Does anyone have any info that isn't incredibly biased either way about immunizations/vaccinations?
I am not anti-shots at all. But I do think it's a bit crazy how aggressively the number of shots required had grown in the last 20-30 years.
I want to properly educate myself but everything I seem to find online is super biased one way or the other, as this has become a touchy subject as of late.
Thanks in advance for any info. Personal testimony welcome as well!
Me: 36, H: 37
FTM, 2 Furbabies
married 03/17/07
lived in Houston, Austin, Los Angeles and NYC
due: 2/15/17
Re: Vaccinations
Here is a history of vaccines from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. It talks about the development of vaccines beginning in the '40s and the recommended schedule now. Again, this is just speaking to the growing number of vaccines.
Edit: I can't mobile bump early in the morning. Forgot the link.
I urge you to read critically. Do your sources provide links or citations to peer reviewed research articles or government agencies? Do case studies that you read prove a causal mechanism as opposed to just correlation? A baby being diagnosed with autism after receiving an MMR booster, for example, does not show that the vaccine caused the diagnosis. The age at which autism spectrum disorders are sometimes first identified correlates with the usual timing of this vaccine and no causal mechanism has been discovered.
Be ware of the "it just feels like too much" argument and the "it's not natural argument". Find the research and numbers about the risk of a given vaccine and the risk of the illness it causes and make your own decision, but go to the source, not to mom blogs or conspiracy theorists. Google Scholar is a good search engine for finding peer reviewed research. Most full articles cost money to access, but you can read the abstract (summary) for free.
I asked because I have zero knowledge about shots outside of my own 35 years ago and all the vaccination hoopla of recent years. I have a "friend" who posts a lot of anti-vac stuff on FB and it got me thinking.
I pretty mind try and question most things because I don't trust big business in this country. A lot of things are maybe good for us, but a lot of things are good for companies (i.e. profit). So as a result I always want to make an informed decision of my own.
I appreciate the links and info and will definitely do my own further research as well as talk to my doctor.
FTM, 2 Furbabies
married 03/17/07
lived in Houston, Austin, Los Angeles and NYC
due: 2/15/17
My comment was geared more toward Big Pharma and the insurance industry and any other big business that have super powerful lobbyists. Those are the people I don't trust.
As a similar example all of the lies we have been fed for decades by the food industry due to lobbyist and government influence. It doesn't mean that I don't still eat some things that are bad for me, but at least now I have the personal knowledge to make that decision vs. being sold a bill of goods.
FTM, 2 Furbabies
married 03/17/07
lived in Houston, Austin, Los Angeles and NYC
due: 2/15/17
good advice in a number of areas.
When you've been married this long, you need a ticker to remind you.
Baby Boy M - 08/01/2013
Expecting Baby Bean February 2017
When looking at such peer-reviewed scientific articles, authors (the scientists who did the research) will list what research institution they come from, whether it be industry (big pharma), government, or academia. At the very end of the paper, they will also list their funding source (who is paying them to do the research). Authors are also required to disclose if they have any "conflicts of interest" or if they will make any money off the research from another outlet, as in, if they are a shareholder in the company they are doing research for. This may or may not sway your interpretations of the study.
One thing I will say is please, PLEASE don't take a news media's coverage of ANY scientific topic at face value without reading the article it is based on. These articles are NOT written by scientists, but by journalist who 90% of the time, completely miss the entire point of the study. (See: the scare-tatctic "Never swaddle your baby because of SIDS risks" articles a few months ago - not in ANY way at all what they study concluded... not even what the study was looking at). And especially never trust any written piece that does not give references to peer-reviewed journals. People can make up anything they want to and write a blog on it, and somehow, somewhere some person will find it and use it as a source.
Again, I will gladly help with anyone wanting to look at peer-reviewed articles if necessary. Just shoot me a PM.
I would love to see your summary table. Information is power!!!!
FTM, 2 Furbabies
married 03/17/07
lived in Houston, Austin, Los Angeles and NYC
due: 2/15/17
As far as all the vaccines that are given today. All of the vaccines that are on today's recommended vaccination schedule in total have less antigens than all the vaccinations that we received as children. They are better, cleaner, and more efficient vaccines.
When my first was born, rotashield had been off the market for several years and there wasn't anything new yet. The whole household had several strains of rotavirus and there's nothing quite as miserable as exploding from both ends, while nursing to keep your baby from getting dehydrated as she does the same.
When you've been married this long, you need a ticker to remind you.
Baby Boy M - 08/01/2013
Expecting Baby Bean February 2017
*clicks, reads thread*
I love this board.