Don't worry Inertia, I know he didn't actually say it. It was the vibe I was talking about.
I have to commend Rockin on his god-like devotion of vaccines. Is there nothing that can't solve!
Registered User
What Keike said, lol.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 ;-)
Basically yeah, it is not the vaccine that is different, it is the baby. I think 2mo is too young. Japan developed DTaP and they don't start DTaP innoculations until 6mo.
and they still have less Whooping cough than us!
Perfectly yes.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
That doesn't say anywhere that the entire process was completely beneficial with no adverse side effects. In fact, they ONLY thing they checked is the babies immunity. Not what we are arguing here.
I think it was I that sarcastically called us 'the great unwashed', but I will admit that I am also getting that 'vibe', iykwim.
For example, Rockin has yet to admit that the potentially 12 million unvaccinated adult Australians are the more likely cause of our whooping cough epidemic as opposed to the 300k unvaccinated under 17yos from Non-vaxxers.
ETA: Apparently I missed a whole page.. maybe too.. yikes.
BellyBelly Member
Don't worry Inertia, I know he didn't actually say it. It was the vibe I was talking about.
I have to commend Rockin on his god-like devotion of vaccines. Is there nothing that can't solve!
Registered User
The study didn't look into adverse side effects, thats well researched and the possible side effects are given to people or the parents before they sign the consent for the vaccine... The process is beneficial as the babies have immunity. High dose, low dose, thiomerosal, enzymes, whatever. If they had the positive blood test their little immune systems were doing their thing.
I'm actually quite offended. I never inferred that anyone was an unwashed hippie, you have no idea what kind of people I hang out with. You really think that I hang with my white male 30something workmates at the winebar on a saturday afternoon, sipping chardonnay and talking about democracy in Yemen or the cricket scores? Think again.
I'm actually pretty sure I was actually the first person that pointed out that the issue with whooping cough was the lack of adult vaccinations. Seriously, if you go back about 8 pages... (try searching...)
BellyBelly Member
Okay, for the benefit of the doubt - who do you say is behind the spread of whooping cough?
Registered User
What idea world do you live in? I have been getting children vaccinated since 1996 and I have received zero information leaflets, told zero about possible side effects and signed a grand total of two consent forms, both for Vitamin K injections.
Not at all. I will let your own written opinions speak for themselves. =)I'm actually quite offended. I never inferred that anyone was an unwashed hippie, you have no idea what kind of people I hang out with. You really think that I hang with my white male 30something workmates at the winebar on a saturday afternoon, sipping chardonnay and talking about democracy in Yemen or the cricket scores? Think again.
So you came in here to poke us with a stick, why, exactly?I'm actually pretty sure I was actually the first person that pointed out that the issue with whooping cough was the lack of adult vaccinations. Seriously, if you go back about 8 pages... (try searching...)
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
Moderator Message »
I am really enjoying this reasoned debate. Just a gentle reminder to keep it civil.
(sent from Tapatalk on my mobile...)
BellyBelly Member
LOL, How did I miss this before? And you say me asking why HCG is in vaccines is apocalyptic paranoia. Ha!
You don't seriously believe this piece of marketing do you? I thought you believed that vaccines worked by creating herd immunity? How can a disease be eradicated because of vaccination when only 10% of the world's population were ever vaccinated for the disease?
On a side note: It's funny to see that the vaccination debate has been going on for almost 160 years.
SMALL-POX HAS NOT BEEN MITIGATED BY VACCINATION.
It is often asserted that, although vaccination is not a complete protection against Small-pox, yet it diminishes the severity of the disease, and renders it less dangerous to those who take it (Ha! I've heard that one before). This assertion is sufficiently answered by the proof above given, that it has not diminished Small-pox mortality; but more direct evidence can be adduced.
The best available records show that, the proportion of deaths to Small-pox cases is the same now, although a large majority of the population are vaccinated, as it was a century ago before vaccination was discovered. DR. JURIN, in 1723; the London Small-pox Hospital Reports, 1746-63; DR. LAMBERT, 1763 ; and REES’ Cyclopedia, 1779; give numbers varying from 165 to 253 as the per-centage of mortality among Small-pox patients in hospitals ; — the average of the whole being I8.8 percent.
Now for the epoch of vaccination. MR. MARSON, 1836-51, and the Reports of the London, Homerton, Deptford, Fulham, and Dublin Small-pox Hospitals, between 1870 and 1880, give numbers varying from 14.26 to 2I.7 as the deaths per cent. of Small-pox patients, the average being 18.5. And this, be it remembered, under the improved treatment and hygiene of the nineteenth as compared with the eighteenth century.
These figures not only demonstrate the falsehood of the oft-repeated assertion that vaccination mitigates Small-pox, but they go far to prove the very opposite—that the disease has been rendered more intractable by it; or how can we account for the mortality among Small-pox patients being almost exactly the same now as a century ago, notwithstanding the great advance of medical science and the improvements in hospitals and hospital treatment?
Vaccination is quite powerless either to prevent or to mitigate Small-pox. But this is not all, for there are good grounds for believing that it is itself the cause of much disease and serious mortality. It was long denied by medical men that syphilis can be communicated by vaccination; but this is now universally admitted, and no less than 478 cases of vaccine-syphilis have already been recorded.
We here see a constant increase in the mortality from each of these diseases, an increase which in the sum of them is steady and continuous. It is true, we have not, and cannot have, direct proof that vaccination is the sole cause of this increase, but we have good reason to believe that it is the chief cause. In the first place it is a vera causa, since it directly inoculates infants and adults, on an enormous scale, with whatever blood-disease may exist unsuspected in the system of the infants from whom the vaccine virus is taken. In the next place, no other adequate cause has been adduced for the, remarkably continuous increase of these special diseases, which the spread of sanitation, of cleanliness, and of advanced medical knowledge, should have rendered both less frequent and less fatal.
The increased deaths from these five causes, from 1855 to 1880, exceed the total deaths from Small-pox during the same period! So that even if the latter disease had been totally abolished by vaccination, the general mortality would have been increased, and there is much reason to believe that the increase may have been caused by vaccination itself.
by Alfred R. Wallace, LL.D.What, again, could more completely illustrate the irony of the present phase of the controversy, than the fact that both the hon. secretary of the Vaccination League (Mrs. Dr. Garrett-Anderson) and the now deceased hon. secretary of the Jenner Society (the late Dr. Francis T. Bond, of Gloucester,) have declared primary infantile vaccination alone to be not only unnecessary, but practically useless? Referring to the Act of 1898, and the increased infantile vaccination which it secured, they say that this:
"has not prevented the occurrence of a large and increasing number of outbreaks of small-pox, 11 chiefly among adults who have not been revaccinated. There were, for instance, recently, in eighteen months, no fewer than 480 separate outbreaks of small-pox in the United Kingdom, every one of which occasioned great expenditure of public money and considerable suffering. .. There is a growing opinion that, in consequence of altered social conditions and improved sanitary administration, it is not absolutely necessary to have infants of a few months old vaccinated, except in the presence of epidemic small-pox." (See letter in the "Times," 25th April, 1906.)
...The experience of the terrible smallpox epidemic of 1871-73, when many thousands of vaccinated persons contracted the disease, and several hundreds died as the result of the alleged "protection" (!) having lamentably failed in its hour of trial, produced in the minds of the thinking people of Leicester pronounced hostility against the blood-polluting quackery, which was found to be more baneful in its ultimate results than the disease it was supposed to prevent.
THE fact that with less vaccination the town enjoyed better health, and the coincident decline of vaccination and small-pox, had great effect on the minds of the people of Leicester. Not small-pox alone, but the infantile death-rate, the whole, of the zymotic diseases, and the general death-rate, all declined in a very marked degree, as vaccination was discarded, and as the tables and diagrams submitted to the Royal Commission and reproduced here indisputably prove. Thus, from being branded by the Registrar-General in his Annual Reports as one of the most unhealthy of England's large towns, Leicester—by no means advantageously situated geographically, and seriously handicapped by the large proportion of the artisan classes amongst its population—has become the healthiest of the principal manufacturing centres (even competing closely and successfully with health resorts), thanks to well-considered, efficient, and properly executed sanitary measures, combined with the virtual cessation of vaccination.
From the outset, anti-vaccinators realised that Sanitation (in its broadest acceptation), and that alone, was capable of transforming the existing plague spots into healthy areas. They never ceased to press that view on the local authorities, both in season and out of season, but it took a long time to make an impression. Of late years, however, right nobly have the accountable authorities responded.
J.T. Biggs 1912 Sanitation verses Vaccination
Registered User
I think you mean a causal not casual, an important point and a different spin on the study.
Last edited by RockinSAHD; April 19th, 2011 at 08:14 PM.
Registered User
Inertia, if you've had a child vaccinated without proper consent that's highly illegal and amounts to assault. Your well within your rights to talk to the police and have your issues investigated.
I am serious.
Registered User
Sadly, that brings up a whole other issue RSAHD. Of all the women subjected to degrading assaults termed 'medical examinations' during birth, how many do you think get resolved with charges laid against the personnel? It may very well be assault, I agree with you there, but you'd be extremely hard pressed to find a police officer or medical professional who felt the same way, and I feel it's nigh on impossible to actually get anything done about it.
But as I said, it's a whole other issue.
Registered User
There is no justification, but as humans make these things and humans make mistakes...
Take a look at this:
"It
Last edited by RockinSAHD; April 20th, 2011 at 03:05 PM.
Registered User
LOL, I find it easier to use Safari. Or better yet, don't post on iphone, it's awful
Registered User
Keike: something I've witnessed and was very displeased about but your right that's another story!
Registered User
Again with the simplistic idealism.
Let me put it like this. If vaccinations are so important that it is okay that the few suffer severe side effects up to and including death, do you think they care that half a dozen different doctors didn't give me a consent form to sign?
Registered User
I've never signed a consent form for immunisations but have given implied consent because I took them to be immunised and agreed to having them done. Each time i was given an information sheet, made to read it and take it with me, and check the syringes to make sure they were getting the right ones. Same proceedure, 3 different states, 3 different venues. A doctors surgery, child health clinic, and a community immunisation clinic.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
Registered User
I have always been informed of the adverse side effects of immunisations, also in 2 different states and 6 different venues. If you are not being informed I would find another health care provider. Child health nurses are the best at doing this in my opinion.
Yeddi, while the HPV vaccine would be more effective if given prior to sexual activity as HPV is the "common cold" of sexual activity with over 90% of sexually active people exposed to it. There was much debate in the public arena about when to give it with the researchers pushing for earlier to optimise coverage but there is benefit for a sexually active woman who has not been exposed to the carcinogenic strains of HPV there was still benefit as well as the benefit of preventing genital warts which can be distressing and require a lot of intervention.
Registered User
*
There is no justification, but as humans make these things and humans make mistakes...
*Take a look at this:
*"It’s not at all clear that the presence of porcine circovirus 1 DNA in Rotarix is a problem. Circoviruses have not been associated with human disease, and porcine circovirus 1 has not been found to cause disease in any animal. Many humans have antibodies to these viruses, including porcine circovirus, indicating that they were infected at one time. Furthermore, it’s not known if the vaccine contains infectious virus or DNA fragments. Nevertheless, it’s always preferable to err on the side of caution, as the FDA has done."
The virus is unexpectedly small and didn't cause any symptoms in the trials. The PC 1 virus doesn't cause illness in humans or animals and none of the PC viruses have caused illness in humans and are quite common. It's also likely that the virus in the vaccine wasn't even infectious.*
If the contaminant had been illness causing it would've been seen in the testing and the infected batches have been pulled. I'm very sure that further vaccines will be better tested.*
If your sexually active then you are at risk of getting HPV, 70% of cervical cancer is preventable by the vaccine (HPV has been proved to cause cancer, it's causal). Of the 33 million doses given in the US as of feb 2011 there were 32 confirmed deaths (29 unconfirmed, you'd think they'd know!) connected with the HPV vaccines though none of them have been shown to be caused be the vaccine. These deaths, though unfortunate, have been up to six months after having the vaccine and have included car accidents.*
There have been many, investigations in different countries but no pattern or suspicious autopsies that credit the vaccine with the death.*
Last edited by RockinSAHD; April 20th, 2011 at 03:09 PM.
BellyBelly Member
Hmmm... what am I meant to be looking at? I'm confused
Actually, I don't think it is a completely whole different issue. It comes down to an issue of trust, of not being told all the information, of feeling fobbed off and not heard. How quickly are concerns about vaccines fobbed off like a women doesn't want an induction because she's gone 3 days past her estimated due date? I actually think the attitudes are very much the same. It's a we know better, we have the rubber stamp validating our view, and if you don't follow our orthodox advice you're a crank. I've read the NSW health nurse instruction manual thingy, and in it they refer nurses to a study about why parents don't vaccinate. In it, it states that parents often don't vaccinate because of safety concerns. What does the study say the solution to this is? Emotional blackmail. Not address the concerns. Not talk about alternatives. No. It says to pull the "how will you feel if they catch this disease and die" line. Wrong attitude! Bad process! In fact, we've even see the same attitude here. Here's this concern, and we get a "no, that's not a problem", and it get's fobbed off with a one sentence reply. It's only a small virus that's contaminated this vaccination. It has no proven risk. Let's ignore that it has no unproven risk either, and that vaccines shouldn't be contaminated! Or it's okay to have this NEW vaccine whether you've been sexually active or not, let's not consider the fact it that has been rush produced and is being use on mass without proper trails because it was pre-approved. Honestly, the from the hip justifications don't persuade me to think any different.
Luckily I haven't experienced birth trauma or as some call it birth rape, but I did have the midwife come in while I was being stitched up from three 2nd degree tears to stop me haemorrhaging, trying to persuade me using emotional blackmail to give my son the hep B vax despite my clear indication in my records/birth plan etc that it wasn't going to happen. That is disgusting! If my trust was shaky beforehand, it become non-existant after that. Why the hell should we trust a system that stands there while a woman has a strangers hands in their most private parts using emotional blackmail to pressure them into giving their baby's vaccines before the mother even has had the chance to get herself together. It's a very deliberate tactic to undermine a woman's/parents informed choice. Vaccines have more issues than just their ingredients and side effects, the attitude behind many of the medical establishment peddling them and how determined they are to be obtuse to the concerns of parents is just as dangerous IMO.
I'm sorry PollyA and Rockin, but seeing that you both work in the medical field, I'm not convinced that the culture of your employment means you are giving the most unbiased/balanced opinions. Of course I expect you to defend it. You want to believe you're helping to "save" people and would not want to consider that instead those actions regarding vaccinations may mean you are actually playing a part in harming many people. Conflict of interest.
Bookmarks