Glenn Beck, Anyone?

Alright. So I'm a conservative. I feel so priveledged to have been born in the United States, and I truly appreciate all of the freedoms we are afforded as her citizens. I appreciate our freedom from the government controlling our lives (more than they already do, anyway). I appreciate our freedom to succeed or fail based on our own efforts. I also appreciate our freedom of speech.

When I came upon this post from a contributor on the Care2 site, I was appalled. The author of this post, Kristina Chew, believes that Glenn Beck should be censored by FOX News because of his coverage given to Frances Fox Piven's article “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty."  

From Kristina Chew's post:

 'According to the New York Times the article proposed that if people overwhelmed the welfare rolls, fiscal and political stress on the system could force reform and give rise to changes like a guaranteed income. By drawing attention to the topic, the proposal “had a big impact” even though it was not enacted, Ms. Piven said. “A lot of people got the money that they desperately needed to survive,” she said.

In Mr. Beck’s telling on a Fox broadcast on Jan. 5, 2010, Ms. Piven and Mr. Cloward (who died in 2001) planned “to overwhelm the system and bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with impossible demands and bring on economic collapse.” Mr. Beck observed that the number of welfare recipients soared in the years after the article, and said the article was like “economic sabotage.” '

Apparently, Ms. Piven has been receiving threats since Beck brought her article from 1966 into the spotlight. According to Kristina Chew, FOX News should censor Glenn Beck since he would be responsible if something happened to Piven. Really? When did it become acceptable to to pin the responsibility for someone's actions onto another person? When did it become popular to trash the first amendment in the hope that ignorant people would no longer do ignorant things?


She goes on to state:

'It is extremely unfortunate that Fox News has taken such an irresponsible stance. Even though the above comments were made on The Blaze, Beck's targeting of Piven began on his show on Fox News. By not requiring Beck to cease his attack on Piven, Fox News is tacitly condoning the threats of violence against her.

And there's nothing academic, or ethical, about that.'

I could not disagree more with Ms. Chew.

What Spill?

It seems as if the media has all but abandoned providing updates on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010. How is the coastline doing? What about the wildlife? And the people? It must be all cleared up, right? Not so fast.

Excerpt taken from The Institute for Southern Studies website:

 BP's spilled oil is washing up in people
January 20, 2011

Though the gushing well was capped last July, oil continues to wash ashore along the Gulf Coast. BP's oil is also washing up in people's bodies, raising concerns about long-term health effects.

This month the Louisiana Environmental Action Network released the results of tests performed on blood samples collected from Gulf residents. Whole blood samples were collected from 12 people between the ages of 10 and 66 in September, November and December and analyzed by a professional lab in Georgia, with the findings interpreted by environmental chemist and LEAN technical adviser Wilma Subra.

The individuals tested were two boys ages 10 and 11, four men and six women. They included cleanup workers on Orange Beach, Ala., crabbers from the Biloxi, Miss. area  and people living on Perdido Key, Ala.

Four of the people tested -- including three adults and the 10-year-old -- showed unusually high levels of benzene, a particularly toxic component of crude oil. Subra compared the levels found in the test subjects to the levels found in subjects in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a research program conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics.

Specifically, Subra compared the benzene levels in the Gulf residents to the NHANES 95th percentile value -- that is, the score below which 95 percent of the NHANES subjected tested. In other words, she compared the benzene levels found in Gulf residents to some of the highest levels found in the general population.

That comparison shows cause for concern, as the benzene levels in the blood of four Gulf residents ranged between 11.9 and 35.8 times higher than the NHANES 95th percentile value of 0.26 parts per billion. Benzene is known to cause a host of health problems including anemia, irregular menstrual periods, ovarian shrinkage and leukemia.

Comments from al.com regarding the beaches:

Gulf oil spill tarballs cover fort morgan
January 2, 2011

While the Gulf beach at Fort Morgan is relatively clear of tar, the several hundred yards of sand beginning at the mouth of Mobile Bay and wrapping around toward the ferry dock is another story.  

