Kiitos Vauva-lehden rokotuksia vai ei jutusta!

Mikä tämän lauseen ymmärtämisessä on erityisen vaikeaa? Tunnen professoreita, jotka ajattelevat aivan eri tavoin keskenään. Toinen kannattaa täysin rinnoin koulutuksensa tuotteena oman alansa tietämysstä. Toinen taas on kyseenalaistaja viimeisen päälle. Oma mielipiteeni on, että jälkimmäinen on se viisaampi.

Luepa viestisi ajatuksen kanssa uudestaan. Mietipä ihan itseksesi hetki. Ei apua... : D

Mikä tämän lauseen ymmärtämisessä on erityisen vaikeaa? Tunnen professoreita, jotka ajattelevat aivan eri tavoin keskenään. Toinen kannattaa täysin rinnoin koulutuksensa tuotteena oman alansa tietämysstä. Toinen taas on kyseenalaistaja viimeisen päälle. Oma mielipiteeni on, että jälkimmäinen on se viisaampi.

ja mihin perustat tuon mielipiteen? Se, etta se on "sun mielipide" ei tee siita erityisen mielenkiintoista tai vakuuttavaa kenenkaan muun kannalta, sun pitaa jotenkin vakuuttaa meidat muutkin (ts. argumentoiden) jos haluat etta se on muutakin kuin "sun mielipide".

vain omia mielipiteitä. Miksi kenenkään tulisi vakuuttua sinun mielipiteestäsi enemmän? Tule alas tornistasi.

Ihan niinkun konkreettisesti.

rokotelähtöisesti

Mikä tämän lauseen ymmärtämisessä on erityisen vaikeaa? Tunnen professoreita, jotka ajattelevat aivan eri tavoin keskenään. Toinen kannattaa täysin rinnoin koulutuksensa tuotteena oman alansa tietämysstä. Toinen taas on kyseenalaistaja viimeisen päälle. Oma mielipiteeni on, että jälkimmäinen on se viisaampi.

Luepa viestisi ajatuksen kanssa uudestaan. Mietipä ihan itseksesi hetki. Ei apua... : D

taidat olla erinomaisesti koulutettu =D

Päteviä ymmärtämään ja lausumaan jotain aivan erityistä viisautta rokottamisesta ja rokotteista.

ilman henkilökohtaisuuksiin menemistä. Miksi tämä aihe aina kääntyy tämmpöiseksi. Yritetään vakuuttaa omaa viisauttaan, kun kyse on pitkälti mielipiteistä.

Mikä tämän lauseen ymmärtämisessä on erityisen vaikeaa? Tunnen professoreita, jotka ajattelevat aivan eri tavoin keskenään. Toinen kannattaa täysin rinnoin koulutuksensa tuotteena oman alansa tietämysstä. Toinen taas on kyseenalaistaja viimeisen päälle. Oma mielipiteeni on, että jälkimmäinen on se viisaampi.

ja mihin perustat tuon mielipiteen? Se, etta se on "sun mielipide" ei tee siita erityisen mielenkiintoista tai vakuuttavaa kenenkaan muun kannalta, sun pitaa jotenkin vakuuttaa meidat muutkin (ts. argumentoiden) jos haluat etta se on muutakin kuin "sun mielipide".

vain omia mielipiteitä. Miksi kenenkään tulisi vakuuttua sinun mielipiteestäsi enemmän? Tule alas tornistasi.

ja ihan avoimin mielin tassa odottelen etta miten perustelet sen etta kyseenalaistaminen on viisaampaa kuin oman alansa tietamyksen hyvaksyminen. Se on mielestani taysin mahdollista perustella, olen vain kiinnostunut kuulemaan mitka sinun perustelusi ovat. Jos sulle riittaa etta se on vain oma mielipiteesi, sekin on tietysti taysin hyvaksyttavaa, mutta silloin ei ole mitaan erityista syyta kirjoittaa sita muiden nahtavaksi.

ammattilaista joka rokottaa vai ammattilaista, joka ei rokota... Kummatkin ovat koulutettuja. Itse sinä päätöksesi teet. Ammattilaisen mielipiteen saa kaivettua mihin tahansa asiaan.

