Melb baby dies of whooping cough...

:

---

The article that Mylitta posted did point out that the current vaccine is still 85% effective. The strains that are covered by the current vaccine are still most likely the vast majority of whooping cough in the community.

---

I'm not sure that that is what the article is saying. It wrote "the vaccine is at least 85% effective in preventing most strains of whooping cough in Australia." I read that to mean that the vaccine is 85% effective against the strains that it protects against, and that most of the strains in Australia are covered against that are present in Australia. But, it didn't mention whether those strains are the most common in Australia. For example, it may be that we have 10 strains in Australia (I'm making up these numbers), and 8 of them are covered in the vaccine (which protects people 85% of the time for those 8 strains), while the 2 that are not covered may be the most common strains infecting people at the moment.

On the other hand though, it may be exactly how you interpreted the information, and that of all the strains (including the ones not covered in the vaccine), only 15 out of 100 people that are vaccinated will catch whooping cough when exposed.

I guess that's the problem with media... they aren't 100% clear in what they write. When I get a chance I'm going to try to look up the actual journal article and have a read.

:

---

The article that Mylitta posted did point out that the current vaccine is still 85% effective. The strains that are covered by the current vaccine are still most likely the vast majority of whooping cough in the community.

I wouldn't call that minimally effective or at all. Just sayin'.

I wouldn't call It a whitewash but it's obvious that the vaccine needs to be updated to reflect the new strains of the disease.

---

Then that says more about the ineffectiveness of the aP to do its job at all. Our figures are abnormally high. In 2009, a quarter of reported cases to the WHO were from Australia. As at November 2010 there was already 24,000 reported cases. Every other developed country in the world using DTaP is having far greater success with it. Whenever it is questioned here, they pull out those lines. "It was whole cell in 97 to 99 during our big ourbreak" (People born from 1997 onwards got DTaP. DTwP was phased in slowly so as not to give children who had already started the DTwP course a different type) "Its still 85% effective" (based only on laboratory controlled studies of one age group. It was 78% in regular studies of the same age group.) There are others but you must be getting my meaning by now.

There is something wrong, and we deserve not to be treated like fools. It is in fact a disservice to their cause as how are we likely to have any respect for them or believe them about anything if they can't even admit that clearly, something is very wrong.

:

---

...its a bit easier to live with autism than to be crippled by polio!

---

Oh! Poor form, RSAHD! Best not to compare apples with donkeys. I only know high functioning spectrum people, but I still would never want to be them, or their mum. Then there's the lesser functioning sufferers. No thanks, again. (for a short glimpse of autism, watch a documentary called Horse Boy. It's a father who takes his austistic son to mongolia looking for help/cure/something. It's amazing)

Personally, and I know this is going to be taken harsher than it is intended, I have seen the diseases we're discussing in communities without appropriate vaccination regimes (ie 3rd world countries), and it's horrific. And it's not all down to hygine. Yes, we have better living conditions, clean water, etc. But that is just part of the equation. I like to travel, and I want to take my son (and future babies) on overseas trips. In all good conscience, I couldn't take a kid to asia without the appropriate vaccinations. Just another reason why I vax.

:

---

I'm sorry Yeddi. I didn't realise this affected you personally and it was a stupid thing to say anyhow.

---

I appreciate the apology. Yes, it was a silly and naive thing to say. There are a lot of assumptions out there about autism that are simply incorrect.

I have a friend who become wheelchair bound from polio many years ago (ironically she got it from the vaccine) and she has said she'd happily choose to have polio again then have my daughter's condition - that's from the horses mouth of someone who knows what they're really saying. At least my friend has a husband, children, friends and a good paying job. I'll be happy if my daughter can learn to read and type (writing would be a bonus) and can find one good friend who sticks around.

Anyway, even in 1952 at the absolute peak of polio, the rate of infection was 1/2750, this included the spectrum from the small percentage who died (and some of those might have had underlying conditions), those who acquired a disability, to those who recovered and went on to live ordinary lives. Current autism rates are 1/100, none of those kids go on to live ordinary lives. Some might get closer than others, but they will always have deficits they need to work hard at to overcome. Also, kids do die because of their autism too. Last weeks example of the little boy walking in front of the train because he wondered off and had no understanding of safety is an example of that! We had to import a special tracking device for our daughter that she wears when we are out for similar reasons. So, just doing the simple math, am I right in saying you think a 1/100 chance of disability is worth risking in order to mitigate a 1/2750 chance of disability (assuming it's not actually the vaccine causing the spread of disease and that it works 100% of the time)? To me, that doesn't really make a lot of sense...

A lot of my views are influenced by experience. When studies defy the real life evidence they don't mean much to me. I can't read the test tube view and go "yep, that's how it is because the study says so" when my real life experience seems to always fall outside of what the study says. How many times does the exemption come into play before it is not longer an exemption but really the way things are? Science needs to back up reality not create a new one to suit an agenda.


So, from personal experience...

Why the emphasis on enzymes? Because it makes sense plus I've personally seen the difference enzyme treatment can make. The science is backed up by visible real life examples, not theoretical assumptions and statics the look at one thing in isolation that is really effected by multiple influences.

For example (thank God this forum is anonymous or DD may kill me later in life), my daughter was still soiling herself at 5 years old. The simple addition of probiotics and enzymes to my daughter's diet changed that within 2 days - nothing else was changed. Now, if I have to put her on antibiotics, if I don't give her a probiotic/enzyme dose 2 hours afterwards, she will soil herself that afternoon because the antibiotic kills off all the good bacteria and requires enzymes to be processed. It's a very visible and measurable cause and effect. She also used to fit a lot and would stop breathing (which is kinda of necessary in order to live), a GABA supplement (which is an enzyme that stops the brain from over-firing) has stopped the fits. That's just what I can visibly see from the outside, there's obviously a lot more going on inside as the difference in everyday behaviour is quite extreme too. Enzymes play a VERY big part in autism. Vaccination effects enzymes because they have to be processed by the body. That's the whole theoretical point isn't it - for the body to take the biological information in the vaccine, have the immune system process it, so that it knows how to defeat that disease. You can't say it can do that without enzymes being involved, therefore if a child with a predisposition to autism is vaccinated, those vaccines then must have an effect in autism because they effect enzymes.

Why do I think vaccines are ineffective? Not only did my friend get polio from the polio vaccine, my husband got typhoid from the typhoid vaccine - it almost killed him. How many kids do you think are getting rota virus from their vaccination? Heaps. Neither of my kids have had the vaccine, neither of them has ever had gastro, however all my friends who vaccinate their kids for rota are constantly coming down with it or other forms of gastro. What was the point in vaccinating them then!

Additionally,

:

---

About 6 months ago my two stepsons (who have both been fully vaccinated) got whooping cough and one of them had a terribly nasty cough and was home from school for about 2 months. Even my DH got a bit of a cough for a week or so. While we were pretty diligent about hygiene and semi-quarantining the sick from the healthy, we were still all living in the same house. Both myself and my son who are unvaccinated were the only two not to get whooping cough.

---

A few months ago our whole family got whooping cough too. It was a rubber meets the road moment because I have not vaccinated my son who was two months old at the time (the most vulnerable). He, the only unvaccinated, was the only one NOT to catch it. We only found out it was whooping cough a month after we caught it, so it's not like antibiotics or any treatment had anything to do with it.

:

---

He described the disposition as being like a genetic switch. In many children that switch will never be switched and the child will never become autistic. In other children something can occur to cause the switch to be switched.

---

Yes. I've always said it's like marijuana to those who have a predisposition to schizophrenia. It's a trigger or "ON" button.

:

---

In 2009 there was near 30,000 cases! The only country in the world to report more than us was India and they have over a billion more people! The report I pulled that out of was dated 4/2/2011. A doctor has look at these numbers and also said, hey, something isn't right here. That is how they are trying to whitewash it.

---

Whooping cough vaccine was changed to the synthetic version because of cases of epidemic size outbreaks in places like Denmark in 1997 (which had a 98% vaccination rate which is meant to be the rate to achieve herd immunity) which showed that it was the whole cell vaccine that was giving it to them.

Do you know what would be interesting? Seeing what the levels of vitamin D and C were in those 30,000 people who got whooping cough in 2009. I bet you, it was low.

:

---

Whooping cough vaccine was changed to the synthetic version because of cases of epidemic size outbreaks in places like Denmark in 1997 (which had a 98% vaccination rate which is meant to be the rate to achieve herd immunity) which showed that it was the whole cell vaccine that was giving it to them.

