mejlaj kojega iz selendre. imaju oni mailove.
a evo tu imas i neke brojeve telefona
http://www.homeopatija.hr/
inace, ova gore informacija je od nekih stranjskih, ne znam kako domaci po tom pitanju disu.
Printable View
mejlaj kojega iz selendre. imaju oni mailove.
a evo tu imas i neke brojeve telefona
http://www.homeopatija.hr/
inace, ova gore informacija je od nekih stranjskih, ne znam kako domaci po tom pitanju disu.
tnx
Hvala na odgovoru.Citiraj:
MGrubi prvotno napisa
Drago mi je da si linkala ovu web stranicu. I drago mi je da se navodi u knjizi.
Dakle, ova je stranica jako korisna za one koji misle da je cijepljenje kontraindicirano kod njihove djece.
Neka se pokušaju naći u ovim tablicama koje tako detaljno opisuju kontraindikacije za cjepiva. (neće im biti lako)
To bi se trebalo podrazumjevati.Citiraj:
Stana prvotno napisa
Naravno, u našem slučaju se nije.Dijete je imunizirano sa BSG-om u dobi od 1,5 bez prethodnog sistematskog pregleda.Sestra i doktorica su procjenila da ga ne treba pregledavat jer nije šmrkavo.Moj sin je tada imao početnu upalu grla uzokovanu bakterijom.Ostavljam na izbor da pogađate što se dalje dogodilo.Ironija sudbine bila je ta da su nakon nekoliko mjeseci ukinuli docjepljivanje u toj dobi jer su shvatili da je besmisleno.
evo još jedan iz knjige:Citiraj:
mujica prvotno napisa
http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings...6.04/singh.htm
istraga o povezanosti cijepiva i autizma još iz 2000.g.
Stana napisa:
A kako znaš da se djetetu baš taj dan, taj tren ne SPREMA bolest? Kompleksni imuno sustav krenuo je u totalnu obrambenu reakciju - a ti mu drukneš nešto što mu se trenutno TOTALNO ne uklapa u koncepciju!!!??? Banalizirate imuno sustav!!! Ruski rulet U SVAKOM TRENUTKU!!!!Citiraj:
3. pa to se podrazumijeva, čemu uopće to pisati? Nitko ne cijepi bolesno dijete ili dijete koje ima kontraindikacije
I kako znaš ŠTA DIJETE IMA PO ROĐENJU - po defaultu....nemaš pojma o ničemu - a odmah ga SPIČIŠ u rodilištu!!!! Šta je nasljedilo, kakvi su mu imuno potencijali???
A da se ne cijepi bolesno dijete nije istina - kad god sam rekla L. je šmrkava - komentar je bio - TO NIŠTA NE SMETA !!!!??? Pa kak ne smeta - pa nemaš pojma kaj iz šmrkanja može ispasti??? Pa jedini ispravan način bi bio trenutno stanje imuno sustava (valjda imunoglobulini) - ali to je tak relativno jer nakon 1/2 sata MOŽE BITI NEKAJ SASVIM DRUGO!!!
Mujice - ovo je kontraindikacija za DTaP - KAKO ZNAŠ S ČIM SE DIJETE RAĐA ( u smislu toga da li je neurorizik kontraindikacija za cjepljenje)??? Klinička slika djeteta toliko je relativna do 3. mjeseca starosti , a u bolniccama koje nisu klinike NEMA specijalista fizijatra koji bi mogao vidjeti djetetovo stanje. Osim toga ULTRAZVUK mozga nije obavezan - skoro svako drugo dijete ( često rođeno na drip) ima lagana krvarenja u mozgu koja su obično do 3. stupnja i nisu toliko opasna - ali ta krvarenja kad još nisu resorbirana mogu izazivati neurološke ispade u toj maloj dobi - BEZ OBZIRA NA TE FIZIČKE POKAZATELJE DIJETE SE NORMALNO CJEPI!!!Citiraj:
Progressive neurologic disorder, including infantile spasms, uncontrolled epilepsy, progressive encephalopathy; defer DTaP until neurologic status clarified and stabilized.
Ali na kraju smo te teme prožvakavali već tisuću puta !!!
Suzaks, pitaj neuropedijatre što su infantilni spazmi, nekontrolirana epilepsija i progresivna encefalopatija, ako meni ne vjeruješ.
To su teške bolesti koje dijete ima ili nema.
Ne treba ti fizijatar niti ultrazvuk da kaže ima li dijete neko od ovih teških stanja. To nema blage veze sa hipotonusima, blagim krvarenjima u mozgu tijekom poroda koja seresorbiraju itd...
To nema apsolutno nikakve veze s takozvanim neurorizičnim djetetom.
"Neurorizičnost" nije nikakva kontraindikacija za cijepljenje niti DTP, niti MoPaRu, niti ikojim drugim cjepivom.
Daklem, brkaš i dalje kruške i jabuke iako smo to više puta prožvakali.
Jako je teško pogađati što je dalje bilo. Išli ste na sladoled?Citiraj:
sirius prvotno napisa
Što znači tvoj post?
Ili napiši što je dalje bilo ili cijeli post nema nikakvog smisla?
A mene stvarno zanima što je dalje bilo.
Sletio je UFO i oteo cijelu obitelj pa sada sretno žive na trećem planetu od Fomalhauta.
Ljudi, hajd nemojmo ovdje čatat, nije takva tema. Ako je mujici i "doktorima" gušt prebirati po iznutricama - nek se lijepo nađu na kavi. Njihov doprinos ovoj temi je neznatan.
U roku 12 sati dobio je visoku temperaturu i bolove u trbuhu.
Pedijatrica je rekala da sve to (naravno) je nezgodna slučajnost jer kao što rekoh imao je početnu upalu grla.
Dobio antibiotik.Temperatura je trajala danima(što i nije tako strašno),ali grčevi u trbuhu i crna stolica koja traje deset dana nije baš bila zabavna(ni za odlazak na sladoled).
Naravno,nakon što se bolest smirila,agonija nije bila gotova.
Imunitet mu je pao na niske grane.Bio je jako iscrpljen i mi smo ga ispisali iz jaslica.Čuvali smo ga doma.U devet mjeseci nakon toga imao je tri opstruktivna bronhitisa,četri upale uha i četri upale grla.Popio je oko 10 kura antibiotika,tjednima je bio na ventolinu,željezo mu je palo na 2.
Vodila sam ga raznim specijalistima i radila razne testove,svi su rekli da je njegova osjetljivost stvar imuniteta.Do polaska u jaslice(koje je polazio svega par mjeseci)prije neslavnog imuniziranja imao je par viroza koje su prolazile bez intervencija.
Kada sam imunolozima rekla da se sve počelo događati nakon zadnje imunizacije odmahivali su rukom i rekli da je to cjepivo prilično sigurno i da oni ne vjeruju da to ima veze.Ali čak i u onoj knjižici koju daju kao priručnik roditeljima piše da se dijete sa oslabljenim imunitetom ne smiju cijepiti protiv tuberkuloze jer se radi o živom cjepivu,te se ne mogu predvidjeti reakcije.
Mujica napisa:
Jel se ti šegačiš sa mnom, sprdaš ili štogod slično??? Ili na tom području nisi baš doma, a pričaš kao da jesi????Citiraj:
Suzaks, pitaj neuropedijatre što su infantilni spazmi, nekontrolirana epilepsija i progresivna encefalopatija, ako meni ne vjeruješ.
To su teške bolesti koje dijete ima ili nema.
Pa infantilni spazam je STANJE, a ne bolest sama po sebi, uzrok nečega - TO JE POSLJEDICA koječega ( moždanih problematičnosti)- obzirom da se prepoznaju u prvoj godini života I NE MORAJU SE PREPOZNATI U PRVOJ GODINI ŽIVOTA!!! Ne živimo svi u Zgb da bi nam neuropedijatri pregledavali dijete - naš pedijatar je tvrdio dasu L. izvijanja u luku i njeni čudni pokreti NORMALNI (a vidi čuda imala je TREMORE) ! Pa, onda uzmi u obzir da netko iz vaše struke NE ZNA prepoznati infantilne spazme!!!
Npr. gđa doktor opće prakse , majku djevojke od 32 godine s cerebralnom paralizom, na vještačenju komisije za pravo majke njegovateljice pitala je : A ZAŠTO JE ONA TAK SKVRČENA I UKOČENA???
Daj, Mujice spusti se na zemlju!!! Kod odrasle osobe, doktor opće prakse - a kod djeteta do 2 mjeseca ili odmah u rodilištu ODMAH ĆE SE PREPOZNATI epileptična stanja - da, da - ja se stvarno nekad pitam GDJE TI ŽIVIŠ??? Ili si toliko dobar u svom poslu i NEMAŠ PROPUSTA - da ne daješ mogućnost propusta u hrvatskoj medicinskoj praksi!!!
L. je prva dijagnoza nakon CT-a bila NEPROGRESIVNA ENCEFALOPATIJA - vidi možda je od kad su joj krenula ta hipotonija i čudna ponašanja bila PROGRESIVNA do trenutka kad smo krenuli na bioenergiju!!!
Kako možeš reći da su to TEŠKE BOLESTI - to nisu bolesti - to su posljedice NEČEGA ( a obično u medicini često kad se ne zna uzrok i definirane OD NIODČEGA)...
Ako se Sirusu dogodilo djetetu ovo od BCG-iranja djetetu s 1.5 godinu pokušaj razmisliti što je s klinicima koji su prošli stresnu situaciju koja se zove POROD , a ti ih DRITO SPIČIŠ - a još nemaš pojma TKO SU ONI - barem u fizičkom obliku (ako ne priznaješ ovaj cjelokupni)!!!
Ako je L. 'imala' D.W. cistu koja je urođena malformacija - onda je ona možda od rođenja kao posljedicu imala epileptične napadaje (ili bilo što drugo) koji su joj mogli biti kontraindikacija za cjepljenje. Budući da L. dijagnoza TEŠKA BOLEST koja se ODMAH PREPOZNAJE zašto se nije prepoznala??? Zato što je skliski teren PREPOZNAVANJA kliničke slike djeteta u prvim mjesecima - koji su normalno hipotonični, koji su normalno drugačiji, koji su normalno razdražljivi, plačljivi i sl.
Ako krvarenja koja se resorbiraju NISU TAKAV PROBLEM - zašto nam je neuropedijatrica sa Rebra rekla da je L. žutica bila posljedica krvarenja u mozgu i da je uvijek žutica posljedica krvarenja u mozgu - to nam je bio prvi glas!!! Znači da se i to odražava na čitav jedan sklop reakcija organizma - a sa ti tu djetetu spičiš još nešto izvana i nek se bori - ko da mu nije dovoljno to što je prošlo kroz porod!!!!
p.s. Kak je kod tebe sve jednostavno - il je crno il je bijelo!!! Možda vam ova situacija s Radmanovim 'bakterijskim seksom' možda malo OBOJI informacije u smislu toga da je sve relativno (jel one prenose informacije rAzmjenom) - ali vidim da baš i ne - jer je jedino sad svrha rezultata U RAZVOJU NOVIH ANTIBIOTIKA!!! Halo, koji smo mi ljudi likovi - umjesto da učimo od prirode kako da i mi 'razmjenjujemo' informacije - mi ćemo si razvijat nove OTROVE U SMISLU ANTIBIOTIKA!!!
sirius , to što si opisala fakat nije nešto što bi netko mogao pogoditi.
Niti ne zvuči kao da ima apsolutno ikakve veze s cijepljenjem.
Baš nikakve veze.
I mogućnost da ć netko sutradan ili prekosutra oboliti nije nikakva kontraindikacija za cijepljenje
Joj daj ne galami, i kad tiše pišeš čujemo te.Citiraj:
suzaks prvotno napisa
Rađe si u tišini pročitaj malo poglavlja o imunologiji pa onda mudruj.
