 |
|||
|
|
|||
Slučaj bebe Blum...
Da ne ispadne da sam sadist koji stavlja ovakve linkove samo da vas rastuži, zanima me što mislite o mogućoj korelaciji SIDS-a i cijepljenja? Već sam nabasala na nekoliko ovakvih tužnih priča u kojima je zajednički nazivnik iznenadnoj smrti bebe bio - cijepljenje neposredno prije.
Nakon što sam prije mjesec i pol razgovarala s neuropedijatricom koja se 20 godina bavila cijepivima i čak napisala studiju o korelaciji neuroloških posljedica nakon cijepljenja beba ispod godine dana cjepivom protiv hripavca, sve više razmišljam o tome koliko je slučajeva koji se svrstaju pod SIDS uzrokovano cjepivom i koliko je to podložno manipulaciji - čak i u ovakvim slučajevima, kao što je bio kod malenog Bluma, kad cjepivo neposredno prethodi smrti zdrave bebe, liječnici su skloni proglasiti takvu smrt SIDS-om i ne dovoditi je u korelaciju s cjepivima.
Nedavno je netko na jedan od topica o cijepljenju stavio link o mami iz Amerike čija je beba doživjela identičnu sudbinu, također su inzistirali da se radi o SIDS-u....
Što mislite? Nije li veza preočita da bi se radilo o slučajnosti?
Probat ću naći link na tu drugu priču.
Ne znam. Meni je tesko povjerovati da bi razliciti lijecnici mogli svi sudjelovati u teoriji urote i prikrivanju veze izmedju cjepiva i ovakvih slucajeva. Biste li vi, da ste lijecnik? Mozda postoji veza, a mozda je doista samo slucajnost. SIDS se nazalost dogadja, pa se vjerojatno dogodi i bebama koje su taj dan cijepljene. A mozda je i neka uzasno teska posljedica, koja se dogadja u nekom uzasno rijetkom broju slucajeva, poput one curice koja je nedavno umrla od viroze...
Jadna beba i roditelji...
evo jos nekoliko gotovo identicnih slucajeva:
http://www.thinktwice.com/stories.htm
jonathan, taylor, spencer, christian, anonimus.....
Postoji li sids u tzv. primitivnim drustvima?
evo i nekih novijih slucajeva:
http://www.thinktwice.com/latest.htm
Doktori su zapravo obični ljudi. Oni se služe znanjem koje steknu za vrijeme školovanja, jako malo njih nastavlja sa informiranjem a još manje radi vlastitia istraživanja.
Sigurna sam da dosta doktora isto kao i mnogi roditelji ne sumnjaju i ne ispituju informaciju koja im je servirana za vrijeme školovanja ili u literaturi koju im nude zdrastveni krugovi a tu ubrajam i farmaceutske kuće. Njihovo školovanje temelji se na već ponuđenim "činjenicama" i mnogi te "činjenice" uzimaju zdravo za gotovo bez sumnje.Tako da je lako moguće da oni zaista vjeruju u SIDS.
Tako si barem ja objašnjavam stvari.
nevjerujem da doktori sudjeluju u nekakvoj uroti barem ne svi
ali mislim da dovoljno ne razmišljaju i da se ponekad nekih stvari
drže kao pijan plota i jednostavno odbijaju bilo šta ako im se ne uklapa
u neke njihove standarde
dovoljan mi je primjer naša pedijatrica koja uporno zove mamu djeteta
sa dg blagi autizam na cijepljenje i ubjeđuje ju kako se dijete mora cijepiti
a neurolog je rekao NE cijepljenju i u biti izluđuje mamu bez potrebe
čitala sam već par puta o ovim slučajevim i uvijek se zamislim
oni se pravdaju sidsom ali neznaju zašto dolazi do njega pa svaku
smrt za koju nisu sigurni kažu sids- prikladno
sigurno da se roditeljima nije lako s tim nositi, ni s tim živjeti... to je bol koja prati kroz cijeli život... uvijek se pita što je mogao roditelj učiniti drugačije, želi odgovore i razloge, teško se pomiriti s time.
