Melb baby dies of whooping cough...

:

---

Question for you RSAHD, as I'm genuinely curious - is there anything anyone could EVER say that would get you to even consider the discussion with an open mind? So far I've only seen you punch down what everyone else has to say, be it the science or the delivery or your thoughts on the person. Is this even a discussion?

---

Er, you got me. I was being mean but I have a bug to bear with the AVN (obviously). A lot of interesting people have made a lot of good points on this thread that have made have a second or third look at a lot of things I took for granted. Things said here have caused me to spend a lot of time researching and thinking which is always a good thing.

I'm sorry that I give you that impression, ill think about that too and try to be more open minded!

Addit: I don't mean to disregard or 'punch down' anything anyone has to say. I do consider everything written but I will appear dismissive if I think that someone is bringing information into the discussion which is flawed or not well thought out. Sometimes thats me and I'm glad to be corrected!

:

---

I'm not so sure of that, Yeddi is pretty adamant that vaccines don't work at all and i'm sure she would be happier to see a return of treatment with herbs as a health department priority ;) I'm very cautious about the AVN too, they are my favourite anti-science organisation!

Thanks for your unreferenced AVN style comments JellyBean, all I have to say about peanut oil in vaccines is that if you did accidentally inject peanut products into the bloodstream of a person with peanut allergies they would die a very rapid and messy death. A death very very obviously caused by allergens in the vaccine and as you know such allergies are common enough to create some very messy news headlines!

---

Firstly, I do recall Yeddi writing about nasal spray options for inoculation and that she would be in favour of them.
Secondly, The information I provided was not sourced from the AVN RSAHD - I'm assuming from your assumption that you didn't read the material. I was merely putting the info across so people could read and understand the basis of the argument. Most of us who frequent this forum have university degrees in one area or another - we have all had our fair share of "peer reviewed evidence-based double-blind placebo-controlled and referenced" rhetoric shoved down our throats, the same rules need not apply here, in a public forum for parents from all walks of life. I find your penchant for belittling people for their apparent 'lack of evidence' extremely arrogant. Besides, I notice you made no mention of the referenced articles I provided refering to the Japanese infant mortality rate. Nor have you provided much peer-reviewed medical literature to back up your views yourself. Not that we care - your opinion is always valid here. :lol:

My good friend who is allergic to peanuts was advised recently not to receive vaccinations whilst in a maternity hospital after giving birth. So there is some awareness of the contra-indication out there. And yes - you're right about the reaction. Unfortunately they are not uncommon. The sad thing is that because parents (and many health professionals) are unaware that many vaccines contain peanut oil, they do not realise that they are experimenting by injecting this protein intravenously prior to the introduction of the substance naturally (orally) which is not recommended until after 12 months. Thankfully most parents are aware of the threat of introducing nuts in the diet and are very cautious when doing so. Again, I'm yet to speak to the parent of an unvaccinated child with nut, egg or latex allergies. And I've spoken to many!

Furthermore, Meryl of the AVN was pro-vaccination for many years (as were all of us, actually!) She has 2 vaccinated children and one unvaccinated. The second child suffered a severe reaction which prompted her to dig deeper and discover that her child's case was not unique. People don't become anti-vaccination on a whim. There are plenty of peer - reviewed articles on the AVN website, and Meryl is a very selfless person, she has given so much of her time and resources to families who have suffered great trials. She earns zero for doing what she wholeheartedly believes is bringing truth to light and trying to gain validation and compensation for what many families feel is a hopeless and futile situation.
I suggest you attend the next vaccine awareness seminar in Perth and speak to the parents of vaccine damaged children. If peer reviewed studies are not enough to open your mind, perhaps watching a father break down in front of you whilst he details the events which typify a severe vaccine reaction and changed the fabric of his child's personality and physical capabilities in a matter of hours or days will strike a cord.

It is not possible to scientifically control and record every situation and reaction. But as a father you must surely recognise that no-one knows your child as intimately as you or your wife. And particularly for mothers in those early months who are with their children breastfeeding around the clock, our children are our science - and we are the most reputable sources to speak on their behalf. We don't need a doctor in a white coat with an initial next to their name to confirm whether our claims are valid or not - whether there is a link or not. We are the witnesses and our truth is a lived experience which speaks louder than words on paper. There are some areas where science just can't go - and other areas where science may not want to go.

Oh, and what you wrote about the dosage - there are plenty of doctors who disagree and believe that the dosage should be modified according to weight, age etc.
I strongly urge you to watch the DVD - 'Vaccination - The Hidden Truth' (yeah - conspiracy theorists at it again - must be earning a fortune for voluntarily putting their careers on the stake) in order to hear a number of accredited specialists from various walks of life comment on the issues regarding vaccination, and what can be done to improve the situation. Medicine should not ever be a closed door - it should always be progressive. Constantly trying to dismiss people's claims (professional or otherwise) is not only arrogant but it is downright dangerous. People don't oppose vaccination for fun or for money - for it offers neither. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the opposite side of the fence. Vaccines do earn a small amount of people a very large profit. They are a patented concoction and the owners of these patents have good reasons to dismiss or downplay any negative claims, or fund studies which favour their practices. It's not uncommon in big business for positive change to occur only when the threat from not changing becomes greater than the profit itself.
As I mentioned before, we want to affect change, not abolition. If nothing changes with vaccines, the rate of life threatening and cognitive altering reactions will not change. The only thing that will change is the number of families turning away from vaccines. So sadly, perhaps this is what is required for real change to occur afterall......

:

---

Check that, you added a book! I'd appreciate it if you could summarise a bit, I got bored and and distracted like any modern vaccine induced ADHD victim.

---

Got to agree with Keike. Posts like the one above make it seem like you have little to no respect for people who question Vax. It is fallacious to assume that a non-vaxer is causing all the disease problems in Australia. I have already proven that to you. Using World Health Organisation figures as well. So no, the non vaxxers are not responsible for the current uncontrolled whooping cough epidemic that has been plaguing Australia for years now. The majority of people diagnosed with whooping cough are adults. Something like 75%. Instead of sitting here speaking down to women who are trying to do the right thing by their baby, walk up to the next adult you see and ask them Have they had their Whooping cough booster?

The risk is not coming from the people saying "Is pumping a ****tail of disease and toxins in my 2mo baby a good idea?". It is coming from the people who are misdirecting the public of the real cause by saying "It's all their fault". 92% coverage at 2yo. If we are lucky, it would be 20% at 30 years old.

The maths are easy.

:

---

Got to agree with Keike. Posts like the one above make it seem like you have little to no respect for people who question Vax.

---

Thats fair enough, it was a stupid comment and I apologise. I shouldn't have made fun of Jellybean or people with ADHD!

What I should've written is that Jellybeans post was excessive and that if you understand enough of an article to justify cutting and pasting then you can summarise the important points.

We have discussed the pertussis vaccine Inertia, i'm not sure what your getting at. I understand that the new strains are an issue, though I did disagree with you on how much of an issue it is. Just out of interest and not because it proves anything at all, this is a link to a study in the US where kids without pertussis immunisations have a higher infection rate:
Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children -- Glanz et al. 123 (6): 1446 -- Pediatrics

Gotta say RSAHD, you're pretty quick on the ol' apology :clap: :)

:

---

Firstly, I do recall Yeddi writing about nasal spray options for inoculation and that she would be in favour of them.

---

Yeddi is frequently mis quoted and I'm sure she would take exception to having it claimed that she supports vaccination!


I appreciate you saying that parents know best. I would hope that I do know what, innately, is best for my children. Unfortunately were all human and we exaggerate, we see what we want to see and we do what we have to do to protect our children if we think we have to. As a parent I hope you'll appreciate that getting a few hours sleep severely effects my memory!