Nisu stvari o kojima pišeš baš tako banalne.
Uklonila sam od vrijedjanja pa na dalje.
Zaista, ali ZAISTA necu trpiti vrijedjanja bilo koga. Ako nemate zivaca za normalnu raspravu - ugasite kompjuter! Nemojte da ja moram izigravati zandara i dijeliti packe.
Dominik ima 5g i nakon zadnje revakcinacije u lipnju prošle godine imao je reakciju (oticanje jako, utrike) povuklo se nakon fenistila i homeopatske inervencije naše pedijatrice. Od tada sevraćaju učestalo stanja suhi i nadražajni kašalj, oticanje, podbuhlost,urtike,jak svrbež, razdražljivost. Jedino što pomaže je homeop. thuja, ali se vraća nakon nekog vremena - sad smo na razrijeđenoj otopini istog i dijete je kao novo. Ista ta pediajtrica nas je uputila na srebrnjak gdje je prošao temeljitu alergološku obradu (nisu našli ništa), ali dr. na klinici mi je održala predavanje da homeopatija
A) klinički dokazano ne djeluje
B) može zakomplicirati stanje i njima(?!)otežati posao
(koliko ja znam o logici to je kontradikcija)
C) Da je moje dijete hiperaktivno (nakon pet sati u čekaonici) i da ako hoću čistu savijest odem psihologu (bili smo kod nje 10 min od toga je dva puta razgovrala sa svojim kolegama o nabavi računala)
Davore, mujica evo objasnite mi što bih ja o cijepljenju i djetetovom stanju trebla misliti. i kome da vjerujem pedijatici koja je u toku i pomaže mu ili alergologici koja zna sve o homeopatiji i hiperaktivnosti, ali mi ne može pomoći s urtikarijom? Možete pisati i na latinskom ako želite. :) Iako sam mama, a ne lječnica nisam retardirana iako mi se lječnici često tako obraćaju pa im možda i povjerujem jednom. Najviše volim kad mi s visok a počne rečenicu sa Ah, mama... dođe mi da im kažemnisam ti ja mama :lol: , ali ovo je sad OT
Da thuja se daje kod takvih loših posljedica cijepljenja na imunitet
Čekaj ti to zaista misliš!?Citiraj:
mujica prvotno napisa
Naime i ja imam nekakvo medicinsko obrazovanje,a isto tako određene godine rada u medicinskim ustanovama.Između ostalog učila sam i imunologiju par godina...Zašto bi bilo nevjerojatno da imunizacija dijeteta koje ima oslabljeni imunitet(posebno ako se uzme u obzir da je bilo riječ o živom cjepivu) ima dugoročne posljedice na cijeli imunološki sustav?Meni to kao kakvoj takvoj medicinarki uopče ne čini nemoguče.
Stvari nisu samo crno bijele.Na potvrde dugoročnih posljedica čekati čemo još neko vrijeme.
:shykiss:Citiraj:
anchie76 prvotno napisa
Zaista.Citiraj:
sirius prvotno napisa
Naravno da su nuspojave moguće.
Svakojake.
Ali baš ovakve jako, jako teško.
Ovaj put ne.Citiraj:
suzaks prvotno napisa
Želi ti reči da nije kontraindikacija za cijepljenje to što bi dijete moglo za mjesec-dva imati infantilne spazme, nekontroliranu epilepsiju (što ti dođe na isto) ili progresivnu encefalopatiju.
Već je kontraindikacija ako ih ima.
Dakle, ako djetetu do cijepljenja nisu dijagnosticirana ta stanja, dijete ih nema. Hoćeš da napišem "nema" velikim slovima?
A hoće li ih kasnije iz tko zna kjoeg razloga imati, nitko ne može znati. Kad bi se po mogućnosti razvoja bolesti određivali, nitko nikada ne bi ničime bio cijepljen, jer svako dijete može jednog dana teško oboljeti. Bez iznimke.
(naravno, ne treba smetnuti s uma ni činjenicu da dijete s tako teškim stanjima puno teže podnosi bolest hripavac nego cijepljenje protiv hripavca, pa je opet ta kontraindikacija za cijepljenje relativna)
Latinski odgovor ćeš vjerojatno dobiti od Dadice (ako nije odlučio skroz-naskroz bojkotirati ovaj podforum).Citiraj:
pikula prvotno napisa
Ja skromno mislim da si imala peh i došla kod loše alergologice.
Ja bih primijetila da se na ovom topicu malo previše piskara o imunološkom sustavu, a dam se kladiti da 99,99% ljudi uopće ne zna što to u stvari je, što ga čini, što ga pokreće/slabi itd.Citiraj:
suzaks prvotno napisa
Mogli bismo mi vaditi proteinogram s imunoelektroforezom svakom djetetu prije bilo kakve intervencije pa i cijepljenja, ali nalaz se čeka par dana.
A apropos suludih tvrdnji da cijepljenje slabi imunološki sustav, pitala bih autore tih tvrdnji da mi objasne zašto se onda preporuča obavezno cijepiti djecu koja su imunokompromitirana? Bit će da im netko namjerno želi još više "srušiti" (kaj god da taj izraz znači) imunološki sustav . Ili ih se možda želi zaštititi od klica protiv kojih se sami ne mogu boriti?
Ja bih primijetila da se na ovom topicu malo previše piskara o imunološkom sustavu, a dam se kladiti da 99,99% ljudi uopće ne zna što to u stvari je, što ga čini, što ga pokreće/slabi itd.Citiraj:
suzaks prvotno napisa
Mogli bismo mi vaditi proteinogram s imunoelektroforezom svakom djetetu prije bilo kakve intervencije pa i cijepljenja, ali nalaz se čeka par dana.