Do you know what would be interesting? Seeing what the levels of vitamin D and C were in those 30,000 people who got whooping cough in 2009. I bet you, it was low.

---

Denmark in 97 was just over 100 more people than the year before. They keep talking about epidemic outbreaks in Canada as well, but again we are only dealing with a couple of hundred more people. We do epidemics in the thousands. 5000 to 14000 to 30000 is just insane! Denmark are also now using DTaP and in 2009, had 83 reported cases.

Interestingly, I was one of those people in 2009. While pregnant with Diva. I also suffer from Hyperemesis Gravidarum so chances are, mine were near enough negligible. No one else in the house caught it and the efficacy of all prior vaxes would have been poor due to age, except Angel who was DTwP vaxed, also Hurricane was delay vaxed. We did his just before Diva was born, except MMR. I do vax. Ouch, hope that all makes sense.

I am a delay vaxer and I am choosy about when and what. Getting WC before she was born was good for her though. I gave her the best antibodies that money cannot buy by bfing her exclusively. I would have got the booster after her birth if it were not for that.

The point basically is though, there is something more to it. Based on all other countries in the world, our WC figures are anomalous.

Yeddi: It must be really hard to talk about autism given how close you are to it, I wouldn't have had this conversation about autism at all with you if I had know, its just not appropriate. I'm glad that the treatment is helping your daughter, it seems pretty obvious from the limited research and practice that it is damage to enzymes causing issues, the manual you linked made that pretty clear. I hope this research can further help her!

I did read the polio stat, but apparently 5-10% of people paralysed by polio die because their lungs are paralysed, not a good outcome. I am surprised to hear about 1/100 people being ASD, of that do you know how many are affected badly like your daughter compared to high-functioning autistic people?

I'm having a read into whooping cough, ill get back to you. But if the vaccine doesn't work, what was the reason for it almost disappearing 25 years ago? Good diet or misdiagnosis?

I'm sure you have information to backup the claim about the outbreak in Denmark...

:

---

I'm having a read into whooping cough, ill get back to you. But if the vaccine doesn't work, what was the reason for it almost disappearing 25 years ago? Good diet or misdiagnosis?

I'm sure you have information to backup the claim about the outbreak in Denmark...

---

We were using DTwP 25 years ago and our Pertussis tests were not as sophisticated as they are today. That said, the DTaP vaccine does work to a degree as is evidenced in Japan, the USA, the UK, Canada, and dozens of other developed countries using DTaP with lower incidences of WC. Something is not working here though. Maybe its our climate, and the vaccine dies in our system before we can build appropriate antibodies due to that. That is the question that needs answering.

And all the figures are on the World Health Organisation page I liked to earlier.

You'll probably find the strains are different and that is why there is a difference, The entire vaccine is already dead so wont die before it can work, but I get what you mean. It's why they tailor flu vaccines for different continents, because the flu strains causing the outbreaks are different.

Do you think it could also be that they are doing so many vaccines at once? These days it's a 5 in 1, not a 3 in 1. Too many at once?

Also a lot of people seem to suffer from Candida these days, systemic yeast overgrowth can effect the cells from properly enveloping bacteria and virus'.

:

---

You'll probably find the strains are different and that is why there is a difference, The entire vaccine is already dead so wont die before it can work, but I get what you mean. It's why they tailor flu vaccines for different continents, because the flu strains causing the outbreaks are different.

---

Yeah. Its like milk going off in a fridge that has a bung seal iykwim. There is something. There was studies in QLD that said the most common strain was covered by out DTaP, but they are a few years old, before this new major outbreak. It really is hard to say for sure but they still insist on blaming anti-vaxxers.

:

---

Do you think it could also be that they are doing so many vaccines at once? These days it's a 5 in 1, not a 3 in 1. Too many at once?

Also a lot of people seem to suffer from Candida these days, systemic yeast overgrowth can effect the cells from properly enveloping bacteria and virus'.

---

In NSW we use Hexa - which is 6 in one needle, plus one other. This is why I delay vax. 7 virii at once is an incredible assault on a 2mo baby, IMO.

That is an interesting point. I wonder what the rates of oral thrush are like in babies?

That's what bugs me about the vaccinations, not whether or not they work, but that our babies are bombarded by multiple vaccinations at the same time. I think I would be most comfortable doing delayed and separated vax for most of them, with a few exceptions - Chicken Pox and MMR at the moment.

Problem is Keike, that they do not give you the option. While individual vaccines are manufactured, they are not available in Australia. It's really either all, or nothing. You can't even just get the plain DTaP anymore.

Do you know what really gets me? They do have vaccines that don't have the toxins in them, that are given through nasal sprays therefore not bypassing the mucus system and they don't use them because they're not cost productive so they've never been put into mass production and have been shelved instead. I would happily pay out of my own pocket for this option, even if they were really expensive the government could fork out the same amount they do now for the current vaccines and I would cover the gap, and I'm sure others who are anti-vax would consider it too. So that's why I guess many anti-vaxers come over as anti-pharma, because if it was really about health they would be providing these options, the fact that they don't shows that convenience and money are the main motivating factors.

I think it would be more a case of the health department trying to be cost effective. I'm sure the pharma companies would sell them anything that would turn a profit.

This stuff is really important, safer vaccines, happier population, public perception and higher % of vaccinated. All serious issues no matter where you stand on the vaccine debate. I encourage anyone reading this forum to hassle your MP, contact the health department or organise your local advocacy groups to get this into the public arena.
It won't happen without public pressure!

I was reading the health department immunisation handbook today and it was saying that Australian vaccines have either no Thiomersal or only a trace dose for under 5 years. Some people on BellyBelly seem to be very well informed about the schedule and such things, can anyone comment? What about compared to environmental mercury?

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/im...book-appendix5

Is this in relation to those videos I sent you? The reason I sent those was because it does cover many aspects of that topic.

Anyway...

1. There is no safe dose of mercury, a proven neurotoxin. Trace amounts is still an amount.
2. When piggy backed with aluminium the chemical effect on those trace amounts is to amplify it by x1000
3. Testosterone increases mercury toxicity.
4. Some antibiotics increases mercury toxicity.
5. Environmental mercury, such as fish, must go through the bodies first line of defence, the stomach. Firstly, the mercury in fish is bonded to other proteins, so isn't in isolation. This alone would change its chemical effect. Secondly, because it is bonded to proteins and has to go through the gut that is full of acids, enzymes and bacteria that break things down it is not easily absorbed and the bulk (80% or more) of it is evacuated out through faeces and urine, most of the other >20% which would have been bonded to our own proteins in the gut is then processed by the body and excreted out of the hair and nails. Thirdly, exposure to environmental mercury is accumulative and you can control your level of exposure to a certain degree.
In comparison, 100% of the mercury contained within Thimerosal vaccinations is injected straight into the bloodstream along with things that increase its toxicity, it happens all at once and the is no barrier to control what and where it bonds, in fact the opposite, its given free access around the whole body.

Comparing Thimerosal and environmental mercury is like comparing rabbits and rats. Both might be rodents but you wouldn't say they were the same animal.

I found the link as part of my researching. I watched the videos and I'm getting there with a response I was just interested to hear someone comment on the changing mercury levels in today's vaccinations.

The speil in the manual shows that the health department has reducing mercury in vaccinations as a priority.

What the guy was saying about bound mercury sounds right but because people show increased blood levels of mercury when eating lots of fish in their diets this isn't such a help. Ie the mercury is becoming unbound and passing into the blood naturally.

:

---

...In comparison, 100% of the mercury contained within Thimerosal vaccinations is injected straight into the bloodstream along with things that increase its toxicity, it happens all at once and the is no barrier to control what and where it bonds, in fact the opposite, its given free access around the whole body.

---

I'm genuinely interested (please don't think I'm just asking to be smarmy), but wouldn't the kidneys & liver work to remove the mercury from the blood. Not ALL of it would instantly lodge in the brain.

The claim is that some kids on the ASD have a reduced ability to remove mercury from their bloodstream. (possibly genetic or because of other vaccine reactions)

This is all still very controversial though!

I don't know why it's so controversial - inconvenient for those who want treat humans like battery hens and think we are all the same - but not controversial. It's a proven fact that some people - Australian aboriginals and islanders, American Indians, Eskimos - have a genetics that means they metabolise alcohol differently to a Caucasian. Genetic is different to hereditary and it doesn't mean there is something WRONG with their genes, it just means that they are different. Often it is these very same genes that have allowed them to survive in harsh environments for many years. That's just the difference between races. It's a highly publicised fact that men and women metabolise alcohol differently, and that men can consume more than women to achieve the same blood alcohol levels and drunkenness. These are just some of the variables with something as simple as alcohol. So is it really that controversial to say that you can't have a one-size-fits all model where you give a 2kg baby boy the same dose of vaccine as a 65kg female and expect them to metabolise them the same, or is it just common sense? There will be difference between races, between sexes, between sub-groups and it doesn't make them wrong. What is wrong is a system and logic that expects everyone to adapt to it, rather than it adapting to them.

I agree Yeddi. The one size fits all model is a big worry to me!

:

---

I agree Yeddi. The one size fits all model is a big worry to me!

---

Ok, thats a fair assumption but the Health department has stated that mercury exposure is a concern that it is addressing, and that it has reduced dramatically or removed mercury from vaccines for that reason. Mercury IS in our environment even without pollution and aluminium in our food in significant amounts. Chances are that if your for example eating fish or having omega 3 vitamins(most fish oil contains very very little or no mercury!!!) and taking antacids for reflux in pregnancy then your baby will be exposed to these metals through blood or breast milk.

Vaccines have mercury in them to actually make them safer, there have been cases of some nasty poisonings from contamination of vaccines in the past that make it necessary. Aluminium reduces dramatically the amount of vaccine needed and so reduce the exposure of the child to unnecessary antigen or viral loads. It's impossible to find out how effective a baby is at removing mercury from their blood that early and irresponsible to expose them to a vaccine that may be unsafe in other ways.

I have never heard that aluminium increases toxicity of mercury and the claim that testosterone increases toxicity of mercury is still an unfounded claim. I'm not even sure about the claim that newborns get the same vaccines as adults...

Mercury and aluminium are in our environment and they do move into our bloodstreams, gut, bound or not and do affect our body despite how it comes into the body.

:

---

Vaccines have mercury in them to actually make them safer, there have been cases of some nasty poisonings from contamination of vaccines in the past that make it necessary...

---

:ROFL: Sorry, that doesn't actually make your point stronger. All that demonstrates is that mercury is toxic enough to destroy ecosystems from developing in the vaccine - imagine what it does to ecosystems within the body!

Also, just because having aluminium in the vaccine means you need less doesn't make it safe. There's a difference between how much might be needed to make it efficient and how much is safe. You're cross-contaiminating the issues!

Another example from experience (which is not unrelated, as first phase of vaccine trials are on animals):

My friend and I, for many years, have bred rabbits as a hobby - mini lops in particular. We're not some dodgy backyard operation, but are registered breeders specialising in rare colours and markings and pets for therapy. No rabbit of ours has been sold at a pet store, they are all pedigreed, rung and we go into great detail genome planning before breeding to make sure we are getting best type and colour, keeping meticulous records. We have 12 does and 4 bucks that we breed, swapping the older ones out for new ones after 3 years of service. Over the first 8 years of our hobby our yearly figures were consistently:

Number of pregnancies: 32-36
Number of kits: 218-237
Average litter: 6-8 kits
Number of faders: 1-2
Number of stillbirths: 2-5
Number of losses in first 4 weeks: 7-8
Number of premature births: 0 (Never experienced it)

Then we had a calicivirus outbreak in our region. Breeders were losing up to a 1/3 of the stock. Not wanting to lose 5 of our best breeders and their babies we decided to vaccinate them. The vaccine contained the same amount of trace amounts as our Hep B vaccination - safe, right? Well, I would say that was debatable! The year after vaccinating our stock our figures were such:

Number of pregnancies: 14 (and these were VERY hard to achieve!! Rabbits ovulate after mating so are generally easy to get UTD but not this year, it took on average 6-7 attempts)
Number of kits: 19
Average litter: 3 kits
Number of faders: 4
Number of stillbirths: 6
Number of losses in first 4 weeks: 4
Number of premature births: 6 litters and a total 15 kits not included in the above figures.

This was the result of vaccinating them on their fertility, and NO it wasn't from the calicivirus, it doesn't act in this way. Also, after seeing these figures, we swapped all but our two rarest coloured rabbits out for unvaccinated ones. Our figures are again like they were in previous years. If this is what 0.01ml of mercury in a vaccine does to a rabbit, what do you think it does to humans?

