Registered User
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.
Registered User
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.
BellyBelly Member
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'.
Registered User
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.
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?
Registered User
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.
BellyBelly Member
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.
Registered User
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!
Registered User
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
Last edited by RockinSAHD; April 9th, 2011 at 11:53 PM. : link added
BellyBelly Member
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.
Registered User
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.
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
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.
Registered User
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!
BellyBelly Member
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.
Registered User
I agree Yeddi. The one size fits all model is a big worry to me!
Registered User
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.
Last edited by RockinSAHD; April 12th, 2011 at 11:54 AM.
BellyBelly Member
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?
Registered User
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?
Registered User
Anyhow, fertility wasn't a part of the issue was it?
Did you vaccinate the babies?
Bookmarks