Ja npr. znam jednu situaciju gdje je tata izričito zabranio cjepljenje svoje kćeri i ona je dobila dječju paralizu i ostala u kolicima, kad je vidio što je učinio napravio je samoubojstvo. Tako da postoje i obratne priče.
Ja mislim da znanost gleda gdje je šteta manja, gleda se na statistike! možda je ovako smrt 1 na 10 milijuna, a kad se nam djeca nebi cijepila bila bi 1 na 1000 (taj broj sam napisala bezveze, al sigurno da bi bila puno češća) ... i sad gdje je veća šansa da to baš bude vaše dijete?
da ti se može zaraziti od bilo kojeg djeteta na ulici i sl. Ovako kad roditelj ne cijepi dijete, a ono se kreće među cijepljenom dijecom, opet je manja mogućnost zaraze, al ni ne treba biti, i ova djevojčica je bila među cjepljenom djecom i završila u kolicima
ne znam...
u svakom slučaju, to je grozno! grozno!
a što se tiče liječnika i SIDS-a sigurno da je do sada puno njih pogrešno proglašeno kao kao SIDS! ali eto, ako se uspostavi i znanstveno prihvati da je ovo stvarno točna teorija o korelaciji s mozgom više neće biti muljanja... a tko zna, možda ćemo u budućnosti uz ultrazvuk kukića morati ići i na snimanje glavice radi SIDS-a! pa to više neće biti takva misterija! bit znanosti je napredak...
pa nadamo se i napretku u vezi tog cijepljenja...
Naravno.Adrijana66 prvotno napisa
Tako da postoje i obratne priče.
Ja stalno pokušavam naglasiti kako ne vjerujem da kod cijepljenja postoji dobar ili loš izbor - oba izbora (cijepiti i necijepiti) mogu se pokazati kao izvrsna i očajno loša. Ja nisam cijepila u datim okolnostima (dakle, u ranijim mjesecima sumnja na neurorizičnost, pa pojava AD-a, činjenica da ga barem do treće godine neću davati u vrtić...), možda bih ga u drugim okolnostima cijepila, barem selektivno. Nema tu jednostavne i ispravne odluke.
No, što mene kopka kod ovih priča...Ne, ne vjerujem u teorije urote i u zle doktore, vjerujem da velika većina medicinara itekako djeluje u skladu s Hipokratovom zakletvom i da zaista žele pomoći. Što je onda sporno? Prije me u vezi cijepljenja mučila sumnja na povezanost s nekim autoimunim bolestima, autizmom, rakom...U zadnja dva mjeseca, otkad sam imala prilike razgovarati s dvoje stručnjaka, najviše me muči ta neurološka komponenta.
Naime, UZV mozga se kod bebe ne radi rutinski i dok kod djeteta urednog neurološkog statusa cjepivo vrlo vjerojatno neće ostaviti posljedice, po dijete koje ima određenih neuroloških problema cijepljenje može biti fatalno. U prilog tome ide što će svaki iole savjesan pedijatar barem odgoditi cijepljenje djeteta koje se vodi kao neurorizično. Ali često taj faktor ostane neprimjećen, npr., dijete na malo kompliciranijem porodu može zadobiti intrakranijalna krvarenja, a kasnije se (naizgled) normalno razvijati, ne ići na UZV mozga, biti redovno cijepljeno - i imati strašne posljedice. I onda kad se dogodi ono najgore, naravno da medicinarima nije u interesu čeprkati po tome. U neku ruku mogu to shvatiti - ta greška ne može biti ispravljena, a nije im u interesu širenje otpora prema cjepivima za koja oni iskreno vjeruju kako prednosti daleko premašuju eventualne posljedice (kao što u tekstu navodi i pedijatar Jovančević, npr.).
U tom su smjeru išla moja razmišljanja, dakle ne brijem na paranoje oko zlih doktora i ubojitih cjepiva, nego već duže vrijeme razmišljam o toj opasnosti od davanja cjepiva tako malim bebama u naponu neurološkog razvoja.
SIDS se najčešće pojavljuje u prvoj godini života, vrhunac je s 3 mjeseca (tada se vrši većina prvih cijepljenja...)....Zanima me što bi bilo kad bi se obvezno cijepljenje pomaklo iza godine dana (što ima logike jer su djeca u prvoj godini uglavnom dobro zaštićena - dojenjem, ne idu u vrtić, roditelji paze s kim stupaju u kontakt...)...
Malo je nabacano, ali zanima me što mislite o tome...
Što mislim?
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
To se, nadam se, odnosi i na cijepljenje?
Dakako.
meni se sviđa ta ideja o odgodi cijepljenja, to mi je uvijek mučno i stresno razdoblje, i moram si 2-3 dana nakon cijepljenja računati na nervozu i svakakve pripreme da ju ublažim... a i nije prirodno... kad smo se cijepili u školi npr. to je bila sekunda i gotovo, tako da nikada prije nisam ni shvaćala kakav je to šok za organizam male bebe, i onda je gledaš kako neutješno vrišti i pitaš se šta to radiš djetetu...
a s druge strane, da se sad to naglo preokrene, nebi zapravo naša generacija bila nešto poput "pokusnih kunića"? i sva ta nova cijepiva koja dolaze... mi smo samo statistika za nuspojave u budućnosti...
slazem se.
pitaj bilo kojeg medicinara da li je sids povezan s cijepljenjem.
svaki ce reci da nije.
onda pitaj kako zna da nije i moze li navesti istrazivanja koja su dokazala da nije.
garantirano ce se tu povuci iz rasprave.
ali zato, srecom, odgovor mozemo potraziti sami.
evo, pa kome se da i zanima ga:
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/coulter/sids.html
[quote] Death after whooping-cough vaccination was first described by a Danish physician in 1933. Two Americans in 1946 described the deaths of identical twins within 24 hours of a DPT shot (on the background and history of SIDS see H. Coulter and B. Fisher, DPT: A Shot in the Dark). E. M. Taylor and J. L. Emery in 1982 wrote: "we cannot exclude the possibility of recent immunisation being one of several contributory factors in an occasional unexpected infant death." But the early 1980s were a turning-point in the official line. In that same year of 1982 matters came to a crisis when William C. Torch, M.D., Director of Child Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Nevada School of Medicine, at the 34th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, presented a study linking the DPT shot with SIDS. Torch concluded: "These data show that DPT vaccination may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits. A need for reevaluation and possible modification of current vaccination procedures is indicated by this study."
Torch's report provoked an uproar in the American Academy of Pediatrics. At a hastily arranged press conference he was soundly chastised for using "anecdotal data," meaning (will you believe it?) that he actually interviewed the families concerned! This mistake was not made again. Gerald M. Fenichel, MD, chairman of the Department of Neurology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in 1983 published an article on vaccinations entitled "the danger of case reports," and the pro-vaccination literature produced in profusion in later years and decades has generally steered away from and around any such thing as a "case report." These researchers will examine with minute precision hospital card files, medicare cover sheets, even physicians' records, but God preserve us from contact with the children themselves or their families! Another sign of the hardening official position was a two-part article by Daniel Shannon, M.D., in a 1982 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Shannon was Director of the Pediatric Pulmonary Unit at the Massachusetts General Hospital and a "principal investigator" of SIDS.
His article on the causes of SIDS (financed by the U.S. Public Health Service) never mentioned vaccination even though, at a 1979 FDA meeting on "The Relation between DPT Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome," Shannon had described 200 infants with severe breathing difficulties after a DPT shot, such that they required resuscitation. In 1979 he had said: "We do have all this data. It is all recorded on tabular sheets, and we have it on nearly 200 infants that we have evaluated this way. It is in a capacity that it can be pulled," but in 1982 he preferred not to "pull" this information after all. When Barbara Fisher and I queried him on this in a 1982 letter, he replied: "I did not mention DPT shots in my review article on SIDS in the New England Journal of Medicine because there are no data collected in a scientific way [no anecdotal data, if you please!] that support an association. This includes Dr. Torch's report."
