Printable View
Obviously I can't speak for the masses because there are some that won't introduce the virus into their child's system for medical reasons but for me personally I prefer to single vax on a delayed schedule IF the vaccine could be delivered in a safe non chemical method:
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.
Yes, I more than likely would start to vaccinate again DM.
ETA - on the subject of GP's, I have always had my childrens' vaccinations done by my local GP. As a family we have only ever seen two GP's and that is only because our first one left the area. Our current GP does not administer the vaccinations himself, his clinic Sister does that, but he comes in and gives them a check up before hand and he double checks that the dose and the numbers are right etc. When I asked him for the CO form to be done he had no problems with it as he knew that I was a 'vaxer' but understood my reasons for not wanting to continue so he was more than satisfied that I knew what I was doing and he was happy to sign it for me with no judgement or intimidation. I did say at the time that I could well catch up with it in the future but for now I wanted to stop.
I am vaccinated for Hep B because I used to work as a Dental Nurse.
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
.....
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
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.
.....
And that's all anyone can ever ask of you prettybutterfly.
Respectfully I disagree Lu... Formaldehyde is a natural gas produced by living cells - however it is different in composition to the manufactured variety.
Also - I don't feed my new born baby bananans only breastmilk so it's not getting formaldehyde in any other form apart from the gaseous emissions from furniture, carpet, paint, pollution, other foods etc etc. Way too much formaldehyde than I am comfortable with... Let alone injecting into her body.
I think of a baby born in perfection - everything (usually) in perfect chemical balance - all the amino acids, gases everything in that body working perfectly. Then bang there is an onslaught of chemicals and additives that trigger an immune response. That to me is massive!
However PB if you choose to eat organic bananans you will not be eating any inorganic formaldehyde. (from bananas!) Bananas being very burdeoned in commercial farming with poisons being laden with formaldehyde are quite a toxic little yellow fruit...
And PB if: "your decision affects my children it's not on"... I wonder if you would feel so bland if the day comes that it is proven there is an issue... I wonder if you would feel so bland if your child had reacted as many of our children have. I wonder if you would make that statement as you held your child convulsing, mouth frothing and eyes rolling back in her head as my child did? Yes, her reaction is not "common" but it was my/her/our experience - an it was really tough.
Be careful about big bold statements as we never know what is around our corners in life. The turns and twists are so that we never really know what is going to be around the corner.
We all make our decisions with the knowledge (and hopefully) instincts that we have at the time. These sometimes change as time, maturity and knowledge grows.
However, my children personally haven't had any of these childhood diseases - that their immunised friends have. It's my experience that the immunised ones are actually more likely to pass it on to the unimmunised ones! Ironic hey? I keep them as free as I can manage of additives such as formaldehyde - which is a known carcinogen I might add! I worry when there is an outbreak - breathe a sigh of relief when it passes with my children untouched...
I haven't got global answers to this issue - however I do have some.
You or anyone else has no right to expect me or anyone else to inject into my childs body a substancde that has huge question marks over it. I have questions, fears and there are flaws to this vaccination and its schedule - from my perspective.
When you choose to immunise you do so because your perspective is different - your knowledge & instincts tell you something different. As I said above its my experience that immunised children seem to "catch" the diseases more readily than the unimunised ones - however I would never dream to tell you that it is you or any other parent that immunises that are putting MY children at risk.
Let's lay off the blame and guilt. It takes a great deal of courage to not immunise when it is pedalled as the only safe way by our health system..
Deb, does it have a different name then? (formaldehyde stuff) Or is one just 'naturally occuring' and the other just plain ole formaldehyde? Is it where it resides that makes the difference?
OT - sorry
No it's not over the top and its a valid question.
Formaldehyde is a natural bi product of cells. It is part of organic cells. However when it is chemically reproduced it is a toxin. It is in evrey bloody thing you can name. Paint, chip board, kitchens, fuel, makeup, shampoo etc etc.
It's kind of like saying that carbon dioxide is natural whenit's coming out of the car exhaust. Carbon dioxide is also a bi product of respiration (very lay speak here) but can you really think that what comes out of your exhaust is the same deal?
Do you see my point. The body is an amazing complex thing and the levels of formaldehyde are normal and natural in a healthy body. As are the expiration of Carbon dioxide... However take them out of their natural environ and they will and can and could both kill you in the right dose.
It irritates me no end (I own my passion here) that people take a chemical and say: "see it's natural" when yep it is but not to be used as it is... Formaldehyde is fabulous at preserving dead things - and yes it is in a small dose in a dose of vaccine. BUT - it's not naturally forming. It's an additive and one that is known and "scientifically proven" to be a carcinogen in its manufactured form..