Tarballs ranging from the size of a nickel to the size of a person’s palm are spread liberally along the water’s edge and at the foot of the sand dunes well up the beach.

Along the water, the tarballs outnumber seashells and other flotsam. Hunks of oiled debris, including a mattress, were strewn along the beach Wednesday morning. Bits of tar were wedged into the crevices of fighting conchs and cockle shells.

On the higher sections of the beach, tarballs were so plentiful that they were seldom more than an inch apart.

And from CNN.com:

Louisiana officials: Parts of coastline still heavily oiled
January 8, 2011

More than eight months after an oil rig explosion launched the biggest oil disaster in U.S. history, Louisiana officials say they're still finding thick layers of oil along parts of the state's coastline. 

"Every day, this shoreline is moving inland," lessening flood protection for residents, Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser said.

On Friday, Robert Barham, secretary of Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, joined Nungesser on a tour of portion of Louisiana's coastline still heavily oiled by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, according to a statement from the wildlife and fisheries department.

"It has been eight months since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, and five months since the well was capped. While workers along the coast dedicated themselves to cleaning up our shores there is still so much to be done," Barham said in the statement.

During a walking tour of an area called Bay Jimmy, Nungesser said oil can be seen from a distance. "When the tide is out ... you can see thick oil onto the water for 30, 40 feet out," the parish president said. "There's been no mechanism to clean that up thus far."

At one point on Friday, Nungesser began cursing at U.S. Coast Guard Cmdr. Dan Lauer.

"It seems like the federal agencies and the Coast Guard is there protecting BP. You guys ought to be as angry as me, that we don't have more people out here doing this," Nungesser said.

Lauer said officials are trying to determine the best way to rid the oil while considering long-term effects of cleanup techniques.
"The main thing we want to make sure of is ... in trying to get this oil out that we don't kill the rest of the isle -- that we don't do more damage to the environment long-term than the good we would do from removing this oil right now, " Lauer said.

"Clearly, there is oil. Clearly, this is heavily oiled marsh. But we are working together in a team," Lauer said. "No one is walking away. Clearly these are high priorities. But there are different phases in different areas."

Louisiana officials said biologists have found several oiled birds in the past few days, including at least two dead brown pelicans. The wildlife and fisheries department also said oiled boom remains in "numerous locations, forgotten or lost by contractors charged with their maintenance and removal."

Fountain Lady Lawsuit?

Can we now sue for hurt feelings? 
So, it appears that the 'fountain lady' may be looking to cash in on her stupidity. Excuse me for saying that if she is stupid enough to text while simultaneously doing something which requires perception of direction, she is an idiot. If her 'feelings are hurt' because she fell on her own ass and someone captured her misfortune on video, plastered it on YouTube and now the whole world is laughing at her, too bad sister. Learn a lesson. Go sit down when you text. It's not like she wrecked her car or something. She fell into a freaking fountain and got up and walked away. Let me re-iterate this...she was the dumbass who was so focused on texting that she walked right into, and fell into, a fountain in a public place, and now wants to sue because her feelings are hurt? Really?? Wow. Unbelievable. She has Obama-voter written all over her.

Texting Fountain Lady's Viral Video: Laughter or Lawsuit?
From ABC's George Stephanopolous

The Individual, the Herd and Choice

Individual vs. Herd
Most vaccine proponents speak of what's best for the herd. My question is, when did it become necessary for an individual to lose their rights for benefit of 'the herd'. My opinion is quite strong with regard to this and you may find some of my words and thoughts offending. If that is the case, then you are welcome to stop reading this blog. I make no apologies for the things I am about to say.

You will find that most parents who use the "herd mentality" as an argument in support of the childhood immunization schedule are the ones who are uneducated on the subject entirely. "If you don't immunize your child, then you're putting mine at risk of disease." Really? But I thought your child was immunized? How can my unvaccinated child infect your child if your's is vaccinated? "Because vaccines aren't always 100% effective", they say. Really? So that means, theoretically, even if my child WERE vaccinated, he could STILL infect YOUR child who is ALSO vaccinated? The fact that my child is unvaccinated, does not create a certainty that he will become sick to infect your child with anything. To hear of parents being called 'unresponsible' or 'reckless' or being alienated out of their pediatrician's office, due to their decision not to vaccinate their children, makes me ill.

When it comes to health matters, my responsibility is to my children. Your responsibility is to yours. Do not try to guilt trip me into vaccinating my children for the sake of the "herd" because it's not going to work. When it comes specifically to administering vaccinations, I care only about my children. They are my responsibility, first and foremost, before a 'herd' of anyone or anything.

Pro Choice, Anyone?
Vaccination, at the present, is a choice. If you're a parent, do your due diligence on the subject and get educated. If after researching vaccines and the childhood schedule, you're still comfortable with the program, and you decide to vaccinate your children, that is your choice and it should be respected. If I, on the other hand, am not comfortable with the immunization schedule after doing my own research, and decide to opt out for my child, then that is my decision, and should be respected as well. There should be no pressure to vaccinate, just education, so that everyone can make an informed choice.

Newborn Shots, Jaundice and SIDS

Are there Connections?
You have been planning the arrival of your baby for what seems like eternity. Finally, the big day is here. He is perfect in every way...ten fingers, ten toes and he is beautiful. You have been very careful to follow all medical advice from your doctor. When you were in labor and arrived at the hospital, you were given several papers to sign. In the excitement of what was going on, you may or may not have read all of them, but you signed them. The moment your baby is born, he is whisked away to be cleaned up, and if you signed the papers, to also have his vitamin K and his Hepatitis B injections administered. He only weighs 7 lbs.


Do you know what Hepatitis B is? You were undoubtedly tested for it during your pregnancy. It is a disease which is transmitted sexually or through intravenous drug use. Let's say you tested negative for it during your blood tests with your OBGYN, meaning your baby is not at immediate risk for the disease. He is vaccinated within the first 24 hours of his life for it anyway. Why? Convenience is the answer. Simply because he's there, and they can. Period. The vitamin K shot is administered to every baby to prevent possible intracranial bleeding which usually occurs sometime from three to seven weeks after birth. The thing is, that it only occurs in approximately 5 out of every 100,000 births. So the vast majority of children are receiving an excessive amount of vitamin K which is injected into them for no reason. Does this pose any risk to the child? The vitamin K injection has been linked to jaundice (hyperbilirubinemia) in neonates, click here and scroll down to adverse reactions for more information.


The pediatrician visits you in your room the next morning to meet baby. He states baby looks a little yellow, and could be jaundiced. They prick the baby for blood and do a bilirubin test. It is confirmed that your new little one has jaundice. You, being a first time mother, aren't sure what jaundice means, so you ask. You are casually told that your baby's body has too much bilirubin, which causes the skin to take on a yellowish cast. You are informed that sunlight is the cure. Your baby will need to lay in a special bed, containing phototherapy lamps, commonly called "billy lamps". The bilirubin in the blood will continue to be monitored daily until levels are confirmed to be within normal parameters. Your baby will be discharged from the hospital not until this happens.


Two days later, all testing indicates bilirubin levels have declined enough for you to go home. However, the pediatrician would like to see baby again in three days to be sure all is well. After that visit, baby is given the green light. He's healthy. You never give another thought to jaundice...but should you?


There are speculations that the vitamin K injection at birth could cause neonatal jaundice and, consequently, that neonatal jaundice can cause neurological damage, commonly called autism. So do you know enough about the vitamin K injection given to your baby at birth? Vitamin K sounds harmless enough, but is it when given under these circumstances? If you don't know, then shouldn't you find out? We let our little ones be injected with things that we know nothing about. Why don't we ask more questions? Why aren't we educated on this?


