immunisation

[peregrinerose 0]

Are you talking of homeopathic treatments with the insanely diluted amounts or more things like herbals or vitamins?

What people often think is 'it's natural, therefore it can't hurt me' without really thinking this through. Everything that is bioactive in any way can cause as much good as bad. Look at so many of the drugs we use that come from nature... opiates, penicillins, even the drops I use to dilate eyes is a form of Belladonna. But all of those herbals and vitamins can interact with medications, cause allergic reactions/adverse reactions, or have side effects. Echinacea, for example, is good for the immune system. But in people predisposed to autoimmune disease, echinacea can make things much worse. Vitamin E is great, but combine it with aspirin or coumadin, and you can have internal bleeding. Betacarotene is healthy, but smoke and take betacarotene (even in food) and you just increased your chances of lung cancer. Even belladonna or related pupil dilators can cause closed angle glaucoma attacks in people disposed to that.

The placebo effect is very strong... if the very dilated things are working for you, great, but give the credit where it belongs... your own immune system and the placebo effect.

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[Andy9o8 0]

Ahem. All that Mayo clinic description does is give a definition of a generic term, for a target audience comprised of people who are not medical professionals. It impliedly acknowledges that laypeople commonly use and are familiar with the term "pink eye", and thus it provides a listing for it because it recognizes that laypeople will tend to look up "pink eye".

As for Jennifer's dislike of the term "pink eye" because it's inexact, believe me, lawyers have the same tendency. I'm very anal about language, and it really comes out with legal terms. Example: taking something from someone by force or threat of force is ROBBERY. Entering a premises with the intent to commit a crime therein is BURGLARY. They're two different things, especially to me, who has practiced criminal law. So every time I hear someone say "my house got robbed", it bugs me as much as...well, as much as hearing "pink eye" bugs Jennifer. I imagine she'd like to smack the author of that web definition upside the head.

Edit: I wrote & posted this before I read her response to you.

[shortyj 0]

I know just because it natural that you have to be careful. I use homeopathy vitiamins and herbs. I know you have to be careful. Because natural things can be deadly. I also agree with you about the immue system these things just stimulte your immune system, then it does all the rest

Playtime is essential.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I don't hate it I think that it does help when it treats the problem. But when there is something natural that will work w/o side effects I would rather have that.

Vaccinations are given to people to protect them from disease. Modern societies originally made them mandatory for schoolchildren to protect them from the disease of their parents' ignorance. They remain mandatory to this day because that disease still exists.

[philh 0]

Any chance you mmight address my criticism of homopathy re serial dilution?
re natural - there is no reason to believe at all that becuase something is natural it is better for you. Ricin is natural its one of the most lethal poisons in the world. Would you prefer to digest ricin than an antibiotic? of course not, so each substanc has to be assessed on its own merits irrespecitve of whhether or not its natural or man made.

[peregrinerose 0]

I actually recommend herbal/vitamins to patients in some cases. Ocuvite, a multivitimin, for example, has been shown to slow the progression of dry to wet macular degeneration. Omega 3 is great for dry eye in some patients with blepharitis (women past 40, most commonly). Multivitamins in general are good to slow down the progression of cataracts.

I don't give antibiotics unless there is an actual bacterial infection. I don't give meds for viral conjunctivitis (except herpes infections that are potentially blinding).

There really are docs out there who aren't drug happy and are willing to spend the time to educate their patients. Find one... it's worth the work and time it takes interviewing docs. Have a family doc that you have a good relationship with and see for regular physicals, just so if something serious is wrong, you have someone that you already trust and have a relationship with.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

Modern societies originally made them mandatory for schoolchildren to protect them from the disease of their parents' ignorance.

wow.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

They remain mandatory to this day because that disease still exists.

They all do. They all still exist. And even more are mutating.

The number of shots required for children has almost doubled in 20 years. How many vaccines will our children have to have in another 20 years?

"The number of recommended childhood vaccines has increased substantially over the past several decades. Twenty years ago, children received 7 vaccines routinely and up to 5 shots by 2 years of age. Today, children receive 11 vaccines routinely and as many as 20 shots by age two," explains Dr. Offit."

Quoted from an article "assuring" us that infants' immune systems can handle the growing number of vaccines safely.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[philh 0]

do you have any strong evidence that they can't?

[billvon 2,435]

>Quoted from an article "assuring" us that infants' immune systems can
>handle the growing number of vaccines safely.

Would you ever allow your child outside? If so, why are you betting his/her life that their immune systems can handle the _thousands_ of _active_ pathogens they will be exposed to by merely touching things? Compared to the risks posed by vaccines, that's by far a bigger threat.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

They remain mandatory to this day because that disease still exists.

They all do. They all still exist. And even more are mutating.

Um, I was making a particular point.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

They remain mandatory to this day because that disease still exists.

They all do. They all still exist. And even more are mutating.

.

The ONLY reason smallpox still exists is that our governments have kept samples for "security" purposes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

do you have any strong evidence that they can't?

This isn't exactly strong evidence that an infants' immune system can handle an indefinitely growing number of shots - but this is enough to concern me as a parent. And to encourage me to ask questions and read and try my best to educate myself without blindly trusting some fucking lawmakers' greed. (HPV)

Then again I do suffer from the disease of ignorance.

http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?LOWAGE=0&HIGHAGE=2&SEX=&STATE=&PRIOR_VAX=&VAX_DATE_LOW=&VAX_DATE_HIGH=&CUR_ILL=&VAX=&VAXDOSE=&VAXMAN=&VAXROUTE=&VAXLOT=&VAXSITE=&ONSET_DATE_LOW=&ONSET_DATE_HIGH=&REPORT_DATE_LOW=&REPORT_DATE_HIGH=&SYMPTOMS=&HISTORY=&L_THREAT=&ER_VISIT=&DIED=&HOSPITAL=&DEATH_DATE_LOW=&DEATH_DATE_HIGH=&X_STAY=&RECOVD=No&LAB_DATA=&DISABLE=&OTHER_MEDS=&V_ADMINBY=&V_FUNDBY=&PAGENO=1&PERPAGE=10&action=Find%2C+spreadsheet+format

http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/stats.html

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Then again I do suffer from the disease of ignorance.

There's a vaccine for that.

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

>Quoted from an article "assuring" us that infants' immune systems can
>handle the growing number of vaccines safely.

Would you ever allow your child outside? If so, why are you betting his/her life that their immune systems can handle the _thousands_ of _active_ pathogens they will be exposed to by merely touching things? Compared to the risks posed by vaccines, that's by far a bigger threat.

I'm not anti-vaccine. I'd love a cure-all that was 100% safe. Until that day comes, I owe it to myself and to my child to understand what's being asked of me (if not, forced upon me).

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

Quote

Then again I do suffer from the disease of ignorance.

There's a vaccine for that.

And you've refused it, why?

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[philh 0]

this seems to be another example of data mining. Lisitng adverse effects to vaccines does not mean they are unsafe. Would a list of people dying in ambulances crashes mean getting in ambulances is dangerous? One needs to consider the net benefit. The risk from most vaccines is very small, no one would say it is zero, and the benefits of vaccination have been enormous. Just think of the complete eradication of small pox which killed millions!

[billvon 2,435]

>I'm not anti-vaccine. I'd love a cure-all that was 100% safe.

Fair enough. Nothing's 100% safe, but we all make decisions on what's safe enough.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Then again I do suffer from the disease of ignorance.

There's a vaccine for that.

And you've refused it, why?

I prefer homeopathy.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Twenty years ago, children received 7 vaccines routinely and up to 5 shots by 2 years of age. Today, children receive 11 vaccines routinely and as many as 20 shots by age two," explains Dr. Offit."

What are the 11 vaccines for?

Last time I checked, it was still seven vaccines.

[freeflybella 0]

From the CDC... (see attachment)

Remember that MMR and DTaP are 6 vaccines.

(edited: the article I quoted from in my previous post was from 2002 - it seems already the numbers are up. 14 vaccines recommended/mandated and up to 30+ shots by age 2 - if you include yearly flu)

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Then again I do suffer from the disease of ignorance.

There's a vaccine for that.

And you've refused it, why?

I prefer homeopathy.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

>I'm not anti-vaccine. I'd love a cure-all that was 100% safe.

Fair enough. Nothing's 100% safe, but we all make decisions on what's safe enough.

I thought that's what all of these threads were about - the fact that some don't want us to be able to make those decisions.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

>Quoted from an article "assuring" us that infants' immune systems can
>handle the growing number of vaccines safely.

Would you ever allow your child outside? If so, why are you betting his/her life that their immune systems can handle the _thousands_ of _active_ pathogens they will be exposed to by merely touching things? Compared to the risks posed by vaccines, that's by far a bigger threat.

I'm not anti-vaccine. I'd love a cure-all that was 100% safe. Until that day comes, I owe it to myself and to my child to understand what's being asked of me (if not, forced upon me).

100% safe, eh? Funny demand, coming from a SKYDIVER.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

this seems to be another example of data mining. Lisitng adverse effects to vaccines does not mean they are unsafe.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'datamining'. I referenced the VAERS database because there ARE adverse effects and I have a right and an obligation to question.

Vaccines aren't necessarily unsafe for all (they are for some) but that also doesn't mean they are safe. If I'm taking my infant to a doctor and having him injected with something - I want to know what and why. I don't have blind trust in lawmakers/pharmaceutical sales companies. Many vaccines have been recalled and discontinued over the history of vaccines for varied reasons - ranging from harmful formulations to ineffective lots to dangerous side effects.

As I said, it's my right and obligation to question.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi