Whats Really In Our Vaccinations ...

[reAllytee]

The truth !

Preservatives :

Thiomersal
Thiomersal (sodium ethylmercuric thiosalicylate) is an organic compound containing ethylmercury that has been widely used as a vaccine preservative since the 1930s. Concerns have focused on its potential toxicity as a heavy metal, and its role in the claimed link between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination and autism.

A recent study assessed whether multiple vaccinations can lead to mercury accumulation. In full-term infants exposed to vaccines containing thiomersal,
mercury concentrations detected in blood (range, 2.85–20.55 nmol/L) were well below the level thought to be associated with adverse effects. Additionally, ethylmercury appears to be eliminated via the gastrointestinal tract soon after exposure (estimated half-life, 7 days). Because the developing fetus and low birthweight babies are more vulnerable to toxic effects of mercury, it has been suggested that exposure to vaccines containing thiomersal at time of birth may pose some risk in very low birthweight premature infants. To minimise any potential risk, all vaccinations in the Australian Standard Vaccination Schedule for children younger than 5 years are now thiomersal-free or contain only trace amounts.

In 1998, a case series was published describing 12 children with pervasive development disorder with gastrointestinal features. The report claimed that exposure to MMR vaccination may have been linked to emergence of behavioural symptoms. Since then, controversy has surrounded the potential association between MMR vaccine and autism, with thiomersal a suggested culprit. The original claims have been criticised for being based on uncontrolled, anecdotal associations, and more recently, some of the study authors have retracted their interpretation associating MMR vaccines with autism. Larger epidemiological studies have also failed to demonstrate an association between MMR vaccination or use of thiomersal-containing vaccines and autism.

The mercury or thiosalicylate components of thiomersal may produce hypersensitivity reactions. Reactions are uncommon, even in those with sensitisation, and serious reactions are rare.

Phenoxyethanol
2-Phenoxyethanol is an alternative to thiomersal. One report describes generalised eczema occurring after vaccination where 2-phenoxyethanol was found to be the sensitising agent.

Antibiotics
Antibiotics such as neomycin and polymyxin B are often used to prevent bacterial contamination during vaccine manufacture; they may contribute to systemic allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, or local skin reactions. Previous skin reactions to neomycin are not considered a risk factor for anaphylaxis and are not a contraindication for use of neomycin-containing vaccines. Neomycin concentrations may vary between vaccines, but most contain only residual amounts.

Aluminium :
Adjuvants are used in vaccine manufacture to enhance immune responses to the vaccine antigen. Aluminium hydroxide and phosphate are commonly used adjuvants, and can augment type 2 (antibody-mediated) immune responses without influencing type 1 (cell-mediated) immune responses, or cytotoxic T cell responses. Aluminium adjuvants also induce antigen-specific IgE responses, which may predispose vulnerable individuals to allergic reactions. However, no data were identified associating use of aluminium adjuvants with increased risk of allergy-related events.

Because higher dose exposure to aluminium salts can be toxic, guidelines have been developed for safe levels of exposure. Exposure to aluminium from vaccines is lower than intake from diet or medications such as antacids and is well below the current minimum risk level of 2.0 mg/kg per day.

The presence of aluminium adjuvants has been associated with injection-site reactions such as nodules, granulomas and erythema. A systematic review of controlled safety studies reported that vaccines containing aluminium produce more erythema and induration than other vaccines in young children (up to 18 months of age), and greater local pain in older children (10–18 years). No association was found between aluminium and more serious or long-term adverse effects.

It has been proposed that use of aluminium adjuvants may lead to the syndrome macrophagic myofascitis, a histological finding where aluminium-containing macrophages infiltrate muscle tissue, and may be accompanied by a clinical syndrome of myalgia, arthralgia and fatigue. There are about 100 published cases of this syndrome, most from France. As no controlled studies of this potential adverse effect have been conducted, a causal relationship with use of aluminium containing vaccine has not been demonstrated.

Biological growth media, additives and cells :

Gelatin
Gelatin is a partially hydrolysed collagen, usually of bovine or porcine origin, and is one of many types of stabilisers added to vaccines. It may be responsible for some allergic reactions occurring after vaccination, with symptoms including urticaria, anaphylaxis, or local reactions. “Egg allergies” reported after MMR vaccination were found to occur in individuals with no sensitivity to egg and were later found to represent gelatin sensitivity. However, the incidence of anaphylaxis to gelatin is low (about one case per 2 million doses).

Chick embryos and eggs
Egg-related allergy is common, particularly in children with asthma or general allergies, and may be as high as 40% in children with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. The risk of egg-related allergy after vaccination depends on the presence of egg protein in the final product. For example, influenza vaccine is manufactured using the extra-embryonic fluids of chick embryos and contains measurable quantities of egg proteins. Although the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) immunisation guidelines state that “individuals with anaphylactic hypersensitivity to eggs should not be given influenza vaccine”, little evidence is available to identify the actual risk of serious allergic reactions in this context. In fact, one study reported that graded dosing of influenza vaccine in 27 patients with a history of anaphylactic reactions to egg ingestion was well tolerated and not associated with significant allergic reactions. Current guidelines and evidence suggest that patients with egg allergies, other than anaphyl-axis, may be vaccinated safely.

MMR vaccine is developed using chick embryo fibroblast tissue, and the final commercial vaccine does not contain egg proteins. Egg allergy is not a contraindication; previous reports of allergy-related adverse events occurring after MMR vaccination have now been attributed to the presence of gelatin.

Animal and human sera
Vaccine manufacture requires the production of organisms cultivated on an appropriate culture medium. A medium must provide nutrients such as proteins, albumin, polypeptides, and growth factors specific to the needs of the microbe. Animal sera are frequently added to culture media to provide nutrients for microbial growth. Bovine serum is primarily used, although serum from pigs, horses, rabbits or humans may also be used. Extensive filtering processes ensure that the final vaccine contains little, if any, of the original cell material. Some media are serum-free or may be of synthetic, semi-synthetic or yeast origin.

Yeast
Some vaccines are manufactured using Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker’s yeast). There are no reports of yeast-specific IgE detected in patients following exposure to vaccines manufactured using baker’s yeast. Currently, the risk of vaccines contributing to yeast allergy is theoretical.

Cell lines
Cell lines refer to a specific population of cells that are maintained in culture for extended periods. Cells used in cell lines can undergo spontaneous and unlimited replication, producing an unlimited lifespan for the cells, and a cell source that is continuously available. This removes the need for ongoing harvesting. More than 5000 human and animal cell lines are available. Those used in vaccine manufacture include two diploid cell strains of human origin (MRC-5 and WI-38), simian-derived continuous and diploid cell lines, chick embryo and chick embryo fibro-blasts. Residual proteins from these cell lines may be present to a varying degree in the vaccines produced from them. However, vaccines undergo purification processes to remove cellular residuals and have maximum limits placed on their presence.

Concern regarding use of human cell lines
Certain cell lines (human diploid cell lines WI-38 and MRC-5) were derived from embryonic tissue from three elective, medically indicated abortions conducted in the 1960s. This has raised concerns, with reports of some individuals with religious objections to abortion refusing vaccination because they feel this makes them complicit with the original act of abortion.

Patients should be aware that cell lines are self-sustaining and are not the end therapeutic product; thus additional abortions are not needed to sustain vaccine manufacture. No human cells are actually present in the vaccine, and no abortions are conducted specifically for the purpose of harvesting cell lines. Ethicists at the US National Catholic Bioethics Center have concluded that the association between certain vaccines and abortion was non-complicit, and thus use of these vaccines is not contrary to a religious opposition to abortion.
Religious and philosophical concerns regarding use of animal products

[reAllytee]

Some religious groups who have dietary restrictions for certain animal products may be concerned about their presence in vaccines. Ingestion of pork products is forbidden in Islam, and some Muslims may avoid medications that contain pork-derived products. However, Shariah law includes the principle of “transformation”, where objects can be changed into another object with totally different properties and character, and this can turn unclean objects into clean and permissible objects. Within such a ruling, gelatin made from an unclean animal may be clean and permissible to ingest.

Jews and Seventh-day Adventists also consider pork to be unclean. However, Jewish law permits use of porcine-derived products in non-edible forms such as parenteral formulations, or binding agents in tablets. Similarly, pork-derived medical products are not prohibited for Seventh-day Adventists, although some individuals may prefer to avoid such products (Dr P Harrold, Associate Director of Adventist Health Ministries, South Pacific Division, personal communication, May 2005). Some strict vegetarians or vegans may also choose to avoid animal products in medications and vaccines; this is largely a personal choice and is likely to vary among individuals.

Concern regarding risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)
Use of bovine-derived products in vaccine manufacture, such as gelatin or bovine sera, has prompted concern about whether this poses a risk of BSE. BSE is transmitted by prions, which may lead to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) in humans.

A number of issues indicate that vaccination was not a contri-buting factor in the cases of vCJD in the United Kingdom. Most of these people would have been vaccinated before the emergence of BSE in British cattle. Additionally, vaccines are used internationally, yet the outbreak of vCJD in humans was largely restricted to the UK. Gelatin is rated as a low-risk product. Bovine serum is not actually present in the final vaccine product, and the cells that contribute to the vaccine are not able to replicate prions.

Despite administration of tens of millions of doses of vaccines manufactured using bovine-derived material, there are no reported cases of BSE transmission via human or animal vaccination. Because of these factors, the risk is considered theoretical. Australian reviews have concluded that vaccines used in Australia meet high safety standards and that any risk of vaccines being contaminated with BSE is extremely low. Australian, European and US regulatory bodies have developed guidelines for use of bovine material in vaccine manufacture to minimise risk of BSE transmission.

Bovine material must be sourced from countries where no recorded cases of BSE have occurred and an appropriate system of monitoring and reporting of BSE in animals has been implemented. Alternatively, bovine material may be sourced from specific donor herds where animal health is routinely monitored.

Use of manufacturing processes, such as heat sterilisation and chemical treatment, reduces or removes BSE infectivity from bovine products.

Live vaccines
Non-living vaccines contain dead organisms or their components, which have been inactivated or killed by heat or chemical treatment. In contrast, live attenuated vaccines contain live organisms that have lost the ability to cause serious disease, but retain sufficient antigenicity to cause an immune response that will protect against the original organism. These vaccines carry a risk of organisms reverting to virulent forms that cause infection rather than immunity, but this is rare. Oral polio vaccine, for example, has been reported to produce about one case of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis for every 2.4 million doses distributed. Although not routinely used in Australia, the bacille Calmette–Guerin (BCG) vaccine may produce abscesses, regional lymphadenopathy and disseminated disease in immunocompromised patients. Because of such risks, live vaccines are not recommended for routine use in pregnant or immunosuppressed patients.

Formaldehyde :
Formaldehyde is used in the manufacture of killed vaccines to inactivate the pathogenic effects of the organism, while preserving antigenicity. Concerns about the presence of formaldehyde are based on its toxicological profile and suggestions that it may act as a carcinogen. Although industrial exposure to formaldehyde may be associated with certain cancers, cancer risk has not been fully established and may relate to degree of exposure. The current standard for Australian vaccines is a maximum of 0.02% w/v of free formaldehyde. During testing of Australian vaccines by the TGA, the maximum formaldehyde concentration detected was 0.004% w/v.7

Latex :
Patients may be exposed to latex during vaccination via its presence in syringe plungers and vial stoppers. Latex contains numerous polypeptides, many of which may act as allergens; case reports describe various immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions occurring post-vaccination in patients with a history of latex allergy, including anaphylaxis. Removal of rubber stoppers or use of alternative delivery techniques are options for patients with a history of serious latex allergy.