I'm not cross contaminating the issues, I'm trying to point out that metal levels are close to natural levels. Bacteria are very differently to humans, which is why antibiotics work. If we avoided all chemicals which are toxic to bacteria there wouldn't be much left to eat.

The use of aluminium is an important point because the case for a link between autism and vaccines relies on a very high viral load.

The case of your rabbits is really interesting but if the same was happening in humans why don't we see such a huge changes in human fertility?

Anyhow, fertility wasn't a part of the issue was it?

Did you vaccinate the babies?

I think we are seeing huge changes in human fertility. Realistically, assuming a woman has sex on or around her ovulation date, she should get pregnant. But more and more, it's taking at least 3 months to conceive, and that's just for healthy women with no identifiable problems. Doctors won't even talk to you these days until you've been trying for 12 months, because it's common for it to take that long these days. And what about the high levels of miscarriage and stillbirth?

:

---

The case of your rabbits is really interesting but if the same was happening in humans why don't we see such a huge changes in human fertility?

---

Honestly, I don't know how or if it will effect human fertility. This was my experience with the rabbits and it was enough to raise concerns. BUT, how do you know that it hasn't? It's not like the health system correlates rates of assisted conception, miscarriage and stillbirth with vaccination, particularly when the damage could have been done 20 years before a women even tries to get pregnant. They don't even do it when it happens only days apart - There was a lady from our playgroup who miscarried at 18 weeks only 3 days after having the flu shot, but they would never admit that there could have been some association with the vaccine. But we may see more of a correlation in the future as the amount of vaccines increase. The bulk of those who would be affected by these huge increases of vaccines in the schedule would only just be hitting the age where they might be considering getting UTD, those born in the 1990's onwards, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see how much difference it will make.

Mercury was the issue, and I believe it was the mercury in the vaccination that caused the fertility issues within our rabbits. Perhaps it might be a bit left field of me, but I consider that if something can do that, then it raises significant concerns about its safety.

No, we didn't vaccinate any of the surviving 5 babies - they're all fine as far as I know, we sometimes get photos. They went to homes of the special needs children as therapy pets, so weren't bred to see if there was any follow on effect. I was actually tempted to test it, but we had a big enough waiting list as it was without having huge losses, and I didn't want to make the kids wait any longer.

I should point out, that this wasn't just our experience. Other breeders within the club that had vaccinated their rabbits had similar results. Those that didn't vaccinate didn't have these issues - that's who we had to buy our new stock off (for them it was bank). Additionally, the younger the rabbit the more severe the result was to their fertility. Those vaccinated as juniors were the ones that had the higher rates of miscarriage (as it were) and still births.

Trust me, I don't take this subject of fertility/vaccination lightly. I vaccinated my daughter. If she does grow up to overcome many of her setbacks from autism (which on its own I feel the full burden of guilt for), the idea that that decision I made in ignorance and going along with the crowd to vaccinate may cause her the type of grief that comes with infertility and loss is heartbreaking, and something I would rather stick my head in the sand about, but the more I read and see, the more concerned I become. For instance, WTF is HCG doing in up to 20% of rubella and tetanus shots?

That is left of field and I think proving a decline in fertility would be like proving rising rates of autism.

I thought the live birth rate had improved dramatically in the last 80 years? Are you telling me it's declining rapidly? I would be much more inclined to blame modern obstetrics.

Birth rate perhaps, but how many of those are naturally conceived without any assistance? Obstetrics has lots of issues too but that's a whole forum elsewhere.

The thing is, our rate shouldn't just be rising at little bit. In accordance with history, contraception aside, it should be booming. Left field again, but still relevant because this is our pattern as human beings, in 1750 changes in the design of ploughing and harvesting equipment, and the planting of beans instead of letting one third of the land farrow led to a massive increase in food production. This is the cycle I was talking about. The increase in food reduced disease allowing more women to reach the age of fertility. As a result the population exploded from 7.5 million to 75 million over a period of 20 years. That's a tenfold increase in population. We've never had so many women reaching the age of fertility and nor have we had as much access to good food as we do now, and while women do use medical contraception now so they're not having 12 children, they shouldn't be having as much trouble as many, many women are now just conceiving and keeping one. Something else is going on, and it's not obstetrics. Perhaps as we vaccinate the third world to "save them" we might see a decrease in population too that can't be blamed on disease - who knows. I'd still like to know why HCG is also found in some vaccines!

Of course we would see a decline in births in the third world because a higher live birth ratio would encourage less conception let alone the effects of better health and education!

Birth rates are very complex, women have careers, children are expensive and intensive. Natural birth figures are easy to get as ivf rates are widely published. You can't say that because families no longer have 12 kids we must be being poisoned by vaccines.

Part of the reason for declining birth rates is the massive rise in life expectancy and relative live births brought about by declining disease.

:

---

Birth rates are very complex, women have careers, children are expensive and intensive. Natural birth figures are easy to get as ivf rates are widely published. You can't say that because families no longer have 12 kids we must be being poisoned by vaccines.

---

Um, perhaps you should read it again. I didn't say that because people aren't having 12 kids they're being poisoned by vaccines at all - you're falling back into your old habits of twisting people's words to be something other than what they said! I will not enter into irrational and loaded discussion. What I said was that many women are now struggling to have ONE child and that this decline is not the result of using contraception to stop multiple pregnancies because these women want to be pregnant but can't.

I don't know if you can prove a link between vacination and declining fertility.....what I do know through my journey through the IVF world is that fertility rates in general are dropping especially amongst men......... and fertility rates amongst younger couples are declining in a quite marked way so obviously something other than the obvious leaving babies till older argument is at play here......it is definitely food for thought and possibly worth some researcher having a good look at whether there is a link....

:

---

I was reading the health department immunisation handbook today and it was saying that Australian vaccines have either no Thiomersal or only a trace dose for under 5 years. Some people on BellyBelly seem to be very well informed about the schedule and such things, can anyone comment? What about compared to environmental mercury?

Immunise - Appendix 5: Commonly asked questions about vaccination - updated July 2009

---

Not today. That is because they started phasing it out in 1999, and it is almost all gone now. So it has been over the past 25 years in varying degrees.

Interestingly, they insisted it wasn't hurting anyone, so ...

:

---

Vaccines have mercury in them to actually make them safer, there have been cases of some nasty poisonings from contamination of vaccines in the past that make it necessary.

---

Oh wow, that makes me feel better. If it needs an extremely toxic substance in it to be safer, .... It just doesn't bear thinking about.

The thing of it is, the link between Vax and Autism has neither really been proven or disproven. It will never be happily done so because when anti-vax parties pay for a study and release the results, vax parties pay for studies to say differently. No offence to anyone (I have an ASD DD) but that is neither here nor there.

Vaccines are harming children. It is reported to watchdog agencies here (AME), the US (VAERS), Europe (EudraVigilance), google any country and adverse reactions reporting and you will find some company that takes these reports. You can actually search VAERS. And these are only the reactions they are taking the blame for.

It is all well and good to say "yeah, but it is only like 1 in every 1,000,000 that have a really bad reaction", until that 1 in 1,000,000 is your own child. I am not saying vaccines are pure evil, do away with them, it is a stupid idea. But if it is not 100% safe, then what are they doing about it? Everyone seems to defend it to the hilt, but no - that is not good enough. Keep trying. There is no acceptable collateral damage or it makes the whole exercise pointless.

Public perception hurts everyone, no matter if the additive was harmful the PR was..

Food additives save lives. If all your food is additive free then more power to you but most of us rely on them, just know that some vegetables have natural TOXIC chemicals in them!

Nothing that enters a human body will be totally safe. I remember when a peanut butter sandwich was safe. There is a lot of work being done to make vaccines safer and they have come a long way so far.

:

---

I remember when a peanut butter sandwich was safe.

---

Mostly strawmen, but I will bite on this scarecrow.

So, why aren't they safe anymore? What changed? It wasn't the peanuts, that's for sure.

:

---

Not today. That is because they started phasing it out in 1999, and it is almost all gone now. So it has been over the past 25 years in varying degrees.

Interestingly, they insisted it wasn't hurting anyone, so...

---

Actually, there's talk of phasing it back in! And it is in the Hep B vaccine which is now being piggy backed with the DTaP vaccine and they are removing the option of not getting it in an all or nothing manner.


