Why not vaccinate?

[Heaven]

With the ingredients also being found in some foods etc I think there's a big difference between consuming a food and getting the chemical directly injected into your body.

[Visitor3]

.......

[Lulu]

Anna, I did try to discuss risk/benefits of vax/non with 2 separate Drs but they seemed unable to say much past what the leaflets (etc) said. I was pretty dissapointed esp with one of these docs being considered the one to go to for catch ups etc.
I had many questions ready and references to discuss but got nothing.

With the formaldehyde/additives etc - I understand that. I know where it might be, I gas off anything new I buy (furniture etc) outside for days before it comes inside.
There are heaps of chemicals we come into contact with - we have body systems (like skin) to help protect/process it.

I have a problem with injecting it directly into the body of a baby.

There are no safe levels for mercury to be injected into a live body yet it is.

[Mummato2]

Anna, I did try to discuss risk/benefits of vax/non with 2 separate Drs but they seemed unable to say much past what the leaflets (etc) said. I was pretty dissapointed esp with one of these docs being considered the one to go to for catch ups etc.
I had many questions ready and references to discuss but got nothing.

With the formaldehyde/additives etc - I understand that. I know where it might be, I gas off anything new I buy (furniture etc) outside for days before it comes inside.
There are heaps of chemicals we come into contact with - we have body systems (like skin) to help protect/process it.

I have a problem with injecting it directly into the body of a baby.

There are no safe levels for mercury to be injected into a live body yet it is.

I was just about to say the same thing.

It's different when it's introduced via environment - your stomach has acids to break it down if ingested, your skin has the ability to act as a filter - but directly injecting it into the bloodstream of a tiny infant is hardly the same

[Visitor3]

.....

[Trillian]

But the formaldehyde in a banana isn't a man made manufactured version is it? There are many chemcial substances that occur naturally in plants and edible plants, but they are completely different to what you would find in a chemists lab. Not only that prettybutterfly, you completely fail to mention that the 'formaldehyde' in bananas is actually methanol - which later converts to formaldehyde in the body but that humans have enzymes that break it down to be expelled from the body, and also that folic acid in fruits and vegetables protects against methanol toxicity, so mother nature knows what she is doing and to compare fruit with vaccinations is absurd

[Lulu]

Formaldehyde is formaldehyde no matter where it's 'grown' Trill - good points there on the fruits and veg!

PB, it's not just the one thing, it's the many that are in there and injected into the body...of a baby. I think that's a terrible shock to the system and with a boy on the spectrum somewhere I just couldn't take the chance.

However MY decisions won't affect your children any more than a vacc parent. Too many parents send their children to cc and school sick - vacc'd children can still catch CP (etc eg) and it's those with a false sense of security and bugger all understanding of the illnesses that can present just as much danger to your children.
Every single child I know that has had CP in the last 5 years or so was vacc'd against it.

Also - as tenar says, the chances of dying from these diseases is very low. Again, why do it when it's not always effective and not life or death?

I spoke to the Health Department when mine had the mumps. The lady I spoke with commended me on my knowledge of the disease and treatment, incubation times etc. Far more than the actual Dr I took them to...
At least I know what I'm up against and even if they were vaccd would never assume they are invincible because of that.

[Visitor3]

.....

[Trillian]

And that's all anyone can ever ask of you prettybutterfly.

[Visitor3]

.....

[Arcadia]

Re: delaying vaccinations. I thought the point was to stop babies and small children dying from diseases. If you're pro vax, why not vax a baby?

[Traveller]

Re: delaying vaccinations. I thought the point was to stop babies and small children dying from diseases. If you're pro vax, why not vax a baby?

My own person opinion is that the volume of chemicals in a vaccination is too much for a small child to take, it is too much of a chemical overload for their system. The dose does not change as you get bigger, so hence there is less vaccine per kg for the body to deal with and IMHO it seems more able to cope without side effects.

[suse]

Someone asked earlier in the thread about vaccines becoming natural or organic. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that.

To touch on something Winter said earlier, often the term 'chemical' is used inaccurately. Every substance that exists has a molecular (or atomic) structure. A chemical is another term for a complex molecule - that is, a substance containing more than one type of atom. Hence, water (one hydrogen atom, two oxygen atoms) is a chemical, ozone (three oxygen molecules) is a simple molecule.

A chemical can be naturally occurring, nature identical and synthetic. When many people refer to 'chemicals' they are really referring to synthetics. Nature identical refers to a substance that is synthesised but has the identical chemical structure as a naturally occurring substance. And synthetics are substances that have no direct analogue in nature (although this does not mean that it is impossible for it to occur naturally). It might sound like pedantry, but the distinction is really important.

It's also not accurate to conclude that synthetic = bad, natural = good. For a start, a nature identical synthetic has the exact same chemical structure, and therefore behaves identically to its naturally occurring analogue. In a given application, a synthetic may have properties that are more beneficial than what a similar substance that is naturally occurring can provide - inertness or stability is a good example. It may be identical to a naturally occurring chemical but without a particular irritant or allergen. Others are synthesised from more viable source materials. On the same token, some naturally occurring chemicals are superior to their synthetic counterparts (but may be more difficult or expensive to source), and some synthetics are sourced from non-renewable resources such as petrochemicals. There are too many factors involved to say that one thing is inherently 'good' and the other 'bad'.

In the case of vaccines, the true concern is not that carrier materials are 'inorganic', but that they are not inert - that is, they can be passed through the body without impact. This does not necessarily mean that to be inert they should be natural or organic. However, using organic or inert carrier media would potentially impact on the ability of the (usually live) organism to be utilised by the body (in water, for example, it is likely to be passed through the body without any effect), or is likely to otherwise impact upon the efficacy or stability of the vaccine. So it may mean that a larger amount of the virus is required to have the same effectiveness as when other substances are used. This may have a more profound impact on the immune system than what the use of current carrier materials have on the body in general.

It is also fair to say that given that the aim of mass vaccination is to eradicate a virus through herd immunity, that cost and the ability to mass produce and disseminate is always going to be a factor. Should suitable inert carrier substances be found, there would likely be a much higher cost of production.

There are a huge number of factors why alternatives to existing vaccination methodology are desirable, but are not foreseeably viable. This is not to say that research should not be continued into the efficacy of vaccination, the effect of its component parts on the human body, and whether these can be improved.