A apropos suludih tvrdnji da cijepljenje slabi imunološki sustav, pitala bih autore tih tvrdnji da mi objasne zašto se onda preporuča obavezno cijepiti djecu koja su imunokompromitirana? Bit će da im netko namjerno želi još više "srušiti" (kaj god da taj izraz znači) imunološki sustav . Ili ih se možda želi zaštititi od klica protiv kojih se sami ne mogu boriti?
Nemoj se zaletavat s homeopatijom. Pogledaj i drugu stranu medalje. ;)Citiraj:
MGrubi prvotno napisa
http://endimion17.blog.hr/2006/08/16...-novcanik.html
http://www.badscience.net/?p=578
ne zaletavam se ja nigdje, želim znatiCitiraj:
MaxB prvotno napisa
najgori problem kod cijepljenja je nemogućnost saledavanja istinitih podataka
jer:
-nuspojave se ne prijavljuju, pa ne znamo koliki % imamo lakih nuspojava
-doktori neće ćut da je možda u pitanju nuspojava od cjepiva, jer su one rijetke toliko da ih nema i događaju se nekome drugom
- mijenjaju se definicije npr. epidemije, simptomi bolesti
- vremenski se ograničava mogućnost nastanka nuspojava, ako zakasniš 2 sata, gotovo , prošla baba sa kolačima, to nije od cjepiva, jupi...
- točno djelovanje i nuspojave cjepiva se ne zna u stvarnim nekontroliranim uvjetima dok se ne isprobaju na djeci, dakako povlačenje ili poboljšanje ide tek nakon prijave "štete", ako se uspije dokazati da je "šteta" nastala zbog cjepiva a ne toliko susretane "slučajnosti"
- imunitet nije doživotan, postajemo podložnim tim bolestima onda kad su posljedice bolesti daleko teže nego u djetinstvu
- nemoguće je utvrditi kolike bi posljedice bile od dječjih bolesti u današnjim uvjetima (visok nivo higijene, dostupnost brze med. intervencije, raznolika prehrana, dodaci prehrani ...), jedini podaci su oni od ptrije cjepljenja, poslije 2. svj. rata dok selo moga tate nije imalo niti struju niti vodu
- kokteli (3u1. 5u1..) su nepredvidivi, relativno su novi, dugoročne posljedice ćemo tek vidjeti
- autopsijom 1 bebe koja je umrla "u snu" dokazano je da je umrla od posljedica nuspojave cjepiva, ostaje pitanje: šta bi se desilo da se autopsiraju sve bebe koje su umrle od SIDS-a?
sve je to veliki pokus sa prekriženim prstima: sve će biti ok, oće, oće
pa ja sam je vec upozorila na mutikase i sarlatane koji zele zaraditi, nikad ne mozes biti dovoljno oprezan sto sve vreba iz grmlja alternative, (za razliku od alopatije, gdje je sve kristalno cisto i jasno) .Citiraj:
MaxB prvotno napisa
a ovi tvoji blogeri su bas zanimljiv izvor informacija.
Nije to baš tako crno i maglovito kako neki vole prikazivati.Citiraj:
MGrubi prvotno napisa
1... reci... kakve koristi bi ti imala da znaš % lakših nuspojava za svako cjepivo? Npr. Neki dan sam ti napisao da cjepivo protiv hepatitisa B izaziva lakše nuspojave u 30-40% cijeplljenih. A prijavljuje ih se valjda jedna od tisuću. I? Kaj onda? Kako ćeš upotrijebiti ta dva podatka? Uopće ne kužim zakaj se neki toliko fokusiraju na potprijavljivanje nuspojava.
Ionako svatko može, ako si da malo truda, doći do podataka o nuspojavama iz kliničkih ispitivanja cjepiva. I ne vidim što nekom roditelju znači je li šansa za nuspojavu 1%, 10% ili 50%. Ionako je bitno hoće li moje dijete dobiti ili neće. A ako netko misli da može na temelju stvarne učestalosti procijeniti koje je cjepivo bolje za njegovo dijete, vara se.
Jer razlike među cjepivima nisu uopće veike. Jedno uzrokuje nuspojave u 20%, a drugo u 30%. To ti dođe na isto u individualnim slučajevima. Nisu razlike preogromne. Oosim nekih vrlo rijetkih iznimaka, ali i kod tih iznimaka reaktogenost nje jedino svojstvo cjepiva koje je bitno pri odabiru.
2... to su doktori koji ne znaju.
3... naravno da se mijenjaju. Što je u tome problematično?
4....tako oštre granice postavljaju samo osiguravajuća društva. Ne doktori. Barem ne oni koji imaju mozga.
5.... ako se slučajnosti prečesto susreću, naravno da i sumnja postane veča. I s vremenom te slučajnosti čak postanu stvarne posljedice i onda kada nema dokaza za to. već na temelju količine.
6.... to je potencijalni problem s kojim ćemo se možda uskoro morati suočiti. Ali nema puno razloga za strah. Uskoro ćemo zamijeniti vrlo dobra, ali reaktogena cjepiva domaćeg proizvođača sa cjepivima koja imaju manje nuspojava, ali baš i ne štite od bolesti kao što bi trebala. Pa će biti trajne cirkulacije uzročnika bolesti među ljudima.
7.... Ovo nije istina. Ima bolesti protiv kojih je cijepljenje uvedeno prije pet ili deset godina. U tom razdoblju se nije značajno poboljšal aelektrifikacija i kanalizacijska mreža, ali se drastično promijenila epidemiološka situacija (primjer H. influenzae tip B).
8... istina.
9... a što se pokazalo kod ostalih? Ne misliš valjda da je ta jedna opisana u knjizi, jedina beba kod koje je učinjena autopsija?
...........uvijek sam govorio.... i ponovit ću.... nije zdravo čitati.
:lol:Citiraj:
...........uvijek sam govorio.... i ponovit ću.... nije zdravo čitati
a zato se ti nisi uclanio u knjiznicu...