So the cat was let out of the bag by Dr. Torch, who has been effectively silenced by his colleagues since that memorable date. In his editorial attacking "case reports" as a basis for evaluating vaccine damage, Gerald Fenichel alluded to an ongoing study by the NIH on "risk factors" in sudden infant death syndrome which, Fenichel asserted, "excluded DPT as a causal factor in sudden infant death syndrome." Let us take a look at this study, published some years later as "Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Immunization and Sudden Infant Death: Results of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Epidemiological Study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Risk Factors," coauthored by: Howard J. Hoffman, Jehu Hunter, Karla Damus, Jean Pakter, Donald R. Peterson, Gerald van Belle, and Eileen G. Hasselmeyer (Pediatrics 79:4 [April, 1987], 598-611.
This "retrospective case-controlled study" involved finding 838 children whose deaths had been classified as SIDS by the attending physician and/or the coroner and comparing them with 1514 "controls." The 800 "cases" were selected from among all children who died with a diagnosis of SIDS between October, 1978, and December, 1979, at or near certain designated centers. Excluded from the group were: (1) those on whom an autopsy was not performed or was performed with deviations from the standard protocol, (2) Those younger than 14 days or older than 24 months, (3) those who died after more than 24 hours in a hospital, and (4) those for whom the parents refused permission to perform an autopsy. The selection was made by a panel or panels of pathologists who examined the records of the children's deaths and autopsies and who decided whether or not the child had really died of SIDS or from some other cause.
There are two major objections to this procedure. The first is that the "case" group contained some children who were vaccinated and some who were not. The second is that we are not given the criteria by which the panel of pathologists decided whether or not to include a child as one of the "cases." On the first objection, the investigators are searching for a tie with vaccination in a group of 800+ infants, some vaccinated and others not. This is contrary to common sense. Why water down the sample with babies who were never vaccinated? At this point the whole methodology for determining whether a previous vaccination may or may not have contributed to the SIDS death in question rapidly becomes incoherent. This leads to objection #2, which is that we are not given the criteria according to which children were accepted as "cases" by the panel of pathologists, and we cannot judge whether or not this was done correctly.
A typical SIDS post-vaccination case would be the baby with a slight bacterial or viral infection who is vaccinated and then dies of the infection. These cases are invariably classified by attending physicians and coroners as "death from an infection" without taking into account the fact that vaccinations are known to lower resistance momentarily (for a day or two). In this state of lowered immunity the baby might well die from the infection which would otherwise have been innocuous. So such a case would not even be classified as SIDS (since the infectious "cause" is known), and certainly not as "SIDS after a vaccination," even though the baby would not have died in the absence of a vaccination. How many such cases were rejected by the "panel of pathologists"? We are not told.
The combination of (1) mixing vaccinated and unvaccinated babies with (2) failure to provide the criteria for acceptance into the "case" group taints this same "case" group irredeemably and, in itself, should prevent any further consideration of this study. The next step in the investigation was to select two live "controls" for each "case." Control A was "matched" for age with the corresponding "case," meaning that he or she was born as close as possible to the same day. Control B was "matched" not only for date of birth but also for birth weight and race. Again, as with the "cases," these "controls" were mixed with respect to vaccination status, some yes and some no. The obvious criticism here is that date of birth is simply not relevant to whether or not a baby is vulnerable to the effects of a vaccine (unless the selection is being made on astrological grounds!). Birth weight and race are slightly more relevant, since children of low birthweight and black children (who are more often of low birthweight than white children) are more likely to be affected adversely by vaccination.
However, sex was not included as a criterion, even though males die of SIDS, and are adversely affected by vaccinations, five times more frequently than females. This was a peculiar oversight. The only comment to be made about this "control" group is that it was selected on entirely incomprehensible grounds. It stands to reason that, when one group is being compared with another group, the two groups must be "matched" with respect to the variable being studied. In this case the variable being studied is "tendency to die after receiving a vaccination." Date of birth has nothing at all to do with this variable, whereas weight and race are only marginally related to it. Sex of the baby, which is related, was not included in the analysis.
Even though these two groups are not comparable, Drs. Hoffman et al. compared them anyway, finding that "only" 39.8% of the "cases" had received at least one DPT shot, while 55% of Control A infants and 53.2% of Control B infants had received at least one DPT shot. Since fewer "cases" than "controls" had received the shot, the authors concluded that "DTP immunization is not a significant [what do they mean by "significant?"] factor in the occurrence of SIDS." This sort of attempted comparison can only be described as a shambles, a grotesque imitation of scientific method designed to fool the public (and the journalists who are supposed to be monitoring precisely this sort of intellectual dishonesty). It would have made as much sense to interview the first 1600 people they could pick up in the Greyhound Bus Station and ask them about their vaccination status.