Rockin - As for defending food additives - Gah! The number one reason for needing food additives is laziness, 1. By companies who want to mass produce without paying proper attention to hygiene, and 2. By the consumer who can't be bothered looking after themselves and want the easy option. It's not that hard to eat additive free, it just means you have to care about what you stick in your body. Funny thing is, isn't it scientifically proven that additives, and even these toxic substances (I'm guessing you are talking amines and salicylates) DO have major effects on people's health and their behaviour? But apparently vaccines wont, Ha!

:

---

The number one reason for needing food additives is laziness,

---

Yep, Im lazy, thats me, all that time on the couch! So many parents, lazy, lazy.

BTW peanuts cooked at higher temperatures are more allergenic but taste better. Modern day peanuts are cooked at higher temperatures to improve taste and therefore sales.

:rolleyes: You really have a talent for hyperbole Rockin! Can you honestly say that a parent who is always giving their kids manufactured and highly processed foods instead of fresh fruit and vegies isn't being a tad lazy? It's just as easy to grab a carrot out of the fridge, or an apple out of the fruit bowl as it is to grab a LCM bar or similar, and cooking a stir fry (even using frozen veg) is just as easy as cooking a sausage roll. While it's okay to do these things some of time, it's not exactly healthy for them to be standard operating procedure. I take it you're not a fan of Jamie Oliver then?

:

---

:rolleyes: You really have a talent for hyperbole Rockin! Can you honestly say that a parent who is always giving their kids manufactured and highly processed foods instead of fresh fruit and vegies isn't being a tad lazy? It's just as easy to grab a carrot out of the fridge, or an apple out of the fruit bowl as it is to grab a LCM bar or similar, and cooking a stir fry (even using frozen veg) is just as easy as cooking a sausage roll. While it's okay to do these things some of time, it's not exactly healthy for them to be standard operating procedure. I take it you're not a fan of Jamie Oliver then?

---

Thats a pretty big leap. Unless you follow a raw food diet there are additives in many foods that are nowhere near LCM's on the spectrum. for instance, from a quick look in my kitchen,the canned tomatoes that I will add to the lasagne sauce I cook tonight (complete with beans and veges)has additives, Bakers flour that my DH makes bread with...additives. Not an LCM bar in sight. I think the assumptions you are making there are pretty extreme.

Sultanas that DD loves, packed full of sulphur, a nasty nasty toxic chemical. I'm sure Jamie Oliver wouldn't flip out at that.

Despite this tangent, I wouldn't recommend having vaccines on your breakfast Yeddi, just as part of the schedule. ;)

:

---

Thats a pretty big leap. Unless you follow a raw food diet there are additives in many foods that are nowhere near LCM's on the spectrum. for instance, from a quick look in my kitchen,the canned tomatoes that I will add to the lasagne sauce I cook tonight (complete with beans and veges)has additives, Bakers flour that my DH makes bread with...additives. Not an LCM bar in sight. I think the assumptions you are making there are pretty extreme.

---

No it's not extreme, and I'm not saying you have to go on a raw food diet - that was your leap. There are options out there that aren't packed with preservatives and additives sitting right next to the ones that do on the same shelf, it's just a matter of reading the labels as you shop. I'm not saying we never have anything with preservatives and additives in it, but we avoid them as much as we possibly can, where we might have one or two things a week where we weren't able to avoid it, but then I do make sure we have natural homemade yogurt afterwards to try and balance the cost on my body from having those things. Again, it comes down to load, and what is natural to the body from thousands of years of reinforcement.

Rockin - yes, they are full of sulphur, and one serve is 25% more than the weekly safe limit according to the WHO. But feel free to feed them to your DD everyday if you wish. Again, you can get ones that are - shock and horror - dried without using a chemical...

As for the last sentence, now you're getting silly, but it's not funny, just ridiculous. And while this is a tangent, it's just an example of your whole attitude on the human body. If you don't care about what preservatives, additives and what not you are putting into your body just as long as you're eating something, of course you're not going to care about what vaccines do just as long as they offer you the hope of being disease free - which is kind of ironic, how many diseases (like heart disease) are related to what you eat...?

Obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, dental disease, and osteoporosis - are the most common cause of death in the world. Guess what! Funny enough what you eat does matter!