Zar misliš da web stranice koje laternativci amaterski postavljaju i ukrašavaju svojim shizoidnim crtežima i inkoherentnom poluproduhovljenom poezijom, imaju veću stručnu "težinu" od ovih blogova?Citiraj:
Saradadevii prvotno napisa
i ovo je sa jednog od tih blogova.
Strašno mi se sviđa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :DCitiraj:
With alternative therapists, when you point out a problem with the evidence, people don’t engage with you about it, or read and reference your work. They get into a huff. They refuse to answer calls or email queries. They wave their hands and mutter sciencey words such as “quantum” and “nano”. They accuse you of being a paid plant from some big pharma conspiracy
Zvuči poznato, zar ne?
ako u sjecanje prizivas Zoraninu homeopaticu, nije ona bila samo neka laterarna, ako se dobro sjecam, imala je i alopatski pedigre.Citiraj:
Zar misliš da web stranice koje laternativci amaterski postavljaju i ukrašavaju svojim shizoidnim crtežima i inkoherentnom poluproduhovljenom poezijom, imaju veću stručnu "težinu" od ovih blogova?
Ja se evo prisjecam jednog drugog, isto s alopatskim pedigreom:
Vaccinations: Prevention of Disease Can Be a Cause of Ill Health
INTRODUCTION
The year 2000 will be remembered as a turning point in the history of vaccinations. Concepts that have been traditionally ignored in vaccination research became familiar. Terms such as ‘ill health’, ‘good health’ or ‘non-specific effects on health’ were suddenly widely used.
Until recently the only questions raised in the medical literature have concerned the effectiveness and the specific side effects of a particular vaccine. These questions were often the basis of endless discussions between the pro- and anti-vaccination groups. The difficulty to surpass such a narrow viewpoint is rooted in the time when babies were offered only one or two vaccinations. Today the main question should concern the interactions between the great number of vaccines routinely offered to modern babies. Researchers, practitioners and parents should think first in terms of good health and bad health. This is not easy to do especially when you have been brainwashed with the dangerous concept of ‘preventive medicine’, which suggests that health is the absence of disease and that the longer the list of diseases you prevent, the healthier you are. The year 2000 has offered opportunities to realize that the prevention of disease may itself be a cause of ill health. On the one hand we have learned from studies of the ‘Gulf war syndrome’. On the other hand we have learned from studies about child mortality in the third world.
SHOTS IN THE DESERT
Everybody heard about the so-called ‘Gulf war syndrome’. It is now well accepted that there were increased rates of ill health in those who served in the Gulf around 1990. The veterans reported such a great diversity of symptoms that doctors were obliged to create the new entity of ‘CDC multisymptom illness’ (CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The important point is that researchers had to review their concepts and their usual vocabulary in order to explore the “role of vaccinations as risk factors for ill health in veterans of the Gulf war”(1). This was the exact title of a large study published in May 2000 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). The mere title clearly indicates that the objective was to study the long term non-specific effects on health of a complex combination of vaccinations. Of course our interest, in the framework of primal health research, is not in the vaccinations of adults, but in the vaccinations of babies. However we must be aware of the studies of multiple vaccinations of adults, because they undoubtedly influence the way we raise questions about vaccinations during the primal period.
Valuable studies of the Gulf war syndrome are possible because tens of thousands of servicemen participated in the conflict. For example the UK deployed 53,462 military personnel. Many of them received biological warfare vaccines (anthrax and plague). Whooping cough vaccine was always associated with plague as an adjuvant. They also received routine vaccines such as tetanus, cholera, poliomyelitis, typhoid, yellow fever, hepatitis B and IgG for hepatitis A. In 1997, Rook & Zumla offered theoretical reasons to implicate multiple vaccinations as a possible cause of ill health in Gulf war veterans (2). All these vaccines tend to unbalance the immune system and to deviate it “towards Th2”. They also underlined that stress hormones (cortisol) and pesticides tend to exaggerate such deviations. According to the study published in BMJ, multiple vaccines received during deployment multiplied by 5 the risks of having the ‘multisymptom illness’.
This study should be remembered for its historical interest. The questions regarding vaccinations were not raised in terms of effectiveness and side effects, but in terms of non-specific effects on health. The concept of ill health, which implies the concept of good health, was introduced in the mainstream medical literature.
LESSON FROM GUINEA-BISSAU
Guinea-Bissau, in West Africa, is one of the world’s poorest countries. It has one of the highest rates of mortality in childhood. In such a context it is possible to use child survival as a criterion of health. A Danish team of researchers looked at child survival in order to study the non-specific effects on health of different vaccines (3). The study involved 15,351 women and their children born during 1990 and 1996. The vaccination schedule recommended in Guinea-Bissau is BCG and polio at birth; diptheria, tetanus, and pertussis and polio at 6, 10 and 14 weeks; and measles at 9 months of age. The mortality over periods of 6 months was evaluated.
The findings show that both BCG and measles vaccines halved child mortality. The significant reduction in mortality was unrelated to tuberculosis or measles deaths: it appears that BCG and measles vaccines have a non-specific beneficial effect on health. On the other hand, children who received the combination of diphteria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) and polio vaccines had a risk of death multiplied by 1.84.
The authors interpret their findings with caution because the inquiries were performed in difficult circumstances. However selection biases are unlikely, because different vaccines were associated with opposite tendencies. The report of this recent study should be instrumental in transmitting the concept of non-specific effects on health of early multiple vaccinations in infancy.
In fact, there have been previous studies in the third world suggesting that measles vaccines influence child mortality. As early as 1991 a prospective randomised study (86.7%) among the non-vaccinated in rural Senegal detected an increased mortality at 41 months among children who had received an high-titre measles vaccine at 5 months, compared to those who had received a standard low-titre vaccine (4). None of these deaths were related to measles. Another study in rural Senegal, published in 1993, demonstrated a divergent mortality for male and female recipients of low-titre and high-titre measles vaccine (5). In 1995 an analysis of all studies comparing mortality of unimmunized children and children immunized with standard titre measles vaccine in developing countries lead to the conclusion that standard measles vaccine has a beneficial effect which is unrelated to the specific protection against measles disease (6). These studies were conducted in countries as diverse as Bangladesh, Benin, Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Senegal and Zaire.
AND WHAT ABOUT BABIES IN WEALTHY COUNTRIES?
The lessons from the Gulf and from the developing countries inspire inescapable questions. What about the possible long-term effects on health of the complex vaccination schedules offered to babies in wealthy countries? It is currently difficult, even impossible, to provide valuable answers to such questions. Child mortality rates are so low that they cannot be used as criteria. Also vaccination rates are so high that it is difficult to establish a control group, that is to say to compare the health of a vaccinated group with the health of a non-vaccinated group. The non-vaccinated children often belong to families who are unconventional where their attitude to health is concerned. This means that there are many possible confounding factors that only a randomisation might eliminate. Unfortunately we cannot learn either from epidemiological studies of certain aspects of ill health, such as asthma or diabetes in childhood, which are mysteriously frequent in the industrialized societies. Researchers who try to detect risk factors for such diseases take into account a great number of variables but they always forget to look at the immunization status (7,8,9).
In spite of all these difficulties the results of our three-step inquiry suggest that the non-specific effects on health of early multiple vaccinations are real in wealthy countries as well. Furthermore there are striking similarities between the results of our inquiry and the results of studies conducted in other contexts, particularly in the context of Guinea-Bissau. We also came to the conclusion that whooping cough vaccination, and the vaccinations usually associated with whooping cough, have a negative effect on health (10), while BCG has a positive effect (11).
For those who did not read our summer 1994 newsletter (vol. 2, no.1) or our autumn 1998 issue (vol. 6, no.2) let us recall that we first analysed criteria of health in a population of 446 children (mean age 8 years) that was homogeneous in terms of infant feeding (all children had been breastfed more than a year and had received only breastmilk during the first 6 months). None of them had received BCG. In this particular population there were significant differences when classifying the children according to whooping cough (pertussis) vaccination (12). When presenting the results we focused on pertussis vaccination (always associated with diphtheria and tetanus) as a risk factor for asthma in childhood. To the question: ‘Has your child ever been diagnosed as asthmatic?’ there were 26 positive answers in the immunised group (10.69%) compared with 4 in the non immunized group( 1.97%). The difference is highly significant (95% confidence interval 1.93 – 15.30). We did not find the same difference between the two groups with respect to the diagnosis of eczema (13).
In fact there were significant differences when other criteria of health were considered. Among the 243 pertussis-vaccinated., 130 had ear infections versus 59 among the 203 not vaccinated. We also looked at the time spent in hospitals as a criterion of health. Among the vaccinated children 173 (71.2%) had never been hospitalized versus 176 (86.7%) among the non-vaccinated. More precisely, 53 children have been hospitalized for less than 5 days and 17 for more than 5 days in the vaccinated group, versus 24 and 3 in the other group. When we considered “other diseases” (i.e. not ear infection, asthma, eczema and whooping cough), there were 84 cases in the vaccinated group (34.6%) versus 49 in the non vaccinated group (24.1%). From this inquiry we could conclude that children who are not immunized against whooping cough are in better health than those who are immunised.
The second step of our inquiry is represented by our study of 274 pupils of British Rudolf Steiner schools. 125 of them had been immunized against whooping cough versus 149 non immunized. Among the 125 pupils vaccinated against whooping cough, 23 (18.4%) were diagnosed as asthmatic, versus 6 (4.02%). The difference was once again statistically significant.
The third step is represented by an analysis of the medical records of the 210 pupils of the French Steiner school La Mhotte. Pupils of Steiner schools belong to families whose lifestyles are apparently similar, whatever the side of the Channel. However there are differences where vaccinations are concerned. French immunised children usually receive BCG at birth or a very early age. None of the children who had received both whooping cough vaccination and BCG have been diagnosed as having asthma. We came to the conclusion that BCG protects whooping cough immunized children against asthma.
This protective effect of BCG helps to explain differences between countries. In countries with the highest prevalence of asthma, BCG is not routinely offered (e.g. UK, New Zealand, Australia, Republic of Ireland). Before the fall of the communist system, BCG during infancy was routine practice in Eastern Europe. The rates of asthma in childhood and adolescence in such countries is comparatively low. School children in Leipzig, East Germany, born three years before unification, still had a comparatively low rate of asthma in 1995-96, whereas the prevalence of atopic sensitization was already increasing (14).
The first conclusion of our inquiries is that we detected negative effects on health of pertussis vaccination--and the usually associated vaccines--while we detected positive effects of BCG. The second conclusion is that we have a lot to learn about the interactions between vaccinations. Today it would be ethical to start long term prospective randomised controlled studies. This is the most reliable method to evaluate the ratio of benefits to risks for any medical procedure. The very first step is to divide a population into two (or more) groups by drawing lots (randomisation). One group is randomised to receive a treatment while another group is allocated to another treatment. Then there is a long period of follow-up, so that comparisons are possible. Where mass vaccinations are concerned, it would be unethical (or immoral) to continue the current programmes without starting prospective randomised controlled studies of the non-specific effects on health of different combinations of vaccines.
HOW CAN INFORMED PARENTS DECIDE?
It is difficult to play the role of parents at the dawn of the 21st century. Today parents are condemned to constantly make choices. Choices are more difficult in certain countries. There are differences between countries such as the UK, where vaccinations are not obligatory, and a country like France, where there is a list of obligatory vaccinations. Finally the questions raised by the parents are the same everywhere and the decisions are more or less open to choice.
As long as early multiple vaccinations are not evaluated via the most reliable methods, the only hard data we have at our disposal are about effectiveness of a particular vaccine and possible short term adverse ‘reactions’. For example nobody can evaluate the life expectancy of babies who received ten vaccinations compared with those who did not receive more than one or two. That is why parents (and health professionals) must take into account their beliefs, their intuition, their worries and their personal attitude regarding risk calculation.
