk of serious harm from the vax is lower than the disease.

And herd immunity depends not on every single person getting vaccinated, but rather on a certain threshold in the population (this varies from vaccine to vaccine). One reason we vax is to do our share to protect children like mommaduck's who cannot.

[nmoira]

 

It depends on how you define safe, tested, and proven to work. The vaccine inserts themselves list plenty of risks that come with vaccinating, and some have higher statistical chance of side effects than the actual disease.

Major side effects, or just side effects? I'm skeptical as to the former.

[WishboneDawn]

And herd immunity depends not on every single person getting vaccinated, but rather on a certain threshold in the population (this varies from vaccine to vaccine). One reason we vax is to do our share to protect children like mommaduck's who cannot.

 

This is a big reason for me as well.

[mommaduck]

A better statement would be that studies have concluded that the chance of harm from a vaccine is lower than the chance of harm from the disease it is intended to prevent. Any mom who has read the patient info knows that most vaccines are not without possible side effects. The gamble is that the risk of serious harm from the vax is lower than the disease.

 

And in my daughter's case, her risk of harm from the vaccine is much greater than her risk of actually contracting the disease. These are things that should be taken into consideration and why I'm not for mandatory vaccinations. Unfortunately, there are many doctors that want to blanket vaccinate without any concern for family history or that individual's history. An associate of our doctor refused to remove a simple mole from my daughter's back because she is no longer being vaccinated, regardless of her medical history and several doctors saying she should not be. He was such an @$$hat about it that I had it put in our records that our family is never to see him.

 

BTW, I'm not anti-vax. I have a lot of concerns about how and when they are administered and believe that there is much more research needed (not that they should never be used). I also believe that we, as a society, over vaccinate.

[mommaduck]

And herd immunity depends not on every single person getting vaccinated, but rather on a certain threshold in the population (this varies from vaccine to vaccine). One reason we vax is to do our share to protect children like mommaduck's who cannot.

 

And I do recognise that my children do receive a certain amount of benefit from this. :) I just don't like when others act as though we aren't "doing our part" to benefit society...and are treated as though we are plague carriers (fortunately, I've only run into this with a couple of people, but I've heard worse from others).

[celticmom]

You have a good point, and gullibility is common either way.

 

The history of the use of herbal medicines is, however, thousands of years old, and I do not dismiss the whole of the experience of the human race in terms of using plants to heal, just because it hasn't all been "scientifically proven."- yet.

It takes a pharmaceutical company millions of $ to conduct tests on new products/medicines, and they have to have a financial vested interest in order to do so- so they are already biased. They will not test things, such as cancer treatments, that they cannot patent and make a lot of money from. They also have quite a large acceptable collateral damage- a few deaths, a slew of serious complications- these are all quite acceptable if enough people are benefitted. Herbalist producers rarely have access to the type of money that pharmaceutical companies- the richest companies in the world, think about it- have, to conduct rigorous tests. However, that testing IS being done all over the world as demand of scientific confirmation increases.

 

Yet if one person dies of a herbal remedy, there is a huge outcry. Thousands more people die of doctor error than die of natural remedies, let alone pharmaceutical complications. Many thousands die each year of pharmaceutical drugs due to many, many reasons- side effects, wrong dose, wrong drug given, doctor error etc

 

Herbal medicines have a long, long history. If one takes the time to study that history, one will find a rich source of medicine and healing that kept humanity alive enough that we can be here today. A lot of wisdom was passed down over generations. Scientific arrogance makes people dismiss thousands of years of evidence because million dollar studies haven't been done. We live in a very strange age where we trust a very, very new medicine that even has proven side effects such as a certain amount of deaths, but we don't trust medicines that have helped people for far longer than a couple of decades- and which are generally safer than the pharmaceuticals when used as they are meant to be used.

 

But when you get someone off the street who decides to "go natural" but is basically very ignorant and just believes the advertising, or thinks that because it is natural it must be better or safer, or they triple the dose of a powerful herb, or they take it alongside their pharmaceuticals....that is just pure ignorance. And the herbs and natural products themselves should not be blamed for the ignorance of a culture that is sucked along by whatever they are told.

 

No, people should not blindly "trust" natural medicines any more than they should "trust" vaccines and pharmaceuticals. They should get some education, in the basics, and use common sense, and probably consult some experts. In this day and age, they can do research themselves and take back their power from multi national companies that are very, very interested in making lots and lots of money.

And they can grow some herbs in their backyard and take back responsibility for their health from doctors and anyone else who tries to disempower them with big words and a superior attitude.

