Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SurreyGirl

First Cause Of Autoimmunity?

Recommended Posts

I too have recently decided against vaccines lately. I go Dr. Blaylocks book too late to not do the 2 mo vacs for my son. He broke out with eczema 1-2 weeks later. I was tested for allergies and have since gone on a soy/gluten free diet. Pnuemococcal has soy protein in it. He will more than likely not be getting any more vaccinations. If any, it would be after he's 2 yrs old. My oldest has had all her vaccinations (except varicella because she had chickenpox). My next oldest has had all but his last batch and will not have them. They are having a hard time not eating soy anymore. Soy is bad on the intestines as well. They are not gluten free yet but we are moving that direction with them. They love my rice bread. Too expensive to let them eat all the time. I need to try some bread recipes. My infant's eczema has now cleared up. One of the doc's I see is fine with my decision of no shots, if any, before 2 yrs; the other isn't. I subscribe to news items sent out by nvic.org for anyone interested. Lots of stuff in the news around the country. The founders son had a bad reaction after DTP. She has a lot of info on the site. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to respond to this in general - rather specifically to this statement - "colloidal silver (scary)"

What in the world is scary about colloidal silver? This statement is begging research. Silver has been used medicinally for centures - in one form or another. Before the introduction of antibiotics (not a great day in history) silver nitrate drops were put in the eyes of newborns to kill infection - to spare infants from blindness related to syphilitic exposure. Silver was used on the battlefield to kill bacterial infections in open wounds. Burn victims from the World Trade Center were submerged in silver solution to prevent the infections that are the death nell for burn victims.

Silver will cure a urinary tract infection quicker than any antibiotic you can find.

A personal story: my former husband acquired a post surgical, drug resistant staph infection. He had five surgeries over a period of three years but they could not halt the infection. I took him to another doctor in another city who did one unsuccessful surgery and then told me he wanted to use something that wasn't in common use but that he thought might work. He gave me a suspension of silver with directions to literally pour it into the open wound several times a day. On the second day the infected drainage stopped - the wound healed within a week and the infection never returned.

That was my introduction to silver. It is in my house at all times - taken, or used only when needed.

It is used for burns, cuts, infection of any kind. For internal infections I take 1/2 cup for three or four days and then a tablespoon a day for a week. That always does the trick. Without exception.

There is nothing 'quakcy' about this. Read up. There is a lot of literature on the subject. You can buy silver impregnated bandages at the drug store. They are in common use in hospitals.

This is one 'cure' you shouldn't miss. Those 'ancients' weren't so stupid you know! Claire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'shayesmom' date='Apr 17 2006, 06:25 AM' post='127715']Took this info from another web site and have provided references as well.

Thanks, shayesmom, I only just saw this today--i printed it out for my husband. I'll also show it to any docotr who tries to insist on more vaccines for my kids!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a thought provoking thread. The comment about Jean dodds caught my eye since I am in the veterinary field too. Jean Dodds is well respected and her info is accurate. Trying to change vets to NOT to give annual vaccines to pets is a huge battle right now, but that's another topic (the animal health aspect of vaccines and the many articles written about that).

I agree totally with informed consent. Both the GI and endocrinologist for my kids made a point of discussing vaccines and a person with immune mediated disease.

There is known genetic flaws that have to be triggered - I think that is clear - but I think we need to minimize the "triggers" as best we can and the way we feel is best for our children or ourselves.

I know the trigger for my diabetes was the actual flu - I got classic symptoms of influenza but never seemed to kick the fatigue and 6 weeks later I am on insulin.

My daughter had Kawasaki disease and then started with migraines/tummy aches, diagnosed 10 months later with celiac. Kawasaki disease is a devastating insult to the entire body but esp the immune system, she took 8 weeks to fully recover and sees a cardiologist to monitor her damaged coronary arteries.

My son was not sick in the months prior to his diabetes diagnosis.

AND then we found that the culprit was likely an environmental trigger of mold. We found damaged drywall in the basement and we looked behind it - MOLD -we removed it all and had an inspection but I couldnt stay there cause to me, the house damaged my kids. Mold can trigger Kawasaki which then can trigger further immune disease, cascade effect.

