Re: Science: Vaccines Work, GMOs Are Safe, Everything is a Chemical
I don't know anything specific about "super shots" and my only point there was that you could break up antigens into single shots, but you had to specifically request it and you have to let them know in advance to see if what you were requesting was available. When we broke up the MMR into 3 shots, it wasn't much of an issue.
How long of a grace period are you allowed to give shots because sometimes doctors are booked out for several weeks or schedules need to work out?
The first quote makes your second quote not relevant to your argument so you can stop using it. You deliberately delayed your vaccines, you did not have trouble scheduling.
If you had read my prior link in one of my first posts, you would know that the "too many antigens" argument does not have a leg to stand on. The number of vaccines may have increased, however, the number of antigens has drastically reduced. Antigens are what the immune system responds to and because we a much better at making vaccines, we do not need as many antigens.
In 1960, there were 3200 antigens. In 1980, 3000. Now the number is in the low 100s. This is several factors of ten less. If antigens caused autism or anything, the generation vaccinated in the 60s, 70s, 80s would have drastically large number then now. The fact remains that your child is exposed to several factors of ten more antigens on the car ride to the doctor than ever occurs in the doctor's office.
Plus because I didn't see the danger of the delayed schedule it was an easy decision to make because I didn't see any increased risk of doing it.
How much time do you have before you violate the protocol? I haven't researched it but I can't believe it's expected to be that rigid.
Something tells me you did not give all three separate MMR in the same day. When you delayed the next vaccine by doing it at the next visit, you made your child susceptible to a vaccine preventable disease,
increasing the risk of a vaccine preventable disease. It is really as simple as that. This increase the risk of the illness propagating in a community, putting others at risk. This include the immunocompromised and others who medically are unfortunate enough to not be able to get vaccinated.
I wouldn't be so dramatic to say I'm throwing it away. Just not following conventions.
Conventions are there for a reason. You have given insufficient reasons to break conventions.
Don't bodies respond differently to the similar things? But in my opinion the risks I'm opening up are less or equal to the risks originally faced so I don't see it that way. I see it as going the safe route.
To a degree yes but it really does not support your argument. There are allergies and aversions but allergies require prior exposure and are self limited and aversions are also self limited. Also for the most part physiology is similar...that is the basis for modern medicine. That is why the blood pressure drug I use in one person will also work similarly in another. Your way had increased risk...and that cannot be the "safe route."
As an aside, when a patient tells me that their body is different...what usually follows is something completely wrong (or a plea for opiates).
This was a long time ago before the Wakefield study was disproved. So that was a factor along with increased rates of autism in children with autistic siblings. Seemed like a no-brainer to me.
The Wakefield study was a ****ty study from the beginning (seriously the methods were absolute crap along with being completely unethical) and only the media really took it seriously. If you look back, the recommendations did not change and the criticism was immediate from the medical community. I do not buy this as a good excuse for anything.
I believe the increased rates are still peer reviewed studies.
Do you mean the rates of autism? Yes, they are and they correlate very well with the increase consumption organic food. But they are explained by increase diagnosis and expanding the definition. All links to vaccines have been and continue to be unsupported in the peer review literature.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/on-correlation-causation-and-the-real-cause-of-auti-1494972271
Plus you can't keep emotion out of decisions surrounding your family, especially when you see no negatives in making a decision to deviate from the norm.
I know it is hard to remove emotions but those are the things that make us make illogical decisions. This is why health professionals should not treat family members because they will undoubtedly receive inferior care because they lose their ability to be objective about the situation. I do not doubt you had the best intentions for your children. The problem is there are negatives, you were just uninformed or misinformed.