This is a complicated subject. I appreciate you trying to show me the face of suffering from vaccination but I've seen enough. You'll have to appreciate, too, that I've seen plenty of suffering from preventable diseases but I do my best not to bring that pain into these discussions.

I appreciate that you have been badly affected by the stringent requirements of research but sometimes it's the only way to wade through emotion and opinion. Doctors and nurses are opinionated too and emotional, I know many and have a really good idea about the training for each. Often understanding is low and opinion high because of the huge amount of information around, especially if they're a long time out of medical school. So quoting a doctor or nurse is sometimes no better than anyones slightly informed opinion. Science dares to go where human memories or individual experiences cannot, thats why we have science now instead of old wives tales, witchdoctors, rumors and prejudice. Where we have to account for the opinions and intuitions of billions of people. If you trust a witness to remember what they saw, you'd better hope thats not in court and that its not important. Any jurist knows how a witnesses testimony can be swayed or change with time!

I don't expect anyone to listen to my opinions but I would hope that you would listen to my reasoning.

If you post saying that peanut oil has to be in vaccines have you really though about it? Are you telling me that only baby vaccines have it and that adult vaccines contain no peanut or latex? What about the doctors or nurses exposed to the peanut in the vaccine?

Do you know why vaccines are manufactured using eggs? Do you know why vaccines without egg, peanut or latex would still give allergic reactions? I don't expect to put you in any kind of place but I do expect you to think about it and make me think!

PS I don't think you would like to know my opinion of Meryl BTW, especially in relation to harrassing the parents of dead babies and manipulating/falsifying data. Its not a nice one.

:

---

Yeddi is frequently mis quoted and I'm sure she would take exception to having it claimed that she supports vaccination!

---

Actually, Jelly Bean isn't misquoting (yay, someone took the time to read what was actually written), I did say that I would consider nasal spray vaccines as long as they didn't contain the toxic substances because I don't like deliberately sticking things like mercury, aluminium, this generations asbestos equivalent - formaldehyde, acetone (aka nail polish remover and a substance that can also be used to make chemical explosives), among other things into my or my children's body. When it's written out like that, it only solidifies to me how crazy the idea sounds. You might argue that the amounts of these substances put into vaccines are the lowest necessary to be effective, that doesn't mean they are the lowest to be safe, particularly seeing as there are no safe amounts for many of these things.

As for the science... how many years did parents say red cordial could make their kids a little crazy and the medical establishment and science said they were making ridiculous leaps. Now, amazingly enough red cordial, among other food products, have been scientifically proven to effect behaviour. How many years did parents say that giving their children cod liver oil was beneficial and again they were fobbed off. Now we're constantly being told to make sure we have our omega 3's and it's often put in as an additive here there and everywhere. For how many years did mothers say that Thalidomide was responsible for their children's birth defects or death before all the dead and mangled babies made it so they couldn't deny it anymore and it was finally taken off the market. Yes, scientific evidence is good, but it shouldn't fly in the face of basic common sense. My common sense says deliberately sticking known carcinogens and poisons in your veins and telling someone it's good for them is not common sense.

:

---

Actually, Jelly Bean isn't misquoting (yay, someone took the time to read what was actually written), I did say that I would consider nasal spray vaccines as long as they didn't contain the toxic substances

---

Why would you have someone stick something random up your childs nose!! If someone wanted to stick a sugar pill up my childs nose claiming it cured cancer I would quickly tell them where they could stick it! ;)

1950's before the polio vaccine people thought kids would get polio if they played in the mud puddles after a rain. The cure for sunburn used to be rubbing fat into the burn. Hindsight is an amazing thing and when thalidomide was studied, yes a connection to birth defects was found but when population studies on autism and vaccines were conducted and complicated studies on biological reactions to mercury additives in vaccines.... There has still been no link found, despite what Dr Haley claims.

The jury is even still out on omega 3...

I don't want to discount anyones female parently intuition but these issues are complicated.

If your going to complain about toxic additives thats fair and I agree with you but making unfounded claims about them causing massive increases in disease and huge government conspiracies is taking things a bit far IMHO.