Hope this clears up many things !

These details are from the Australian Medical Journal : http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/184_04_200206/eld10500_fm.html

The page also holds a table that shows what vaccine has what & has all the research down the bottom of the page.

[Tannie]

Ummm.........start reading the labels on foods and if you ask how plastics are made and look at what's in car emissions and our air.........you'll find a LOT more scary stuff then that........and many of these "compounds" are in just about everything out there and some such as Gelatin are naturally occurring anyway. Study some chemistry and microbiology and pharmacology you'll realise that everything we see, touch, eat and are made up of is a "compound" of some sort and almost everything in the universe is a potential "danger" is some way or another :devil6:

Natural does not = safe nor does manufactured or synthetic = unsafe! Nothing in life comes completely risk free.........

Whatever floats your boat......doesn't change my mind for one second.
T

[Funkychicken]

Thanks, Ally, for sharing that information. :)

[Cheekychops]

Interesting - but mine are vaccinated and if I had another I would still vaccinate.....I control their diet to eliminate as much as I can of the preservatives and additives, but I think the bads are outweighed in this area by goods........there is risk in everything like Tannie said - but the risk of not vaccinating is the one I don't want to take.

[reAllytee]

Interesting - but mine are vaccinated and if I had another I would still vaccinate.....I control their diet to eliminate as much as I can of the preservatives and additives, but I think the bads are outweighed in this area by goods........there is risk in everything like Tannie said - but the risk of not vaccinating is the one I don't want to take.


Totally agree with you !

The point of showing this was to actually dissprove the idea of aborted embyros & monkeys being used also the idea of mercury & thimersol ! :)

Hopefully this stops a lot of misinformation out there :yes:

[bindiloo]

Ummm.........start reading the labels on foods and if you ask how plastics are made and look at what's in car emissions and our air.........you'll find a LOT more scary stuff then that........and many of these "compounds" are in just about everything out there and some such as Gelatin are naturally occurring anyway. Study some chemistry and microbiology and pharmacology you'll realise that everything we see, touch, eat and are made up of is a "compound" of some sort and almost everything in the universe is a potential "danger" is some way or another :devil6:

Natural does not = safe nor does manufactured or synthetic = unsafe! Nothing in life comes completely risk free.........

Whatever floats your boat......doesn't change my mind for one second.
T


I may not be able to choose some of the chemicals that my child comes in contact with everyday but i can choose not to intentionally put those chemicals directly into her.

[stellarella]

I may not be able to choose some of the chemicals that my child comes in contact with everyday but i can choose not to intentionally put those chemicals directly into her.

:yelclap: Well said.

What a ridiculous concept.....chemicals are in food and the air we breath so why not just EXACERBATE the problem and inject them directly into DS body.....I'll pass thanks!!

[MamaSage]

Adding to the list, the Vitamin K jab given to most newborns can contain Benzyl Alcohol, Phenol, Acetic acid, and Propylene Glycol. Yuck. Not just a harmless vitamin it would seem.

[shed]

Okay, so this is not a debate awright? Please don't lets turn it into one.

I am a delayed/non/selective vaxer, but I don't impose my views on anyone because I don't mind what they do with their kid, I really don't. My kid isn't germy, he's only eight weeks old and has only missed one Hep B shot so far, so no one can accuse him of being germy because we are not in a Hep B epidemic at the moment.

So its all about the information for us.

Thanks for that info Ally!! It was hard to read, but the bits I got were good!

[stellarella]

I have some more info about ingredients to add...


<FONT face=Arial color=#004000 size=3>Aluminun Hydroxide is a form of Aluminum (http://poisonevercure.150m.com/emerging_disease-aluminum.htm). Aluminum is harmful to all life forms. It damages all types of tissue. Aluminum is a protoplasmic poison and a deadly, persistent neurotoxin. No living systems use aluminum as part of a biochemical process. Ironically, the American Academy of Pediatrics admits that Aluminum is now being implicated as interfering with a variety of cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system and in other tissues. As of today, it is still in vaccines. Aluminum is a known toxin that can cause encephalitis, bone disease and anemia in susceptible people. The kidneys eliminate Aluminum from the body and so people with renal problems are at risk of Aluminum toxicity. All infants have reduced renal function and may not be able to effectively excrete excessive Aluminum. Kidney function is low at birth and reaches adult level by 1-2 years of age. The presence of Aluminum in a vaccine can cause small nodules to develop under the skin of some babies. These nodules are usually transient in nature and disappear spontaneously after a few weeks. In rare cases extreme hypersensitivity to Aluminum results in persistent nodules. Early studies also suggested a relationship between Aluminum compounds and an increased incidence of allergic diseases.

[stellarella]

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Washington, DC 20207
CPSC Document #725
(reprinted by the U.S. EPA)
What is Formaldehyde?



Formaldehyde is an important industrial chemical used to make other chemicals, building materials, and household products. It is one of the large family of chemical compounds called volatile organic compounds (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html) or 'VOCs'. The term volatile means that the compounds vaporize, that is, become a gas, at normal room temperatures. Formaldehyde serves many purposes in products. It is used as a part of:

the glue or adhesive in pressed wood products (particleboard, hardwood plywood, and medium density fiberboard (MDF));
preservatives in some paints, coatings, and cosmetics;
the coating that provides permanent press quality to fabrics and draperies;
the finish used to coat paper products; and
certain insulation materials (urea-formaldehyde foam and fiberglass insulation). Formaldehyde is released into the air by burning wood, kerosene or natural gas, by automobiles, and by cigarettes. Formaldehyde can off-gas from materials made with it. It is also a naturally occurring substance.



The U.S. Consumer Safety Commission has produced this booklet to tell you about formaldehyde found in the indoor air. This booklet tells you where you may come in contact with formaldehyde, how it may affect your health, and how you might reduce your exposure to it.Why Should You Be Concerned?


Formaldehyde is a colorless, strong-smelling gas. When present in the air at levels above 0.1 ppm (parts in a million parts of air), it can cause watery eyes, burning sensations in the eyes, nose and throat, nausea, coughing, chest tightness, wheezing, skin rashes, and allergic reactions. It has also been observed to cause cancer in scientific studies using laboratory animals and may cause cancer in humans. Typical exposures to humans are much lower; thus any risk of causing cancer is believed to be small at the level at which humans are exposed.
Formaldehyde can affect people differently. Some people are very sensitive to formaldehyde while others may not have any noticeable reaction to the same level.
Persons have developed allergic reactions (allergic skin disease and hives) to formaldehyde through skin contact with solutions of formaldehyde or durable-press clothing containing formaldehyde. Others have developed asthmatic reactions and skin rashes from exposure to formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde is just one of several gases present indoors that may cause illnesses. Many of these gases, as well as colds and flu, cause similar symptoms.What Levels of Formaldehyde Are Normal?


Formaldehyde is normally present at low levels, usually less than 0.03 ppm, in both outdoor and indoor air. The outdoor air in rural areas has lower concentrations while urban areas have higher concentrations. Residences or offices that contain products that release formaldehyde to the air can have formaldehyde levels of greater than 0.03 ppm. Products that may add formaldehyde to the air include particleboard used as flooring underlayment, shelving, furniture and cabinets; MDF in cabinets and furniture; hardwood plywood wall panels, and urea-formaldehyde foam used as insulation. As formaldehyde levels increase, illness or discomfort is more likely to occur and may be more serious.
Efforts have been made by both the government and industry to reduce exposure to formaldehyde. CPSC voted to ban urea-formaldehyde foam insulation in 1992. That ban was over-turned in the courts, but this action greatly reduced the residential use of the insulation product. CPSC, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other federal agencies have historically worked with the pressed wood industry to further reduce the release of the chemical from their products. A 1985 HUD regulation covering the use of pressed wood products in manufactured housing was designed to ensure that indoor levels are below 0.4 ppm. However, it would be unrealistic to expect to completely remove formaldehyde from the air. Some persons who are extremely sensitive to formaldehyde may need to reduce or stop using these products.What Affects Formaldehyde Levels?


Formaldehyde levels in the indoor air depend mainly on what is releasing the formaldehyde (the source), the temperature, the humidity, and the air exchange rate (the amount of outdoor air entering or leaving the indoor area). Increasing the flow of outdoor air to the inside decreases the formaldehyde levels. Decreasing this flow of outdoor air by sealing the residence or office increases the formaldehyde level in the in door air.
As the temperature rises, more formaldehyde is emitted from the product. The reverse is also true; less formaldehyde is emitted at lower temperature. Humidity also affects the release of formaldehyde from the product. As humidity rises more formaldehyde is released.
The formaldehyde levels in a residence change with the season and from day-to-day and day-to-night. Levels may be high on a hot and humid day and low on a cool, dry day. Understanding these factors is important when you consider measuring the levels of formaldehyde.
Some sources -- such as pressed wood products containing urea-formaldehyde glues, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, durable press fabrics, and draperies -- release more formaldehyde when new. As they age, the formaldehyde release decreases.

[stellarella]

What are the Major Sources?


Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation: During the 1970s, many home owners installed this insulation to save energy. Many of these homes had high levels of formaldehyde soon afterwards. Sale of urea-formaldehyde foam insulation has largely stopped. Formaldehyde released from this product decreases rapidly after the first few months and reaches background levels in a few years. Therefore, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation installed 5 to 10 years ago is unlikely to still release formaldehyde.

Durable-press fabrics, draperies, and coated paper products: In the early 1960s, there were several reports of allergic reactions to formaldehyde from durable-press fabrics and coated paper products. Such reports have declined in recent years as industry has taken steps to reduce formaldehyde levels. Draperies made of formaldehyde-treated durable press fabrics may add slightly to indoor formaldehyde levels.

Cosmetics, paints, coatings, and some wet-strength paper products: The amount of formaldehyde present in these products is small and is of slight concern. However, persons sensitive to formaldehyde may have allergic reactions.

Pressed Wood Products: Pressed wood products, especially those containing urea-formaldehyde glues, are a source of formaldehyde. These products include particleboard used in flooring underlayment, shelves, cabinets, and furniture; plywood wall panels, and medium density fiberboard used in drawers, cabinets and furniture. When the surfaces and edges of these products are unlaminated or uncoated they have the potential to release more formaldehyde. Manufacturers have reduced formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products by 80-90% from the levels of the early 1980's.

Combustion Sources: Burning materials such as wood, kerosene, cigarettes and natural gas, and operating internal combustion engines (e.g. automobiles), produce small quantities of formaldehyde. Combustion sources add small amounts of formaldehyde to indoor air.

Products such as carpets or gypsum board do not contain significant amounts of formaldehyde when new. They may trap formaldehyde emitted from other sources and later release the formaldehyde into the indoor air when the temperature and humidity change.
(AND YOU GOT TO THIS PAGE BECAUSE IT'S IN YOUR CHILD'S VACCINES!)Do You Have Formaldehyde-Related Symptoms?


There are several formaldehyde-related symptoms, such as watery eyes, runny nose, burning sensation in eyes, nose, and throat, headaches, and fatigue. These symptoms may also occur because of the common cold, the flu or other pollutants that may be present in the indoor air. If these symptoms lessen when you are away from home or office but reappear upon your return, they may be caused by indoor pollutants, including formaldehyde. Examine your environment. Have you recently moved into a new or different home or office? Have you recently remodeled or installed new cabinets or furniture? Symptoms may be due to formaldehyde exposure. You should contact your physician and/or state or local health department (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/contacts.html) for help. Your physician can help to determine if the cause of your symptoms is formaldehyde or other pollutants.
Should You Measure Formaldehyde?


Only trained professionals should measure formaldehyde because they know how to interpret the results. If you become ill, and the illness persists following the purchase of furniture or remodeling with pressed wood products, you might not need to measure formaldehyde. Since these are likely sources, you can take action. You may become ill after painting, sealing, making repairs, and/or applying pest control treatment in your home or office. In such cases, indoor air pollutants other than formaldehyde may be the cause. If the source is not obvious, you should consult an physician to determine whether or not your symptoms might relate to indoor air quality problems. If your physician believes that you may be sensitive to formaldehyde, you may want to make some measurements. As discussed earlier, many factors can affect the level of formaldehyde on a given day in an office or residence. This is why a professional is best suited to make an accurate measurement of the levels.
Do-it-yourself formaldehyde measuring devices are available, however these devices can only provide a “ball park” figure for the formaldehyde level in the area. If you use such a device, you must carefully follow the instructions.
How Do You Reduce Formaldehyde Exposure?


Every day you probably use many products that contain formaldehyde. You may not be able to avoid coming in contact with some formaldehyde in your normal daily routine. If you are sensitive to formaldehyde, you will need to avoid many everyday items to reduce symptoms. For most people, a low-level exposure to formaldehyde (up to 0.1 ppm) does not produce symptoms. People who suspect they are sensitive to formaldehyde should work closely with a knowledgeable physician to make sure that formaldehyde is causing their symptoms.

You can avoid exposure to higher levels by:
Purchasing pressed wood products such as particleboard, MDF, or hardwood plywood for construction or remodeling of homes, or for do-it-yourself projects that are labeled or stamped to be in conformance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) criteria. Particleboard should be in conformance with ANSI A208.1-1993. For particleboard flooring, look for ANSI grades "PBU", "D2", or "D3" actually stamped on the panel. MDF should be in conformance with ANSI A208.2-1994; and hardwood plywood with ANSI/HPVA HP-1-1994. These standards all specify lower formaldehyde emission levels.
Purchasing furniture or cabinets that contain a high percentage of panel surfaces and edges that are laminated or coated. Unlaminated or uncoated (raw) panels of pressed wood products will generally emit more formaldehyde than those that are laminated or coated.
Using alternative products such as wood panel products not made with urea-formaldehyde glues, lumber or metal.
Avoiding the use of foamed-in-place insulation containing formaldehyde, especially urea-formaldehyde foam insulation.
Washing durable-press fabrics before use. How Do You Reduce Existing Formaldehyde Levels?



The choice of methods to reduce formaldehyde is unique to your situation. People who can help you select appropriate methods are your state or local health department (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/contacts.html), physician, or professional expert in indoor air problems. Here are some of the methods to reduce indoor levels of formaldehyde.
Bring large amounts of fresh air into the home. Increase ventilation by opening doors and windows and installing an exhaust fan(s).
Seal the surfaces of the formaldehyde-containing products that are not already laminated or coated. You may use a vapor barrier such as some paints, varnishes, or a layer of vinyl or polyurethane-like materials. Be sure to seal completely, with a material that does not itself contain formaldehyde. Many paints and coatings will emit other VOCs when curing, so be sure to ventilate the area well during and after treatment.
Remove from your home the product that is releasing formaldehyde in the indoor air. When other materials in the area such as carpets, gypsum boards, etc., have absorbed formaldehyde, these products may also start releasing it into the air. Overall levels of formaldehyde can be lower if you increase the ventilation over an extended period. One method NOT recommended by CPSC is a chemical treatment with strong ammonia (28-29% ammonia in water) which results in a temporary decrease in formaldehyde levels. We strongly discourage such treatment since ammonia in this strength is extremely dangerous to handle. Ammonia may damage the brass fittings of a natural gas system, adding a fire and explosion danger.

[stellarella]

2- Phenoxyethanol

Preservative in DTaP, Hepatitis A, Lyme disease and Polio vaccines
Uses: a fixative for perfumes, a bactericide (in conjuction with quaternary ammoniumm compounds), an insect in germicides, in pharmaceuticals, in cosmetics and in preservaties.
Toxicology: Harmful if swallowed, inhaled or absoreed through teh skin. May cause reproductive defects. Severe eye and skin irritant.
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/2-phenoxyethanol.htm (http://www.vaccinetruth.org/2-phenoxyethanol.htm)
2-Phenoxyethanol (2-PE) is a chemical substance presently used as a preservative in several vaccines. 2-PE contains phenol, which has the ability to inhibit phagocyte activity, meaning it is toxic to all cells. The phenol in 2-PE is capable of disabling the immune system's primary response mechanism. It can also cause systemic poisoning, headache, shock, weakness, convulsions, kidney damage, cardiac failure, kidney failure, or death. 2-PE also contains ethylene oxide, which is an irritant causing dermatitis, burns, blisters, and eczema.
Vaccines containing 2-Phenoxyethanol
At this time there are five vaccines containing 2-PE.
Hepatitis A Vaccine, Inactivated
Havrix® SmithKline Beecham Biologicals
http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_havrix.pdf

1. Summary:
2-Phenoxyethanol (2-PE) is a chemical substance presently used as a preservative in several vaccines. 2-PE contains phenol, which has the ability to inhibit phagocyte activity, meaning it is toxic to all cells. The phenol in 2-PE is capable of disabling the immune system's primary response mechanism. It can also cause systemic poisoning, headache, shock, weakness, convulsions, kidney damage, cardiac failure, kidney failure, or death. 2-PE also contains ethylene oxide, which is an irritant causing dermatitis, burns, blisters, and eczema

[stellarella]

Polysorbate 20
Potential Health Affects: May produce abdomian spasms
May cause irritation or sensitization in sensitive individuals. May cause eye irritation.
NOT INTENDED FOR INJECTABLE DRUG USE.
http://www.herbalsoapsbyrj.com/ps20-msds.htm (http://www.herbalsoapsbyrj.com/ps20-msds.htm)
Did you know that the ingredient is used to make some "tearless" or "Baby" shampoos is called Polysorbate 20, a derivative of Novocain, and is used by dentists and doctors as a numbing agent? Polysorbate 20 causes a numbing sensation to the eyes, preventing children from feeling the sting and burn from the strong detergents used.


If anyone wants to check out the website go to
http://poisonevercure.150m.com/ingredients.htm

all the relevant links to reputable sources are there.....

[Pippi Longstocking]

Great info, thanks ladies :thumbsup:

It just reconfirms my belief that my child is better off without having those toxic compounds injected into her.

[Cheekychops]

Totally agree with you !

The point of showing this was to actually dissprove the idea of aborted embyros & monkeys being used also the idea of mercury & thimersol ! :)

Hopefully this stops a lot of misinformation out there :yes:

:yes: Good Idea!!! Thanks for all the info!!! :thumbsup:

[Duchessa]

Great info! Thanks Allyoo, Carlia and Stellarella. Its great to know exactly what is injected :eek: into us/our children when we use these various "prophylactic" treatments... There is always a price and I guess the question is, are you willing to pay it or not. :no::no::no:

[jessgray]

thats really intresting info i never knew that stuff was in vax's

[DragonFly Baby]

Thanks for the info....it just reconfirms why I don't vax:)

[cosmic]

It also makes me very happy that my baby has not had any vaccinations. Thanks for reconfirming that, Ally!

In relation particularly to the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine:


A swedish trial of one and two component acellular pertussis vaccines in 1986-87 compared vaccine to placebo. It concluded that side effects of the new vaccine were mild. The placebo was the 'vehicle', the liquid which 'carries' the vaccine. It contains thiomersal (a mercury containing compound), formalin and aluminium phosphate. The side effects of the new vaccine compared to this placebo' were indeed minimal but, looking at the data, the most worrying factor was the incidence of floppiness, vomiting, inconsolable crying for more than one hour, fever and drowsiness that occurred after the 'vehicle' alone. The addition of the whooping cough component didn't seem to make a lot of difference. It makes one wonder why the 'vehicle' in which we deliver the vaccine has to be so toxic.

From www.whale.to/w/donegan.html - Whooping Cough: The Disease and the Vaccine, by Dr Jayne L M Donegan, June 2000

[YoungSupaMum]

Thanks for the info ladies!!! It just confirms my reasons for not Vaxing!!!! :D

[Mr. Ogyny]

I think I provided a similar link in one of the previous threads on vaxing. Ah yes, here it is... http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/components/additives.htm

Did you follow up from that? That was from the CDC. I think the formaldehyde is a bit scary don't you? As if the vaccines weren't damaging enough.

I wonder if the MSG is to get you hooked on vaccinations.....:D


Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged even in the presence of forces such as heat, light, acidity, humidity etc. MSG is also found in many foods, especially Asian foods and flavor enhancers.

[MamaSage]

No wonder our children have such high instances of allergies these days! MSG for crying out loud! Some people are deathly allergic to that!:thumbsdown:

[reAllytee]

Yes & again why they ask whether there is any history of allergies when giving vaccinations. It comes down to the msg & the egg being used.

Oh yes because i have such a desire to get vaccinations every day ... seriously :rolleyes:

Btw if you actually havent noticed by now my name doesnt contain a "h" in it.

[stellarella]

Yes & again why they ask whether there is any history of allergies when giving vaccinations. It comes down to the msg & the egg being used.

Oh yes because i have such a desire to get vaccinations every day ... seriously :rolleyes:

Btw if you actually havent noticed by now my name doesnt contain a "h" in it.

Its very interesting you mention the asking about allergies thing ALLYOO :D as when I told my doc that DH's family has very strong history of allergies, asthma, eczema etc she said that is not a reason NOT to vaccinate...:eek:

Seems they want to wait til DS HAS a severe reaction before they will say "ok he shouldnt have them"

[reAllytee]

Its very interesting you mention the asking about allergies thing ALLYOO :D as when I told my doc that DH's family has very strong history of allergies, asthma, eczema etc she said that is not a reason NOT to vaccinate...:eek:

Seems they want to wait til DS HAS a severe reaction before they will say "ok he shouldnt have them"

Then i would be certainly changing doctors !!!!!

I had all my vaccinations in half doses as a child because i had a reaction with my first lot my family g.p (shame he has passed on ) refused to administer them when a child was ill or had a reaction ! I had to catch up by the time i went to school but it was no big deal !!!
So when it came to Boof we watched very closely & were lucky there was no drama for him but i certainly would have held off or chosen half doses if he had reacted !
Some doctors get too gunho & thats wrong as its not going to help anybody !!

[WeThree]

Sorry, wayyy of track but today I finally got enough guts to go down to the drs and get a conscientious objection form signed!! Her older brother had his needles later and so I missed out on the immunisation allowance, and you have to organise it all before they are 2, and he was not immunised till he was nearly 3, but you know what, after reading this thread DH may just get his wish and she will not get immunised at all!!
So off I went to centrelink and handed it in, no way I was immunising her for a couple of hundred bucks, but I did still kind of want the money,:p so this way I get the money and DD doesnt have to have any of that **** shoved into her body unnecessarily! (for now...);)

[stellarella]

Sorry, wayyy of track but today I finally got enough guts to go down to the drs and get a conscientious objection form signed!! Her older brother had his needles later and so I missed out on the immunisation allowance, and you have to organise it all before they are 2, and he was not immunised till he was nearly 3, but you know what, after reading this thread DH may just get his wish and she will not get immunised at all!!
So off I went to centrelink and handed it in, no way I was immunising her for a couple of hundred bucks, but I did still kind of want the money,:p so this way I get the money and DD doesnt have to have any of that **** shoved into her body unnecessarily! (for now...);)

Yes I intend to to get the money too LOL :laughing:

[WeThree]

Yes I intend to to get the money too LOL :laughing:


Hehe, :p I didnt know last time that if I handed one in I would still get it, apparently Centrelink often forget to mention that,:rolleyes: so I dont want to miss out a second time! :D

[Mr. Ogyny]

Way to go Coopsntilly!