But this article had its effect. Dr. Torch was effectively silenced, and for years this pseudo-science has been cited as one of the medical establishment's principal weapons in its drive to extend childhood vaccination programs. How do you react when your own government lies to you systematically about life-and-death questions? As I have noted earlier, the answer is political action in the state legislatures, and one weapon in the hands of the public is an understanding of the pseudo-science and pseudo-epidemiology represented by articles like this one.
Another article on the SIDS-vaccination relationship, fortunately of far superior quality, is Larry J. Baraff, Wendy J. Ablon, and Robert C. Weiss, "Possible Temporal Association Between Diphtheria-Tetanus Toxoid-Pertussis Vaccination and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome." (Pediatric Infectious Diseases 2:1 [January, 1983], 7-11). The authors adopted a simpler, intuitively obvious method of investigation and concluded that there is, indeed, a "temporal association" between the DPT shot and sudden infant death. They found that 382 cases of SIDS were recorded in Los Angeles County between January 1, 1979, and August 23, 1980, and they simply interviewed the parents of 145 of these cases, either in person or by telephone. They asked: 1) the baby's sex, 2) the age at death, 3) the last visit to a physician or nurse prior to death, 4) the date of the last vaccination, 5) the name and telephone number of the physician or nurse, and 6) the type of immunization given.
They found a statistically significant excess of deaths in the first day and the first week after vaccination, i.e., a "temporal association." They rejected the use of a "control group," and instead relied on the intuitively obvious assumption that "there should be no temporal association between DPT immunization and SIDS were there no causal relationship between these two events." I have not found any criticism of this article for relying on "anecdotal evidence." This study was not financed by the US Government but apparently by the UCLA School of Medicine and the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services.
Another respectable study of the SIDS-vaccination connection is "Diptheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Immunization and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome" by Alexander M. Walker, Hershel Jick, David R. Perera, Robert S. Thompson, and Thomas A. Knauss, published in the American Journal of Public Health 77:8 [August, 1987], 945-951.
This study supports a link between the DPT shot and "sudden infant death syndrome." The authors examined the records of all children born in the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound between 1972 and 1983 to see how many had died of SIDS. Total births recorded during this period were 35,581, but of them only 26,500 were eligible for the study. Not all deaths of infants during this period were considered to be SIDS. "All deaths which on the basis of death certificate diagnosis, hospital discharge data, and pharmacy use taken together could be clearly ascribed to causes not related to immunization were excluded." Ultimately, "SIDS was defined as any death for which no cause could be discerned among infants of normal birthweight and without predisposing medical conditions." But, despite these exclusions and restrictions, the authors found "the SIDS mortality rate in the period 0-3 days following a DPT shot to be 7.3 times that in the period beginning 30 days after immunization." They called the results of this study "worrisome" but consoled themselves with the thought that "only a small proportion of SIDS cases in infants with birthweights greater than 2500 grams could be associated with DPT." A particular criticism to be made of this study is that children with "predisposing medical conditions" were excluded and their deaths were not considered to be SIDS, whereas in actuality children with "predisposing medical conditions" are routinely vaccinated.
Another study by the same group, of "neurologic events" following vaccination, is slightly more ambiguous than the preceding one but nonetheless raises a red flag about vaccines. Alexander M. Walker, Hershel Jick, David R. Perera, Thomas A. Knauss, and Robert S. Thompson. "Neurologic Events Following Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Immunization." (Pediatrics 81:3 [March, 1988], 345-349) was an investigation of the same 35,581 children, born between 1972 and 1983, as in the previous study. The attempt was made to identify "new neurologic conditions" in this group, not by interviewing the families, as might have been expected, but by examining hospitalization records and prescription records for the drugs typically used to treat seizures. Since the pharmacy was "on line" only on July 1, 1976, any drug purchases made prior to that date by families who left the Group Health Cooperative before July 1, 1976, would have been missed, as well as "any child neither hospitalized not treated with drug therapy."
Also excluded from the study were children with "uncomplicated first febrile seizures," because these "are not likely to have been hospitalized or treated with drugs." Also excluded from the study were children whose first seizure occurred prior to 30 days of age - presumably because no vaccinations were given in the first 30 days of life (although this is not stated). Also excluded from the study were children in the category "seizure with possible predisposing cause," such as "trauma, asphyxia, congenital malformation, disorders of metabolism, birth weight less than 2500g, central nervous system infection, and neonatal sepsis." Also excluded were children for whom it was not possible to identify from the available records a clear date of onset of illness.
Ultimately, the group was reduced by 25% - to 26,600. Of course, when studies such as this exclude whole categories of children - presumably those who are particularly vulnerable to vaccine damage - the question immediately arises whether the study is truly a representative sample, since in the "real world" all of the above excluded categories are routinely vaccinated. And if the sample is not "representative," the study itself has no predictive value. The authors found 239 seizures without an apparent predisposing cause among the children in the target population. One case, in particular, is worth describing: "The single seizure that occurred within three days of a DPT was in an 11-month old white girl who suffered a 2
Launa Rocco napisa:
Luna, mislim da je to suština....Sve od početka počne u nekom lijepom smislu, ali se u vremenu izvitoperi...Život nam se umodernio, ubrzao, sve se mijenja iz sekunde u sekundu...novorođenčad se vodi na šetnje u Shoping centre i dućane po potrepštine bez 'kojih ne mogu živjeti', na bezumna vaganja svaki mjesec k pedijatru da ih se 'kontrolira' kako napreduju - to su mjesta na kojima ono doista dolazi u dodir sa svakakvim koječim što leti u zraku...ZATO IH TREBAMO ZAŠTITI ŠTO RANIJE...valjda će 'ruski' koktel od kakvih 7 koječega dobivati za koju godinu već u prvom mjesecu (evo, počelo je s hepatitisom B)...Ja stalno pokušavam naglasiti kako ne vjerujem da kod cijepljenja postoji dobar ili loš izbor - oba izbora (cijepiti i necijepiti) mogu se pokazati kao izvrsna i očajno loša. Ja nisam cijepila u datim okolnostima (dakle, u ranijim mjesecima sumnja na neurorizičnost, pa pojava AD-a, činjenica da ga barem do treće godine neću davati u vrtić...), možda bih ga u drugim okolnostima cijepila, barem selektivno. Nema tu jednostavne i ispravne odluke.
No, što mene kopka kod ovih priča...Ne, ne vjerujem u teorije urote i u zle doktore, vjerujem da velika većina medicinara itekako djeluje u skladu s Hipokratovom zakletvom i da zaista žele pomoći. Što je onda sporno? Prije me u vezi cijepljenja mučila sumnja na povezanost s nekim autoimunim bolestima, autizmom, rakom...U zadnja dva mjeseca, otkad sam imala prilike razgovarati s dvoje stručnjaka, najviše me muči ta neurološka komponenta.
Naime, UZV mozga se kod bebe ne radi rutinski i dok kod djeteta urednog neurološkog statusa cjepivo vrlo vjerojatno neće ostaviti posljedice, po dijete koje ima određenih neuroloških problema cijepljenje može biti fatalno. U prilog tome ide što će svaki iole savjesan pedijatar barem odgoditi cijepljenje djeteta koje se vodi kao neurorizično. Ali često taj faktor ostane neprimjećen, npr., dijete na malo kompliciranijem porodu može zadobiti intrakranijalna krvarenja, a kasnije se (naizgled) normalno razvijati, ne ići na UZV mozga, biti redovno cijepljeno - i imati strašne posljedice. I onda kad se dogodi ono najgore, naravno da medicinarima nije u interesu čeprkati po tome. U neku ruku mogu to shvatiti - ta greška ne može biti ispravljena, a nije im u interesu širenje otpora prema cjepivima za koja oni iskreno vjeruju kako prednosti daleko premašuju eventualne posljedice (kao što u tekstu navodi i pedijatar Jovančević, npr.).
