Melb baby dies of whooping cough...

:

---

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!

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.

:

---

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?

---

Um... funny enough, the ones I've listed are. Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Yeast syndrome and anorexia can all be classified under mercury poisoning. Even the cancer case was a case of bowel cancer in my grandfather on my mother's side, he had IBS that was made worse by the fact he drove the old double decker buses around all day and didn't take as many toilet breaks as he should have. My sisters and I were the first generation to be vaccinated, but we weren't vaccinated until we were 5 and only received the old DTP and polio. I was the only one vaccinated for MMR.
I've excluded the youngest generation above (which are our kids), but out of the 10 kids in this generation, all aged 13 and under and 9 of which have been vaccinated as babies, we have one case of autism, one case of aspergers, one IBS, and one juvenile onset type 1 diabetes, one case of mild OCD - no other issues though, we don't even get eczema but perhaps that's a bad thing because again that would be an excreting thing. Anyway, that's a very drastic increase in issues that also related to toxic load. Funny enough, I am the one, having had more vaccinations, that has the child with the most serve syndrome of autism, and the only male out of that number to be vaccinated, my nephew, has the type 1 diabetes - just more reason for me to not want to vax my son. And do you know what's funny? Several of my friends had babies two weeks either side of me. They all vaccinate - even when they have contradictions like being sick or having an egg allergy. Every one of those babies has had at least two colds, some others have had gastro as well, in the last seven months - and even when being around them (because they don't remove themselves from social gatherings when ill) my son has never even had a sniffle. I am actually in shock that they think it is normal for babies to be this sick in their first year of life, and after seeing what the yeast in a piece of toast did to my poor babies bottom, there is no way I'm sticking anything that has yeast in it in his veins!

Interestingly, we don't grey much, particularly the women in our family. My grandmother's hair was still 80% blonde when she died at 93, my mother's hair is still red as anything at almost 70. I wonder if this has something to do with not being able to excrete mercury through our hair that the melanin production is not hampered. :dunno:

Really like this debate, so much information to process :D

Have nothing of value to add other than thank you :)

:

---

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.

---

97 when last it was quoted it was 47, time flies!! I didn't know that any of the reports of death had the vaccine confirmed as the cause in any of the investigations, do you know otherwise? (im not being sarcastic, if you know better that what I've read I want to know!)

And you obviously know a lot more about HPV than any of the scientists studying it. I'm not saying your not clever enough but I do doubt that you have looked into it that carefully, ie:
The global health burden of infection-associated c... [Int J Cancer. 2006] - PubMed result


I never referred to you as unwashed and I don't think that I'm prejudiced like that.

How did the human race survive without vaccinations? Not very well, many many people died. Populations were wiped out. I once heard that malaria has killed half of all the people that have ever lived, I can't give a reference for that. We prevent disease where we can with whatever tools we have. Can you imagine 3 billion dead by malaria alone? Can you imagine 180 million dead from a flu pandemic? (the 1918 spanish flu killed 3% of the population)

I know your going to say that malaria and the pandemic flu don't have vaccinations, but that was part of my point. Try smallpox, with a mortality rate of up to 35%, 2 billion dead? Hows that for an apocalyptic story?

I heard that vaccines wiped out smallpox, are you going to claim that it was good diet and hygiene? You would want people to cover their mouths properly when they cough?

I think it'd make a huge difference, don't you? Imagine if everyone followed proper hygiene procedures, and people didn't feel obliged to go to work when they were sick - things would be very different from today!

I don't think the idea of vaccines is the problem, it's the stubborn attitude in keeping them this way despite evidence that they're harming kids' health. Who cares if the evidence is anecdotal? Parents are the experts on their kids - they're the ones who see their kids get sick, withdraw, sometimes go into anaphylactic shock because of these vaccines. If they were really listened to, from a place of wanting to fix problems and not considering the financial cost at all, things would be different. But parents on the whole aren't respected by doctors, they're seen a hysterical attention seekers.

:

---

97 when last it was quoted it was 47, time flies!! I didn't know that any of the reports of death had the vaccine confirmed as the cause in any of the investigations, do you know otherwise? (im not being sarcastic, if you know better that what I've read I want to know!)

---

You're right VAERS says only (insert sarcastic tone) 51 deaths as of March 2011 for America, 97 was the old world wide number of deaths, which has now significantly changed to be higher. I still can't believe that you would defend this vaccine based on a theory in the face of that death rate! Risks vs benefits. In order to make the benefit worth it, the risk must be less. There are now at least 51 girls dead who will never be able to get married, have children of their own, a career, all to stop them from the very small possibly that they may have developed cervical cancer many years down the track.

:

---

And you obviously know a lot more about HPV than any of the scientists studying it. I'm not saying your not clever enough but I do doubt that you have looked into it that carefully, ie:
The global health burden of infection-associated c... [Int J Cancer. 2006] - PubMed result

---

Yes I have looked into it, and there is a big difference between saying something may be a factor and saying something is a direct cause. It's misleading.
So I see your study:
HPV in the etiology of human cancer

And raise you:
MMS: Error
E6-Associated Protein Is Required for Human Papillomavirus Type 16 E6 to Cause Cervical Cancer in Mice
SpringerLink - Cancer Causes and Control, Volume 22, Number 1

:

---

Can you imagine 180 million dead from a flu pandemic? (the 1918 spanish flu killed 3% of the population)

---

We haven't all died from swine flu yet, despite all the hype and the push for the vaccination. You did know they are pretty much the same thing, right? H1N1