[Pippi Longstocking]

How did you go Coops, did the doctor give you a hard time? They can often be "difficult" about it. :rolleyes:

[Tannie]

FYI - I find it much better to go to Community Health centre or council clinic for vaccinations..........they do them all the time, they are much more clued into it then the average GP IMO, they are completely free (no paying for the GP visit) AND they are more likely to have the proper storage facility for the vaccinations.......lots of GPs just have an ordinary fridge still :mad:

Even my GP advised me to go to the CH clinic..."why pay for the visit here if you don't have to?"..........ummm.........yeah......but she is a GREAT GP!! :thumbsup:

T

[jessgray]

:wave: thanks guys me and DP have now deiceded DS1 will not be getting the chicken pox vax after reading whats in the vax's.
why no one told us one has lactose in it we dont know. we were going to wait and see if ds used his predmix before vax time but no way am i going to let him be injected to something that makes him sick already :(
i wouldnt have known the lactose was in the vax if it wasnt for this thread so thanks guys :hugs:
DP is making me print out the info from the site to add to my childrens services resource folder he thinks all parents should know this stuff

[tweedledee*tweedledum]

This is not a dig at anyone who doesn't vax, I am just interested.......Just say you haven't vaxed your child and they do happen to contract one of the diseases, this is hypothetical remember so don't jump on the "small pox has been eradicated" bandwagon! Would you regret not having vaccinated?
Again, I am not wanting to start a riot, I am just interested in people's thoughts.

[stellarella]

This is not a dig at anyone who doesn't vax, I am just interested.......Just say you haven't vaxed your child and they do happen to contract one of the diseases, this is hypothetical remember so don't jump on the "small pox has been eradicated" bandwagon! Would you regret not having vaccinated?
Again, I am not wanting to start a riot, I am just interested in people's thoughts.

Hi tweedle...no I would not regret it at all.

i guess i could ask a vaxer if thier child had an anaphylactic reaction would they be regretful??

if youve done all your research then there is no room for regrets, either way there may be bad outcomes...

imo if DS gets pertussis for example then at least everyone acknowledges that it exists, while the medical profession refuses to acknowledge that vaccines poison children i will get no support if DS falls ill from this (possibly years down the track). this is far scarier for me, i guess its like a silent killer...

Also this generation of kids is the first to recieve so many vaccines, we are developing technology quicker than we can test long term outcomes. when i was a kid there was only DPT, now DS is supposed to get like 9 different jabs. We dont know what the outcomes will be for this generation in say 20 yrs, that frightens the life out of me...

[jessgray]

tweedledee*tweedledum - no i wont regret not having my son vaxed for chicken pox for medical reasons. he had all the other vax's prior to this. i have done my research and i think at the moment my ds is better off not having it. i know he could get chicken pox down the track,he goes to day care, and its a risk we have to take because his predmix asthma medication increases the risk of him ending up in hospitial with respitory complications if he has the vax and the vax has lactose in it and he is lactose intolerant :(

[Duchessa]

This is not a dig at anyone who doesn't vax, I am just interested.......Just say you haven't vaxed your child and they do happen to contract one of the diseases, this is hypothetical remember so don't jump on the "small pox has been eradicated" bandwagon! Would you regret not having vaccinated?
Again, I am not wanting to start a riot, I am just interested in people's thoughts.

I fully expect and even hope that they do get some of the diseases that are vaxed for. Good examples being chicken pox, mumps... I'll definitely be having a chicken pox party when the girls are at an appropriate age if they haven't caught it by then.

Here's a question for you (and I am serious about this - not a dig in anyway either...) How would you feel if your child contracted diseases that you risked the side effects of vaccination for? ie they get pertussis during an epidemic, or they have full blown chicken pox as a direct result of vaxing...? Or you vax your older child for chick pox and your younger child catches it from the vaxed child (a situation that is not uncommon)?

[cosmic]

When I ask myself if I would regret my child contracting something they could have been vaxed for, the only response I can come up with is "I don't know". There are too many variables to consider. Like Duchessa, I would be quite happy for my DD to get chicken pox or measles.. I had them both and my immune system is all the stronger for it, I believe. I also believe that having had them, I have passed on immunity to her while she is very young and this is a good thing.

I think some of the mothers of the children in this database might regret not doing more research into vaxing though:

http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?LOWAGE=&HIGHAGE=&SEX=&STATE=&PRIOR_VAX=&VAX_DATE_LOW=&VAX_DATE_HIGH=&CUR_ILL=&VAX=&VAXDOSE=&VAXMAN=&VAXROUTE=&VAXLOT=&VAXSITE=&ONSET_DATE_LOW=&ONSET_DATE_HIGH=&REPORT_DATE_LOW=&REPORT_DATE_HIGH=&SYMPTOMS=&HISTORY=&L_THREAT=&ER_VISIT=&DIED=Yes&HOSPITAL=&DEATH_DATE_LOW=&DEATH_DATE_HIGH=&X_STAY=&RECOVD=&LAB_DATA=&DISABLE=&OTHER_MEDS=&V_ADMINBY=&V_FUNDBY=&PAGENO=1&PERPAGE=10

[cosmic]

By the way, Coops - my GP kept my Conscientious Objector form on file. What's that about??! I should be gettin' on down to Centrelink with it. :thumbsup:

[stellarella]

When I ask myself if I would regret my child contracting something they could have been vaxed for, the only response I can come up with is "I don't know". There are too many variables to consider. Like Duchessa, I would be quite happy for my DD to get chicken pox or measles.. I had them both and my immune system is all the stronger for it, I believe. I also believe that having had them, I have passed on immunity to her while she is very young and this is a good thing.

I think some of the mothers of the children in this database might regret not doing more research into vaxing though:

http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?LOWAGE=&HIGHAGE=&SEX=&STATE=&PRIOR_VAX=&VAX_DATE_LOW=&VAX_DATE_HIGH=&CUR_ILL=&VAX=&VAXDOSE=&VAXMAN=&VAXROUTE=&VAXLOT=&VAXSITE=&ONSET_DATE_LOW=&ONSET_DATE_HIGH=&REPORT_DATE_LOW=&REPORT_DATE_HIGH=&SYMPTOMS=&HISTORY=&L_THREAT=&ER_VISIT=&DIED=Yes&HOSPITAL=&DEATH_DATE_LOW=&DEATH_DATE_HIGH=&X_STAY=&RECOVD=&LAB_DATA=&DISABLE=&OTHER_MEDS=&V_ADMINBY=&V_FUNDBY=&PAGENO=1&PERPAGE=10

cosmic i dont know where you got that but it sends shivers down my spine....:crying:

[WeThree]

How did you go Coops, did the doctor give you a hard time? They can often be "difficult" about it. :rolleyes:

Actually, she had no idea what I was talking about at first! She had to ring through to the nurse, then the front desk, and finally one of the girls there managed to find one.
She was then really good about it she started to launch into 'now you know millions of children are vacinated' and I just politely cut her off by saying 'I know it all, honestly I know it all' and she just said 'sure, no prob, we are just kind of obligated I think to tell you that kind of stuff'
and that was it! and she didnt keep it or a copy on file either C, was it just a copy, or the only one?

[Barry]

I think some of the mothers of the children in this database might regret not doing more research into vaxing though:

(url removed)

I think it's pretty apalling & morbid to place a link to the death records of over 2,700 people.

These aren't vaccination deaths either by the way, they are research records of people who have been vaccinated during their life, and then died at some stage. It's basically a bulk data set for the CDC & FDA safety surveillance program, collecting information about adverse events which may or may not be related to the vaccine given. The vast majority of the death records within that database aren't vaccine damage deaths, just as alot of the illness aren't vaccine related illnesses.

This is the data set which is used to then look for vaccine problems, not the list of problems.

VAERS is easy to find for those looking for it, let alone a deep-link straight to death records. :thumbsdown: There should be some respect for the dead and not publicise the manner in which these children, teenagers and adults have past away.

[cosmic]

Are you for real??? It's public information, for starters. And there are no names. So I hardly think it's disrespectful. Get a grip, Baz. :rolleyes:

And I think most intelligent people can read through the information and come to their own conclusions.

For example:

4 month old infant received first DTP/OPV immun. & had no immediate problems, was apparently well & healthy. 9-10 days later, developed repiratory symptoms & diarrhea, then found dead the following day.
or how about this one

CDC Reports: 5 mo infant receivd DTP/OPV on 23JAN90 and died 24JAN90.

So yeah, they are just people who have had vaccinations and died at some stage. But some happen to be infants who happen to have died shortly after their vaccinations, despite having no prior health issues.

It's just information for people to interpret as they see fit.

[Barry]

Are you for real??? It's public information, for starters. And there are no names. So I hardly think it's disrespectful. Get a grip, Baz. :rolleyes:

The footage of people dying is publicly available also, it is not however respectful for news stations to broadcast it. As I stated, for people wanting the services VAERS offers, they can find it, listing the death records of 2,700+ is just not right.



And I think most intelligent people can read through the information and come to their own conclusions.


Most intelligent people realise the information available in VAERS is not enough to make a reliable conclusion, you need the patient file.

You state it's for people to make their own conclusions from, but in reality you know full well you're not providing enough information for people really to know the truth, and people will just assume it was the vaccination due to a complete lack of real information on the matter.

Using your example: What did that child die of the following day? Heat failure? SIDS? Circulating virus? Or was it actually related to the vaccine? You can't tell from that information so by listing those death records you've proven nothing other than a complete disrepest for those people who have been unfortunate enough to have their lives come to an end early. I know people who are listed in VAERS and I know, from their family their death was unrelated to vaccinations and its simply appalling when people trot out these death records as an example of vaccination problems, if you want to use meaningful figures use the information from the VAERS studies that the FDA & CDC conduct where they actually state the vaccination related deaths.



So yeah, they are just people who have had vaccinations and died at some stage. But some happen to be infants who happen to have died shortly after their vaccinations, despite having no prior health issues.

It's just information for people to interpret as they see fit.

People can't interpret it without making wild assumptions. You can be vaccinated today and die tomorrow of an unrelated cause and without the patient file and real data to examine just finding out you got vaccinated today and died tomorrow is completely useless.

[cosmic]

I don't plan to get into a debate with you Barry. But yes, sadly in many cases where infants die unexpectedly, with no real explanation, it is recorded as SIDS. Which is a shame really, because quite clearly some babies die from a reaction to their vaccinations. Or get very ill. Equally some babies who are not vaccinated (or some who are) contract illnesses and fall very ill. Some die.

This is why the immunisation decision is so difficult for many of us. I don't know of anyone who has done serious reading on the subject and been able to come to a clear-cut, black and white conclusion.

Your personal objection to the publication of the above URL is noted. Now perhaps the thread (which is 4mths old anyway) could either get back on track or be put to rest again.

[kymmy]

I am not at all suprised about the ingredients in vax.
I am so sure that is how my son's eczema was sparked. He is now 3 and still he suffers. My bub isn't vaccinated for that reason.
My girl wasn't affected (as far as I know) but she is hardly affected by anything.

[Barry]

I don't plan to get into a debate with you Barry.

It's not a debate, it's a simple case of you quoting a virtually unrelated source when you know full well no-one can make an informed decision.

I'm at a loss as to how you can seriously say it's up to people to make their own interpretation of when not even a quarter of the facts are available, you have a few data points and that's it.

How can you seriously use the example of a child dying the next day and infer it was the vaccination without having any real information on the matter?

How about the 87 year old in the database who was vaccinated 20 years before his death, was that the vaccination? Or is it impossible to tell as you only have a limited set of data and not the patient file?



This is why the immunisation decision is so difficult

We're not talking about the immunisation decision, we're talking about public exposure of peoples death records and them being exposed for no real reason.

[melfunction]

It's not a debate, it's a simple case of you quoting a virtually unrelated source when you know full well no-one can make an informed decision.

Oh c'mon...Everything is a debate to you Barry ;)

[Barry]

Oh c'mon...Everything is a debate to you Barry ;)

Nah, I actually hate debates. I do however hate more when people are disrespected or singled out for abuse, or when misinformation is spread.

You mighta just witnessed me trying to get the facts out there in a field of falsehoods :)

[shed]

I agree with cosmic in that it is a very difficult decision to make. There are pros and cons for each side. I personally am finding it extremely difficult.

We haven't vaxed our DS yet and I won't argue with anyone about it because I am fraught, yes I tell you, fraught, with doubts and second-guesses. That doesn't mean its the wrong decision, it just means I am taking it seriously.

I am charged with making the decision I see as being the least harmful to my child and if someone elses baby dies the day after or shortly after being vaccinated with something I might be contemplating putting into my child then I damn well want to know about it. Morbid or not, I don't GAF, I want to know.

[Pippi Longstocking]

I agree with cosmic in that it is a very difficult decision to make. There are pros and cons for each side. I personally am finding it extremely difficult.

We haven't vaxed our DS yet and I won't argue with anyone about it because I am fraught, yes I tell you, fraught, with doubts and second-guesses. That doesn't mean its the wrong decision, it just means I am taking it seriously.

I am charged with making the decision I see as being the least harmful to my child and if someone elses baby dies the day after or shortly after being vaccinated with something I might be contemplating putting into my child then I damn well want to know about it. Morbid or not, I don't GAF, I want to know.

I am in exactly the same position Shed. We haven't vaccinated Shine and still haven't made a decision one way or the other. And until I reach such a decision, I fully intend on reading as much as possible, not just that which supports my preconceived idea of right. I want to read it all - the for, the against and the neutral.

Cosmic, your link was valuable to me as part of this education process so thanks for posting :hugs:

[Refresh]

wow, thanks for that link C. I am surprised I have never seen that before.

[Pippi Longstocking]

*self edited*

S'orright Mods, one step ahead of ya! :D

[cosmic]

wow, thanks for that link C. I am surprised I have never seen that before.
You're welcome Katie, and might I take the opportunity to congratulate you on that bewdiful little bubba? Adorable! :D

*ahem* back to the topic... oh wait, what was the topic again? :rolleyes:

[shed]

OMG Guvnor, you're killing me!!!

I LOL at that.

You dork!!! :laughing: :laughing:

[theycallmemum]

Ooh yeah, I've got to do that too. When is the immunsation payment made?

My doctor is great, he fully agrees and supports our decision not to immunise.

[Barry]

I am charged with making the decision I see as being the least harmful to my child and if someone elses baby dies the day after or shortly after being vaccinated with something I might be contemplating putting into my child then I damn well want to know about it. Morbid or not, I don't GAF, I want to know.

Would it not be better to know the actual problems with vaccinations rather than merely useless data?

Just as would it not be better to know the actual problems with no vaccinating should any level of outbreak or new disease be present so you can make a decision that is the least harmful for your child? As I would be horrorifed if people were provided misinformation on infection deaths when the deaths were not linked to infections, any propaganda when a parent is trying to make a decision is plain wrong imho.

[shed]

Would it not be better to know the actual problems with vaccinations rather than merely useless data?
.

Absolutely. And that's part of my responsibility too. To decide what data is useless and what isn't.

That's why it's so difficult.

I have to weigh up the risks that the diseases present against the risks that the vaccination presents.

its hard.

[Barry]

***Text removed by moderator****

Regardless however, if someone posted a list of the 1.7 million deaths per year that are related to conditions which are preventable by immunisations and asked if those 1.7 million mothers regret their decision to not immunise people would be up in arms about it as flat out misinformation, yet for you to do the same to support not immunising is apparently okay, however useless the information really is.

Being that you don't know of the real joint CDC/FDA report released from the VAERS data perhaps you are, as you say "wallowing around in [...] falsehoods", as clearly you quite happy to provide incomplete information to promote assumption which supports your point of view as opposed to the actual facts on the matter.

[cosmic]

In the database, it lists the date of the death and the date of the vaccination. It lists any other symptoms present at the time. This is not false information. It lists the ages of the patients. So no-one is going to accidently read about an 87yo man and mistakenly think it was a little baby.

Barry, you are harping on and on about this supposedly irresponsible misinformation. It is not misinformation. It is fact. No, it's not patient files, it's summary information. Give people credit for some intelligence. They can read! There is only one person being condescending here and it ain't me.

Now, didn't I say I was going to bed? Gone! :wizard:

[Barry]

Absolutely. And that's part of my responsibility too. To decide what data is useless and what isn't.


And that's the point. That database cannot help you and you cannot make a decision about it as it doesn't contain the information needed for you to make an informed decision, any decision will merely be an poorly informed assumption, which is dangerous. The information on the matter you need is in the following report from that database which the FDA/CDC put out, after investigating the cases, an investigation which an ordinary person cannot do.

[Minke]

Sorry, just curious...

I have read a couple of things saying that all the diseases we vax for were dropping in number anyway, before the vax was introduced (and therefore there is no proof.. blah - get to the point)

My question is - are there countries that the vax rate is not high and have the same type of living standards - and have the same low disease rate?

Did this at all make sense... :confused: :D

[Barry]

In the database, it lists the date of the death and the date of the vaccination. It lists any other symptoms present at the time. This is not false information. It lists the ages of the patients. So no-one is going to accidently read about an 87yo man and mistakenly think it was a little baby.wallowing around in our falsehoods

Yes it does. However are you aware that vaccine damage can actually occur in humans other than babies and toddlers? And that such information can be used to determine if combinations of vaccines in adults are safe for younger humans, or do you only care for vaccination problems in children and damn the rest of the population?

As I previously stated having a vaccination date, a death date and a brief list of symptoms if available at the time of entry, and only a brief data set not all information. It's not false, merely incomplete and useless. To make a decision based off this is an assumption at best you have no idea what has happened or what the exterior conditions or factors are.

Again, it is impossible to make an informed decision from that information, else why do you think the CDC & FDA analyse that information and release an actual listing of vaccination issues which is mostly incredibly smaller than the VAERS listing.

[QUOTE=cosmic;963087]
Barry, you are harping on and on about this supposedly irresponsible misinformation. It is not misinformation. It is fact. No, it's not patient files, it's summary information.

Exactly. You NEED the patient files to make a decision. It's blatently irresponsible to say otherwise. It's blatently irresponsible to claim a decision can be made of such bare data.


Give people credit for some intelligence. They can read!

Again, reading incomplete data over and over does not make it complete and does not put you in a position to end up with anything more than an uninformed assumption.

[Pippi Longstocking]

And that's the point. That database cannot help you and you cannot make a decision about it as it doesn't contain the information needed for you to make an informed decision, any decision will merely be an poorly informed assumption, which is dangerous.
That is merely your own personal subjective opinion Barry. How can you tell Cosmic that that data base "cannot" help her? You are basing that on your own opinions which are irrelevant when establishing what will or will not help Cosmic to form her own opinion on what is right for her child.

Seriously dude, you don't have to "win" every debate. Because sometimes there is no right or wrong - your right may be entirely wrong for me and my family and vice versa. And that's ok!

[shed]

And that's the point. That database cannot help you and you cannot make a decision about it as it doesn't contain the information needed for you to make an informed decision, any decision will merely be an poorly informed assumption, which is dangerous.

Fair enough.

Decision is made for the moment.

And the decision is that we haven't made a decision yet. He's 5 months and we are non-vax. We are NOT anti-vax.

[Barry]

Sorry, just curious...

I have read a couple of things saying that all the diseases we vax for were dropping in number anyway, before the vax was introduced (and therefore there is no proof.. blah - get to the point)

My question is - are there countries that the vax rate is not high and have the same type of living standards - and have the same low disease rate?

Did this at all make sense... :confused: :D

From my understanding, it's quite hard to correlate disease data from different environmental conditions within countries (some diseases are benefitted more by humidity etc), this is a broad statement btw, not just limited to the vaccination schedule.

I know that there was a reliable source about one particular disease that had actually declined before vaccinations against it started but the most oft quoted one is pertussis which didn't actually decrease prior to vaccinations... if that is of any help! heh. That being said however all countries with similiar conditions all have vax programs so the diseases have been effectively wiped out, however in the case of polio all it took was one African nation to claim the vaccinations were the evil work of the US trying to kill them for polio to spread back across Africa & out undoing all the hard work done previously.

At the end of the day though I really think it's up to the parent if they wish to make the decision to vaccinate, if the child gets a disease you have to live with the repurcussions of that just as if the child has a side effect from the vaccine you have to live with that.

It really is one of those hard decisions, I think the best option is to get all the facts and think about the area and environment you live in, without sounding "racist" are you in an area where you use public transport alot, are there alot of immigrants in your area (it's the easist way for polio to get into Australia if that was a concern if your eyes) etc.

The other point is, if you do decide you don't want to vaccinate, should things change in the future (eg disease outbreaks in Indo + NZ, or you wish to travel overseas) you can always then go and get the required vaccinations/shots if you felt it beneficial so it's not like it's an irreversible choice.

I think the most important thing is to do what you feel is right, as opposed to what anyone else tells you to do.

[JenNT]

The other point is, if you do decide you don't want to vaccinate, should things change in the future (eg disease outbreaks in Indo + NZ, or you wish to travel overseas) you can always then go and get the required vaccinations/shots if you felt it beneficial so it's not like it's an irreversible choice.

Best comment I have read in this thread.

[Barry]

That is merely your own personal subjective opinion Barry. How can you tell Cosmic that that data base "cannot" help her? You are basing that on your own opinions which are irrelevant when establishing what will or will not help Cosmic to form her own opinion on what is right for her child.

No, my opinions are irrelevant.

I'm basing that on the fact cosmic is not an American Doctor, or high ranking member of the CDC or FDA and therefore does not have access to the other three quarters of the information required to make an informed decision. It's pretty simple, else any sane person would compare the 2,700 possible vaccination cases vs the 1,700,000 possible vaccinatable disease deaths and think the odds were better on the other side of the coin, however both sources are not the full facts. It's like claiming all swans are black and dead because you've see 1 swan, and it wasn't there when you came back the next day, you're missing the rest of the information.


Because sometimes there is no right or wrong - your right may be entirely wrong for me and my family and vice versa. And that's ok!

There is a wrong in this case, and if you or anyone in your family is not an American Doctor, or high ranking member of the CDC or FDA and therefore do not have access to the rest of the information then it's wrong for you and your family too.

As I said before, use the report generated from this data by the CDC & FDA after they have done a careful examination of each reported case using patient & hospital data and all factors in that case to determine the real case, underlying or otherwise. Then you can make an informed decision for yourself or your family knowing that all the information surrounding the case has been looked at as opposed to making a guess about what happened when you have the persons vaccination date, death date and a list of symptoms which may or may not be complete or correct.

I mean you are talking about your kids here right? Wouldn't it best to know if vaccinating them is going to be harmful or risky for them rather than assuming it's okay?

[Barry]

Best comment I have read in this thread.