Meanwhile the only strategy one can suggest to parents is to try to shorten the list of vaccines the child will receive. They must look at the different vaccines one by one and take into account how serious is the disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent, how effective the vaccine is and what we know or suspect about the short- and long-term side effects. They must also take into account the geographical context. The risk of catching certain diseases depends on the place where people live.
Parents should begin by considering the components of the widely used combination diphtheria – tetanus – pertussis. They should focus first on pertussis (whooping cough) which is never obligatory but is routinely associated with the two others. It is not a very effective vaccine. There have been epidemics among vaccinated children (e.g. the Cincinnati epidemics). According to the Guinea-Bissau data and our data it has a detrimental effect on health. On the other hand the disease whooping cough may be life threatening during the first year of life. However, it is noticeable that in Japan and Sweden babies do not receive pertussis vaccination during the year following birth (in Sweden because this vaccine was excluded from the routine programme in 1979). Yet Japan and Sweden have the lowest infant mortality rates in the world (that is the rate of deaths before the age of a year). There is no doubt that the absence of pertussis vaccination is compatible with exceptionally low infant mortality rates.
There is no risk of catching diphtheria in Western Europe or North America. The main reason parents still have to vaccinate against diphtheria is the desire to participate in a global effort to eradicate the disease.
Tetanus vaccination is undoubtedly highly effective. It has long-lasting effects. The risks of adverse reactions are very low. On the other hand tetanus is a life-threatening disease. Parents are in an uncomfortable situation when a child is injured or burnt. In the casualty department, the medical staff is obliged to inject an immune globuline (passive immunization), which can induce severe allergic reactions. They will start a vaccination at the same time.
When the association of diphtheria – tetanus – pertussis is reduced to tetanus, it implies that the antigen load is minimal and the amount of ajuvants as well. These are aluminium hydroxide, a potent inducer of IgE response(15), a mercury derivative (but not in the USA), and formaldehyde.
In industrialized countries the main reason to vaccinate against poliomyelitis is the desire to participate in a global effort to eradicate the disease. Today, in such countries, the only cause of paralytic polio is oral vaccination. In the USA, the last case of non vaccine induced paralytic polio occurred in 1979. The issues are different for those who plan to live in third world tropical countries.
MMR (measles, mump, rubella) is highly topical. Many parents are cautious because they heard of MMR as a possible risk factor for chronic bowel diseases and autism. There is a lack of hard data. The absence of prospective randomised controlled studies leads to sterile discussions. The media made a misleading report of a Finnish study that was supposed to rule out ‘categorically’ the link between MMR and autism. In fact it was a non controlled study(16). This means that there was no possible comparison with a non immunized population. This study was not designed to evaluate MMR as a possible risk factor for autism. One can understand parents who prefer to avoid MMR and also those who would like to do measles only. This is easy in certain countries (e.g. France). It is more difficult in the UK, because there is no monovalent vaccine available on the NHS. However it is possible. Parents can visit www.argonet.co.uk/users/jabs.
Hib (Haemophilus influenza type b) is a rare cause of meningitis today and many adverse reactions have been reported. Mass vaccination against group C meningococci is a British phenomenon. Let us quote a 1999 commentary in the Lancet: « The introduction of any vaccine that targets only a fraction of the population of a bacterial pathogen should be viewed as a large-scale experiment in bacterial population biology. » Let us recall that five of the 13 meningococcal serogroups commonly cause disease.The most common bacterial meningitis is related to group B, for which there is no vaccine. B meningococci disease has increased in 2000 (17). Why? The C vaccine called MMC (‘meningococcal serogroup C conjugate vaccines’) is undoubtedly effective compared with the plain C polysaccharide vaccines, but there is uncertainty about its long-term effects.
Hepatitis B vaccine is included in the series routinely offered to babies. Parents who are themselves sero-negative may be reluctant to vaccinate their child. Let us recall that it is first a sexually transmitted disease. Certain health professionals can be at risk of being contaminated. Drug addiction with exchanges of needles is another risk factor. Contamination via pharmaceutical blood products is unlikely today. Finally parents have many reasons to postpone their decision, at least until puberty.
Mass chicken pox is an American phenomenon.
As for BCG, it is not routinely included in the vaccination programmes in English- speaking countries. According to the data we have at our disposal, it would not be wise to vaccinate against whooping cough children who have not previously received BCG. There is also the issue of children living in a family where there is a TB person.
***
Our objective in this article is not to study in depth all the vaccines that can be used in infancy. It is just to suggest a strategy to parents who are obliged to make a choice.
REFERENCES
1. Hotopf M, David A, et al. Role of vaccinations as risk factors for ill health in veterans of the Gulf war: cross-sectional study. BMJ 2000; 320: 1363-67.
2. Rook GAW, & Zumla A. Gulf war syndrome: Is it due to a systemic shift in cytokine balance towards Th2 profile? Lancet 1997; 349: 1831-33.
3. Kristensen I, Aaby P, & Jensen H. Routine vaccinations and child survival: Follow up study in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa. BMJ 2000; 321: 1435-9.
4. Garenne M, Leroy O, et al. Child mortality after high-titre measles vaccines: Prospective study in Senegal. Lancet 1991; 338: 903-07.
5. Aaby P, Samb B, Simondon F, et al. Divergent mortality for male and female recipients of low-titer and high-titer measles vaccines in rural 6. Senegal. Am J Epidemiol 1993; 138: 746-55.
Aaby P, Samb B, Simondon F, et al. Non-specific beneficial effect of measles immunisation: Analysis of mortality studies from developing countries. BMJ 1995; 311: 481-5.
7. Isaac steering committee. Worldwide variation in prevalence of symptoms of asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and atopic eczema. Lancet 1998; 351: 1225-32.
8. Sears M. Epidemiology of childhood asthma. Lancet 1997; 350: 1015-20.
9. McKinney PA, Parslow R, et al. Perinatal and neonatal determinants of childhood type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1999; 22 (6): 928-32.
10. Odent M. Long-term effects of early vaccinations. Primal Health Research Newsletter. Vol. 2. no. 1 (Summer 1994).
11. Odent M. Future of BCG. Lancet 1999; 354: 2170.
12. Odent M, Culpin E. & Kimmel T, Pertussis vaccination and asthma: Is there a link? JAMA 1994; 272: 592-3.
13. Odent M, Culpin E, & Kimmel T. Atopic eczema. Lancet 1994; 344:140.
14. Hurwitz EL, & Morgenstern H. Effects of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis or tetanus vaccination on allergies and allergy-related respiratory symptoms among children and adolescents in the United States. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000 ; 23 (2) : 81-90.
15. Von Muting E, Weiland SK, Fritzsch C, et al. Increasing prevalence of hay fever and atopy among children in Leipzig, East Germany. Lancet 1998; 351: 862-66.
16. Mark A, Bjorksten B, & Granstrom M. Immunoglobuline responses to diphtheria and tetanus toxoids after booster with aluminium-adsorbed and fluid DT-vaccines.Vaccine 1995; 13(7): 669-73.
17. Patja A, Davidkin I, et al. Serious adverse events after measles – mumps – rubella vaccination during a fourteen-year prospective follow-up. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000; 19(12): 1127-34.
18. Ramsay ME, Andrews N, et al. Efficacy of meningococcal serogroup C conjugate vaccine in teenagers and toddlers in England. Lancet 2001; 357: 195-96.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naravno.Citiraj:
Zvuči poznato, zar ne?
Kao i svaki argument koji navodis u prilog rutinskom mnogostrukom cijepljenju djece.
Mama courage, moj bratic je prezivio setnju.
Stana napisa:
Ja mislim da je razlika što mi koji smo na drugoj strani imunitetom smatramo kompleksni emotivno-mentalno-fizički sklop + što imunosustav MEDICINSKI jest, što ga čini, što ga pokreće!!!Citiraj:
Ja bih primijetila da se na ovom topicu malo previše piskara o imunološkom sustavu, a dam se kladiti da 99,99% ljudi uopće ne zna što to u stvari je, što ga čini, što ga pokreće/slabi itd.
Prema tome ja neću gledati imuno sustav u smislu njegovog djelovanja u STERILNIM, LABARATORIJSKIM uvjetima - nego ću ga gledati kao uzroočno-posljedicu svega što nas okružuje!!!
Citiraj:
"When a child gets a naturally occurring infection, like measles, which is not a serious disease, the body reacts to that in a very set way. The germs go in a certain part of the body through the throat and into the different immune organs, and the body combats the disease in its own natural way. There are all sorts of immune reactions that occur. Inflammatory response reactions, macrophages, and different kinds of white blood cells are used to combat the virus. You also cough and sneeze and get rid of the virus that way.
"When you inject a vaccine into the body, you’re actually performing an unnatural act because you are injecting directly into the blood system. That is not the natural port of entry for that virus. In fact, the whole immune system in our body is geared to prevent that from happening. What we’re doing is giving the virus or the bacteria carte blanche entry into our bloodstream, which is the last place you want it to be. This increases the chance for disease because viral material from the vaccine stays in the cells, and is not completely defeated by the body’s own defenses. You overload the body."
Mujica napisa:
Ali kako znaš da dijete NEMA neku malformaciju moždanu, ili je nadrapalo u porodu, ili je ostalo bez kisika na porodu, rođeno je ranije - i TReNUTNO NEMA kontraindikacija - ALI ĆE IH MOŽDA IMATI KAO POSLJEDICU OVIH NEPRAVILNOSTI!!!Citiraj:
Ovaj put ne.
Želi ti reči da nije kontraindikacija za cijepljenje to što bi dijete moglo za mjesec-dva imati infantilne spazme, nekontroliranu epilepsiju (što ti dođe na isto) ili progresivnu encefalopatiju.
Već je kontraindikacija ako ih ima.
Da, tvrdim da bi se sa cjepljenjem TREBALO dobro debelo pričekati dok mozak (barem u svom najvećem dijelu) ne završi svoj razvoj , ili da se izvuče iz posporođajnih trauma,a ne mu putem cjepljenja OTVARATI mogućnosti DA SE IZ TOGA NIKAD NE IZVUČE!!!
MI ne živimo u Njemačkoj gdje je ultrazvuk glave novorođenčeta normalan pregled i gdje je normalno da se preventivno blizanke ne cijepe do 6. mjeseci - jer eto normalno je da se blizanačka trudnoća smatra rizičnom, i prema tome su svi događaji i doživljaji vezani uz porod rizični, a i akt cjepljenja je rizični akt...
A, Mujica, veli da kod nas I SAMA POMISAO O DRUGAČIJEM RAZMIŠLJANJU O CJEPLJENJU je stvar modnog hira....Zanimljivo!!!!
Mujica napisa:
Da, ali zato je bh streptokok postao domaća životinja - poput buha ili uši -nadnaravno NEISTREBLJIV i otporan na antibiotske kure (svih spektara)!!!Citiraj:
.... Ovo nije istina. Ima bolesti protiv kojih je cijepljenje uvedeno prije pet ili deset godina. U tom razdoblju se nije značajno poboljšal aelektrifikacija i kanalizacijska mreža, ali se drastično promijenila epidemiološka situacija (primjer H. influenzae tip B).
A kakve to veze s ičime ima?Citiraj:
suzaks prvotno napisa
aha. prizivam u sječanje Zoraninu čudakinju.Citiraj:
Saradadevii prvotno napisa
I brojne druge sa sličnim web stranicama.
Očito i oni s "alopatskim pedigreom" ponekad skrenu.
Ovaj članak koji si kopirala mi se jako sviđa.
Po njemu, naš program cijepljenja je odličan. Cijepimo proiv pertusisa, te djeca ne obole od pertusisa, ali dajemo i BCG u rodilištu, tako da nema negativnog efekta cjepiva protiv pertusisa na zdravlje.
Super.
Hvala što si na to ukazala.