:

---

1950's before the polio vaccine people thought kids would get polio if they played in the mud puddles after a rain. The cure for sunburn used to be rubbing fat into the burn.

---

:ROFL: Sorry, slightly off topic - but not the best examples. Poliovirus is most commonly transferred through fecal matter. So playing in mud in open areas, in places that don't have enclosed sewage systems, where rain could create run off isn't actually that out there for those parents to believe. As for the butter, that was the recommended treatment of burns by doctors since the 1800's. Butter for burns didn't come from old wives tales, for many years the old wives tale was the one that suggested that rain water or captured snow that was melted was the best treatment (very smart of them seeing that unknown to them that this particular water as opposed to any other water would be the most free from infection causing nasties), but they were still being fobbed off right up until the 1970's because it was just water, and there was this strong belief that something more was needed.

:

---

Check that, you added a book! I'd appreciate it if you could summarise a bit, I got bored and and distracted like any modern vaccine induced ADHD victim.

---

I've been following this thread but haven't posted. I'm by no means as well researched nor do I have on hand references. But it is good to read, and find more resources to look into. Thank you too all for contributing. Not sure how much validity I would hold for your contributions thought RSAHD seeing as you get so bored and distracted;) I prefer my info from more focused posters, from either side of the debate.
After your last uneducated statements about the ease of living with autism compared to being crippled by Polio, I would have thought you'd re-think your sarcastic comments rather than having a poke at ADHD sufferers as well. But maybe that's just me :dunno:

:

---

As for the science... how many years did parents say red cordial could make their kids a little crazy and the medical establishment and science said they were making ridiculous leaps. Now, amazingly enough red cordial, among other food products, have been scientifically proven to effect behaviour. How many years did parents say that giving their children cod liver oil was beneficial and again they were fobbed off. Now we're constantly being told to make sure we have our omega 3's and it's often put in as an additive here there and everywhere. For how many years did mothers say that Thalidomide was responsible for their children's birth defects or death before all the dead and mangled babies made it so they couldn't deny it anymore and it was finally taken off the market. Yes, scientific evidence is good, but it shouldn't fly in the face of basic common sense. My common sense says deliberately sticking known carcinogens and poisons in your veins and telling someone it's good for them is not common sense.

---

Wasn't really that long ago that doctors told patients how beneficial smoking was for your health too. Actually it was only 37 years ago that my own mother was pregnant, and when she asked if she should stop smoking now that she was pregnant, her doctor told her no. With the reasoning being it could be stressful and that the stress would do more damage than the smoking. So the medical profession have been known to be wrong in the past, and on quite a large scale too. Because I'm pretty sure smoking is now not recommended by doctors and actually discouraged.

There is actually an old poster up in my DPs doctors surgery saying "9 out of 10 doctors recommend Camel" complete with picture of a doctor in his white coat having a smoke!

:

---

I don't want to discount anyones female parently intuition but these issues are complicated.

---

Sexist remarks do not help your cause either.

And that was possibly the single most pointless study you have linked yet. Well duh unvaxed children are at more risk.

How exactly does that relate to our extremely poor adult vax rate?

And this line, wth? "11% of all pertussis cases were attributed to parental vaccine refusal."

Pretty sure that is NOT how pertussis starts. Unvaccinated children do not create whooping cough out of thin air. They catch it off someone. I also assume that means that the other 89% were vaccinated? Or perhaps like in Australia, 75% of them were adults who have not had a booster!

But, ignore that it is only 8% of the population at 12 months old when mum and dad are making the decisions and about 80% of the population at 21 years old when we are making the decisions for ourselves.

Canada has 80% coverage at 12 months. They have a fraction of the Pertussis cases that we do. Their schedule also has DTaP booster at 4-6yrs and a TDaP booster at 14-16 years. Same with the US, the UK, Japan - all those countries with varies vaccine coverage rates and low cases per capita.

