Melb baby dies of whooping cough...

[JellyBean]

Firstly...whoa. Seems ages since I've been in here and look at this wonderful debate! Didn't realise we had so much in common SAHD - I too am at home taking care of 2 kids and 4 chickens.... lol

Now add to that the fact this enzyme is not at 100% (full maturity) in children until they are two years old, vaccination for children that have a genetic disposition to have sluggish/ineffective enzyme production are going to cope a double whammy. They will be in an extended deficit for too long, and it eventually starts to cause damage. This is toxic load. Some reach it sooner than others relative to their how ineffective their enzyme system was in comparison to the chemical claims made upon that system.

Yes. The Japanese example would strengthen this argument.
In Japan, from 1970 to 1974 there were 37 documented infant deaths following pertussis vaccinations. (Noble, G.R., et al. "Acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines in Japan: report of a visit from U.S scientists. JAMA, 1987;257:1351-56).
Doctors boycotted the vaccine, and in 1975, Japanese authorities raised the age of vaccination from two months to two years. Therefore, under this law, no child was permitted to receive a vaccine until they reached the age of 2 years. As a result, babies stopped dying unexpectedly. According to writing in Pediatrics, "the category of 'sudden death' is instructive in that the entity disappeared following both whole-cell and acellular vaccines when immunization was delayed until a child was 24 months of age." Cherry, J.D., et al. "Report on the task force of pertussis and pertussus immunization." Pediatrics (June 1988);81(6):993-84
In fact, the Japanese infant mortality rate improved from 17th place to best in the world. Scott, J. "Report: U.S slips in fight to cut infant mortality" Press and Sun Bulletin (Los Angeles Times, March 1, 1990).

And all this talk of using old or new references is really stifling, and irrelevant, I believe. Sure, it looks great in theory to only have recent studies to back your views, but we cannot simply discredit 'old' scientific papers based upon their date. Most of the research that supports the widely accepted view that smoking is hazardous to health dates as far back as the 1930's. It is unlikely that we will need to re-examine the case against smoking in another 50 years to see if smoking cigarettes still increases the risk of cancer.
Similarly, vaccines have not changed all that much since the 1970's. Sure, mercury (thimerosal) may have been pulled from a number of childhood vaccines due to public pressure and studies strengthening the case for mercury-induced vaccine reactions. (Note that thimerosal is still present in the current flu vaccine including last years which caused quite a debacle).
If formaldehyde was a listed human carcinogen and considered toxic to humans and animals in 1970, it's quite likely that the case will still apply today.
The main difference in vaccines from the 1970's, 1980's to present day is that we now have a heck of lot more vaccines added to the immunisation schedule, and that equals a heck of a lot more aluminium, formaldehyde and other toxic ingredients being injected directly into the blood stream and bypassing our very important mucous membranes (our first defence against disease). Add this to the fact that (as SAHD mentioned) our environment is rapidly changing and our children are exposed to greater environmental toxicity than previous generations, and you have an ironic situation where a greater number of immune-compromised individuals are exposed to far greater levels of carcinogenic and toxic compounds.

Furthermore, can I just clarify that non-vaccinating parents/professionals etc are not out 'to get' and 'bring down' pharma companies, or even to see an end to vaccination. We only wish the following; that science and pharma companies, with anti-vaccine health professionals and families alike, work together to devise means that will provide safer ways to innoculate against disease and trigger antibody response. This would require;
- eradification and replacement of toxic ingredients such as formaldehyde (sad that I even have to write that).
- increased oral administration of vaccines, so that pathogens are permitted to by-pass the mucous membranes, the natural route of administration for such pathogens whereby lasting immunity can occur (I believe this proposal is currently being examined for development).
- Dosage and quantity of vaccines varied so that vaccines can be administered in amounts that are relative to body mass, age, and immune status (I'm not just talking about having a fever of cold), rather than a blanket dosage which applies to all.
- A vaccine schedule that is administered in relation to developments in immune response.

Until these demands are met, I don't believe that any real progress can be made with regards to this debate, and sadly, the rate of vaccine injured infants and children will remain unchanged, leading to the slow but steadily increasing number of non-vaccinating families.