Uskon niitä 99,99 % ammattilaisia.

Eihän ilmastonmuutoskaan ole totta, jos uskoo sitä 1-0.1 % vähemmistöä tiedeyhteisöstä, joka väittää ettei sitä ole.

Kyllähän rokotuksiinkin liittyy riskejä. Kaikkihan on tilastomatematiikkaa ja hyödyn ja haitan punnintaa.

Vaikka lento-onnettomuuksia on olemassa, niin on todennäköisempää, että kuolee liikenneonnettomuudessa matkalla lentokentälle kuin lento-onnettomuudessa. Ketä pelottaa taksimatka lentokentälle? Pelätään sitä lentomatkaa.

sairastuneista oli rokotettuja. Ongelmana oli se, että rokote on vanhentunut, koska bakteeri mutatoitui ja pari vuosikymmentä sitten.

Suuri joukko rokottamattomia lapsia sairastui tuberkuloosiin viime vuonna eräässä alakoulussa, kun yhtäkkinen epidemia pyyhkäisi läpi koko koulun. Miten ois, ottaisitko riskin?

Joten voisi tapahtua täälläkin. Ja tuo calmette-rokotus on lopetettu juuri siksi, että se ei enää tehonnut eikä sitä tuberkuloosia esiintynyt juurikaan vs. rokotteen haittavaikutukset, joita oli paljon.

Jokainen kannanotto on myös mielipide.

sairastuneista oli rokotettuja. Ongelmana oli se, että rokote on vanhentunut, koska bakteeri mutatoitui ja pari vuosikymmentä sitten.

Suuri joukko rokottamattomia lapsia sairastui tuberkuloosiin viime vuonna eräässä alakoulussa, kun yhtäkkinen epidemia pyyhkäisi läpi koko koulun. Miten ois, ottaisitko riskin?

Itse pyysin poikkeusluvan rokotukselle. Tuberkuloosia on mielestäni kuitenkin paljon Suomessakin. Ja siihen kuolee ihmisiä jatkuvasti, mm. äitini naapuri, iäkäs mies kuoli sairaalassa tuberkuloosiin.

Jokainen kannanotto on myös mielipide.

varmaan. Mutta se ei tarkoita sita etteiko tuo, jolle kommentoin (sina?) voisi yrittaa perustella oman vaitteensa ("kyseenalaistaminen on viisaampaa kuin olemassaolevan tiedon hyvaksyminen"). Muuten mennaan ihan relativismin puolelle (mika on myos ok, mutta silloin keskustelusta ei tule mitaan koska kaikilla on vain omat, "toistensa kanssa yhta hyvat" mielipiteensa, joten kaikkien mielipiteista tulee merkityksettomia...)

Mitä te rokotevastaiset pelkäätte?Ihan niinkun konkreettisesti.

Pelkään:

- lisääväni lapseni kemikaalikuormaa liiallisesti jo pienellä iällä (toivoisin hänen elävän vanhaksi - tai saavan edes lähtökohtaisen mahdollisuuden siihen)

- neurologisen sairauden puhkeamista, ja siihen mahdollisesti tarvittavaa elinikäistä lääkitystä (ks. edellinen vastaus myös)

Ot. Hienoa nähdä, miten yhä useampi vanhempi uskaltaa ottaa vastuun omista lapsistaan ja heidän hyvinvoinnistaan (aikuisten oikeasti ajateltuna).

Ei tarvitse matkustaa kuin kehitysmaihin katsomaan miten ihmisen oma vastustuskyky ottaa mittaa taudeista. Yksi selviää toinen ei. Tuskin tälläiseen venäläiseen rulettiin kovinkaan moni hemmoteltu länsimaalainen ihminen lopulta ryhtyisi.



Kun länsimaissa kukaan ei enää kuollut aliravitsemukseen alkoi ruualla snobbailu. Siihen on meillä varaa. Tässä rokotevastaisuudessa on meneillään samantyyppinen ilmiö. Todellisuudessa rokotteet ovat antibioottejen ohella suurimpia länsimaisen lääketieteen keksintöjä, ja ne ovat säästäneet miljoonat ihmiset kuolemalta ja vammautumiselta.



