Melb baby dies of whooping cough...

I'm just popping to to ask a quick question...

I've read a little bit of the post... and just wanted to ask. (Don't bite my head of, I am generally interested)

It was mentioned that we don't know in 50/100years to come what the effects of all the toxins in the vaccinations will do to humans.
But wouldn't that be the same as if EVERYONE wasn't vaccinated we wouldn't know the effects that would happen in 50/100yrs.

We can't look into the Future (a pity about that, I would love to) So we have to use our history, something we do know, we can look back on, and analyse to provide a better future, yea? Surely we are going to get it wrong some of the time, and not all of the humans are going to react in the same way (we know this as biological differences) But with everything I thought that would be expected? Isn't it better to do something for the majority then the minority (natural selection)

Please excuse my ignorance, this isn't a subject that I know much about, but would like to know more....

;) No worries MN.

:

---

Isn't it better to do something for the majority then the minority (natural selection).

---

I see a number of problems with this idea. Firstly, it assumes that those who react to vaccinations have weak genetics or that there is something wrong with them - not true.

My child reacted to vaccines, but apart from other toxic load based disorders such a few cases of Alzheimer's, my family's medical history has none of the other issues that many other families who haven't reacted to vaccines seem to. In 4 generations (not including the youngest one which would be mine and my sisters children) and a sample size of over 100 we've had 4 cases of alzhemiers, one of parkinson's, one cancer where the cause was known, failing eyesight in old age (80+), and two miscarriages as a result of previously being anorexic - that is it. No osteoporosis, no allergies, no cancer (but that one case), no fertility issues, no high blood pressure or heart disease, no stroke except in very old age, average life span is 78+ with most dying in their 80's. My father could pick up the engine out of one of the old fords and toddle off down to the backyard with it like it weighed nothing (they use cranes for that sort of stuff because it's about half a ton), and his side of the family are full of inventors and multi-million dollar businessmen, my mothers are full of professional musicians and award winning gardeners. I do not come from a weak gene pool, but we do react negatively to vaccines. Why create weakness in the gene pool where very little weaknesses already exist and then call that natural selection?


Secondly, natural selection would require it first to be natural (so risking getting the disease rather than vaccine reactions). When we talk about man made things, we aren't talking survival of the fittest, what you really are talking about is eugenics. It's easy to consider the risks of vaccination acceptable when you or your children are not the ones paying them. And in this case, why would one's reaction to a vaccine be the weight and measure of "natural" selection? Such an uncontrolled medium...

Ahhhh, I am so sorry for the Natural selection comment, I can see now, how that really was not the correct term to use. And I am sorry that you/your child/family have had to deal with reactions.

But i still wonder about the majority of Children that are saved from these vaccines. I do agree that the solution has to have some work done to it (I was astounded reading your post about what was in there, I kinda wish I didn't know)

:

---

Isn't it better to do something for the majority then the minority (natural selection)

---

Ask away. Promise not to snap! lol.

As I have always said to this. It is all well and good to think that people think they are making a "sacrifice for the greater good", until it is your child. We have no real right to allow the hurt or death of another persons child for our own comfort. I would rather take the appropriate steps to protect my very young babies from contagious diseases rather than expect everyone else to do it for me.

Besides, if we had better adult booster uptake numbers we would get a better herd immunity and could afford to delay the vaccinations a little longer and potentially gain the best of both worlds.

:

---

Ask away. Promise not to snap! lol.

Besides, if we had better adult booster uptake numbers we would get a better herd immunity and could afford to delay the vaccinations a little longer and potentially gain the best of both worlds.

---

Haha, thanks :-D I'm just being curious.

So you do beleive in vaccinations, just not vaccinations of babies?

:

---

Haha, thanks :-D I'm just being curious.

So you do beleive in vaccinations, just not vaccinations of babies?

---

I'm personally not keen on either, but that being said, if it came down to an either/or I would rather vaccinate myself one at a time, than put them into a baby before the minimum age of 2, but preferably 4. Of course, I would want to make sure my tetanus and rubella shot wasn't contaminated with HCG, and I wouldn't go near excess to requirements vaccines like the rotavirus, hep b, flu or cervical cancer shots.

:

---

, I would want to make sure my tetanus and rubella shot wasn't contaminated with HCG, and I wouldn't go near the rotavirus or hep b shot.

---

Why?

Why wouldn't I want to have a shot that had HCG in it? That one's pretty easy to answer. HCG is the hormone produced by the baby when you become pregnant. When piggy backed in a vaccine what effect do you think that might have? There have been at least 5 cases in 3 different continents within the last 10 years where up to 20% of tetanus and rubella vaccines have been found "contaminated" with HCG. How HCG has found it's way into vaccines at all is beyond me! I want more kids, and have never had issues with fertility, I'm not going to do something that might cause miscarriages.

Hep B shot is made on mutated yeast, yeast can be very damaging (particularly as my DD and I have a proven yeast intolerance) and I am very low risk of ever getting hep B. Rotavirus has been found to be contaminated with porcine circovirus 1. They say it's safe but type 2 of PC has been shown to rewrite DNA causing malformations in the lungs and lymph nodes - call me cynical, but I don't have a lot of trust that a different strain of the same thing might not do similar things. Rota may be a nasty case of gastro, but in the western world the risk/benefits don't way up IMO. As for the other two I added, cervical vax is based upon an assumption and is untested - I am not a lab rat, and I have a very low chance of catching HPV anyway, and similar reasons with the flu shot. And at the end of the day I don't think vaccines are that effective. I've seen them go from the holy grail that protects against all disease, to protecting most people against disease, to a you may still get it - it just wont be as bad. I think they're a false messiah, and quarantine, good nutrition and hygiene are much better preventers of disease.

:

---

Haha, thanks :-D I'm just being curious.

So you do beleive in vaccinations, just not vaccinations of babies?

---

Yep. I am a delay vaxxer.

:

---

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.

---

Sorry, had to go back to find this, lol.

That case study was 156 people aged between 2m and 18y, of which 18 were voluntarily unvaccinated. They discounted anyone unvaccinated for supply reasons or partially vaccinated. So what you have found is a medical program where 138 vaccinated children and 18 unvaccinated children had whooping cough.

The whole "its their fault for not vaccinating" is just silly. Of course they are going to blame the lack of vax. What else are they going to blame? What about parents sending their kids to school while ill? Or people going to work while sick?

That 138 kids got it despite being fully vaccinated doesn't seem to register. That all 156 were clearly exposed to it and the 18 probably still would have become infected if vaccinated doesn't seem to matter, does it?

Disease is not spread by lack of vaccination. It is spread by lack of consideration.

I agree with your statement regarding how disease is spread.

Which is why me as a mother to my children, vaccinates, because that's how I protect my child from the careless of others. Both me and OH are fully boosted, but I couldn't be certain about the other adults all my children come in contact with. That's my personal choice tho, and I respect others may be different ;)

Considering that all vaccinations are made the same (as in the xyz at two months, will be the same given if you delay it for however long) what are the benefits in delaying it? I understand that their immunity would be getter better through age, but what happens of one of your kids get the "preventable by vaccination" disease whilst your delaying, isn't your risk in doing this the same risk I can of having my child vaccinate.

I really want to point out here, I am generally curious and don't want to start an arguement. It's interesting to find out different things, and gives me a better informed choice.


Love MN ;-)

:

---

Why wouldn't I want to have a shot that had HCG in it? That one's pretty easy to answer. HCG is the hormone produced by the baby when you become pregnant. When piggy backed in a vaccine what effect do you think that might have? There have been at least 5 cases in 3 different continents within the last 10 years where up to 20% of tetanus and rubella vaccines have been found "contaminated" with HCG. How HCG has found it's way into vaccines at all is beyond me! I want more kids, and have never had issues with fertility, I'm not going to do something that might cause miscarriages.

---

Whoa, take it easy, all human brains produce and contain HCG. HCG is used as a medical treatment and I've never heard of it causing infertility.

I'm loving your apocalyptic style vaccine theories, keep going we could make a mint making sci-fi scripts!! ;)

Its nice to be cautious but paranoia doesn't help anyone.

Noone plans to get a disease, if the question was "do you have or do you think you'll get this disease" I'm pretty sure 99.5% of people would say no. Accidents happen, have you been tested for HPV or Hep B? I don't mean to be crass but can you really 100% guarantee the fidelity of you and your partner? Life is crazy, things happen. Can you guarantee youll never be stuck with a dirty needle? (I can think of plenty of other not so happy incidents)

Despite your claims that vaccines don't work and the HPV vaccine has never been tested, heres a study on the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine, just for fun:
Paavonen J, Naud P, Salmerón J, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by oncogenic HPV types (PATRICIA): Final analysis of a double-blind, randomised study in young women. Lancet 2009; 374(9686):301–314.

MN you might want to read a few pages back. The CYP450 enzyme system, which is the system responsible for processing up to 70% of foreign chemicals in the body, doesn't even begin start producing enzymes until 2 weeks of age, and isn't fully matured until 2 years of age (hence the reason medications etc. often have a "not suitable for children under 2 on them") because they process them differently to older children or adults. This is something that is not lost on the medical community when it comes to things like panadol or antibiotics, but when it comes to vaccines it doesn't seem to matter to some people. We wouldn't sit here and say it's okay to dose up a baby with 10 times the safe limit of panadol because the only goal is pain relief and that's how much is need to relieve the pain, but some people are happy to argue (Rockin for instance) that we give babies all this stuff whether they struggle to process or not because that is what is needed for them to be effective in the goal of disease prevention. As I've said before what is effective for one particular goal may not be what is safe.

:

---

Considering that all vaccinations are made the same (as in the xyz at two months, will be the same given if you delay it for however long) what are the benefits in delaying it? I understand that their immunity would be getter better through age, but what happens of one of your kids get the "preventable by vaccination" disease whilst your delaying, isn't your risk in doing this the same risk I can of having my child vaccinate.

---

For me, I'm very uncomfortable with giving a baby the same vaccine dosage as an adult, or even a toddler. I view it the same way as not giving a newborn a steak dinner - their bodies just aren't ready for it yet. That's what bothers me, is that their tiny little bodies are voluntarily bombarded with all this stuff, and theyr'e just not prepared for it. That's why I'd be okay with delaying and separating vaccinations if I was to give them at all :)

Yeddi, I didn't see your post before in answering "why" so thank you for clearing that up. I too have said no to the flu and cervical vaccines, as I didn't really feel the need for it. But I didn't look into the others, extensively like you have. I kinda put my blinders on and said it's good for the majority. Thanks for opening my eyes. ;)

I get what you guys are saying.

That brings up a question, if the medical field have acknowledge this system and it's inability to handle most medications, then why haven't they done the same for vaccinations?


Love MN ;-)

Million dollar question ;)

:

---

That brings up a question, if the medical field have acknowledge this system and it's inability to handle most medications, then why haven't they done the same for vaccinations?

---

I actually don't know why some medicines aren't given to younger babies but the enzyme system that Yeddi loves so much is not an essential part of the immune system. A lot is know about the immune systems of newborns and the reaction of a newborns immune system is easy to measure by a blood test.

There has been a lot of research on how readily babies immune systems react to vaccines, even about how much vaccine is needed to make them immune.


Here is a good example:
Seroconversion following killed polio vaccine in n... [Indian J Pediatr. 1997 Jul-Aug] - PubMed result

A question for Yeddi: If your family has a genetic issue with processing mercury as you claim and you have such a good idea of your family tree, do any of your other relatives have mercury toxicity issues or mercury related diseases?

:

---

Despite your claims that vaccines don't work and the HPV vaccine has never been tested, heres a study on the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine, just for fun:
Paavonen J, Naud P, Salmerón J, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by oncogenic HPV types (PATRICIA): Final analysis of a double-blind, randomised study in young women. Lancet 2009; 374(9686):301–314.

---

Firstly, it assumes that cervical cancer is caused by HPV and that has never been proved. Secondly, I don't care how effective some study says it is in the face of the 97 deaths directly linked to the vaccination just on VAERS alone.

And while we're at it, why don't we create a vaccine to try and mitigate every risk that is called life. Do you think they have one to stop you getting hit by cars when you cross the road, more people die from that each year then most of the diseases we have vaccines for combined. Or should I never walk out of doors without a sumo suit and crash helmet instead?

Talking of paranoia and apocalyptic style theories, you're the one suggesting that the world is going to turn into a pit of disease and calamity without vaccinations (how did the human race survive for the thousands of years without them), and talking about the unvaccinated as the great unwashed. Bigotry doesn't help anyone either.