 

Anyone who thinks vaccines can do no harm has obviously not done the research. And I find the anti vaccinators to be treading dangerous waters when they themselves become dogmatic and emotional and do not do the research as well.

 

In Australia, there is a certain standard for herbal medicines and they are frequently tested. With professional grade products, there is a whole lot of information available about each product and it is verifiable. They are also professional grade for a reason- they are often of a high potency, and they are meant to be dispensed by someone who has studied how to use them safely and with skill. I believe they can generally be trusted. But I also believe that the doctors who dispense vaccines also believe in them, genuinely, and believe them to be safe- but I know I would trust something that has been used and its use and side effects recorded for hundreds of years, before I will automatically trust a pharmaceutical product that has limited and biased testing including results that a certain number of people will naturally be injured. Often only one or 2 studies have been done, and many products are recalled after released, when too many people suffer terrible side effects (that is happening right now with many anti depressants which have been clearly linked to increased suicide rates).

 

I think it pays to keep an open mind either way.

:iagree:

[nmoira]

 

And I do recognise that my children do receive a certain amount of benefit from this. :) I just don't like when others act as though we aren't "doing our part" to benefit society...and are treated as though we are plague carriers (fortunately, I've only run into this with a couple of people, but I've heard worse from others).

I'm sorry for the experience you've had with doctors. It's supposed to about minimizing overall risk both for the group and for individuals, and in the case of your family it's obvious (or at least should be) that this means not vaxxing.

[Ester Maria]

We don't know why. We were told that it was believed to be a genetic trigger. We were told to not vaccinate her further. It was the MMR. We were also advised not to vaccinate the sibling group, but consider only neccesary vaccinations once they were near adulthood and based on life circumstances (aka, they homeschool so the doctor is not concerned with many vaccinations. Also, if my oldest, a who did well with his shots, were to go to Mexico, we would vaccinate selectively. The child who reacted would not receive any more, period. She has already selected her career, will be training in a few years, and is to keep on top of health precautions).

Thanks for sharing.

 

I'm sorry about your daughter - I didn't wish to come across as dogmatically disregarding even the smallest theoretical option that things may not go well in some individual cases, because such an option always exists and different organisms might react differently (however, I lack scientific background to speak specifically of MMR, what might be possible causes for a bad reaction and whether they could have been prevented).

 

I have a husband in the pharmaceutical industry (not dealing with vaccines at all, but still, in a broader sense, it is his field) and nearly all of his colleagues vaccinate their children. Those who don't do it don't do so because they have severely ill and/or oversensitive children who cannot be vaccinated for health reasons, but I don't know anyone among that crowd who doesn't vaccinate their children because of an inherent distrust into vaccines or fear of their potential side-effects (and these are experts who are very well informed on the nuances of biochemistry, pharmacology, etc., and how those things work), even if in some individual cases they need to consider delaying it or using an alternative vaccine without a component the child is allergic on, etc. They do exercise caution, emphasize that it is important to take into account the specifics of each organism (particularly if there are atypical things to be taken into account in individual or family history), and a certain number of them advocate delayed vaccines, but they're all pro-vaccines at the end of the day.

 

Ironically, they also generally have negative views of alternative medicine (as, like I said, things tested lege artis, whose mechanisms are understood, are no longer alternative, but regular science), and do find that in the mainstream health care many medicines are overprescribed and overused and dislike that trend; however, they find that major vaccines aren't an issue for a normal healthy child. A caution should always be exercised and individual exemption should always exist, but there is too much paranoia in the larger society about vaccines IMO.

[mommaduck]

Thanks for sharing.

 

I'm sorry about your daughter - I didn't wish to come across as dogmatically disregarding even the smallest theoretical option that things may not go well in some individual cases, because such an option always exists and different organisms might react differently (however, I lack scientific background to speak specifically of MMR, what might be possible causes for a bad reaction and whether they could have been prevented).

 

I have a husband in the pharmaceutical industry (not dealing with vaccines at all, but still, in a broader sense, it is his field) and nearly all of his colleagues vaccinate their children. Those who don't do it don't do so because they have severely ill and/or oversensitive children who cannot be vaccinated for health reasons, but I don't know anyone among that crowd who doesn't vaccinate their children because of an inherent distrust into vaccines or fear of their potential side-effects (and these are experts who are very well informed on the nuances of biochemistry, pharmacology, etc., and how those things work), even if in some individual cases they need to consider delaying it or using an alternative vaccine without a component the child is allergic on, etc. They do exercise caution, emphasize that it is important to take into account the specifics of each organism (particularly if there are atypical things to be taken into account in individual or family history), and a certain number of them advocate delayed vaccines, but they're all pro-vaccines at the end of the day.

