With reference to the above post regarding vaccinations, there are some things that need to be said to keep this topic in some sort of balance.
Firstly, it is not my intention to use this thread to either promote nor denigrate vaccines per se.
I wish to be seen as totally neutral on this topic from its perspective, though obviously I could reasonably be expected to have some personal leanings, which I do.
But, they are mine and not to be double guessed at nor used as any type of influence for any and all readers, please respect my position on this.
The topic of vaccinations must lay with the individual alone and that is the only perspective I wish to project or promote.
Having now said the formal stuff, there is a need to find some balance on this topic and as I cannot engage in direct communication with any readers we are stuck with the written word.
Recently there was another thread on the same topic and from the same OP, which I posted a rather lengthy post to.
I have just found that thread again, and my post, so I will paste it here as it says most of what I would like to say on the topic...
Re: 9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
Ive been running another thread for a while now centered on H5N1 Avian Influenza.
In that thread, the topic of vaccinations comes up fairly regularly.
Now before I proceed Id like to to be well understood, I have no particular bias for or against vaccinations per se.
Having a nursing background I have seen enough to keep a very open mind on this topic.
For what its worth here is my take on todays state of affairs as far as vacinations go.
Also, somewhere within the pages of that thread are some factual figures on the number of vaccinations that were given over different decade periods and the corresponding number of re-active negative incidences associated with them, they are very enlightening.
If for instance you were to look at tetnus then you would be a major supporter of vaccinations.
This is an anerobic bug that typically lives in an oxygen less environment such as at the top of a deep wound.
It will feed on the dead blood, grow and multiply then die and release its toxins, hence the term tet-tox vaccinations.
And they work, trust me tetnus toxin poisioning has a very painful and deadly impact on human bodies.
We have read on this thread abour MMR , Polio etc.
All of these vaccines have had massive beneficial impacts for humanity in general.
I believe that what we might be seeing these days is just greed in the form of the FAT COW syndrome with big pharma.
With vaccines like the annual flu vaccines, they must constitute a significant bread and butter bottom line on an annual basis for these massive conglomerates.
And...these same massive conglomerates are also in the top ten political donators to American political influences which absolutely has to gain them a pretty easy ride in terms of gaining approvals with limited testing for some of their various newer developments, and with that comes increased risk factors.
Right now we have several flu vaccinations that were prepared for current distribution that have failed their quality control measures and have been banned in several countries, after distribution, so these problems are real.
After these new products have USFDA approval it is reasonabally typical to see other countries simply "follow suit" with the American approval, without much independant research and voila, the world becomes your oyster if you are one of those massive conglomerates.
Those political donations are a drop in the ocean when put up against the profits that the doors they open will and do generate.
So, I think that really what we see are a combination of several things that are intermingled intricately and cannot be simply seperated as most who have posted here would like to have as a convenient argument for their personal perspectives.
This is a very complex situation with any number of interacting forces.
Yes, I believe that we receive far too many vacinations throughout the course of our lives these days and yes most of them do contain dangerous additives, but the human body is a marvelous organism and for the most part it can tollerate small doses of nasties from time to time, but there is a term for it, not usually associated in this particular theatre, but the word "polypharmacy" comes to mind.
Normally that term is reserved for when we might need to be taking several medicines all at once, well sometimes the combination of two or more prescribed medicines can interact and cause unwanted and even deadly side effects.
That is why we have pharmasists, that is their particular field of speciality, apart from actually dispensing restricted meds.
Getting back to the culumative nature of some substances.
Some people can tollerate certain things more than others, also as with for instance Mercury, it never leaves the body and will slowly accumulate to perhaps toxic levels in some people resulting in tragic circumstances.
Why the worry about mercury, well how much fish do you eat?
We are told that three meals of fish a week is balanced, but have a think about how high up the food chain the fish of your choice is.
Tuna, Marlin etc, the top feeders are very high in their mercury content because they eat tons of other fish lower down on the food chain, but they accumulate mercury and pass it on to you when you eat it.
Pregnant women and young children are often advised to restrict those fish dishes to less than weekly for just one meal, so that is a prectical way of demonstrating the cumulative affects that might be associated with anything we consume, including prahmaceutical products.
Sooner or later we get to see statistical figures that represent the risk factors.
What we do not need are our legslators mandating what we must consume according to their "ONE SIZE FIT ALL" mentality.
Personally, I believe that if any government chooses to enforce compolsary medication of any type, then any adverse affects must be their responsibility and they have a responsibility to provide for those unfortunate outcomes.
I wont argue that there is a need for a broad brush view of the better good for the majority, but put simply..."one size DOESENT fit all" and its time that those legslators got over it and accepted their role for the negative minority while providing for the better good of the majority.
To me that is a simple case of reasonable acceptance of the responsibility that they carry in the representation of the people that they serve, and those same people must also be prepared to shoulder some of that load as they are a part of the bigger picture as well.
Sorry for the big post.