My education in vet medicine and all the illnesses in my kids have taught me that YES vaccines are over used, we used to vaccinate for the deadly diseases, now they try and make a vaccine for everything.

The theory about the deadly parvovirus infection in dogs which surfaced in 1978 - is that it was a mutated form of a cat parvovirus that was shed by cats vaccinated by a specific vaccine. They think this because this "new disease" surfaced on 3 continents at the same time, the same continents that used certain batches of feline vaccine. In this case a new disease was created by a vaccine in another species which then required the production of a parvo vaccine to save the dogs... The canine parvovirus is similar genetically to the feline parvovirus (called feline distemper).

YES to informed consent, my kids are vaccinated but I am cautious about which ones, when and why. Those that choose not to vaccinate have that right to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think that the whole issue is completely blown out of persective by the incredible work that vaccines have achieved in the West.

I have spent a large part of my life in Africa and middle and far east and I think a lot of people would change their minds on vaccines if they were to live where I have lived.

It really is a case that vaccines have all but eradicated many serious diseases in the west but one only has to visit Pakistan or anywhere in sub-saharan Africa to see mothers carryng their babies hundreds of miles by foot to get them vaccinated.

The question is a social question... undoubtedly vaccines have side effects and they can be serious but every mother is naturally selfish about their kids. If you can have almost no risk because everyone elses kids take the risk for your kids then the issue of vaccinations becomes not a personal issue but one of society.

If you expect to benefit from a society it is a two way process. If everyone takes the stance that so long as everyone else is vaccinated then they don't need to risk vaccinating their child then noone will vaccinate and the need to vaccinate will be real. It really is that simple.

Some vaccines are high risk and others are low risk and some the risk is so neligible as to be almost non existant. At the same time the diseases vaccinated against come in all virulencies.. some will be life threatening and others will be disfiguring and others a temporary inconvenience.

If I can give a deliberatly provoking example imagine that a HIV vaccine were developed but had some side effects. One can say "but I will not be having unprotected sex so I'm not at risk" but unfortunatly women do get raped and people do get blood transfusions etc. etc. its just a unfortunate fact.

Indeed HIV is completely controllable but the social consequences are dire. Cuba has one of the lowest REAL reported HIV rates inthe world, despite its thriving sex industry.

In order to do this it locked away HIV +ve people for quite a few years in 'special villiages' and it licenses protitution to "tested prostitutes" ... its a question of how far the state can go to infringing peoples rights.

Recent outbreaks of bird-flu have shown this, what would you do if your neighbour was under quarantene but you knew they were still leaving the house? Would you call the police or would you respect their individual rights? Who would be responsible if say 50 people died in your town because someone would not accept quarantine? Would you accept the blame yourself for not reporting this? Would you console the mothers of the dead and say sorry its my fault? Would you blame the state for not enforcing the quarantine?

the fact is many of us would baulk at the idea of having armed officers outside the house with orders to shoot anyone leaving and at the same time after the epidemic passes then say how wrong this was BUT if the quarantine is not enforced then we would be equally up in arms about how the authorities had not prevented the deaths!

This is what vaccination is like... do we insist? Do parents at a public school have the right to exclude your unvaccinated child? If their child dies because of your unvaccinated child who is to blame?

I don't claim to have any answers here, hence my use of the question mark..I am just posing questions but questions I think most people will be hard pressed to answer.

400 years ago 25% of the eurpean population died of smallpox, a disease easily vaccinated against and indeed vaccinated against for over 2500 years in India.

The same discussion was put forwards then notable by Voltaire.

http://www.whale.to/a/voltaire1.html

Now the question is was innoculation a mistake, would we be happy to still be accepting smallpox as a common disease and killing and disfiguring billions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big push to get the world vaccinated against smallpox was because the vaccine was VERY reactive. We put people's lives in too much jeopardy to continue the vaccination process. Quarantine was also put in use with the vaccine some people's opinion was the quarantine was more important than the vaccine. The last case of small pox (that was vaccine induced) was in Africa in 1979. {That is from memory of the top of my head so if there is an error there, please feel free to correct me}

You are using a very grey area to debate this issue. The areas of the world you reference are areas not known for clean water and desirable living conditions. So the question of effective vaccine or living standards is hard to answer. (Vaccine inserts also reference this by mentioning indian reservation statistics)

I support informed consent and we have freedom of religion as our Constitional rights.