 

Ironically, they also generally have negative views of alternative medicine (as, like I said, things tested lege artis, whose mechanisms are understood, are no longer alternative, but regular science), and do find that in the mainstream health care many medicines are overprescribed and overused and dislike that trend; however, they find that major vaccines aren't an issue for a normal healthy child. A caution should always be exercised and individual exemption should always exist, but there is too much paranoia in the larger society about vaccines IMO.

 

I agree and I'm sorry if I sounded overly harsh as well. There are just too many people that broadbrush on both sides. There is so much gray area in this. I'm pro-alternative medicine, but when practised appropriately. Same with standard medical care...when practised appropriately. I do believe that there is paranoia on both sides with extremists either direction. I'm strong on people advocating for themselves and their own children.

[JVA]

My point though is that you cannot make a blanket statement of "vaccines are safe". They aren't for everyone. And so far, no one has been willing to find the genetic triggers to be able to test for them in the future. When you are shooting up infants before they are even three days old, and children receiving most of their vaccinations in the first two years, there is no time to know if the child has possible allergies or other triggers.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

This is my concern. The idea of giving a newborn multiple shots at one time is incredibly stupid. Who knows if there will be a reaction and how can we know which shot- or what combination might cause a reaction? The baby's chemistry is new and unknown. This why we delayed vaccinations. My wonderful Pediatrician just retired and his practiced was taken over by a younger doc. He worked with us on delaying them within his and our comfort range. We respected each other. The new doc is adament about following the CDC schedule. She and I agreed that I need to find a different practice. I will. As a MOPS mentor, I have suggested to the young moms at my table that delaying the shots is not a crime and they need to inform themselves. The parents should be driving the bus.

[MelanieM]

Major side effects, or just side effects? I'm skeptical as to the former.

 

It depends on the vaccine. It's been quite a few years since I did all of my research so I won't try to speak to specifics right now, but I do recall there being some vaccines where my number crunching resulted in a greater risk to (comparable) serious side effects from the vaccine as risks from the illness. And of course, there are more complex risk assessments to take into consideration... Such is the case with the chicken pox vaccine, which has resulted in an increase in cases of shingles, a much more serious disease overall.

 

Then there's also the consideration of what other side effects might be taking place that we can't yet, beyond a doubt, contribute directly to the vaccine. (Not at all helped by the number of doctors that refuse to note a reaction when reported, or the number of parents that fail to report in the first place.) I know that's often dismissed by the pro-vaccine camp, but there have been enough examples of vaccines that were put on the market and then pulled because of major numbers of serious side effects to make me highly skeptical of the suggestion that vaccines are safe overall.

[nmoira]

It depends on the vaccine. It's been quite a few years since I did all of my research so I won't try to speak to specifics right now, but I do recall there being some vaccines where my number crunching resulted in a greater risk to (comparable) serious side effects from the vaccine as risks from the illness. And of course, there are more complex risk assessments to take into consideration... Such is the case with the chicken pox vaccine, which has resulted in an increase in cases of shingles, a much more serious disease overall.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the chicken pox vaccine precisely because of re-exposure issues. Both my girls had chicken pox, but will very likely not be in a postition to benefit from periodic re-exposure and so may be at risk for shingles. I don't know much about the efficacy of the shingles vaccine, but I haven't looked into it yet.

 

There aren't that many vaccines administered. It would help if you could name one in current use for which the known risks outweigh the benefits.

 

Then there's also the consideration of what other side effects might be taking place that we can't yet, beyond a doubt, contribute directly to the vaccine.

This doesn't really mean anything. Anything can have side effects we can't, beyond a doubt, contribute directly to it.

[MelanieM]

There aren't that many vaccines administered. It would help if you could name one in current use for which the known risks outweigh the benefits.

 

To be honest, it was a lot of work to do the research on all of this when it was relevant for me. I'm not sure if I am all that interested in a self-inflicted refresher course right now in the interest of discussion where it won't make much of a difference to either of us. Not trying to blow you off... I just don't trust my memory to be specific enough without the research, and am not sure I want to invest the time in all that reading again.

This doesn't really mean anything. Anything can have side effects we can't, beyond a doubt, contribute directly to it.

 

Of course anything can have side effects. But this is the health of my children, and so I absolutely have to consider whether or not it makes sense for me to conclude that certain risks might be present with a particular vaccine, whether or not there is absolute evidence in place to support such a thing. For example, my family has some history of immune system disorder that may mean vaccines would be a greater risk to my children. That, combined with how my daughter reacted when we agreed to her first shot (swelling at the site, sleeping for 24 hours straight) made me take even anecdotal evidence very, very seriously when weighing this choice for my family. So sometimes, when we make decisions for ourselves, there just needs to be reasonable doubt, rather than beyond a doubt.