Tämä on toki todella helppo unohtaa tämän runsauden ja hyvinvoinnin keskellä ja leikkiä "tiedostavaa".









kun kansasta suurin osa on rokotettu eli näillä konstein pahimamt taudit on saatu kitkettyä riehumasta kansan parista. Luulen, että suurin osa näistä rokotusvastaisista veisivät nopeasti lapsensa rokotettavaksi jos maahan leviäisi laaja epidemia vaikka poliota tai kurkkumätää. Sehän toisaalta on mahdotonta koska laaja osa kansaa on rokotettu näitä vastaan. Ja näin rokotusten vastustajat pääsevät vapaamatkustajina jeesustelemaan rokotusten turhuutta.

[/quote]

kun rokotevastustaja toivoo lapsensa elävän vanhaksi tai ainakin saavan hyvän lähtökohdan sille, niin toisaalta tuo on vähän ristiriitainen juttu, koska nimenomaan rokotteiden keksimisen jälkeen ihmisten elinikä on noussut hurjasti.



Mutta kaikessa on riskinsä, niin rokottamisessa kuin rokottamatta jättämisessä. Itse näen kyllä kokonaan rokottamatta jättämisessä paljon suuremmat riskit.

huomaan, ettei asia mene perille, vaikka mistä vinkkelistä sitä yrittäisi esittää. Voi voi.

Voithan toki yrittää esittää jonkun asiapohjaisen perustelun sille, miksi esitetty kritiikki on mielestäsi väärin, niin jatketaan asiasta sitten.

MY OWN STORY



For me, parenthood didn't really begin until my son, Robbie, reached three and a half. The reason being, was that up until that age, whenever he needed to be fed, whenever he needed to be dressed, whenever he needed any sort of attention, then I would yell out to my wife and say "Wanathip, look after your son will you, I'm watchin' TV!" Anyway, when Robbie was about three and a half, my wife came up to me one day and said " Ian, it's time you learn about parenthood." I said "whatdya mean?" She said " I'm leavin'! " So with a three and a half year old son, I became a single father all set to experience the 'joys of parenthood'.



The first thing that I wish to make clear, if it isn't already, is that I have been far from the perfect parent. Although I have tried my best, there have been many times where I have let my son down, where I haven't been there for him, where I haven't taken the time to really listen to him, where I haven't given him the direction that he needs, and where I have ignored his cries because of my insensitive nature. But there was one area that I was determined not to let him down in, one area of importance that I personally placed above all else - his physical health.

You see, when Robbie was one year old (1985), he was hospitalised with severe eczema which occurred shortly after his first and only vaccinations. He was treated in hospital with corticosteroid creams and bandaged head to toe so that the only visible part of him was his eyes, nose and mouth. (see photo of Robbie) As I mentioned in my book, Health The Only Immunity, life has a way of slapping you in the face in order to teach you something.



Seeing my son in this condition was the slap in the face I needed for it brought home to me the fact that you cannot take your children's health for granted. Having suffered numerous illnesses myself as a child including asthma, the last thing I wanted was a sick kid. I mean who wants sick kids, it's bad enough when they're healthy!



Now at that point in time, I had been studying for a couple of years, a science of health known as Natural Health, also known as Natural Hygiene or Nature Cure. In a nutshell, Natural Health explains how to ensure optimum health in yourself and your children, and how to prevent or treat illness without vaccines or drugs. One of the most inspiring stories that I came across in the Natural Health archives was that of the Hopewood children. These children were raised in accordance with Natural Health principles and were regarded by many doctors and health specialists as being the healthiest children in Australia, despite the fact that they were never given vaccines or any medical drugs.



The main problem that I had with Natural Health, was not in understanding or believing its teachings, for mostly, they are just pure logic and common sense. The problem, was in trying to follow the natural health way of life, a way of life that promotes a predominantly vegetarian diet, the drinking of pure unfluoridated water, the daily habit of exercise and deep breathing, the constant need for fresh air and sunshine, and the regular practice of physical and mental relaxation. I mean when your whole life is about steak and eggs, drinkin' beer and watchin' TV, the changeover to the natural health lifestyle can be a little hard - you know what I'm sayin'?



However, as my son's health was of paramount importance to me, not to mention my own, I gradually took on the natural health diet and lifestyle for I realised that if I didn't live it myself, how could I expect my son to. It was far from smooth sailing and over the years there were many occasions when I thought "f… this!" and started partying out on beer, pizza and anything else that took my fancy. Problem was that whenever I started partying out, then so too would my son, and it would only be a few days before he'd start coughing and spluttering and becoming feverish. Whenever this happened I'd immediately get both of us back on to a diet of fruit and salad and within a couple of days he'd be fine.



On the few occasions when he developed a full on fever, I would put him to bed and allow the fever to run its course. For the duration of the fever, he would eat nothing and drink only pure water. The fever would generally last about 2 - 3 days and when it subsided and his hunger returned, I would feed him only fruit for a couple of days and then gradually bring his diet back to normal. Our normal diet consisted mainly of fruit, salads, vegetables, brown rice and wholemeal bread. We avoided the drinking of fluoridated tap water and purchased our own pure water.



Because we both liked to junk out occasionally, we eventually decided on a 6 day plan. Sunday to Friday we played it straight keeping on a mostly vegetarian diet, then Friday night and Saturdays we partied out on whatever we felt like eg pizza, ice-cream, chocolate bars etc, and in my case a few cold beers. For Robbie and me, this plan worked quite well over the years and he continues to follow the regime to this day.



Of course there is a lot more to health than just following a vegetarian diet, but I mention this experience for those parents who are endeavouring to establish a healthier eating program for themselves and their children. No doubt some health purists will argue that you should follow a 7 day plan of healthy eating, and from the standpoint of health, I would agree. But as I have learnt over the years, in order to preserve your peace of mind, you just have to find a balance between idealism and realism.



Aside from our diet, we both played a lot of basket-ball together and did regular morning runs along the beach so this kept him quite fit. I made sure that he spent a lot of time outdoors, for nourishment is obtained not only from food but also from the fresh air and sunshine. I cannot emphasise this enough, particularly in this country (Australia), where health authorities would have you believe that the sun is bad for you. At my son's school, children were not allowed in the playground for the morning break (about 20 mins) without a bloody hat! Regular exposure to sunshine is essential for good health. - Sunbathing for Health



My son Robbie is now 17. Since the day he left hospital 16 years ago he has never since been to a doctor and has never taken any medical drugs whatsoever. In 16 years his only medicines have been food, pure water, fresh air, sunshine, rest and most important of all, lots of laughter! He has never suffered from asthma or any of the other illnesses that plagued my own childhood.



Regarding his dental health, his only visit to a dentist was for a check-up when he was 15 and the dentist remarked that Robbies teeth were in excellent condition and needed no fillings. By the time I reached 15, half my back teeth contained mercury fillings.



I end this account with the following true story. When Robbie was 14 years old, he came home from school one day all excited about wanting to compete in and hopefully win an upcoming school cross-country race. Now at that point in time he had never done any long distance running so I didn't like his chances of winning, however I kept these doubts to myself.



Well the night before the race I gave him the following tactics. I said to him, "when the gun goes off for the race, try to stay within ten yards of the leader, and then, when you get to the last 200 yards of the race, if you got the energy, take him then!" So he said "yeah okay dad."



So the next morning, he lines up with 40 other kids, the gun explodes and off they race. In the early part of the race, Robbie was about 30 yards behind the leader who sprinted off, but by the end of the first of three laps around a hill, he'd caught up to within 10 yards of the leader. Coming up to the last 200 yards of the race, he was still 10 yards behind the leader, and then, aided by some frantic screams from his old man, he took off, passed the leader and went on to win the race by 50 yards!



Now for me, that moment was very special for when I was a kid I couldn't run 300 yards without getting an asthma attack! To see my son win this long distance race without having ever done any long distance training was testimony to the wonderful benefits that Natural Health offers.



Well to finish the story off, after the race he trudges over to me with drooped shoulders and a rather dejected look on his face. Naturally I was shocked cause I expected him to be jumping with excitement, so I said to him " what's wrong mate?.. you just won the race by 50 yards!" To which he replied " 50 yards!.. if you hadn't told me to stay 10 yards behind the leader until the last 200 yards, I could've beaten him by a mile!"



http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/raiseachild.html

FOREWORD to Vaccination The "Hidden" Facts by Ian Sinclair



by Archie Kalokerinos MD.



To immunize or not to immunize is a question that, today, is often asked. To answer is difficult. So much knowledge is required for even partial understanding that one would almost find it necessary to complete a university course in medicine before even the basic facts could be grasped logically. There is, therefore, a need for a comprehensive text on the subject. Ian Sinclair has filled that gap.



Like most physicians, I spent my training and early post graduate years totally believing in the miracle of vaccines. I remember, only too clearly, the last polio epidemics that swept through Australia. Several infants, children and adults died under my care. One of my colleagues suffered almost total paralysis. When a vaccine was introduced I almost cried with relief and accepted it blindly.



It was the same with diphtheria. I struggled to save a few and lost a few. The suffering of those little children is something I will never forget. Neither will I forget how a tiny boy died in violent spasms due to tetanus.



And so I was totally and firmly on the value of vaccines.



The first change in attitude came ten years after graduation when I observed that routine vaccinations and immunization made some children sick and could even lead to death. I must stress that this was an observation - not a "theory".



So I changed my attitude and realised that children who were ill - even with a trivial "cold” should not be immunized. To me this was a simple and important 'fact'. To my surprise, my colleagues not only disagreed, they became hostile - a hostility that killed two infants in the area under my partial control. In this way I was forced to think and study more deeply. What I found was a minefield which was really a conspiracy to hide the truth from the people on this earth.



I well remember, some years ago, listening to a knighted medical researcher as he spoke, on the radio, about vaccines. He told two classical stories form the history books. The first concerned Edward Jenner who, according to history, watched as the milkmaid caught cowpox and this protected her from smallpox. So Jenner got some of the 'cowpox' and inoculated it into someone's arm - it fostered and the pus was then inoculated into someone else -100% success was claimed. 100% !! How absurd - complete with all sorts of germs including hepatitis, syphilis and whatever. If one did that today, without antibiotics, the death rate would be huge.



Worse still, the genetic make up of smallpox vaccine is known today. It is not cowpox. Where it came from is unknown. Now this does not prove that the vaccine is inefficient. It simply means that the history is wrong. So do not let it be used as a basis for supporting vaccination.



Then we have Louis Pasteur and his four dogs. Two were given his rabies vaccine - two were not. On exposure to rabies the two vaccinated dogs survived. The two non-vaccinated dogs died. TRIUMPH!! So it seems, but what rubbish.



First, Pasteur tried to get that result many times and failed. The two vaccinated dogs would die - or one would die. Eventually, by chance he got the "right" result and this is what is told in history (only that).



Even today a rabies vaccine cannot be made that gives such protection. With tetanus I can tell a personal story. At University we were taught that no cases of tetanus occurred during World War II amongst Australian Service men because they were all vaccinated against tetanus. I believed this until I suffered an injury after being fully immunized. I received a booster shot and got tetanus. The cultural shock was enormous. When I reviewed the literature I found many such cases. In civilian practice it is impossible to totally protect against tetanus. Under near ideal conditions, there were in fact, cases in the army. They were kept well hidden.



Three outstanding fiascos during recent years demonstrate how the entrenched attitudes of medical authorities lead to enormous loss of life and suffering. All three I personally tried to stop and was soundly abused. The first is the immunization campaigns in Africa where dirty needles were used. It is thought by many that this is what spread AIDS so rapidly.



The second was the swine flu fiasco in the USA 1976. The history of that should be studied by all.



The third is the use of AIDS loaded hepatitis B vaccine by the Canadian Health Authorities in the 1980s.



If doctors like myself are to be regarded as "ratbags" - then how does one explain these three massive tragic events?



Only after realising that routine immunizations were dangerous did I achieve a substantial drop in infant death rates. It is, therefore, with a sense of gratitude, that I welcome the contribution made by Ian Sinclair.



Dr Archie Kalokerinos