I agree with you & that's why I'm asking but I just don't know where to start to find the right Information but some pp have given me some good places to have a look at.
As for your two questions I feel strongly about both but once I've got the info I need I'll prob feel stronger about one or the other.
The best way is to start with one particular disease, rather than looking at general information about vaccination. Look at what the disease can do, how it's transmitted etc. then look at incidences of outbreaks of that disease, vaccination rates, adverse reactions to that vaccination, how many people got it despite being vaccinated - that sort of thing. If you don't have direct access to journals, make google scholar your friend, at the very least you should be able to view abstracts. Still not ideal, but better than just taking a blanket view sites word for it. When you find a journal read ALL of it if you can, not just the conclusions which will be coloured by the researcher's bias. I think this is the ONLY way to get a semi-unbiased picture of what is going on because it is such a murky and emotive topic, and when things are talked about generally they can be made to mean anything. Unfortunately, studies will also be restricted as to what someone would fund, and finding studies that haven't been funded by a stakeholder in vaccines (and I would consider the government a stakeholder) is very, very hard. To be honest, they're practically non-existant within the main-stream.
As an example of why you need to read the whole study: one of the platinum studies on vaccine safety's conclusions says that the levels of toxic metals are safe. This is one of the main ones used by the CDC, WHO, FDA, and government health departments around the world. A quick glimpse at the figure at the bottom of the table would collaborate the conclusion made in this study UNTIL you look at the method and the information further up the table of figures. The method of getting this magic number that is under toxic levels was calculated by adding up the total level that was in all vaccinations received over a six months period and then dividing that by 180. That's akin to me downing two 25 unit packets of cold tablets in one day and then saying as long as I don't have any more of that medication for the next month ingesting those tablets is safe because my daily dose will be under the recommended safe levels of 6 a day. If I did that, I'd be in the hospital getting my stomach pumped. This is junk science, and that is what is being used as PROOF that metals in vaccines are safe. Vaccines aren't given gradually over 180 days. They are given in bulk injections, so to even get close to the reality of whether the metals a child exposed to at vaccination is safe the science should have at least divided it by the number of doses. Even this would be an inaccurate figure though, as some vaccines contain more toxic substances than others. As you can see, vaccine safety is a murky topic, hence the reason I think a parent has to navigate it for themselves because there are just too many agendas.
We developed our own schedule (and posted it on BB somewhere...) and did exactly what Yeddi suggests. No one can give you the answers about which vax to get or not get and when, because each family is different.
FYI, we decided against getting the Infanrix Hexa (which has 6 vax) and instead chose the Infanrix IPV, which only has 4 (whooping cough, diptheria, tetanus & polio). We had to pay for the Infanrix IPV but it's only about $40 a dose. You have to ask for it specifically, but we had no issues with getting something different from the Schedule.
Oh, and the Schedule is the same all over Australia, it's a federal government thing, not State-based.
ETA: My thread with our custom-made delayed schedule (which is on page 2) is HERE
Registered User
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks