Debunking Vaccine Myths

[Libertarian]

I dont understand this comment...how did you remove the vaccine from your child?
...and if you re-introduced items..and then the rash reappeared...wouldn't that suggest that they were the cause?

We stopped going in for our routine vaccinations for all of our children, full stop. Once the needle goes in you can't induce vomiting or undo it. So we figure we would rather be on the safe side and not inject anything into any of our own children going forward. We believe the reported side effect rates to be bunk, on the basis that side effects are in fact not reported or under-reported, and that this is further negatively impacted by confirmation bias on the behalf of those tasked with taking the reports of side effects. But I think I've covered this...I don't want to hijack the thread or anything. Just want to add some perspective being dedicated "anti-vax" but not being a dedicated conspiracy theorist or a nut. At least I don't think I'm a nut

Do you also understand that if your child isn't vaccinated you might have to homeschool them as well? Schools, at least public schools require children to be vaccinated, and it sounds like your son is still young so you haven't had to consider this yet?

Thankfully, the jurisdiction that I live in is pro choice. If we lived in an authoritarian regime in which we were forced to stick needles into our kids in order to have social services, we would leave that jurisdiction. But thanks for the heads up.

 

[Jason]

and that this is further imacted by confirmation bias on the behalf of those tasked with taking the reports of side effects.

Does anyone know what the proper procedure is for a Dr to report side effects of a vaccine? Who are they supposed to report to and what has to go into the report? Do they report it to the drug manufacturer first, the CDC, or their local health officials, and how do we know if they reported it?

 

[Libertarian]

Does anyone know what the proper procedure is for a Dr to report side effects of a vaccine? Who are they supposed to report to and what has to go into the report? Do they report it to the drug manufacturer first, the CDC, or their local health officials, and how do we know if they reported it?

Here's an example that seems nice and proactive.

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/immunize/forms/11-11247.pdf

None of this "it is important that you report side effects" stuff happened with us. Rather, we were kept on watch for 15 minutes as a matter of routine process and informed that there was virtually no chance that we would actually have a side effect other than "soreness and perhaps a little redness in the area of the injection". We were so confident in this that we did not correlate the side effect to the vaccination until months later. We lived with a horribly itchy baby for three months before we lost our sanity and approached the "quack" who healed our baby with completely "debunked" methods which are usually written off as "placebo" by our "science". But I don't believe a nine month old baby can exhibit placebo.

Our scientific and medical processes are myopic and conceited and we have lost sight of the forrest for the trees in my opinion. Really too bad. And it really does piss me off that a world leader can obtain a clean live virus based vaccine, and that I can not, and must instead roll the dice on injecting cheap adjuvents into my children. It is disgusting.

Anyhow, I think I've said my peice.

 

[Jason]

None of this "it is important that you report side effects" stuff happened with us.

Honestly, I know exactly what your talking about. When we brought our kids into the Dr's office for the vaccinations, and mind you most of them were when they were too young to know what was about to happen, the Dr.'s never explained there might be side effects to the vaccines. But honestly, for them who do this all day long 365 days a year, its rather routine for them. An analogy is like you offering your child tylenol because they have a fever or benadryl because they are itching so bad and they can't sleep because of it. If you took the time to read the side effects on those "over the counter" drugs, some parents would hesitate to give them to their child. But we rarely ever discuss the side effects of them because 99% of the population doesn't experience any side effects. So the same could be said about Dr.'s.

You need to think long and hard about this. Can you honestly see a Dr., who has put them self through a decade of education and internships to "help" people not caring if a drug or vaccine they are administering has side effects that could harm their patient. Think about it, we go to Dr.'s for help not to get injured.

So I find it "impossible" to believe that a Dr, especially a pediatric, would want to cause harm to our children or us. Just impossible. I mean consider this for a second, and then you might say well maybe they don't understand the side effects or don't know about them. How is that even possible? Considering pediactics give hundreds of vaccinations each week, wouldn't it be prudent to assume that if they are getting calls from parents about side effects from the vaccines, that they would in fact report it. What do you think a Dr would do in this situation, say f*ck it. It's only a couple of kids getting sick, its nothing to worry about.

It's so hard to fatham that would a Dr would be this negligent. Instead it's easier for me to assume that most of their patients don't report adverse side effects from the vaccines their kids receive. Right? If they don't get any complaints about the side effects, it's easier to believe that they don't attribute the side effects with the vaccines. Law of probability takes place here. That's why they search for other answers. Because at the end of the day Libertarian, Dr.'s become Dr.s to "help" people and getting paid nicely is an added benefit, but most importantly covering up adverse side effects doesn't benefit them in any way. Does it?

 

[Dan Wilson]

We stopped going in for our routine vaccinations for all of our children, full stop. Once the needle goes in you can't induce vomiting or undo it. So we figure we would rather be on the safe side and not inject anything into any of our own children going forward.

I still don't understand a lot of details about this story. What things did you remove from the environment that helped the situation? Did you see more than one doctor about this? You also said the rash was there before the vaccine, has your child been diagnosed with any allergies or autoimmune disorders? Have you sought out testing for any of this? You said the naturopath identified your child as "sensitive," but what exactly does he mean by that? I'm sure you could identify the specific issue and if it turns out to be an allergic reaction to an ingredient in vaccines you could find a vaccination option that works around it.
I can understand your anger but the conclusions seem a little harsh. To not vaccinate any of your children may be a mistake. Measles, for example, is a disease that would commonly kill children less than a century ago. There is almost no chance at all that such vaccines would cause any permanent damage, a huge cost/reward advantage to any generation. To stop vaccinating all of your children can, indeed, be harmful to your community. Your story is terrible and I don't mean to be rude, but that is the truth. You want us to not generalize anit-vaxers as nut jobs so please don't generalize the medical community as arrogant and not to be trusted.
If you're worried about what is in vaccines, you can find out. If you're worried that your child will have an allergic reaction, you can find out if they will and act accordingly. To not vaccinate your children is to endanger them and the people they come into contact with. This is probably all stuff you have heard before and I understand I can't force you into anything, but I will repeat it and I will ask you to reconsider.

 

[Libertarian]

I find it "impossible" to believe that a Dr, especially a pediatric, would want to cause harm to our children or us. Just impossible.

I don't think the pediatric doctors that administered the vaccine wanted to cause harm to our children. They just inadvertently did. And I personally believe that their reporting system is deeply flawed such that they are unaware of the actual incidence of serious side effects. Either that or we won the lottery of being the 1 in 100,000 people advertised to have a serious allergic reaction to the shot. But I think it much more likely that the rate of serious allergic reactions is higher. Especially given that if we'd have known about the shot causing the serious allergic reaction and reported it that our report in and of itself would move the rate of incidence.

To not vaccinate your children is to endanger them and the people they come into contact with

Unfortunately Dan, in our case the MMR vaccination endangered our child. We were not properly apprised of the risks beforehand, and this in turn contributed to the problem of the under-reported risk rates, in that we did not put the vaccine and the side effects together until much later, at which point we did not see much point in reporting it at all. We had no batch number, and were faced with staring down a bunch of people who don't even believe that the side effect was related. So we just checked out instead.

This negligence, or misinformation, or whatever it was, combined with the unfortunate fact that live vaccines are unavailable in our area and that I would rather not inject my children with the "safe" adjuvents that educated people like Merkel avoid injecting themselves with, means I'm stuck "endangering the herd". But like I said before, crappy shepherd. Me and my unsafe family are a natural result of the flawed process.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Is there proof of the second portion of claim? Specifically, is there proof that if someone dies or has an adverse side effect, that it is reported?

Did you ask your physician to report it? In Canada we have the option to bypass medical practitioners and deal directly with a federal agency.

whereas the specialist dermatologist arrogantly advised that "It is eczema. There is nothing you can do."

Did you get a second opinion, a third opinion, a forth?

As a young child, for a short time, I suffered skin condition that turned out to be genetic in origin. After my GP and several dermatologists misdiagnosed we finally found one that got it right. Turns out, as a child, my grandfather had the same thing. Go figure.

 

[Libertarian]

Did you get a second opinion, a third opinion, a forth?

We went outside the established medical system and paid privately for a Naturapath who completely fixed the problem. Ironically he prescribed a bunch of homeopathic remedies that I still believe myself to be bunk....and yet the combination of all the things he recommended resulted in the problem dissapearing completely. And now our son is able to be exposed to a bunch of things that in the beginning made his eczema flare horribly. The guy just nailed it. Yet he is what y'all would call a quack. Go figure...

 

[Jason]

Especially given that if we'd have known about the shot causing the serious allergic reaction and reported it that our report in and of itself would move the rate of incidence.

But can't you still report it. I mean honestly, if there is something here and you have a file with evidence from the ER, naturopath, and other doctors stating the vaccine caused these adverse reactions why can't you just report it yourself. Don't do the whole throw your hands up in the air, because no one will listen routine. Instead get the answers you seek from the CDC and manufacturer. Wouldn't that be the prudent thing to do? Our gut instinct is a great attribute, but it could also lead us into dangerous situations. The net, while abundant in information, is often more harmful than good if you don't know who to trust or where to research. If you and your wife are this convinced that the vaccine played a role in your son's condition than you would be doing ever mother and father diservice by not reporting it. Reporting it can also give you answers you so desperately seek, otherwise you wouldn't be on here trying to reassure yourself. Let the "professionals" look into it and I'm sure the CDC or counterparts that deal with this will take it seriously if you put the question and concerns to them in a professional and open minded manner.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

We went outside the established medical system and paid privately for a Naturapath who completely fixed the problem.

Perhaps. Although nothing you have said would lead me to believe that.

 

[Libertarian]

But can't you still report it. I mean honestly, if there is something here and you have a file with evidence from the ER, naturopath, and other doctors stating the vaccine caused these adverse reactions why can't you just report it yourself. Don't do the whole throw your hands up in the air, because no one will listen routine. Instead get the answers you seek from the CDC and manufacturer. Wouldn't that be the prudent thing to do? Our gut instinct is a great attribute, but it could also lead us into dangerous situations. The net, while abundant in information, is often more harmful than good if you don't know who to trust or where to research. If you and your wife are this convinced that the vaccine played a role in your son's condition than you would be doing ever mother and father diservice by not reporting it. Reporting it can also give you answers you so desperately seek, otherwise you wouldn't be on here trying to reassure yourself. Let the "professionals" look into it and I'm sure the CDC or counterparts that deal with this will take it seriously if you put the question and concerns to them in a professional and open minded manner.

Good point. I wouldn't want anyone else to ever need to go through what our son did. Kind of selfish to not look into it further. It really is like climbing Mount Everest without any Sherpas though. Basically everyone just cops out on "What if something else caused it? How do you know it was the vaccine?". But I'll give it a try and report back.

 

[Libertarian]

Perhaps. Although nothing you have said would lead me to believe that.

When we followed the advice of the Naturopath, i.e. avoid ingesting this and that thing that this discredited machine says are bad, and take these homeopathic drops to desensitize his liver to this and that and to strengthen it in this and that fashion...", the result was a boy that wasn't pussy and broken open and bleeding and feeling like sandpaper. I guess you could attribute it to Placebo in a nine month old child...but to me this takes a much bigger leap of faith than accepting that the quackery worked.

Most pro-vax'ers would much rather take the giant leap of faith than to accept any aspect of the quackery. But this leap is what exposes their intransigence, and enables us to move on and not discuss the matter with them any further. Why bother? We don't need to agree. We can just respectfully disagree and move on.

 

[Jason]

Good point. I wouldn't want anyone else to ever need to go through what our son did. Kind of selfish to not look into it further. It really is like climbing Mount Everest without any Sherpas though. Basically everyone just cops out on "What if something else caused it? How do you know it was the vaccine?". But I'll give it a try and report back.

That's the point, don't you want definitive answers yourself, so you can be 100% certain and offer that certainty to others around and in your sphere of influence. Promoting "don't take vaccines because they are harmful" might work for your kids and they could live long healthy productive lives. But its irresponsible for you to automatically assume this is the case for everyone. Kids travel with their parents on vacation or business trips, and its not always to Disney Land. Even though measles might be irradicated from your community, it might be prevelant in another. Children come in contact with this infectious disease, and then they bring it back home and infect others in the community who also opted not to give their children the vaccines. It's a Domino effect. The skin rashes and cracking will become the least of their or your problems.

But by reporting it, it will get the right people involved that could delve deeper into this and ask the right questions. It could help other parents who suffer similar situations, you never know. Or you can find out (while you might not like the answer) that the vaccines played no role in your son's skin condition...

 

[Mick West]

When we followed the advice of the Naturopath, i.e. avoid ingesting this and that thing that this discredited machine says are bad, and take these homeopathic drops to desensitize his liver to this and that and to strengthen it in this and that fashion...", the result was a boy that wasn't pussy and broken open and bleeding and feeling like sandpaper. I guess you could attribute it to Placebo in a nine month old child...but to me this takes a much bigger leap of faith than accepting that the quackery worked.

The more likely thing is that his illness had simply run its course.
http://www.skincarephysicians.com/old/eczemanet_old_2004/june.html

The typical form of seborrheic dermatitis in infancy is "cradle cap"—oily scales and crusts on hairy portions of the scalp that may extend to the face and neck. The groin and armpits may also be affected, resembling "diaper rash." The infant form of seborrheic dermatitis is usually self-limiting and disappears after a period of weeks to months.

 

[Libertarian]

The more likely thing is that his illness had simply run its course.
http://www.skincarephysicians.com/old/eczemanet_old_2004/june.html

Mick has successfully made the leap of faith that we so often encounter. The state of our medical system is such a shambles. Oh well. Live and learn. Thanks for the discussion. Moving on as usual

 

[Dan Wilson]

Unfortunately Dan, in our case the MMR vaccination endangered our child. We were not properly apprised of the risks beforehand, and this in turn contributed to the problem of the under-reported risk rates, in that we did not put the vaccine and the side effects together until much later, at which point we did not see much point in reporting it at all. We had no batch number, and were faced with staring down a bunch of people who don't even believe that the side effect was related. So we just checked out instead.
This negligence, or misinformation, or whatever it was, combined with the unfortunate fact that live vaccines are unavailable in our area and that I would rather not inject my children with the "safe" adjuvents that educated people like Merkel avoid injecting themselves with, means I'm stuck "endangering the herd". But like I said before, crappy shepherd. Me and my unsafe family are a natural result of the flawed process.

But you still don't know whether or not the vaccine was responsible. You can't make these conclusions that we know will affect the lives of other people without making absolutely sure you are right. You want what is best for your children, right? Then find out what happened. Was it eczema that just disappeared on its own (that is the definition of placebo, things getting better on their own, not belief)? Was it an allergy to something found in vaccines? What if that ingredient is in other shots the child might receive? Wouldn't you want to know?
Live vaccines aren't necessarily better than killed vaccines. It depends on the pathogen, you can find more information in my original post.

I guess you could attribute it to Placebo in a nine month old child...but to me this takes a much bigger leap of faith than accepting that the quackery worked.

Just to reiterate, if your child's eczema naturally disappeared, as it does in 60% of childhood cases, then that is a placebo.

 

[Jason]

Mick has successfully made the leap of faith that we so often encounter. The state of our medical system is such a shambles. Oh well. Live and learn. Thanks for the discussion. Moving on as usual

All Mick said was it was "most likely this". Thats not a leap of faith by any measure, just an opinion. You have to understand that the majority of the world view vaccines as life saving, and a necessity. Not the other way around. You can't offer your opinions while expecting others to consider it, if you're not willing to consider contrary evidence to your beliefs.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

When we followed the advice of the Naturopath, i.e. avoid ingesting this and that thing that this discredited machine says are bad, and take these homeopathic drops to desensitize his liver to this and that and to strengthen it in this and that fashion..."

Your story is confusing.

Was your child diagnosed with eczema prior to having been vaccinated?

If a change in diet helped relieve the eczema, then perhaps the eczema was being aggravated by the diet?

Most pro-vax'ers would much rather take the giant leap of faith than to accept any aspect of the quackery.

The scientific method is specifically designed to prevent researchers from taking leaps of faith. It's designed to prevent us from fooling ourselves into believing something that the evidence doesn't support. speaking of which...

What evidence is there that the homeopathic drops you gave your child actually desensitize a liver?

What evidence is there that a desensitize a liver prevents horrible face cracking?

 

[Libertarian]

I thought I should leave some pictures of the before and after of the condition which pro-vax'ers convince themserves to have been complete coincidence. Before the injection, our son's face was a bit patchy and he had what I would consider moderate eczema. The notion that he "most likely" just happened to flare up dramatically immediately after an injection, and then got better on his own three months after the initial flare up, also directly in conjunction with having visited the quack, is simply to much coincidence to stomach. But it's the only thing that fits with "the scientific method" and so people like Mick smugly satisfy themselves of coincidence and close their minds to what actually happened.

The "before" picture here was taken two days after the injection. The "after" picture was 3 weeks after listening to the quack. It subsequently subsided to basically zero, and would only flare up when he ingested things that the quack had said he should not. The horrible patchy pussy skin was what we lived with for three months, trying and trying within conventional medicine to come up with any answer at all.

Only when we gave up and took some last ditch advice that we should visit the quack did the condition change. I suppose our exposure to these coincidences has ruined us. But we are very happily ruined and have a vibrant, healthy boy with no eczema and no asthma

This happened right after we vaccinated and stayed this way for three months. It covered his entire body. His stomach, back, legs, arms, everywhere.

This happened right after we started taking the advice of the quack.

 

[deirdre]

This negligence, or misinformation, or whatever it was, combined with the unfortunate fact that live vaccines are unavailable in our area and that I would rather not inject my children with the "safe" adjuvents that educated people like Merkel avoid injecting themselves with, means I'm stuck "endangering the herd". But like I said before, crappy shepherd. Me and my unsafe family are a natural result of the flawed process.

sounds to me YOU are the flaw in the process. YOu complain about the establishment and how the side effects are not given you, then turn around and say you NEVER reported the very very severe side effect you described.
And then, to boot, YOU are most probably spreading misinformation. From what you, yourself, have described there is Zero evidence the mmr vaccine caused your child's rash.

 

[solrey]

A recently published study of an outbreak of measles in an undervaccinated community demonstrates the efficacy and importance of vaccines.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24913790

This was the largest measles outbreak in Minnesota in 20 years, and aggressive response likely prevented additional transmission. Measles outbreaks can occur if undervaccinated subpopulations exist. Misunderstandings about vaccine safety must be effectively addressed.

When I was a kid a neighbors daughter had polio, I'm glad I got the jab.

 

[Libertarian]

The scientific method is specifically designed to prevent researchers from taking leaps of faith.

From what you, yourself, have described there is Zero evidence the mmr vaccine caused your child's rash.

You guys are right. What happened was obviously a coincidence. There's nothing to worry about. And there was nothing to report.

But thank god we found the quack.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

You guys are right. What happened was obviously a coincidence.

You have already admitted to "Post Hoc" reasoning when blaming vaccines for you child's ills. Is it possible you are using the same logical fallacy to attribute benefits to homeopathy?

So yes I acknowlege up front that I am guilty of the "After this, therefore because of this" fallacy in my reasoning.

 

[Mick West]

Mick has successfully made the leap of faith that we so often encounter. The state of our medical system is such a shambles. Oh well. Live and learn. Thanks for the discussion. Moving on as usual

Let's say we've got two possibilities proposed here:

A) Some form of infant dermatitis, which clear up by itself
B) Reaction to vaccine cured by diet and homeopathy

Now take those two, how many times are these things known to have occurred?

Self resolving infant dermatitis is very common, it has occurred millions of times, without question. It has been observed since antiquity.

Homeopathy curing anything has never been shown to happen.

So given these two proposals, it seems like by far the most obvious choice is the thing that has been known to happen millions (even billions) of times. And not the thing that has never been known to happen.

 

[Libertarian]

sounds to me YOU are the flaw in the process. YOu complain about the establishment and how the side effects are given you, then turn around and say you NEVER reported the very very severe side effect you described.

Oh, I certainly try to help as many people as I can...but I have found the best way to help them is to warn them that the lot of you don't actually know nearly as much as you claim. The claims sound really nice and you sound like you know what you are talking about...but ultimately you reject out of hand any evidence which does not fit neatly in the paradigm you are operating in.

Crap like this is why it is so much easier to just warn people away:

YOU are most probably spreading misinformation. From what you, yourself, have described there is Zero evidence the mmr vaccine caused your child's rash.

The scientific process that you guys fall back on is so convenient for so many reasons. For instance, because "electrodermal testing" has been "debunked", the fact that it correlatted the MMR vaccine to the skin condition is irrelevant. It is debunked, after all.

That the electrodermal testing also identified virtually every eczema trigger he had, where scientifically accepted allergy testing did not, is "coincidence". Notwithstanding that substances identified by the electrodermal testing correlated to spikes in rashiness whenever the baby was exposed. This too was coincidence. It was therefore "self resolving infant dermatitis", which we have seen millions or billions of times. We don't need to make any adjustments whatsoever to our thought processes.

There is nothing that can't be explained or ignored by the illustrious "method".

Unfortunately we have deluded ourselves. We are like kids playing out a fantasy in the back yard. Only this is an extremely dangerous fantasy and it is doing a great disservice to how many people.

Oh no, that simply isn't true.

Carry on then.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

but ultimately you reject out of hand any evidence which does not fit neatly in the paradigm you are operating in.

That's not true. Nothing was rejected out of hand. Your story was examined and few plausible alternatives have been proposed.

 

[deirdre]

but ultimately you reject out of hand any evidence which does not fit neatly in the paradigm you are operating in.

you didn't present any evidence. and your circumstantial 'evidence' points to food allergies possibly exasperated by the mmr vaccine.

I don't know anything about that machine you're talking about so it had no bearing on my opinion of the 'evidence' you provided.

 

[Libertarian]

That's not true. Nothing was rejected out of hand. Your story was examined and few plausible alternatives have been proposed.

The problem is that the "plausible alternatives" are not actually plausible. The quack's suggestions worked. We tested his suggestions by re-introducing things he told us to avoid. This caused the problem to immediately get worse.

Whether the homeopathy did anything is certainly open to debate, but the effectiveness of the quackery over the effectiveness of the specialist dermatologist we saw is not. Because the quack was better qualified to heal our son than the dermatologist, I'm inclined to believe him regarding the homeopathy as well. It's basically me judging him on the basis of his deeds, or "the fruit of his labour" rather than judging him on the basis of defending an obviously flawed paradigm.

 

[Mick West]

I thought I should leave some pictures of the before and after of the condition which pro-vax'ers convince themserves to have been complete coincidence. Before the injection, our son's face was a bit patchy and he had what I would consider moderate eczema. The notion that he "most likely" just happened to flare up dramatically immediately after an injection, and then got better on his own three months after the initial flare up, also directly in conjunction with having visited the quack, is simply to much coincidence to stomach. But it's the only thing that fits with "the scientific method" and so people like Mick smugly satisfy themselves of coincidence and close their minds to what actually happened.

The "before" picture here was taken two days after the injection. The "after" picture was 3 weeks after listening to the quack. It subsequently subsided to basically zero, and would only flare up when he ingested things that the quack had said he should not. The horrible patchy pussy skin was what we lived with for three months, trying and trying within conventional medicine to come up with any answer at all.

Only when we gave up and took some last ditch advice that we should visit the quack did the condition change. I suppose our exposure to these coincidences has ruined us. But we are very happily ruined and have a vibrant, healthy boy with no eczema and no asthma

View attachment 7741
This happened right after we vaccinated and stayed this way for three months. It covered his entire body. His stomach, back, legs, arms, everywhere.


View attachment 7742
This happened right after we started taking the advice of the quack.

The exact same sequence of events would have happened if the dermatitis was self-resolving at around that time. What if, like this mother, your approach had taken two years to work? Would it be "too much coincidence"?
http://community.babycenter.com/post/a34840993/did_your_baby_outgrow_eczema

my DS' eczema started around 3 months, and it got really bad for the next 3-4 months. he had really bad weepy spots behind his knees that would not heal, and rashes all over his body that would flare up whenever he scratched, it was really frustrating. we do things holistically, and I refused to put steroids on him especially since his eczema was so extensive, and only used natural/homeopathic treatments on him, and he started to get a lot better around the time he was 18-24 months. his last dry patches on his ankles/feet healed just shy of 2.5 years old. now he gets occasional dry spots on his hands and sometimes in the summer when he is sweaty behind the knees he gets rashy if he scratches, but it's super mild and easily goes away with some of the creams I use on him.

 

[Mick West]

The problem is that the "plausible alternatives" are not actually plausible. We tested the quacks suggestions by re-introducing things he told us to avoid. This caused the problem to get worse.

Whether the homeopathy did anything is certainly open to debate, the effectiveness of the quackery over the effectiveness of the specialist dermatologist we saw is not. Because the quack was better qualified to heal our son than the dermatologist, I'm inclined to believe him regarding the homeopathy as well. It's basically me judging him on the basis of his deeds, or "the fruit of his labour" rather than judging him on the basis of defending an obviously flawed paradigm.

Most naturopaths and homeopaths treat things that would go away on their own. Sometimes the treatment is bound to occur with the resolution of the illness.

Look at the reviews of homeopathic products on Amazon. They are generally very positive. Oscillococcinum, for example: 95% 5-star reviews.
http://www.amazon.com/Boiron-Oscillococcinum-Flu-like-Symptoms-Pellets/dp/B0078W0QOI/

There's obviously a HUGE confirmation bias going on there. You may not like it when people suggest that you are susceptible to the same thing - but you are.

 

[Libertarian]

There's obviously a HUGE confirmation bias going on there. You may not like it when people suggest that you are susceptible to the same thing - but you are.

Again, I didn't even believe in the homeopathy myself. The notion that you can dilute something bad to some rediculous level and somehow retain its "essence" seems like BS to me. Yet the fellow prescribing the homeopathy completely nailed our sons eczema triggers with his debunked equipment. This was something that we independently verified by re-introducing his alleged trigger foods and then watching our baby turn red and itchy. That he nailed the triggers while the allergy testing failed was a really big point in his favour. And the time frames in your "got better on its' own" scenario are dramatically off in our case. In our case it got better dramatically at 9 months of age, after taking the advice of the Naturopath. It then got worse when we ignored his advice, and resumed getting better again when we resumed following it, repeatedly. What say you to this, Mick? His method was bunk. What are we to think?

 

[Mick West]

Again, I didn't even believe in the homeopathy myself. The notion that you can dilute something bad to some rediculous level and somehow retain its "essence" seems like BS to me. Yet the fellow prescribing the homeopathy completely nailed our sons eczeme triggers. This was something that we independently verified by re-introducing his alleged trigger foods and then watching our baby turn red and itchy. That he nailed the triggers while the allergy testing failed was a really big point in his favour. And the time frames in your "got better on its' own" scenario are dramatically off in our case. In our case it got better dramatically at 9 months of age, after taking the advice of the Naturopath. It then got worse when we ignored his advice, and resumed getting better again when we resumed following it, repeatedly. What say you to this, Mick? His method was bunk. What are we to think?

The timeframe for improvement seems pretty wide.

How much worse did it get when you changed things? How many times did you try it? Did it ever vary in intensity without you doing anything?

The primary topic here though is vaccines. The onset of infant eczema is bound to coincide with vaccination for thousands of children. It will also coincide with equal numbers with the first time they watch TV, or snow falls, etc.

 

[Libertarian]

The timeframe for improvement seems pretty wide.

How much worse did it get when you changed things? How many times did you try it? Did it ever vary in intensity without you doing anything?

The primary topic here though is vaccines. The onset of infant eczema is bound to coincide with vaccination for thousands of children. It will also coincide with equal numbers with the first time they watch TV, or snow falls, etc.

The MMR was identified as a STRONG trigger for him by the same debunked equipment that correctly verified everything else which we proved to trigger his eczema. To answer your question re: how many times we tried it, we accidentally proved out the trigger foods dozens and dozens of times at restaurants and friends' houses, and in hoping "Oh, surely by now this sensitivity has dropped off" etc. The guy was BANG ON. And because he was bang on with everything else, it stands to reason that he was bang on with the MMR.

That the MMR did this to our son and so severely makes sense, given that everything else he was receiving at the time was filtered through breast milk...whereas the MMR went straight into his veins. Immediately after it did, his eczema got tremendously worse, and stayed that way for three months. Nothing else changed. The cause was subsequently identified and we have been warning people about it ever since. To the great annoyance, I think, of people like those commenting on this thread.

I have been severely chastized here for "not reporting" our son's issue with the MMR. But this is not strictly true. We have reported it roundly and widely. And we have done so in a far more effective manner, we think, than can be achieved by working within a paradigm so convinced we are foolish conspiracy theorists and a threat to the common good. We ended up needing to work outside the system for our son to be healed. And I feel we achieve more by spreading the truth regarding what hurt our son and what healed him. Even if we don't understand it.

Thankfully, we are not forced to seek solutions from solely within the medical system.

 

[Jason]

The problem is that the "plausible alternatives" are not actually plausible. The quack's suggestions worked. We tested his suggestions by re-introducing things he told us to avoid. This caused the problem to immediately get worse.

I take issue with this as a parent. So you're saying you won't vaccinate your children in fear there might be side effects like a rash, but then you're doing something unspeakable by subjected your children to "known" things you should avoid just to see what happens. Are you freaking kidding me? What kind of parent are you? Your kids aren't lab rats!!!!

 

[Libertarian]

I take issue with this as a parent. So you're saying you won't vaccinate your children in fear there might be side effects like a rash, but then you're doing something unspeakable by subjected your children to "known" things you should avoid just to see what happens. Are you freaking kidding me? What kind of parent are you? Your kids aren't lab rats!!!!

If you read the debunking on electrodermal testing, you will see that it is by no means an exact science. The original list of "avoid this and that" was very long. It included items like sweeteners of any kind, peppers, strawberries, any and all spices, cottonseed oil, sesame, nuts, eggs, wheat, whole grain rice, all fungi such as mushrooms, and anything fermented, such as soy sauce. The only thing that saved us was that corn wasn't on the list. Eventually "sweetener" as a broad category dropped off and was replaced with cane sugar and beet sugar specifically. So we tried sweeteners like agave nectar and stevia etc. At first these sweeteners caused him to "bloom" in the cheeks and become itchy. But as he grew and continued taking the homeopathic drops, eventually he was able to consume these things. It was very much a trial and error thing. Now he is able to consume white sugar. This opened up a vista of possibility for him, such as eating desert at friends' houses if they have ice cream in the freezer, etc.

Many things that dropped greatly in sensitivity on the list of electrodermal no-no's nonetheless cause him to immediately become severely itchy to this day. Wheat is one of these.

So we really didn't have a choice but to treat him like a lab rat in the kitchen, or else his options were going to be limited to white rice and vegetables for all time.

These things, by the way, continue to be his favorites. He is like a little Buda. Many meats cause him to flare up too. We have a pet theory that it might have to do with whether the animal was "happy" when it died. Because it isn't consistent among meat types either. For instance, ground beef will be fine one day, and the next will cause him to flare up.

But anyhow, hope this resolves your issue with our attempts to feed him as he grew up and out of his many allergies....all with the help of a Naturopath that prescribed homeopathic "remedies".

 

[Libertarian]

I found an article featuring the Naturopath that healed our son! His name was Dr. Craig Wagstaff and we literally flew accross the country to see him in Kelowna on a referral from some close friends for whom he had cured their "red baby". I'm sure you guys will get a big kick out of it! He is quoted discussing "yin" and "yang". So I'm sure that will really appeal to your inner proof-seekers

http://www.alive.com/articles/view/21267/electrodermal_screening - "The optimal reading for a bioenergy meridian at a given acupuncture point is 50 millivolts (plus or minus 5 mV)," explains Dr. Craig Wagstaff, a Kelowna naturopath. "The voltage differential (reading) will either be optimal, or it will read above (indicating an overstimulated or yang state) or below (understimulated or yin)."

Yup. It sounds like B.S. but it worked! Maybe I'll try some of the Oscillococcinum

 

[deirdre]

lol! oh my.

 

[Jason]

If you read the debunking on electrodermal testing, you will see that it is by no means an exact science. The original list of "avoid this and that" was very long. It included items like sweeteners of any kind, peppers, strawberries, any and all spices, cottonseed oil, sesame, nuts, eggs, wheat, whole grain rice, all fungi such as mushrooms, and anything fermented, such as soy sauce. The only thing that saved us was that corn wasn't on the list. Eventually "sweetener" as a broad category dropped off and was replaced with cane sugar and beet sugar specifically. So we tried sweeteners like agave nectar and stevia etc. At first these sweeteners caused him to "bloom" in the cheeks and become itchy. But as he grew and continued taking the homeopathic drops, eventually he was able to consume these things. It was very much a trial and error thing. Now he is able to consume white sugar. This opened up a vista of possibility for him, such as eating desert at friends' houses if they have ice cream in the freezer, etc.

Many things that dropped greatly in sensitivity on the list of electrodermal no-no's nonetheless cause him to immediately become severely itchy to this day. Wheat is one of these.

So we really didn't have a choice but to treat him like a lab rat in the kitchen, or else his options were going to be limited to white rice and vegetables for all time.

These things, by the way, continue to be his favorites. He is like a little Buda. Many meats cause him to flare up too. We have a pet theory that it might have to do with whether the animal was "happy" when it died. Because it isn't consistent among meat types either. For instance, ground beef will be fine one day, and the next will cause him to flare up.

But anyhow, hope this resolves your issue with our attempts to feed him as he grew up and out of his many allergies....all with the help of a Naturopath that prescribed homeopathic "remedies".

Ok, but as I read your post it seems like you've debunked the myth about vaccines on your own since you continuously acknowledge how food's, such as wheat or meats are most likely the cause of his itching and rashes. The pictures of your son's face are hard to view, I'll admit that because I immediately think about my own kids. My youngest who's now 5yrs of age, and I've spoken about her on here from time to time concerning the flu vaccine, has had a history of this very same condition that your son is going through. Luckily, but not so lucky, she hasn't had it on her face. She gets its on here legs, neck, and arms. For years we dealt with it, and we just bought a house when she was barely 1yrs old, so we chalked it up to the new home, or the environment like spring and fall when it was more prevelant. Lotions burned her so we could never use baby lotions or aveno with any trace of alcohol in them. It was a nightmare. Countless nights I would sit with her in bed rubbing her body so she could fall asleep to only wake up an hour later crying or itching like crazy.

Eventually we had anough and decided we would subject her to an allergy test. Something Dr.'s don't recommend when they are youngings because the scratch test can hurt and be intimidating and its relentless. Once you start it, you can't stop it. Low and behold she was allergic to so many things we never would've suspected like onions. Do you realize how many ingredients contain onions. From ranch dressing to simple ketchup and 90% of all potato chip brands and cheezits. On top of that she was allergic to household dust, dog and cat hair, tree nuts, and seeds. Her diet and our way of life changed over night.

But we were lazy, and I can admit that now. Giving in to her demands and cries for that chocolate candy bar even though there were no nuts in it, but it was processed in a factory that made nut products, or letting her go over my parents house when they had a dog with them all their life. So she would still break out from time to time, but the great thing about this condition is many kids do grow out of it. So long as you pick your spots when to introduce these ingredients to them. Eventually they build a tolerance and can eat certain foods they couldn't have eaten before. I know a Dr would never recommend that, but I had family who had kids who experienced this same thing and it worked for them. Call it quackery or what have you, but it worked for my daughter.

With that said, I'm not debunking an electrodermal testing, all I'm telling you to do is take him for an allergy test at an allergist. Let them test for everything under the sun if you wish, or most common items kids are allergic too. I personally never heard of anyone being allergic to meat, but it could be the stuff they inject the meat with to keep it fresher longer and juicier. Take him to an allergist, but if he's still a toddler they will probably recommend you wait, but you can demand it and they have to give it. It could be a life changer, and trust me it took us by surprise, but our lives are so different now and my daughters sleeps all night without waking up in agony.

 

[Jason]

I found an article featuring the Naturopath that healed our son! His name was Dr. Craig Wagstaff and we literally flew accross the country to see him in Kelowna on a referral from some close friends for whom he had cured their "red baby". I'm sure you guys will get a big kick out of it! He is quoted discussing "yin" and "yang". So I'm sure that will really appeal to your inner proof-seekers

http://www.alive.com/articles/view/21267/electrodermal_screening - "The optimal reading for a bioenergy meridian at a given acupuncture point is 50 millivolts (plus or minus 5 mV)," explains Dr. Craig Wagstaff, a Kelowna naturopath. "The voltage differential (reading) will either be optimal, or it will read above (indicating an overstimulated or yang state) or below (understimulated or yin)."

Yup. It sounds like B.S. but it worked! Maybe I'll try some of the Oscillococcinum

How about you try going to a real Dr. I don't mean to be coy with you. But lets pretend for a moment that god forbid something serious is happening with your son, wife, or yourself included. It pertains to the heart or brain, or organs like your kidney. Do you intend to go the homeopathic route first, or will you visit a specialist?

 

[Dan Wilson]

Many meats cause him to flare up too. We have a pet theory that it might have to do with whether the animal was "happy" when it died. Because it isn't consistent among meat types either. For instance, ground beef will be fine one day, and the next will cause him to flare up.

Seems like the meat isn't actually what is causing it, if that's the case.

The original list of "avoid this and that" was very long.

Did everything on the list turn out to be a trigger?

The MMR was identified as a STRONG trigger for him by the same debunked equipment that correctly verified everything else which we proved to trigger his eczema.

It is extremely unlikely that a vaccine could cause a rash that persisted for 3 months or had anything to do with it at all. You have to understand how common eczema is with children. Clinical studies have found no link between early childhood eczema and vaccinations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18925883

In children at heightened risk for atopy, common childhood immunization in the first year is not associated with an increased risk of more severe eczema or allergic sensitization. Parents of atopic children should be encouraged to fully immunize their children.

Were you treating him at all for the rashes before the vaccine?

That the electrodermal testing also identified virtually every eczema trigger he had, where scientifically accepted allergy testing did not,

Do you know what allergy test your pediatrician ran? If he was testing for IgE antibodies (antibodies associated with allergic responses), it might not have detected it. IgE tests are just an initial screen and infants may not have developed enough IgE's to give a positive result yet. There are other immune system functions that can trigger allergic reactions.

Please answer these questions, I know that you have a strong conviction and not everyone here is being very polite but try stay on topic and be polite yourself.