The answer all along was the adult population. In the 2006 census, 4.2m of the 19.8mil population were under the age of 17. Pertussis is considered worn off by 16yo. 15.6m were potentially unvaccinated. I say potentially because the idea of a booster is only very new. 2009 at best. So in 2006, taking the 8% of vaccine refusals and adding a generous amount of 20% adults for a concept that was not readily promoted, 12.8 million of the 19.8 million Australians were not adequately vaccinated against Whooping cough.

That is not herd immunity.

:

---

And that was possibly the single most pointless study you have linked yet. Well duh unvaxed children are at more risk.

---

He posted this for me and actually there have been numerous studies that show that unvaxed kids have the same level of infection as vaxed kids.

Sorry Rockin, but one study does not make a trend, particularly one as flawed as this one, this one has so many holes in it it's not funny. The methodology is SO dodgy. As my DH would say, it's been conducted in a way to get the result they want while appearing to do the right thing, sort of how the ban on homosexuals donating blood has now been lifted in the UK... as long as they haven't had sex for ten years, it's a way of looking to do the right thing, while making it practically impossible to have any other result than the one they want.

For instance, California have a system in place where they can have provisional whooping cough diagnosis, where people can have mild whooping cough but they don't have to actually record it as being definitively whooping cough. The study says nothing about counteracting the bias of doctors being more likely to put a vaccinated kid on the provisional list while giving an unvaccinated kid a diagnosis. And that's just the start of the flaws, but that one is a pretty big one - enough to change all the results.

Sorry Inertia, that does sound sexist doesn't it! Let me explain.

I understand as a parent that mothers know their babies best, no question!

The best thing for a mother to do is not get her baby vaccinated. Theres no hib right? No Measles around? And the vaccines are full of sh*t anyway right? Thats why we have history books, population studies, thats why we have epidemiology, to help us make decisions that are more complicated than what we see with our eyes in our community.

I trust my DW's intuition, she's a smart woman in touch with her inner mother. She's been in hospitals for a decade, worked in remote communities, third world kids hospitals. I trusted her when she made an informed decision to vaccinate our kids. Different people make different decisions but we make decisions as a community, society, country, world.

As you may have noticed there are just a few opinions floating around the heads of the women in this forum, strong opinions! Especially on children!!!!


Also Inertia, I appreciate your stats as always but was the study from the US, where they have high coverage rates? Theres always a few cases floating around a community, people travel etc, until the disease is pretty much wiped out like smallpox and if you believe the study unvaccinated people are more at risk.

:

---

I've been following this thread but haven't posted. I'm by no means as well researched nor do I have on hand references. But it is good to read, and find more resources to look into. Thank you too all for contributing. Not sure how much validity I would hold for your contributions thought RSAHD seeing as you get so bored and distracted;) I prefer my info from more focused posters, from either side of the debate.

---

I'm focussed up to about 3000 words then I give up, did anyone else really read all of jellybeans cut and pasted info?
If you understand the info Jellybean, and its important enough for yours and our time, you might summarise it for us?

:

---

The study says nothing about counteracting the bias of doctors being more likely to put a vaccinated kid on the provisional list while giving an unvaccinated kid a diagnosis. And that's just the start of the flaws, but that one is a pretty big one - enough to change all the results.

---

Thats fair enough, I thought it looked a bit dodgy but wasn't sure if you were paying attention ;)
What about the Dr Einsteins, im sure there are plenty like him in California?

:

---

What about the Dr Einsteins, im sure there are plenty like him in California?

---

Your sarcasm could have had the intended result if that sentence made sense...

I wasn't actually being sarcastic. I'm sure there are lots and lots of doctors in California especially talking down vaccination and hocking vitamins on their websites (ok, that was a bit sarcastic!).

So now you're anti vitamin? But vaccines are okay...

:

---

So now you're anti vitamin? But vaccines are okay...

---

I know Linus Pauling was big on vitamins (and fudging studies) but you of all people should know about the recent studies on vitamins!