Registered User
I have to agree with PB here - with this "epidemic", stats that 98% are immunised - it just doesnt sit right.
ANd I would much rather my little bundle to not have nasty heavy metals injected into her beautiful little body!
google thimerserol.............
Registered User
The problem is though, that we might try and keep our kids away from infected people but it just doesn't happen. Eg, Dad goes off to work where his colleague shows up coughing and sneezing, passes it on to Dad. Dad comes home and passes it on to Mum and Mum passes it on to bub. PB, I agree that sick people should stay away from others, but they just don't and that sucks.
Like Hisista says, most adults are not immune to whooping cough and if they get it, they wouldn't even know for a couple of weeks, because it starts off with a runny nose which is the most infectious period.
I guess one has to weigh up whether the risk of immunising outweighs the risk of not immunising.
Registered User
This is so true hun. I have absolutely nothing against immunisations - in theory. What concerns me is the preservatives and the heavy metals contained within those preservatives. I am also skeptical of live viruses being used in some newer vaccines.
But I dont think there is a real need for some vaccines - such as chicken pox, I think (JMO) this is more a vaccine for convenience for our modern day world- if you are a family with both working parents and a few kids you simply cant afford a few weeks off with each of them! Same as the flu vac (which i just think will lead to a super flu bug if we all dont build up natural immunities) ........... the list goes on
I'm not well enough to post in a legible way. But Janie - you are right of course. Babies have animmune system - it just takes time to develop so I really don't understand that comment.
I will BBL when I am not dopey on meds...
BellyBelly Member
So true.
But when such a high percentage, (the 98% of vac'ed folks) still get chicken pox,whooping cough, flu's etc.. I just dont see the point in having a potentially dangerous and very heavily chemical vac,(including animal blood products, formaldahyde and mercury) and then also the diesese anyway...
Its a catch 22, and I rethink and research each time her vac date comes around!!
One major sway for me was my mums work mate. He is microbiologist, (specialising in some blood thingy) and flatly refuses all vac's, for himself and kids. He is supposed to get regular vacs due to his job, but doesn't. He told mum if I showed you what goes in it, you would never put it your blood stream, and definatly not a babies.
I wonder if anyone can help me here too.... I would like figures on what percentage of Vaccinated kids still get childhood dieseses... like chiken pox,whooping cough etc compaired to unvaccinated kids??
Everyone I know has had chicken pox, and I got it real bad, and was vaccinated.
Just how effective are they?? If you are around someone with a diesese, and you had 2 kids there, one immunised, one not, what is the chance of each child catching it too???
I have just never heard of a sick child playing with a healthy vac'ed kid, and the kid not get sick because of vac. Maybe due to being clean and careful, but from an actual vac?? As kids, if one kid got something, we all got it anyway...
Did that make any sense?? I know what I mean....
Registered User
PB, I've had a quick google and the closest info I could find was the following article from the JAMA on the vaccination org au website. The numbers are an American study, but I guess Aust would probably be similar.
Also, I totally understand what you're saying, why vaccinate if you're going to get sick anyway? It's that reason why I don't get a flu shot every year. Although, I think it is good for certain types of people to get the flu shot, such as chronic asthmatics, the elderly, etc, etc.
More food for thought, either way unvaccinated children will still get sick just as vaccinated children will, but will the unvaccinated children suffer more from the illness than the vaccinated children...?
Exemptors from vaccination also increase risk for some vaccinated children.
CHICAGO -- Children who are exempt from immunization for religious or philosophical reasons have a higher risk of measles and pertussis, according to an article in the December 27 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association. Parents and public health personnel should be aware of the risks involved in not vaccinating children and the potential impact on the community, the authors add.
Daniel R. Feikin, M.D., M.S.P.H., of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study to evaluate whether personal exemption from immunization is associated with the risk of measles and pertussis at individual and community levels. They collected data on standardized forms regarding all reported measles and pertussis cases among children aged 3 to 18 in Colorado during 1987-1998.
According to background information cited in the study, 48 states allow exemptions from mandatory vaccination for religious reasons, and 15 states allow philosophical exemptions. Exemptions based on medical grounds are allowed in all states. A recent study showed that the risk of measles infection during 1985-1992 in the United States was, on average, 35 times greater in children with personal exemptions compared with vaccinated children.
In Colorado, the percentage of school-aged children who were unvaccinated as a result of personal exemptions in 1994 was 1.4 percent, more than twice the national average of 0.6 percent.
The authors assessed the relative risk of measles and pertussis among exemptors and vaccinated children, the association between incidence rates among vaccinated children and the frequency of exemptors in Colorado counties, the association between school outbreaks and the frequency of exemptors in schools, and the risk associated with exposure to an exemptor in measles outbreaks.
During 1987-1998, there were 45 cases of measles among exemptors aged 3-18 and 137 cases among similarly aged vaccinated children. From 1996-1998, there were 36 cases of pertussis among exemptors and 346 among vaccinated children aged 3-18. But since the total number of exemptor children was much smaller than the total number of vaccinated children, their risks of these infections were much greater.
"Exemptors were 22.2 times more likely to acquire measles and 5.9 times more likely to acquire pertussis than vaccinated children," they write.
"In children of day care and primary school age [age 3 to 10 years], in whom contact rates and susceptibility are higher, these risks were approximately 62-fold and 16-fold greater among exemptors for measles and pertussis, respectively," they continue.
The authors measured the impact of children with personal exemptions on community risk. "After adjusting for confounders, the frequency of exemptors in a county was associated with the incidence rate of measles [1.6 times greater risk] and pertussis [1.9 times greater risk] in vaccinated children," they write. Also, "schools with pertussis outbreaks had more exemptors (mean 4.3 percent of students) than schools without outbreaks (1.5 percent of students)," they continue. "At least 11 percent of vaccinated children in measles outbreaks acquired infection through contact with an exemptor."
The authors assert that the decision to forgo vaccination must balance individual rights with social responsibility. "If all vaccine-preventable diseases were confined to the individual (e.g., tetanus), the consequences of forgoing vaccination would fall only on the child whose parents made the decision. Most vaccine-preventable diseases, however, are spread from person to person. Therefore, the health of any individual in the community is intricately dependent on the health of the rest of that community," they write.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks