I hear that being pricked with a needle on a regular basis causes diabetes. Or possibly the other way around, but they’re definitely linked.
More on the Wakefield legacy.
DUplicate post.
I read some of the comments. I know I shouldn’t read the comments. I read a few. Thankfully it was just ‘Greg’ and he got pounded for his ‘parents said ‘x’’ line.
As someone replying put it: "Didn’t you post this exact comment on another thread Greg? The anti-vax playbook is kind of shallow don’t you think? "
ETA: heh, flying monkeys flinging their poo. :D:D:D:D:D
And a reminder for those of us with short attention spans here is the cartoon version of Andy Wakefield’s poo-fest
In an effort to fight ignorance, vaccines ARE more than just antigens. Antigens are the major components, but many vaccines also contain some sort of adjuvant, which is not supposed to be antigenic by itself, but that helps with the creation of a strong, long-term response. Good adjuvants are part of the reason some vaccines don’t need that many boosters.
By themselves, adjuvants are not supposed to cause any problem. In some species, not including humans as that is not my scope, many of the vaccine reactions are related to reactions against the adjuvant, and not the antigen itself.
There are many ways of coping with this, without skipping the vaccines altogether, and these are all used by veterinarians:
-
Prolong time periods between boosters (the whole argument curlcoat has about frequent yearly vaccinations in dogs).
-
If a particular animal reacted to vaccine by brand X, note that in the record and next time use the same vaccine from brand Y. Sometimes that is all it takes.
-
Use vaccines that do not have adjuvants. There are various brands of different core vaccines that do not have adjuvants. But many times these require (as an offset) more frequent vaccination, as they cannot give the long-lasting response that vaccines with adjuvants can.
TLDR: Vaccines contain primarily antigen, but also adjuvant (and a few other inert carrier materials, buffer solutions, etc.).
I liked this comment
Thanks Karl, and I should have been more careful to differentiate between antigen and adjuvant as the non-inert components of vaccines.
However, as I understand it, modern vaccines have less total immunogenic material (i.e., antigen and adjuvant combined) than vaccines did a few decades ago.
So curlcoat is still wrong in imagining that kids today are getting any increase over what kids of our generation got in any aspect at all of their vaccinations, other than the mere number of needle pricks.
(And yes, to forestall more clueless whining on curlcoat’s part, researchers do investigate the long-term impacts of adjuvants on the immune system and other possible health impacts, just as they do for the antigens themselves.)
The long term effects of vaccines are more live, healthy babies.
From *Inside the Victorian Home * byJudith Flanders
“. . . as late as 1899 more than 16 percent of all children did not survive to their first birthday.” page 77
“. . . by the time they reached the age of five 35 out of every 45 children had had either smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, diptheria, whooping cough, typhus or enteric fever.” page 80
Children aren’t just alive because of vaccines. They are healthier. Vaccine preventable diseases don’t just cause death. They often cause long term disability.
They have studied vaccines and autoimmune diseases. They have found no link between diseases like ms and type I diabetes. In fact the highest rates of type I diabetes in children can be found in parts of Europe including Finland and Sweden where they give fewer vaccines than we do.
While rates of type I diabetes are very much on the rise in the children, this may be to numerous factors including the fact that more people with a genetic inclination to the disease are surviving long enough to have children. Prior to the discovery of insulin, this form of diabetes was almost universally fatal.
If Johnny has two boxes of apples, one containing 3217 apples and one containing 200 apples, and Billy has 7 boxes of apples, containing 315 apples total, who has more apples?
Depends how many demons are in each box.
Answer: Big apples is forcing the government to make you wat those apples because they want to profit on you and poison you like Snow White, sheeple!
Yes, the rest is inert or currently known not to be harmful, but things change all the time. I personally think it’s the antigens but since I’m not a scientist I would not make a a statement that any part could or could not cause long term issues.
The only inaccuracy is the number of antigens since the babies are still getting far more vaccination shots now than in the past.
What gave you the first clue? The fact that I’ve said that at least twice in this thread alone?
And yet, no cite, not even proof of where that has been previously addressed.
OK. It would seem to me that it would be possible for one of those “known to not be harmful” ingredients could turn out to be a problem, but if they haven’t been studied for long term affects …?
Hardly. It could be that being exposed to even a low dose of antigens frequently is a problem, or one of those inert or “known to not be harmful” ingredients. I don’t know what caused the problem in dogs, so I don’t know what could be suspicious in kids. It could even be that the fewer antigens makes a difference, but without any studies on long term affects there is no way to know.
Really, considering how often we find out that this drug or that supplement is now dangerous or has a million side effects, it’s kind of strange how trusting you all are. Yes, I get that you want protection from those diseases and herd immunity and all that, but shouldn’t it be an informed decision?
There you go - the whole concern I had about how many vaccinations babies were getting in such a short period of time. It would be the same thing as giving puppies 24 vaccinations before they were 3-4 months old.
Well, I’m not interested in at the time of the shot reactions but it does bring up the question - could a parent get their baby a vaccination made by a different company or would that be a major issue for their doctor?
Again, cite? This is the absolute core of my original question/observation yet I still haven’t seen any cites.
This has zero to do with what you quoted of my post.
I would like to amend my question to: If Johnny eats two boxes of apples, one containing 3217 apples and one containing 200 apples, and Billy eats 7 boxes of apples, containing 315 apples total, who is more “pumped full of” apples?
The suckling pig?
Then why are you still going on about this?
Which has also already been addressed.
No, we’ve known for a long time that you really have no idea what you’re talking about.
Because you’ve responded so well to other cites.
Oh for fuck sake. Really? This is your argument? If so, I recommend that you avoid everything on the off chance that someday it might prove to have adverse effects. Cellphones. Bubblewrap. Cheerios. Yoga. Spoons. Any one of those could be a silent killer. And internet messageboards - those are definitely suspicious. You’d better avoid those until you can be sure.
Or you could add “risk assessment” to the list of things you desperately need to educate yourself about.
I know the saying about “On the Internet no one knows you’re a dog” but seriously: are you a dog? Because unless you are, this is an irrelevant tangent.
Why would we bother? Even if you read it, you’ve admitted you wouldn’t understand it, and then we’d just get the same questions again.
It has everything to do with the crux of your argument.
I think long term exposure to curlcoat should be studied for side effects. I’m pretty sure I’ve lost more than a few brain cells just reading her posts.
Serious question: Would it not be simpler, curlcoat, to Google something like “studies of adjuvants in vaccines”? And then read up on the subject?
I believe it was Oscar Wilde who once said “There is only one thing worse in life than being talked about, and that is being curlcoat”.