It's one of my pet hates, the way some of the pro-vaccination people speak it's as if once you decide not to get a vaccination it's never available ever again for the rest of your childs life, like sheesh it's just a doctors trip away! (supply permitting).

[draught]

Yet another thread that is getting way too personal - it will be closed, cleaned up and possibly reopened. I will decide about infractions at the same time.

[draught]

Okay - re-opened for debate on the topic - any more personal comments and it will be closed. Again.

[Barry]

The Pertussis disease DID start to decline way before vaccines were here

*shakes head* Death rates from Pertussis decreased prior to the vaccine being introduced due to an increased ability to treat the disease, it was however just as prevelant prior to the introduction of the vaccine, just less people were dying from it. That however, may be a factor in deciding not to vaccinate for it, but yeah... disease rates where constant whilst death rates decreased with increased medical care.



I will not be vaccinating my baby but should my/lifestyle circumstances change, i may introduce his body to a vaccine as he enters his teenage years.


:thumbsup: exactly, it's not an irreversible decision!

There's nothing more I hate than people making out if you decide not to vaccinate then that's it, when actually you can always vaccinate later on.

[juna]

Hi! I am undecided on vaccinating DD2 and I really like all the info being put up here. In regard to Cosmic's URL, these are all American deaths. Do we use the same kind of vaccines? Just curious.

[mumofcaleb]

I'd just like to inform those of you that do not immunise, that the only reason your children are protected from all these horrible diseases are because of the children that are immunised.

[kiah]

very interesting...i didnt know about all that stuff...

but i suppose there are chemicals everywhere...the most we get from our everyday fruit and veg unless you are into organic..we grow our own....and makeup and lotions and all that...chemicals straight into the skin...and the cleaning products...eek they are the worst...

but thanku for sharing...i like knowing about these things...very interesting....:thumbsup:

[the_queen]

Good point Kiah - and some chemicals, we can't control our ingestion of. Vaccination chemicals, I can control whether my kids ingest them or not. That's how I see it. I try to buy organic meat, and bread with no preservatives, etc etc. I try to limit the amount of chemicals my kids ingest because there are so many chemicals that I cannot control.

[Barry]

Which way are you shaking your head? :no: or :yes: ? You just repeated part of my post here and im now slightly confused. :yes:

Heh, whoops. It was a no.

Pertussis infection rates where the same before the vaccinations started, just less people were dying as we could make them more comfortable as they clung on for dear life, so whilst from viewing death rates alone there appears to be a decrease, but when infection rates are taken into consideration nothing had changed (infact had gotten worse in some places).

[Pippi Longstocking]

Heh, whoops. It was a no.

Pertussis infection rates where the same before the vaccinations started, just less people were dying as we could make them more comfortable as they clung on for dear life, so whilst from viewing death rates alone there appears to be a decrease, but when infection rates are taken into consideration nothing had changed (infact had gotten worse in some places).

Have you any links from reputable sources to back this up? The research I have done suggests that pertussis rates had dropped significantly prior to introduction of widespread vaccination programs.

[Barry]

Have you any links from reputable sources to back this up? The research I have done suggests that pertussis rates had dropped significantly prior to introduction of widespread vaccination programs.

From the CDC Bulletins.:

"Before pertussis immunizations were available, nearly all children developed whooping cough. In the U.S., prior to pertussis immunization, between 150,000 and 260,000 cases of pertussis were reported each year, with up to 9,000 pertussis-related deaths."

"From 1990 to 1996, 57 persons died from pertussis; 49 of these were less than six months old."

150,000-260,000 infected and 9,000 deaths prior to vaccinations in the US alone, afterwards rates eased.

Right now however they have a peak of infection rates & deaths every 3-4 years as anti-pertussis immunisation information gains traction in the media.

Another tid bit from the CDC about lowering vaccination rates in the modern age:

"During the 1970s, widespread concerns about the safety of the older pertussis vaccine led to a rapid fall in immunization levels in the United Kingdom. More than 100,000 cases and 36 deaths due to pertussis were reported during an epidemic in the mid 1970s. In Japan, pertussis vaccination coverage fell from 80 percent in 1974 to 20 percent in 1979. An epidemic occurred in 1979, resulted in more than 13,000 cases and 41 deaths."

[cosmic]

Guv, in concurrence with what Barry said:

In the nineteenth century whooping cough was most definately a killer disease. "Deaths from whooping cough remained at around 10 000 a year from 1847 until the 1900s and then declined steeply as the health and care of children improved and had reached less than 400 a year by 1950. Immunisation started in the 1950s, deaths continued to fall and notifications fell sharply." (1)

It is undoubtedly the case that whooping cough became a milder disease in this country over the course of the first half of the twentieth century. The death rate had fallen by over 99% before vaccination against pertussis was introduced in the 1950s (Fig 1). The introduction of the vaccine reduced the number of notified cases of whooping cough but peaks continued to occur every three to four years as they always had. Deaths continued their steady decline. This was most clearly seen in the 1970s and 80s when the vaccine coverage fell to less than 40% in 1976 because of health scares. In 1978 and 1982 there were over 65,000 notified cases of whooping cough but no concomitant rise in the number of deaths (Fig 2). Between 30% and 70% of children in outbreaks are vaccinated (2,3,4).

The link is here (http://www.whale.to/w/donegan.html) if you want to look at the original references.

But what about this...

In 1994 Dr Michel Odent published a retrospective (looking backwards) study in which he compared the incidence of asthma in 243 children who had been vaccinated against pertussis with 203 who had not. Vaccinated children were over five times more likely to suffer from asthma and twice as likely to have had ear infection than unvaccinated ones (12)
or this...

...in the ‘natural experiment’ that took place in this country when the acceptance of the vaccine fell so dramatically in the mid 1970s to the mid 80s there was an accompanying fall in the number of deaths of children aged four years and less from invasive meningococcal disease. The numbers began to rise again as vaccine uptake increased (Fig 3).
And this...

As we have seen, the incidence of pertussis death and disease was falling well before the vaccine was introduced in the 1950s. In 1978 the U.S. passed laws requiring proof of vaccination before school entry to increase vaccination uptake. This caused a recognisable increase in the incidence of whooping cough in that country and it has been rising ever since such that they now have five doses of pertussis vaccine in their immunisation program (19). By 1996 a study in California showed that 12% of adults with persistent cough had undiagnosed whooping cough (20). In 1990 the UK introduced an ‘accelerated’ schedule of vaccination to try to stem the rising tide of pertussis notifications (vaccination at 2months, 3m and 4m instead of the previous 3m,5m, l0m). Now, despite vaccination rates of 94% in under twos the incidence of pertussis has been increasing since 1995. Between 1995 and 1997, 10 of the 12 deaths from whooping cough were in babies under 2 months of age. As with a number of recent reports from the UK, USA and Australia, there seems to be a trend towards increasing numbers of deaths in very young children and a ‘waning’ of vaccine effectiveness in 1-4 year olds (21).

Our vaccination program seems to have produced generations of mothers whose poor quality vaccine antibodies are unable to protect their babies from whooping cough. They are contracting it and dying of it at less than eight weeks old. Placental antibodies from natural infection should protect children for that vulnerable first year, particularly if combined with breast feeding. Our one to four year olds, without the benefit of ‘natural’ boosting of their immunity from circulating wild disease are catching vaccine modified disease in increasing numbers. Our vaccinated adults are getting chronic coughs from it because they haven’t had natural infection in childhood. The high prevelance of vaccination seems to be causing a drift towards a higher incidence of disease caused by the 1, 2 serotype which is more likely to be associated with complications and admission to hospital (21). And all this without worrying about whether pertussis vaccination causes an increased incidence of asthma, allergic conditions, ear infections, invasive bacterial infections or severe, permanent neurological damage.


Note for the record: I am not anti-vax. We have not made a decision about vaccination or not, other than to delay vaxing at this stage.

This just serves to highlight that the decision is not as cut and dried as "will the vaccination protect my kid from getting x disease?".

[Barry]

Previously pertussis killed 5 out of every 1000 children born in the United States before their fifth birthday. Most deaths involved infants under 12 months of age.

Infant deaths from pertussis decreased by over 70% due to better nutrition, less overcrowding and smaller families. However, while deaths decreased, the number of reported cases stayed the same: About 20-30% of infants less than 12 months old with pertussis are so sick they are admitted to hospital; brain damage occurs in approximately 1 out of 400 of these hospitalized infants. Studies in Britain show that children who had pertussis in infancy have a much higher rate of learning and behaviour problems than children who did not have the infection.

In regards to information on the actual vaccines; the first "whole cell vaccine" was developed. However, it caused more adverse reactions in children than any other vaccine, including fever, fussiness, crying, drowsiness and vomiting. Less frequently, children had difficulty breathing or severe allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis (which can result in shock or obstruction of the air-ways).

Following which, a new whole cell vaccine removed the danger of anaphylaxis. Acetaminophen (eg: Panadol) reduced or removed other symptoms such as fever and crying.

After which then came an "Acellular vaccine" (a vaccine composed of purified proteins) this was introduced into Canadian vaccination programs. It causes fewer reactions and is just as effective as whole cell vaccine. In the future, the new vaccine may be used to boost adolescents and adults to provide increased protection.

Routine vaccination of infants and young children has resulted in a marked decline of pertussis in every country with a vaccination program. Contrary to popular belief, pertussis vaccine has not been proven to cause encephalopathy, brain damage, autism, infantile spasms, epilepsy, mental retardation, learning disorders, hyperactivity or sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Case Study #1 - Japan

Before 1950 - 100,000 cases of pertussis per year
1974 - 200-400 cases of pertussis per year; 2-3 deaths
1975 - Use of pertussis vaccine halted following the death of two infants after receiving the vaccine. Two months later, the ban was lifted when the deaths were found to be unrelated to the vaccine. However, due to unfavourable publicity, many parents chose not to have their children vaccinated.
1976-79 - The vaccination rate fell, resulting in an epidemic of pertussis; 13,000 reported cases and more than 100 deaths.


Case Study # 2 - England and Wales

1975 - Following news reports of the alleged dangers of pertussis vaccine, vaccination rates declined from 75% to 25%.
1977-79 - Lower vaccination rates led to an epidemic affecting more than 100,000 people, including 100 deaths.


Above sourced from:
1. National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) Statement on PREVENTION OF PERTUSSIS IN ADOLESCENTS AND ADULTS, Sept. 2003

2. Report from: National Consensus Conference on Pertussis, Toronto, May 25-28, 2002, Health Canada

[Barry]

By the way cosmic, I might also point out, the source you've quoted, whale.to, is very far from reliable, or neutral, see the first few points on their "read first" page:

1. Vaccines aren't safe, and are far more dangerous than the diseases. (Nice opening statement indicating how objective their approach is hey?)

2. Vaccination is the main cause of autism, and they are not looking for the truth in that regard, for the truth could destroy the medical industry with a 'dominoe effect.' (Never mind the fact this has been thoughly disproven & shown to be funded by lawyers looking to sue companies for money, and the parents of austisic children have even spoken out against the pressure they were put under to try and get their children involved.)

3. The diseases are safe in healthy well fed children under proper supervision. (I wouldn't wish polio on my child that's for sure).

4. Unhealthy, and/or malnourished children should not be vaccinated (ie most third world children). (So according to there own claims, this is the one group at risk, but they should just be left to get infected/die?)

4. The dangers of all the diseases have been massively hyped to sell vaccination (I've seen people suffering from post-polio which is bad enough let alone having suffered through the original battle against polio spent in an iron lung, a fight which left her disabled.)

5. The medical industry has lied to the public for decades over vaccination with the help of various propaganda ploys. As Orwell said, 'all propaganda is a lie, even when it is telling the truth'---it is unwise to take the medicine of an industry that lies. (Whilst any sane person realises companies market things, this is taking it to the total extreme, throwing in a George Orwell quote just adds to the lack of credibility - it's appealing to peoples emotions rather than providing facts for people to make a rational informed decision.)

So if someone is interested in the facts rather than agenda's I'd take anything on that site with a almighty huge, earth-sized grain of salt.

[Pippi Longstocking]

Whoops, my bad! I was thinking of the death rate rather than actual cases of pertussis. :o
I stand corrected.

Heh, what do you expect from a sleep deprived mum of 5? :p

It is still a valid point though. IMO, the vaccination carries a greater risk than actually contracting pertussis, especially given that the vaccination is far from effective. I speak from experience, I have had pertussis. As have three of my vaccinated children.
The pertussis vaccine is definitely one I have ruled out for Shine. I am undecided on the others. She will remain unvaccinated at least until the age of 2 years at which point my husband and I will consider selectively vaccing her.

[Barry]

It is still a valid point though. IMO, the vaccination carries a greater risk than actually contracting pertussis, especially given that the vaccination is far from effective.

As someone raised previous before everyone jumped on her, in this particular instance its proven that non vaccinated children are protected by the masses of vaccinated children - when vaccination raise fall, ala the above data, infection, hospitalisation, brain damage and death rates soar.

Also, the new vaccine isn't as bad as the original, the risks of which most people actually peddle even though it is not in use, that being said however, with everything in life there is inherent risk.

[Pippi Longstocking]

As someone raised previous before everyone jumped on her, in this particular instance its proven that non vaccinated children are protected by the masses of vaccinated children - when vaccination raise fall, ala the above data, infection, hospitalisation, brain damage and death rates soar.

A



*scratches head* I'm not sure what you are saying here Barry, particularly in conjunction with the part of my post that you quoted? Erm...myself and three of my children (the other two weren't born yet) weren't protected by herd immunity at all! We are vaccinated and herd immunity didn't do squat. Sure, the vaccination may have lowered the severity of the illness but it certainly didn't prevent it.

And as for this


Also, the new vaccine isn't as bad as the original "isn't as as bad as" isn't quite good enough when considering what I am choosing to inject in to my child.

[Barry]

Erm...myself and three of my children (the other two weren't born yet) weren't protected by herd immunity at all! We are vaccinated and herd immunity didn't do squat. Sure, the vaccination may have lowered the severity of the illness but it certainly didn't prevent it.

I was talking about the data provided.

That herd immunity did help you btw, it's been proven also that those who are vaccinated are less likely to get the disease, are less likely to pass the disease and also may pass along a comprimised disease which is far easier to combat.

Vaccination isn't solely designed to stop you getting something, but when you do get it you can fight it off easier, it teaches your body how to combat a foreign body, that's why once you get a certain flu, when you get it again it just brushes over you as opposed to bed-ridding you. The varying of brushes over depends with the verocity of the disease however the brain damage & death rates among pert. infected-vaccinated children are far, far smaller than those unvaccinated, so not only did you benefit from the herd, if you were vaccinated you had the upper hand also in terms of it ruining your life.



"isn't as as bad as" isn't quite good enough when considering what I am choosing to inject in to my child.

But if you are choosing to inject it into your child it makes an immense difference. Much like if you are in a burning building it's far easier to be able to walk out the front door than try and jump through a laminated glass window.

The differences may not have any influence on your decision, but it's not ethical for groups to tell people certain dangers about a vaccine exist when they don't, when they were for the old vaccine no longer used.

Fear mongering never results in a positive result, when someone chooses to, or not to vaccinate it should be there own decision and they should feel confident in that decision, else should the child then either have a vaccination side effect, or become ill, crippled, or die from a vaccination preventable diease they will be an emotional wreck, more than had they been confident in their decision and decided by themself it was the correct thing to do.

[cosmic]

Barry, I agree that it is difficult to find completely neutral information regarding vaccinations. But the government and medical websites that make broad, sweeping statements about the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations are, in my opinion, just as misleading and dangerous as the anti-vax ones. Which is why, where possible I try to go to original research. It's often hard to find the time unfortunately.

I think also, that no-one is disagreeing that the pertussis vaccination has lowered the incidence of pertussis infection. My point was that is not the only factor to be considered when deciding whether to vaccinate against pertussis. For eg. if vaccinating against pertussis meant my child would be more likely to contract meningococcal, I'd take my chances with whooping cough.

My reading suggests that vaccination against things like whooping cough and chicken pox means we aren't giving children the opportunity to build up a strong, resilient immune system; therefore they are suffering from chronic conditions as adults and further, they are not able to pass on immunity to babies. On the whole (and here comes a broad sweeping statement ;)) it would appear that vaccination is making our society LESS healthy. A very small percentage of children suffer extremely as a result of contracting these illnesses. Most get sick for a couple of weeks, get over it, and in the process have the opportunity to build a strong immune system. I personally think that's a good thing.

And with regard to people's 'agendas' - and this is a genuine question - what is the agenda of the anti-vax camp? On the pro-vax side, I can clearly see what's in it for GP's and pharmaceutical companies, but I'm not sure what anyone has to gain by encouraging people not to vaccinate?? :confused:

[cosmic]

that's why once you get a certain flu, when you get it again it just brushes over you as opposed to bed-ridding you.
I think that's the point I was making. Sometimes getting the illness is a PIA short-term, but has long-term benefits.

t's not ethical for groups to tell people certain dangers about a vaccine exist when they don't, when they were for the old vaccine no longer used.
True. But the fact that there were dangers with the old vaccine and thousands of children were injected with it before they changed it, frankly scares the pants off me. Same with the polio vaccine which was only changed..when?? 1995?? So how many kids were injected with live polio virus before they came up with a new 'safer' one? And how do we know that in 20 years time they won't be finding out what's actually wrong with all the stuff they're injecting into kids today?

[Barry]

Barry, I agree that it is difficult to find completely neutral information regarding vaccinations. But the government and medical websites that make broad, sweeping statements about the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations are, in my opinion, just as misleading and dangerous as the anti-vax ones.

Okay hold on let me get this straight.

When you quote incomplete information from the CDC that's fine.

When you quote information from a blatenty anti-vaccination site which has blantent falsities on it's website that's fine because it's "difficult to find completely neutral information"

But when the CDC is quoted by someone else "the government and medical websites that make broad, sweeping statements about the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations are, in my opinion, just as misleading and dangerous as the anti-vax ones"

Is there any source you trust? Where's your original research come from if the government, who actually does the collection, is untrustworthy?



And with regard to people's 'agendas' - and this is a genuine question - what is the agenda of the anti-vax camp? On the pro-vax side, I can clearly see what's in it for GP's and pharmaceutical companies, but I'm not sure what anyone has to gain by encouraging people not to vaccinate?? :confused:

Dr Andrew Wakefield, oft quoten, made hundreds of thousands through fabricating medical studies that resulted in negative vaccination information.

Lawyers, often quote the above person in baseless lawsuilts against doctors & companies in an attempt to extort funds for unproven links.

Various doctors obtain grants from groups to find certain links not others.

Various doctors, see my post above, give blantent one sided information in order to obtain lecture/speaking appointments and also sell books.

Organisation wise, take AVN, they used to have a name indicating they were against vaccinations, now they try to give the appearance they are neutral whilst being staunchly anti-vaccination. Going so far as to lie to parents and publish one-sided, disproven research (they regularly quote Dr Wakefield too!) the result? immense financial rewards for the group alone as well as it's main spokes people.

You may think the pharmaceutical companies have an agenda to make money, but all public companies have such a requirement else their shareholders would sue them. People however, have no research to blantently lie like the above other than the pure financial rewards they recieve for it.

Another example, the autism lawsuit in the UK, parents where pressued into becoming plantiffs and offered hundreds of thousands of dollars, to millions to say they believed there child had autism because of the vaccine.

This is more unethical and appalling than some of the worst things done by the nutjobs on the other side.

Trash-talking vaccines is a multi-million dollar industry which takes no responsibility for it's actions, ala the deaths in Japan & UK following their false publications about the safety of the then-used vaccines. As noted in the referenced case study in my above post:

Japan:
1975 - Use of pertussis vaccine halted following the death of two infants after receiving the vaccine. Two months later, the ban was lifted when the deaths were found to be unrelated to the vaccine. However, due to unfavourable publicity, many parents chose not to have their children vaccinated.
1976-79 - The vaccination rate fell, resulting in an epidemic of pertussis; 13,000 reported cases and more than 100 deaths.

England & Wales:
1975 - Following news reports of the alleged dangers of pertussis vaccine, vaccination rates declined from 75% to 25%.
1977-79 - Lower vaccination rates led to an epidemic affecting more than 100,000 people, including 100 deaths.

None of the anti-vaccination people took responsibility for their actions, they all cashed their cheques and infact some even brag about how the "vaccinators were punished" despite the majority of deaths and infections being the children of misled parents. Nice calibre of person eh?

[Barry]

True. But the fact that there were dangers with the old vaccine and thousands of children were injected with it before they changed it, frankly scares the pants off me.

It's a risk vs reward, like everything, hundreds of thousands of children were saved, a few thousand had varying side effects, in the big picture it was the best thing since sliced bread for that era, and since then it's been continually improved upon like all medication.

The medication I currently take has side effects, but without it I'm bedridden and unable to maintain anything close to a normal life, so I take the risk for the reward of being able to live a near-normal life and raise my child in a more rewarding fashion for both of us, but in a few years time it my be discovered that I'm worse off, but to me, spending these few years with my children will be worth it, even if that means I am going to be bed ridden again or die.



Same with the polio vaccine which was only changed..when?? 1995?? So how many kids were injected with live polio virus before they came up with a new 'safer' one?

Lets not forget it was responsible for nearly eradicating polio, a disease which gets you twice. The polio vaccine is noted as being on of all times greatest medical breakthroughs, it made the world a safer place by a real tangible margin.

Sabin was slowly phased out, it still given in 2005, my child had it. Being mildly smart and washing your hands after changing nappies and maintaining good hygiene for you & baby will prevent it from being passed on in all by fringe cases.




And how do we know that in 20 years time they won't be finding out what's actually wrong with all the stuff they're injecting into kids today?

There is pretty thorough testing, it's rare anything that is approved is harmful long term. But as I said above, it's a risk vs reward, the polio & pertussis vaccine alone has saved a immense amount of lives if something happens in the future then that will be something the parents who chose to vaccinate their children have to deal with, just as a parent who didn't vaccinate their child would have to deal with an infection that may have been prevented - this is why it's crucial people make their own decision and aren't brainwashed with false information or misleading information to one side or another.

[meme]

hoooboy, i do not want to get in between you two, especially when you both seem to be talking about similar things, aren't you both saying there are risks either way and that each parent needs to gather info and make the choice thats right for them? (no answer needed reaaly)


Sabin was slowly phased out, it still given in 2005, my child had it. Being mildly smart and washing your hands after changing nappies and maintaining good hygiene for you & baby will prevent it from being passed on in all by fringe cases.

the thng is that parents weren't tolfd of this, not told of the risk, nor told to be extra careful with hygeine...and that is not right, imo.

[Barry]

the thng is that parents weren't tolfd of this, not told of the risk, nor told to be extra careful with hygeine...and that is not right, imo.

I agree completely, it is wrong that some parents weren't told of the risks & how to handle the after care of their children.

It even happens today - some GP's don't thoroughly explain the risks of vaccines & aftercare & what to look out for in terms of possible side effects, that needs to be fixed.

However to take that to mean all vaccines should be banned or that bizarre conclusion that vacciness are useless and healthy children would be fine without it despite the masses of recorded infections and deaths is highly unethical. Not to mention profitting of providing such one sided or directly incorrect information.

[juna]

I have a question that might be a bit off topic but doesn't need it's own thread. DD2 is due for vaccinations shortly. If by that time I still haven't decided to vaccinate, is that going to affect her previous vacs and is there any kind of time limit as to when the vacs can be done.

[xkwzit]

Several off topic posts have been deleted. Please keep to the topic at hand w/o attacking the views of others. All posts are to be polite and friendly as per the site rules. If they are not, the thread will be closed (which would be a shame, because immunisation is a topic that we can't have enough information about.

Cheers

[shed]

WHERE can I get the information of who is catching what in our community? :detective:

Fr'instance, I would like to know how many cases of pertussis have been admitted into Liverpool hospital since 31st July 2006.

Also, how many cases of diphtheria. And how many cases of polio, measles and mumps.

Its not much point vaccinating him if he's not at risk of catching it in the first place.

[reAllytee]

hoooboy, i do not want to get in between you two, especially when you both seem to be talking about similar things, aren't you both saying there are risks either way and that each parent needs to gather info and make the choice thats right for them?

Yes im sitting here rather frustrated because of it lol.



the thng is that parents weren't tolfd of this, not told of the risk, nor told to be extra careful with hygeine...and that is not right, imo.

Now this is something that really peeves me off to the degree i have actually abused doctors & CHN's & others who blatantly lie or deceive. Drives me mental.

I hate both sides when they lie & do it as though they are proud of themselves :banghead:
Which is basically all Barry is trying to point out in his round about male way :rolleyes:
Basically be careful of all the info you get & i agree C it can be extremely hard to find all the right info etc so i can understand what you are saying.
We just do the best we can with the info we can find etc.



WHERE can I get the information of who is catching what in our community? :detective:

Fr'instance, I would like to know how many cases of pertussis have been admitted into Liverpool hospital since 31st July 2006.

Also, how many cases of diphtheria. And how many cases of polio, measles and mumps.

Its not much point vaccinating him if he's not at risk of catching it in the first place.

Thats the hard thing S but i do believe if you contact your local council you can get figures from them because they look after vax's etc themselves & tend to have info on all different things.
Also try the hospy they may be able to if not give you the info but pass you onto someone.
Oh & even your CHN ( hahah sorry i know you probably dont want to go there ! ) but they often have various stuff in regards to your area or should i say they should :rolleyes:

I will keep sifting through our stuff & see what i can find & because my mum does stuff through Canterbury hsopy & they are linked with Liverpool i might be able to get it off her.

[cosmic]

Shed, try this link.
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/chorep/toc/choindex.htm#Communicable_diseases

[cosmic]

Very interesting, PP. :yes: Almost zero death rates from measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diptheria and Hib too.

Pneumococcal a bit scarier though. Must do some more research into that one. :detective:

[kboo]

I didnt realise the death rates were so low for Whooping cough. Only one death in 5 years, thats great.

Only one death? "Thats great" unless it is someone you know who died. Then it should be no deaths. That would be "great".

Very interesting, PP. :yes: Almost zero death rates from measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diptheria and Hib too.
Pneumococcal a bit scarier though. Must do some more research into that one. :detective:
Almost no deaths isn't good enough for me either. There is alot of hospitilisations for some of these diseases with the potential for them to be fatal. Luck of the draw I suppose of who gets sick in the first place - maybe sick enough to die... BIG decision.

[the_queen]

Luck of the draw whether your child has a severe adverse reaction to the vaccine, too. An adverse reaction that perhaps doesn't show itself straight away.

VERY big decision.

[cosmic]

Only one death? "Thats great" unless it is someone you know who died. Then it should be no deaths. That would be "great".

Kboo, there are also "very few" extreme adverse reactions to vaccinations. Not zero. Some kids do have extreme reactions, resulting in permanent disability or even death.

It's a matter of weighing up the risks, and regrettably there isn't an option that involves NO risk whatsoever.

[theycallmemum]

Luck of the draw whether your child has a severe adverse reaction to the vaccine, too. An adverse reaction that perhaps doesn't show itself straight away.

VERY big decision.

Yes, we are living it. No vaccines are 100% safe.

[Duchessa]

Absolutely! There are so many reasons why catching the disease itself is a reasonable option. Not the least because most of these diseases are NOT THAT SCARY. What a lot of hype.

[kiah24]

I don't vax.
myself and my three sisters aged 19 - 27 yrs old were never vax'd. We had measles as kids - which we caught off our vax'd friends - there goes your herd protection theory. Oh, for herd protection to actually work, if you even believe it does, a huge percentage of the population has to be immune (not just vax'd as the vax's aren't even 100% effective). The vax rates just don't account for that.
I'm immune to rubella tho we have no recollection of me contracting it.
I had chickenpox, no big deal, I've had colds which were more miserable!
To me I think why run the risk of my child having a vax reaction when there might not even be the possibility of them even contracting the disease??? And if they do contract the disease - I know how to treat it. The immune system is an amazing thing and needs to be built up and maintained for optimal health. Why is it my 2 yr old non-vax'd DD can play with 4 chickenpox infected children and not get any signs of the disease? This happend 2 months ago and I'm not even worried if she does get it - on the contrary I'd be quite content for her to catch this disease. These kids were ill for a week, happy with the spots and a slight temp for 2 days (if that) so where's the problem?
Why do we get told of the hundreds of children dying from chickenpox, where are these kids? what are their living conditions?
More children die from diarrhoea than measles in underdeveloped countries (according to the WHO).
There is such thing as natural immunity to tetanus! 'Herd protection' plays no part there as it's non-communicable. tetanus spores are EVERYWHERE and such a large proportion of adults are not covered for tetanus so why aren't we all dropping like flies??? Because of hygiene, improved living conditions, diet and the knowledge of how to treat the problems when they arise.
I think the CDC estimates about 20 deaths per year due to whooping cough. In only nine months of last year the CDC recorded 39 deaths DIRECTLY related to vaccines. These deaths all occured within minutes or hours of receiving vaccines. The AVN has HUGE amounts of data on the adverse reactions to vaccines.
Most ppl who don't vax don't get their info from unreliable sources but from the govt. sites and CDC, pubmed. etc. etc.
My mum is a natural therapist, of all the children she has treated over the years for these 'Vaccine Preventable Diseases' (yeah right) she says at least 95% of them were vaccinated against the exact diseases she was treating!
Hilary Butler from NZ has treated and cured many children suffering whooping cough and life threatening complications using 'alternative' cures. Even babies under 6 months old who are considered 'most at risk'.
Kiah

[BeachBaby3]

We had measles as kids - which we caught off our vax'd friends

Did your friends have the disease or just carry it?

[kiwibird27]

Diptheria, Tetanus, Hepatitis B, Polio, Hib, Pertussis, pneumacoccal, Rubella


Possible side effects.....Death, severe pain, physical or Cognitive impairment

Whooping cough - Yes only one actual death but have you seen a child in intensive care (for months) trying to recover from a bad case of whooping cough - he didn't actually die so didn't make it into the statistic's, I have seen it, it happens!!!!

kiah24 - congradulations, you are like the majority of people who have no problems wether they are vaxed or not. You are normal - we are talking about a minority and I would rather my child get sick because I was trying to keep them well, than get sick because I chose to do nothing.

Just my opinion folks, please don't get annoyed with me!!!!

[Refresh]

because I chose to do nothing.

...but those of us who don't vax haven't "chosen to do nothing"...most of us have spent countless hours agonising and researching the facts before making this decision.

I think that;s part of what it comes down to for each and everyone of us....which would make you feel worse? Which decision can you live with?

For us, we would feel worse if something happened as a result of knowingly injecting chemicals into our kids. JMO

[the_queen]

Oh Katie. You said just what I was thinking, but in a much nicer way :) You just saved me from an infraction, thank you :)

[Refresh]

LOL....anytime Queenie:D

[Pippi Longstocking]

Oh Katie. You said just what I was thinking, but in a much nicer way :) You just saved me from an infraction, thank you :)

Same here :D .

[Refresh]

Lol...;)

[Duchessa]

Gawd... and me!

Hey guys! Guess what the possible side effects of vaccination are??? Nah carn... Guess....


























Death, severe pain, physical or Cognitive impairment

[ShadyCharacter]

You're kidding Duchessa?! :idea:

And I just didn't vax because I am lazy - what a bonus to avoid those risks :thumbsup:

[kymmy]

Its very interesting you mention the asking about allergies thing ALLYOO :D as when I told my doc that DH's family has very strong history of allergies, asthma, eczema etc she said that is not a reason NOT to vaccinate...:eek:

Seems they want to wait til DS HAS a severe reaction before they will say "ok he shouldnt have them"
Yeah they sure did that with my big boy - he is NOT a guinea pig. :(
Very interesting information in this thread. :yes:

[bindiloo]

Ill put this list in this thread aswell for anyones interest.
http://www.homeopathyoz.org/downloads/Vaccine%20Ingredients.pdf

[lotti]

Thiomersal (INN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nonproprietary_Name)) (C9H9HgNaO2S), formerly and still commonly known in the United States as thimerosal, is an organomercury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organomercury) compound (approximately 49% mercury by weight) used as an antiseptic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiseptic) and antifungal agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifungal_agent).
It was developed and registered under the trade name Merthiolate in 1929 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929) by the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Lilly_and_Company), and has been used as a preservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preservative) in vaccines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine), immune globulin preparations, skin test antigens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergy#Diagnosis), antivenins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivenin), ophthalmic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophthalmology) and nasal products, and tattoo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattoo) inks.
The compound is being phased out from most childhood vaccinations. Packaging the vaccines in single-dose vials eliminates the need for bacteriostatics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriostatic) such as thiomersal.

Just a note incase anyone was concerned with this one. Your GP probably doesn't even have it anymore. Worth checking if you do vaccinate.

[nic28]

We thought long and hard before our baby was born whether to vaccinate, and basically we chose to vaccinate purely because everybody else does and society looks down on you if you choose not too. Now I feel totally sick and horrifed everytime I have to get her vaccinated.

I am especially worried about the MMR one. A friend recommended that I take her to a natropath and they will give her something to build up her immune system before she gets the Vax....has anyone else heard of this??

[Harriet]

Some homoeopaths will give the particular vaccine in a homoeopathically prepared form before and/or after vaccines to counteract damaging effects and protect the vital force.

http://www.tinussmits.com/english/dynamic.htm?main=pvs/dynamic.htm?main1=http://www.tinussmits.com/english/pvs/prevention.htm

Others use a remedy called Thuja a few days before and after vaccinations.

You would be best off making an appointment to see a homoeopath - especially for the potentised vaccines. They will be unavailable over the counter.

Good on you:thumbsup:

[prideNJoy]

nic28
We thought long and hard before our baby was born whether to vaccinate, and basically we chose to vaccinate purely because everybody else does and society looks down on you if you choose not too. Now I feel totally sick and horrifed everytime I have to get her vaccinated.

I am especially worried about the MMR one. A friend recommended that I take her to a natropath and they will give her something to build up her immune system before she gets the Vax....has anyone else heard of this??


If you feel this bad when you have to take your bubs to get a vacccination then maybe you need to listen to that gut instinct.
We get these overwhelming feelings for a reason, to help protect ourselves. :yes:
You DONT have to continue with the vaccinations if it no longer feels like the right thing to do!
But to answer your question, yes you can go to a Naturopath or a Homeopath to help build the immune system before a vacc or after to help combat the side affects that come with most vaccines.:)