As far as a sick person under quarantine, they would be a little too sick to be running out on errands.

L.

I really think that the whole issue is completely blown out of persective by the incredible work that vaccines have achieved in the West.

I have spent a large part of my life in Africa and middle and far east and I think a lot of people would change their minds on vaccines if they were to live where I have lived.

It really is a case that vaccines have all but eradicated many serious diseases in the west but one only has to visit Pakistan or anywhere in sub-saharan Africa to see mothers carryng their babies hundreds of miles by foot to get them vaccinated.

The question is a social question... undoubtedly vaccines have side effects and they can be serious but every mother is naturally selfish about their kids. If you can have almost no risk because everyone elses kids take the risk for your kids then the issue of vaccinations becomes not a personal issue but one of society.

If you expect to benefit from a society it is a two way process. If everyone takes the stance that so long as everyone else is vaccinated then they don't need to risk vaccinating their child then noone will vaccinate and the need to vaccinate will be real. It really is that simple.

Some vaccines are high risk and others are low risk and some the risk is so neligible as to be almost non existant. At the same time the diseases vaccinated against come in all virulencies.. some will be life threatening and others will be disfiguring and others a temporary inconvenience.

If I can give a deliberatly provoking example imagine that a HIV vaccine were developed but had some side effects. One can say "but I will not be having unprotected sex so I'm not at risk" but unfortunatly women do get raped and people do get blood transfusions etc. etc. its just a unfortunate fact.

Indeed HIV is completely controllable but the social consequences are dire. Cuba has one of the lowest REAL reported HIV rates inthe world, despite its thriving sex industry.

In order to do this it locked away HIV +ve people for quite a few years in 'special villiages' and it licenses protitution to "tested prostitutes" ... its a question of how far the state can go to infringing peoples rights.

Recent outbreaks of bird-flu have shown this, what would you do if your neighbour was under quarantene but you knew they were still leaving the house? Would you call the police or would you respect their individual rights? Who would be responsible if say 50 people died in your town because someone would not accept quarantine? Would you accept the blame yourself for not reporting this? Would you console the mothers of the dead and say sorry its my fault? Would you blame the state for not enforcing the quarantine?

the fact is many of us would baulk at the idea of having armed officers outside the house with orders to shoot anyone leaving and at the same time after the epidemic passes then say how wrong this was BUT if the quarantine is not enforced then we would be equally up in arms about how the authorities had not prevented the deaths!

This is what vaccination is like... do we insist? Do parents at a public school have the right to exclude your unvaccinated child? If their child dies because of your unvaccinated child who is to blame?

I don't claim to have any answers here, hence my use of the question mark..I am just posing questions but questions I think most people will be hard pressed to answer.

400 years ago 25% of the eurpean population died of smallpox, a disease easily vaccinated against and indeed vaccinated against for over 2500 years in India.

The same discussion was put forwards then notable by Voltaire.

http://www.whale.to/a/voltaire1.html

Now the question is was innoculation a mistake, would we be happy to still be accepting smallpox as a common disease and killing and disfiguring billions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.drcarley.com/

The article is titled: INOCULATIONS: THE TRUE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

CAUSING VIDS (VACCINE INDUCED DISEASES)

(AN EPIDEMIC OF GENOCIDE)

by Rebecca Carley, M.D.

Court Qualified Expert in VIDS and Legal Abuse Syndrome

January 2005

I must confess I didn't read this entire thread. Is she this person?

REBECCA CARLEY, M.D.

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/carley2.html

Someone wrote a blogg about her too

And I also found this ...Alternative Doctors are Persecuted

I haven't read it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a religious exemption for mandatory vaccines.

Any religious group may object to vaccines for any component, but I do think the main reason is human diploid cells. Concerned Catholics may refer to www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm ;any other religious persons might request guidance from your organized religion leaders.

L.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...