[DarlaS]

Saw palmetto is a good example of a supplement for which it would be nice to have some sort of label. There is a lot of chatter on the web about whether saw palmetto may or may not cause birth defects and at what dosage. It is not a simple matter to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

 

It was simple for me. We are not having any more kids, and dh's doctor advised him on brand and dosage. Since it wasn't my decision, that is the extent of my knowledge on his choices.

 

The only testing for herbal products *I* would like to see is some kind of verification that the product contains what it says it does.

[Aelwydd]

You have a good point, and gullibility is common either way.

 

The history of the use of herbal medicines is, however, thousands of years old, and I do not dismiss the whole of the experience of the human race in terms of using plants to heal, just because it hasn't all been "scientifically proven."- yet.

It takes a pharmaceutical company millions of $ to conduct tests on new products/medicines, and they have to have a financial vested interest in order to do so- so they are already biased. They will not test things, such as cancer treatments, that they cannot patent and make a lot of money from. They also have quite a large acceptable collateral damage- a few deaths, a slew of serious complications- these are all quite acceptable if enough people are benefitted. Herbalist producers rarely have access to the type of money that pharmaceutical companies- the richest companies in the world, think about it- have, to conduct rigorous tests. However, that testing IS being done all over the world as demand of scientific confirmation increases.

 

Yet if one person dies of a herbal remedy, there is a huge outcry. Thousands more people die of doctor error than die of natural remedies, let alone pharmaceutical complications. Many thousands die each year of pharmaceutical drugs due to many, many reasons- side effects, wrong dose, wrong drug given, doctor error etc

 

Herbal medicines have a long, long history. If one takes the time to study that history, one will find a rich source of medicine and healing that kept humanity alive enough that we can be here today. A lot of wisdom was passed down over generations. Scientific arrogance makes people dismiss thousands of years of evidence because million dollar studies haven't been done. We live in a very strange age where we trust a very, very new medicine that even has proven side effects such as a certain amount of deaths, but we don't trust medicines that have helped people for far longer than a couple of decades- and which are generally safer than the pharmaceuticals when used as they are meant to be used.

 

But when you get someone off the street who decides to "go natural" but is basically very ignorant and just believes the advertising, or thinks that because it is natural it must be better or safer, or they triple the dose of a powerful herb, or they take it alongside their pharmaceuticals....that is just pure ignorance. And the herbs and natural products themselves should not be blamed for the ignorance of a culture that is sucked along by whatever they are told.

 

No, people should not blindly "trust" natural medicines any more than they should "trust" vaccines and pharmaceuticals. They should get some education, in the basics, and use common sense, and probably consult some experts. In this day and age, they can do research themselves and take back their power from multi national companies that are very, very interested in making lots and lots of money.

And they can grow some herbs in their backyard and take back responsibility for their health from doctors and anyone else who tries to disempower them with big words and a superior attitude.

 

Anyone who thinks vaccines can do no harm has obviously not done the research. And I find the anti vaccinators to be treading dangerous waters when they themselves become dogmatic and emotional and do not do the research as well.

 

In Australia, there is a certain standard for herbal medicines and they are frequently tested. With professional grade products, there is a whole lot of information available about each product and it is verifiable. They are also professional grade for a reason- they are often of a high potency, and they are meant to be dispensed by someone who has studied how to use them safely and with skill.

 

Peela, while I agree with you that many herbal substances have been tested throughout time, the problem is that not all countries regulate how these substances are then processed and packaged.

 

It sounds like Australia has pretty good standards for making sure herbal medications are safe to consume. Not all countries are like this. In the US, the FDA which regulates most substances, does not regulate herbal products, which is exactly Rivka's point. These companies strongly resist any scrutiny, so that they are free to create products whose claims have not been investigated or tested by anybody but the person on the street.

 

So, my package of chamomile tea may claim to have such-and-such amount of chamomile and other ingredients, but fail to mention that processing has stripped it of its most potent qualities, and added other substances that could actually have deleterious effects on health. But I wouldn't know that, because there is precious little oversight in how these herbal products are made and how they are treated.

 

Whereas the contents of each vaccine is not only closely regulated, and listed, but each vaccine has a number assigned to it. This is to help track what happened to the vaccine in the time between production and being administered.

[Hannah C.]

I don't take any supplements, aside from vitamins and occasionally vitamin C. I do sometimes drink herbal tea, but that's for taste, not for any health benefits.

[asta]

After the 20+ page anti-vax threads, I find the overwhelming sound of crickets on this thread... fascinating.

 

 

asta

[YLVD]

I personally question the safety of some vaccines. That said, my DD is fully vaxed. We avoid things like flu shots, etc. I did give her the chicken pox vaccine only once she turned 10 years old. There is a reason though. In my family, even with exposure, all of us get chicken pox very late. I didn't get it until age 20 with a newborn, and ended up with shingles. I was exposed many times.

 

I do take supplements from time to time with a ton of research on them.

[Peela]

Vaccines aren't injected into your bloodstream. Some vaccines have been oral. All manner of things can be absorbed through your digestive system, right into your bloodstream. There is no biological basis for your preference.

 

Yes all manner of things can be absorbed regardless, but there are many, many mechanisms by which the body can buffer and mediate a substance that enters through the digestive system, where it cannot, or the pathways are very different, when a substance enters directly through the blood. It can put the body into great shock when a substance enters directly through the bloodstream- we are designed to have some defences against poisons before they enter the bloodstream, through the digestive tract. Injected vaccines do bypass a very valuable mechanism- for good reason. Our bodies naturally do prevent most vaccines from working unless they are injected.

And...your point is strange since most vaccines are given by injection, directly into the bloodstream. Only a minority are not.

 

Peela, while I agree with you that many herbal substances have been tested throughout time, the problem is that not all countries regulate how these substances are then processed and packaged.

 

It sounds like Australia has pretty good standards for making sure herbal medications are safe to consume. Not all countries are like this. In the US, the FDA which regulates most substances, does not regulate herbal products, which is exactly Rivka's point. These companies strongly resist any scrutiny, so that they are free to create products whose claims have not been investigated or tested by anybody but the person on the street.

 

So, my package of chamomile tea may claim to have such-and-such amount of chamomile and other ingredients, but fail to mention that processing has stripped it of its most potent qualities, and added other substances that could actually have deleterious effects on health. But I wouldn't know that, because there is precious little oversight in how these herbal products are made and how they are treated.

 

Whereas the contents of each vaccine is not only closely regulated, and listed, but each vaccine has a number assigned to it. This is to help track what happened to the vaccine in the time between production and being administered.

 

Yes, I understand that. But throwing away the huge value of natural medicine because of a minority of unscrupulous manufacturers, seems strangely extreme to me.

 

FWIW, my husband and I (both trained naturopaths) feel that Naturopathy is a profession that has in general sold out to Big Pharma. We are ourselves extremely sceptical of the "pill pushing" direction that natural medicine has taken, and I do understand the scepticism of some of the public- and wish more of the public were skeptical at the direction it is taking.

 

The quantity of active herbs in many products that are produced as natural herbal products, but by Pharmaceutical companies (most of those in health food stores here), is minimal. They are often a scam- but the small quantities of active ingredients do stop the companies from being sued for any major side effects, since both the intended effect, and the side effect, will be minimal.

 

But...while I too can be very cynical about the Big Business that natural medicine has become...there are many, many reputable companies, a vast amount of very ethical people, and a huge amount of valuable information, in the natural medicine field.

 

But to me, naturopathy, natural medicine, is not primarily about taking tablets, no matter how potent and wonderful they can be. It is about treating a whole person, about learning what they were doing that made them sick in the first place, about tweaking lifestyle, about educating, about diet- its often about taking them off things. Dh, when working as a naturopath, once cured a man of life debilitating gout just by taking him off Coca Cola. That simple. He just didn't know how bad it was for him.

 

At the bottom line it's all about ethics, and that is an individual thing. I do not trust the ethics of Big Pharma at all, but I might still make use of some of their products on an individual basis. I am grateful for modern science- I just wish it were more ethical and less disempowering of people- I wish they worked with people instead of acting like God and treating people like idiots. I also feel many in the herbal, natural product industry sell out as well, though, and many have jumped on the natural bandwagon to make money unethically- it takes discrimination to know who is for real.

 

But there are also many who don't sell out and if you are truly interested, they are not so hard to find with some research. I dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Peela

[DarlaS]

After the 20+ page anti-vax threads, I find the overwhelming sound of crickets on this thread... fascinating.

 

 

asta

 

After a 20 page thread (which I guess I missed), it's conceivable everyone's lost interest in the topic. At least for now. :tongue_smilie:

 

And some of us have yard work to do. It keeps the vitamin D levels up. :leaving:

[nmoira]

And...your point is strange since most vaccines are given by injection, directly into the bloodstream. Only a minority are not.

This is incorrect. Most vaccines are injected into muscle tissue, some into fatty tissue. None are injected directly into the bloodstream.