When your baby is four weeks old, he goes to his first 'well child' visit. His weight and length will be recorded and you will get to see where you little guy falls on the 'growth curve'. Even though he is not sexually active, and is not at present an intravenous drug user, he will also receive another injection of the Hepatitis B vaccine. If you have not questioned this by your baby's four week check up, I would have to wonder why. In addition, what are the vaccine ingredients which are being injected into your tiny baby after only four weeks, and at only 7 lbs?


After this visit, your baby is crying inconsolably. You take him home and try to get him to sleep, but he continues to cry, sometimes even screaming, for the rest of the day and into the evening. The next morning you find your baby boy dead in his crib.


After an autopsy is done, his death is recorded as being caused by SIDS. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is when an apparently healthy baby dies from an unknown cause, usually during sleep. Annually, about 2500 children are recorded as to have died from SIDS in the United States alone. Even in the instance where a child dies within 24 hours of receiving a vaccine, a connection is never made. Instead the death is labeled as having no cause and the vaccine was just a coincidence.

Neonatal jaundice linked to autism in children

Did you know that jaundice in infants increases their risk of being diagnosed with autism? An article from medpagetoday.com states:

Full-term neonates with jaundice are at greatly increased risk of later being diagnosed with a disorder of psychological development, a Danish study found.

Jaundiced newborns had an almost 90% higher likelihood of subsequently having any psychological developmental disorder compared with neonates without jaundice...

If you have a child, or are expecting one, has anyone talked to you about this? With jaundice being linked to autism, and vitamin K injections linked with jaundice, shouldn't we all be talking this? But we're not. Why? Odds are, if you mention any of this to a pediatrician, it will be shrugged off as not a big deal. Why? I'm not sure, other than it may disrupt the status quo when it comes to the newborn shot schedule. Disrupting the status quo would also disrupt pharmaceutical profits. And we can't have that, now can we?

Imagine the profit loss if the newborn vitamin K shot was only given to a fraction of the children born every day. Imagine the profit loss if parents started refusing the unnecessary newborn hepatitis B vaccine and others. For more information on profits made by pharmaceutical companies on vaccines, see my post called Money Making Machine.

Vaccines and Conflicts of Interest

The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two and pediatrician Paul Offit MD are quoted as being "some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine safety." Are there conflicts of interest? You decide.

Money Making Machine

I think we can all remember the great H1N1 'swine flu' scare from 2009. The media made it sound like the world actually may be coming to an end, and a lot of people bought it. County fairgrounds in our area were having special areas where families could arrrive and receive their 'protection'. I, myself, have never ever taken a flu shot of any kind. Nor have either of my children. Last year was no different, even in the face of possibly contracting 'the worst flu since the 1918 epidemic of the Spanish Flu. We, as a family, supplemented our vitamin D intake for the winter season and simply practiced good hygiene, which included washing hands often and using hand sanitizer in the car when returning from shopping trips and school. We made it through the entire season with no illness. Even when half of my son's 1st grade class was absent with what was presumed to be the H1N1 virus, my son stayed well.

The money made by pharmaceutical companies from vaccines is INSANE. I believe that to be one of the reasons why the childhood schedule keeps growing. It's all about the money. I believe that is why the H1N1 virus was so hyped up...for profit. Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis reported an 8% annual profit jump for 2009 due to this vaccine alone.

H1N1 ended up being so serious that, only a year later, I haven't even heard it mentioned this season at all. It sure did make a lot of money though, didn't it?

Here are some quotes from a January 1, 2010 article on The Scientist website. Some things in this article stood out to me, prompting more research. Emphasis in bold is mine.

Nice Shot
Why Vaccines are pharma's Next Big Thing
by: Megan Scudellari

"Fraught with small profit margins (“Measured in pennies rather than pounds,” a vaccine developer told the Sunday Times in 1986) and piles of litigation following reported adverse reactions, many vaccine manufacturers dropped their programs in the 1980s. “At one point, only a handful of major manufacturers were left,” says Jim Connolly, previous business head of Wyeth vaccines, who left the company following Pfizer’s acquisition of Wyeth. Vaccines were considered low-value products for saturated childhood markets. “There was a fundamental inertia and lack of incentivisation on the part of the pharmaceutical companies,” says Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Today, however, change is in the air. In the wake of increasing safety regulations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, generic competition, and emptying pipelines, the pharmaceutical industry is looking to the vaccine sector with hope. Over the last 15 years, advancing technologies, propitious legislation, and a new moneymaking reputation have transformed the vaccine sector from orphan to golden child. Top it off with increasing government and nonprofit investment in vaccines for the developing world, and these prophylactic products are back in the spotlight and back into pharmaceutical pipelines."

Litagation following adverse vaccine reactions in the 1980s causing propitious legislation?
Hmmm...I wonder what I can find out about that?

The article goes on to state:

“We’ve seen probably a quadrupling of activity [in the vaccine sector] from what it was 10 years ago,” says Wyeth’s Connolly. According to a recent analysis, the vaccines market is poised to be the fastest-growing therapeutic area in the pharmaceutical industry, with an annual growth rate of 14 percent over the next 5 years.¹ That surpasses even oncology, the largest therapeutic area in pharmaceuticals, at 11 percent. Worldwide sales of vaccines were $18.5 billion in 2007 and are expected to climb to $35 billion by 2012. Governments around the world recently ordered an estimated $7 billion worth of H1N1 “swine flu” vaccines, a windfall spread among only five manufacturers: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca’s MedImmune, and CSL Limited, an Australian biopharmaceutical company. "

The H1N1 virus which is a non-issue this season, created windfall profits for pharmaceutical companies. The vaccine was unnecessary.

Why is the vaccines market poised to be the "fastest-growing therapeutic area in the pharmaceutical industry?" Could it be that even more vaccines will be added to to the childhood schedule? Perhaps...

This statement was made regarding Wyeth's Prevnar vaccine for Pneumococcal Disease which is on the childhood vaccination schedule.

"Over 4 million children are born per year in the United States alone, and each is likely to receive an $84 dose of Prevnar. “You have a regenerating patient population for your vaccine every year,” says Connolly. And the premium prices don’t hurt..."

Will some of these end up on the childhood immunization schedule?

 


Dr. Paul Offit is the chief of infectious disease at Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia. He states that, theoretically, infants can safely receive 10,000 immunizations simultaneously, without doing harm. Vaccines create a huge profit for pharmaceutical companies. What does this mean for the future of the childhood immunization schedule? Will unnecessary vaccines be added just to make more profit? I mean, after all, they don't hurt anyone, right? Dr. Paul Offit says so.

References

1. “Therapeutic focus—Vaccines set for rapid growth,” EP Vantage, June 25, 2008.

Relationship with Pediatrician

Pediatricians and Trust
When my son was in for his twelve month check up in 2004, I was given the option of giving him the varicella vaccine. His pediatrician said to me, "This vaccine is optional, but wouldn't it be nice if he never had the chicken pox?" I thought that it would be very nice if he never got the chicken pox. Wow! Never to have those pesky, itchy little red bumps everywhere? Luxury. Uneducated regarding vaccines at the time, I agreed, and signed the permission form for him to get the vaccine. The issue of the permission form will be addressed a little later. My first issue with this situation was that, because of my being uneducated in regard to vaccines at that time, I should have been informed by the pediatrician that all vaccines are optional, but I was not. No parent is. My second issue with this particular incident, happened when my son  getting his physical for kindergarten. The pediatrician informed me that he will need a varicella booster to get into school. Really? I thought the vaccine was optional. The pediatrician explained to me that it used to be optional, but now is mandatory to get into school. Really? She informed me that there can be serious complications from bouts with chicken pox, like when they get into your eyes. I was informed of blindness and even death occurring from runaway chicken pox. Really? Was this the same pediatrician who just a few years ago light-heartedly told me it was optional? What gives? I have no doubt that there are isolated incidents of someone expiring or becoming blind from the chicken pox, but how likely is it to happen? Not very likely, she conceded, but "what if it did?", she said. I didn't buy into the urgent-chicken-pox-vaccine-or-die mentality, and she took on a scornful attitude. As I signed the paper that she gave me which stated I had been informed of the dangers of not vaccinating, I did wonder if I was doing the right thing. I felt like a bad mom. I felt like she thought I was insane. I wanted to have my cake and eat it too, to have my son vaccinated completely, but to be safe from side effects from the vaccines themselves. In the end, I opted my son out of all boosters to get into kindergarten.

Prior to this kindergarten physical, I had already been doing research on the vaccine schedule itself. There are many, many more vaccines on it than when I was a child. Also, I had looked at the efficacy of the vaccines (to be addressed n a later post). In addition, when you look at the ingredients of the vaccines themselves, the age and weight of the child when they're injected, and the units they are receiving per pound of body weight, it's appalling. Checking into the history of some of the vaccines is even more appalling, such as the polio vaccine which was created by Dr. Jonas Salk. I will address this also in a later post.

Being treated as if I were being unreasonable for questioning my son's vaccines creeped me out. I was not treated as if my concerns were valid, it was quite the opposite, actually. It was a "you're being silly" type of brush off with all of my concerns. I did not appreciate this.

When my daughter was born in 2009, I took her to this same pediatrician. My husband and I opted not to vaccinate her at all. The pediatrician, in tears, begged me to reconsider. I had heard of pediatricians refusing to continue a relationship with children whose parents refused vaccines. I asked her if this would happen with us. She told me "no" for the time being, but that she couldn't promise what the future would bring. She gave me the vaccine waiver paper to sign. This time I did not sign it. I gathered my daughter's things and we left.

Vaccines

Not being an expert on neurological damage, vaccines or anything else, my opinions are simply that...my opinions, and nothing more. I have done a lot of research, which has influenced my opinion on vaccines in general. The conclusion that I have come to is that, for many reasons, vaccines are not safe. With that said, I do not believe everything I read. I do not think vaccines are a conspiracy. I do not believe the MMR vaccine causes autism.

Vaccine ingredients are risky
Most parents, when at well child visits, do not ask to see the vaccine insert so they can be educated on the possible risks of the vaccine. Most parents have no idea as to what compounds are actually contained in the vaccine itself. Instead, they rely on the trust they have for their pediatrician not to do anything that would hurt their precious little one. They believe their doctor who tells them that the vaccine benefits outweigh the risks, tenfold. Really? By whose standards? Who has come to that conclusion, and how did they reach it? Some kids do have adverse reactions such as neurological damage, immune problems and death. During a pediatric visit, the risks of the vaccine are always understated and the benefits overstated.

Is more better?
There are so many vaccines on the childhood immunization schedule, and it keeps growing.  Will enough ever be enough? Dr. Paul Offit of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and the co-inventor of the Rotateq rotavirus vaccine, stated that a baby could tolerate 10,000 vaccine antigens at once. Really? Where can I get in line for that one?

The efficacy of vaccines is overstated.
Just because you receive a vaccine for a specific disease, does not mean you are immunized against it at all.

It is not made clear to parents that vaccinating a child is actually a choice.
Vaccines are presented to parents as a mandate. As certain as the sun will rise tomorrow, you will be expected to vaccinate your child. If vaccination was presented as a choice, then you would need to be educated sufficiently to make an informed decision. Then you would ask questions. Then you might decide not to vaccinate. Then the sky would fall.

Vaccine inserts state they can cause adverse events, but no one admits when it actually happens.
The window given to report adverse events after any vaccine is administered is incredibly small, usually 48 hours. More instances of adverse events are attributed to coincidence than vaccine damage. When looking at the events recorded in the VAERS database, it becomes quite hard to believe that most of them are coincidental.

Though I do not believe in a conspiracy to harm people with vaccines, I do believe it is a flawed system from the start. Money for pharmaceutical companies is obviously a factor. It is a business with a bottom line. All businesses exist to make a profit. The more, the better. The more vaccines people take and the more people who take vaccines, the more money they make. I don't believe 'quantity over quality' is an appropriate standard with regard to vaccines. In addition, not admitting when there is an adverse reaction to a vaccine, just because it occurs outside of the 'window' is dishonest. Having a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to childhood vaccines seems risky to say the least.

In conclusion, with regard to autism, all eyes should be on everything which could be a contributing factor, vaccines included. I have no idea if vaccines cause autism or not. From everything I've read, no one is 100% certain. But the question remains, why is it taboo to even suggest that vaccines, or their ingredients, could cause neurological damage (call it autism if you want) in some children? Anything which insults the nervous system and/or the immune system should be studied more closely, including vaccines. Writing vaccines off as 100% non-causal is irresponsible to say the least.

People in My Family Think I'm Crazy

I recently attended a family event given for an out of state cousin and his wife, who were bringing their twin 15 month old girls from Texas to visit with family. At the time, my own daughter Lauren was 17 months old. During that visit, while munching on all of the goodies provided to satisfy your appetite, I had a conversation with my cousin's wife about Lauren's pediatrician. I believe I mentioned to her that I had disagreed with the pediatrician about an issue regarding my daughter during her twelve month check up and haven't been back to him since. She then promptly asked how I was getting Lauren her vaccinations, if I wasn't taking her back to the pediatrician. After she heard me state that we weren't vaccinating Lauren, she looked like a deer in headlights. It was at this moment, I truly realized that there are still people who just don't know.

No matter which side of the vaccination debate you're on, you know the other side exists. Even though you don't agree with the other side, you know it's there. From the way her face looked when I told her about not vaccinating, it appeared to be the first time she'd heard of such a thing. She drew in a surprised, deep breath and said, "Why?" She didn't give me one of those 'oh, you're one of them' looks, it was genuine 'why would you not vaccinate your child' look. At a family get together, between bites of food, I found it impossible to give a more detailed answer besides "We don't think it's safe." What an understatement!

Four months later, this evening, I received an email from my aunt. She forwarded it to me from said cousin's wife. Within the email was a link to an article regarding the story of the Lancet retracting the study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield regarding a possible link between the MMR vaccine and an intestinal disease which may cause autistic symptoms in some children. As much as I respect Dr. Wakefield's research, it was not the reason we decided not to vaccinate. I only learned of his research after we had made our decision.

I have done over a year and a half of research on this subject, and it continues to this day. My mind is flexible, and I am open to all arguments on either side of the vaccine debate. I respect opinions which differ from my own. However, to have an intelligent conversation or debate regarding vaccines, one has to be educated on the subject itself. Forming an opinion strictly on the information provided by the child's pediatrician or a headline in the news simply isn't enough. You can't go from not paying attention to the vaccine debate, to one day catching the headline of the retraction of the Wakefield study by the Lancet, and assume that you know all there is to know to make an informed decision regarding vaccines.

My cousin's wife is a smart, pretty, wonderful mother of two beautiful twin girls. There is no doubt in my mind that the email containing to the Wakefield retraction story was sent to me with the best of intentions to show me that vaccines are safe. If only that were enough...

In conclusion to this post, I would like to say that if anyone would use "the Lancet retracted the Wakefield study" as proof that vaccines don't cause neurological damage, then that person obviously doesn't know enough about the subject.