Posted on 11/04/2011 4:28:40 AM PDT by surroundedbyblue
Link, please?
Please list the benefits identified in the studies here.
And there are studies that show that pasteurized milk is bad for you.
Please post the reasons given by those studies for why pasteurized milk is bad for you.
As I said, when I did drink raw milk I got it from a trusted source that I know did appropriate testing
What appropriate testing? What did they do exactly that made you certain the raw milk you were buying wasn't going to make you sick? How should "everyone" else go about ensuring that the "appropriate" testing is being done on the raw milk they purchase?
All you seem to want to do is ridicule people that don’t drink pasteurized like you do
I ridicule people for taking unnecessary risks with their health, and especially with the health of their children, when all raw milk does is dramatically increase the risk of getting sick from drinking milk.
The CDC can’t get the easy things right, how many times have they changed the Food Pyramid
But we're not talking about the food pyramid. The only time I mentioned the CDC was to say that according to the CDC, raw milk is responsible for nearly three times more hospitalizations than any other foodborne disease outbreak. If you have some information that disproves what the CDC claimed, then please post it here. If you don't, then please stop whining about the CDC and other things that were never said.
He does have products he wants to sell, but in this case I don’t see how it benefits him to warn people of the potential dangers of vaccines.
Mercola simply wants hits to his website so he can sell his products. He creates fear of vaccines so that people will read the anti-scientific nonsense he posts.
You keep saying that you never said that vaccines were completely safe, but you don’t seem to be willing to admit that not everyone should receive them.
It's about time you admitted that you were accusing me of making claims I never did. Now I see where the goal posts are being moved again to a discussion about whether "everyone" should receive vaccines. Again, I don't ever recall saying that "everyone" should receive a specific vaccine, or vaccines in general, but if you can point me to where I wrote such a thing, I will retract it.
Now there are two ways in which we can define the term "safe." Are you saying that I believe vaccines are "harmless." This would imply that any negative consequence of vaccines would make the vaccine unsafe. No, no vaccine is 100% safe when "safe" is defined in this manner. We can also define the word "safe" as "having been preserved from a real danger." Under this definition, a vaccine's benefits must clearly and definitively outweigh its risks. I believe that can be said of all vaccines.
Have you seen the pictures of babies that are suffering from vaccine reactions?
Again, and for the last time, there are risks and benefits with all medicines. And again, the benefits far outweigh the very small chance that children will experience and adverse reaction to a vaccine. When was the last time you saw someone suffering from smallpox, polio or whooping cough? Exactly.
I do have issues with a 2 month old getting loaded up with 8 different vaccines at one appointment and other similar schedules at different ages.
Then you're at odds with the the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices along with the rest of the experts who designed the schedule, and serve as the country’s true authorities on vaccinology, childhood infectious disease, and epidemiology.
Who ya gonna trust, all those experts in these many organizations or Roos_Girl, an internet charlatan and some "self-taught" expert who validates the pervasive myths currently scaring parents with misinformation and fear-mongering?
It shouldn't be a difficult decision.
I’m curious if you have been re-vaccinated?
Yup. Up until a few years ago I did a fair amount of international travel so we had to keep all of our immunizations current. I'm still current today and will remain that way. I agree that more adults need to take this seriously.
Do you read all the source material that all of us "govt and medical professionals" read? Do you spend hours every week searching Google and PubMed for all of the pertinent references? Do you read sources such as the CDC's MMWR or ProMed to keep up to date with the latest in infectious disease research and incidents? Do you read the original research articles? Being one of those dread "govt and medical professionals", this is how I spend a huge chunk of time each week. And it is on the basis of reading these vast amounts of material that I made up my mind.
If you really want to make up your own mind, you need to avoid the fear-mongers, and read the original research reports for yourself.
If it’s not true, then is it just an unsubstantiated rumor that Adjuvant 65 is an emulsified peanut oil adjuvant?
I guess I'm more or less lucky. When I was a child, my mother fell (hook, line, and sinker) for that "health food" craze that really got started in the late 60s/early 70s. Of course, the "health food" devotees talked a lot about the benefits of raw milk, and how vital essences were destroyed by the pasteurization process. So my mother found a farm where she could buy raw milk, and we had to drink that for a few months. Then, one night at dinner, she found a dead fly in her glass of milk. To my great relief, she never bought raw milk again.
I can't be sure, because the anti-vaccine movement has been around for such a long time, but I believe a lot of the fear we see today can be traced back to Andrew Wakefield. World renowned vaccine experts Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Jenny McCarthy gave massive publicity to the idiocy Wakefield published in the Lancet, and we've been dealing with neo-Luddites ever since.
Google will lead you to research in JAMA and other prestigious publications about peanut oil in vaccines. Maybe you are in need of researching the issue more thoroughly.
None of the journal articles you cut-and-pasted verbatim without attribution say anything about peanut oil in vaccines.
You then stated:
The abstracts appear to support the pull quotes. Beyond that, look them up yourself.
I posted the entire Abstract from the JAMA article, and you were wrong again. There is no mention at all of vaccines.
I think Andrew Wakefield (who is now being subject to discipline measures) is only part of the phenomenon. People already had to be receptive to the “vaccines = bad” meme, or his original study would have been dismissed as the work of a crackpot.
Clearly, he did not help the situation.
Again, you are not reading carefully, Tom.
Since you are so proficient in cut-and-paste, why don't you reproduce the offending statment(s) for us?
I am, because if everyone else made the same decisions as your family, one or more of your family members would likely be either dead or seriously injured due to these preventable illnesses.
This was the pull quote:
JAMA 2001 Apr 4;285(13):1746-8 Detection of peanut allergens in breast milk of lactating women states, “Most individuals who react to peanuts do so on their first known exposure”……………..and concluded “Peanut protein is secreted into breast milk of lactating women following maternal dietary ingestion. Exposure to peanut protein during breastfeeding is a route of occult exposure that may result in sensitization of at-risk infants.” PMID 11277829
In what way does that not support the abstract?
I just did.
Is peanut antigen in vaccines?
Q:Are you aware of any vaccines that contain peanut oil as an excipient? I have a patient who insists that some vaccines contain peanut oil and that is why the prevalence of peanut allergy has continued to rise.
A:Thank you for your recent inquiry.
The issue of peanut antigen in vaccines, at least according to my assessment of the reading material available, is similar to the issue of adverse effects of mercury in vaccines. It seems to be fueled by consumer message boards and consumer-oriented websites. These websites and consumer message boards, as best I can tell, claim that small amounts of peanut allergen contaminate vaccines and are not listed as an ingredient in the package insert. I personally have not been able to find any confirmation in the medical literature of contamination of vaccines by peanut antigen.
For your interest, I have copied below several links to consumer websites and message boards that discuss this issue. However, as previously noted, I am not aware of any documentation in the medical literature of the contamination of vaccines by peanut antigen.
Thank you again for your inquiry and we hope this response is helpful to you.
Links: http://the-health-gazette.com/830/peanut-allergy-vaccinations-link-consumer-concerns/
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/peanut_oil.htm
http://www.peanutallergy.com/boards/general-discussion/main-discussion-board/peanut-allergy-and-the-role-of-vaccination
http://vactruth.com/2010/07/15/non-disclosed-hyper-allergenic-vaccine-adjuvant/
http://www.justmommies.com/forums/f325-choosing-not-to-vaccinate/2056158-peanut-oil-vaccines.html
Sincerely, Phil Lieberman, M.D.
Is peanut antigen in vaccines?
One would think that if peanut oil was being used in vaccines as an adjuvant, or for any other purpose, that this organization (6,500 members) would be aware of it.
Maybe all this proves is that the internet is a powerful tool that is being used to it's full potential by assorted and sundry chemicalphobes and toxic terrorists.
You indicate the claim peanut oil has been an ingredient in some vaccines is false. Please explain Adjuvant 65. ?????
You then said this was supported by such prestigious sources as the JAMA.
When pushed you cut-and-pasted an entire portion of an anti-vax website, completely without attribution. However, as the quote above shows, they do not even mention vaccines in the article. So, therefore, they cannot support your original assertion.
You have since gone on to obfuscate and attempt to change the subject. Admit you were wrong and move on.
are you a liar or just stupid?
I did? Where?
Please explain Adjuvant 65. ?????
Adjuvant 65 was a peanut oil-based adjuvant that was tested on some influenza vaccines in the late 60s and early 70s, it never made it past the test stage but is in use in some animal vaccines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.