U tom su smjeru išla moja razmišljanja, dakle ne brijem na paranoje oko zlih doktora i ubojitih cjepiva, nego već duže vrijeme razmišljam o toj opasnosti od davanja cjepiva tako malim bebama u naponu neurološkog razvoja.
SIDS se najčešće pojavljuje u prvoj godini života, vrhunac je s 3 mjeseca (tada se vrši većina prvih cijepljenja...)....Zanima me što bi bilo kad bi se obvezno cijepljenje pomaklo iza godine dana (što ima logike jer su djeca u prvoj godini uglavnom dobro zaštićena - dojenjem, ne idu u vrtić, roditelji paze s kim stupaju u kontakt...)...
Malo je nabacano, ali zanima me što mislite o tome...
Ne, nema urote, ali u to se upravo izvitoperilo...jer suština je ljudima koji nešto proizvode zaraditi u što kraćem vremenu...i onda se to marketinški pokriva, siluje ,razvlači po medijima, sa osjećajem krivnje Vama ako vi niste u strukturi koja prihvaća proizvod - smatram da je isto i s Priorix-om kao i Domestosom, Samsungom 19000 -Turbox, Mercedesom A klase, žvakom Airfrash - to što dugoročne posljedice Priorix-a neznamo - nije važno on je IN; to što od Domestosa rastura glavurdača jer se govnom koje je unutra svaki put malko otruješ - ali nije važno- pobio si sve živo i neživo; to što mobiteli toliko sa svojim toplinskim zračenjem rasturaju po našim moždanim vijugama - ma nije važno - imamo malu vojsku 8- godišnjih zombija s mobitelima na ušima - baš su IN; to što se sa žvakačama doslovno svakodnevno trujemo jer danas sve sadrže ASPARTAM - a šta možeš to je cijena civilizacije....
Ma uvijek napišem TURBO paranoičan post...ali ta dvostruka mjerila me izluđuju...pogotovo ovih dana kad se nešto raspisalo o klimatskim promjenama Majčice nam Zemlje...a obični ljudi o tome pričaju već godinama, ali NE - NIJE istina - uvjeravalo nas se - to nam se samo čini...
Da, doktori djeluju u skladu s Hipokratovom zakletvom - ali od doba kad je Hipokrat djelovao do danas puno toga se promijenilo - a ja stvarno ne znam i ne razumijem zašto je taj mit o cjepivu još uvijek opstao...i uvijek s takvim bahatim gardom i čuđenjem svijetu medicinari djeluju kad im se spomenu nuspojave koje su malo grozomornije od običnih temperatura kao nuspojave????
Meni je jedino mjerilo valjda 15-etak slučajeva u vlastitoj okolini (među kojim nažalost i naše) koji se NIGDJE nisu naveli kao NUSPOJAVE cijepljenja i uporno se o njima ni ne želi razgovarati, istraživati i apriori se tvrdi da su slučajevi nešto drugo - ALI SE NE MOŽE DOKAZATI ŠTA!!!
Možda bi dr. R razmišljao drugačije da svoje vlastito 10-godišnje dijete mora oblačiti, hraniti, brisati mu guzu, nositi na 3 kat, voditi ga po terapijama...duboko bi promišljao o svim mogućnostima i nemogućnostima cjepiva i da li ono može izazvati trajno oštećenje djeteta...
p.s. DA, VJERUJEM DA JE SIDS LIJEPO UOBLIČEN NAZIV ZA SMRT NOVOROĐENČADI NAKON CIJEPLJENJA. ŽENI KOJU SAM UPOZNALA U RODILIŠTU UMRLO JE DIJETE NAKON 8 MJESECI STAROSTI - DVA DANA NAKON CIJEPLJENJA (CURICA JE ROĐENA 2 MJESECA PRIJE TERMINA, BILA JE NEURORIZIČNO DIJETE, ALI LIJEPO JE NAPREDOVALA) - VEĆ JE BILA STARA 2 MJESECA KAD SMO JE UPOZNALI U RODILIŠTU - NE ZNAM KAJ IH JE TJERALO DA DIJETE S 8 MJESECI CIJEPE - ČINI MI SE DA SMO ČAK IMALI ISTOG PEDIJATRA !!!!
Pravila pisanja postova
Odgovori s citatom