Like SLE - it's a poisonous compound - its a carcinogen but because it is in small doses it's an allowable ingredient in almost every product that foams. It produces a gas as does formaldehyde.
So our society our homes, our cities, our classrooms, our kitchens are overflowing with these toxins (unless we choose safe alternatives) and they are undoubtedly making us a sick society.
So all these little bits here and there - as our friend PB says even the humble banana has it's share thanks to spraying... Every living thing will have a formaldeyde exchange but to compare it to the additive in vaccines (and other additives) is not correctly representing the compound! *just to get all technical about it - sorry* :redface:
And with Carbon Dioxide - even though natural part of respiration, your body is getting rid of it, not keeping it yeah? (burps after fizzy drink):
a-HA, that's exactly the info I was after. What about things like Vit E reproduced in a lab - not saying it will therefore be a toxin, but is it not exactly the same in it's chemical makeup?
I meant Off Topic :redface:...maybe it's not though after all.
This is very true. In the most recent pertussis outbreaks, the majority of cases were amongst adults, in particular older adults and grandparents. IMO, there are good grounds to consider the pertussis vaccine later in life, rather than during babyhood.:
I respectfully disagree with you Deb, any chemical has the same molecular structure regardless of where it is produced. Water is water H2O if it is created as a by-product of hydrogen combustion or gathered from a high mountain spring.
As for formaldehyde being a natural occurance in the body, I have looked that up & found this in Wiki:
I think a lot of misinformation is peddled out there about a lot of things.:
Occurrence
Formaldehyde is an intermediate in the oxidation (or combustion) of methane as well as other carbon compounds, e.g. forest fires, in automobile exhaust, and in tobacco smoke. When produced in the atmosphere by the action of sunlight and oxygen on atmospheric methane and other hydrocarbons, it becomes part of smog.
Formaldehyde, as well as its oligomers and hydrates are rarely encountered in living organisms. Methanogenesis proceeds via the equivalent of formaldehyde, but this one-carbon species is masked as a methylene group in methanopterin. Formaldehyde is the primary cause of methanol's toxicity, since methanol is metabolised into toxic formaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase. Formaldehyde is converted to formic acid in the body. Formaldehyde has been detected in outer space (see below).
Regardless, I still don't want it injected into my bubs body.
But Winter, that's why we have the enzymes to counteract the Methanol/Formaldehyde/Formic Aicd. Our body knows how to deal with it when it is ingested from a food source. Not only that eating foods with folic acid also counteracts it. Like I said before, Mother Nature seems to know what she is doing.
That's fine Trill, just remember that Bubonic Plague is "natural" too and water is a chemical. I think there are lots of terms out there like "natural", "organic", "chemical free" that are misleading and downright wrong. Inanna's claims thatare incorrect. It makes me question what else is being peddled in this thread that is incorrect too.:
Formaldehyde is a natural bi product of cells. It is part of organic cells.
In fact I think these threads are dangerous because we all know a little bit but not enough to help people make informed decisions and the scare-mongering continues.
.....
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.:
My only comment to add to the discussion is this: A few people have spoken about the fact they believe that you need to think of the community' rights when considering vaccination. I think you actually need to think of the communitys right to health by quarantining. We rely far too much on the supposed effectiveness of vaccines and unless every child was tested we would never know exactly which child had had a positive reaction to the vaccines (keep in mind vaccines are one average only effective for 60% of the people innoculated). This has been made so clear to me in recent months as I had to take very high doses of immunosuppresant drugs for the first 16weeks of this preganancy so that the baby would survive my own immune system. As a result I became a virtual recluse unable to go to shopping centres because irresponsible people and their childre think noting of going out with colds flus and other germs, sneezing and coughin all over the place, workers and ship assistants who go to work when they are unwell again sneezing and couging etc...kids in shopping trolleys hacking up a lung. If we as a society became more responsible for the spread of disease by isolating ourselves when we were sick, the spread of disease in all its forms would be far far less.......but we dont....we live in a world of false security and it's someone elses problem not mine.......
Even now I break out in a sweat when out doing chrissy shopping and I hear someone cough....it's not right......
Winter this I fear is going to become a thread on the "rightness" of what is Formaldehyde. However, perhaps you need to research a little further than Wiki - I have't looked at that site but I can tell you 100 % formaldehyde aoccurs naturally in the environment. It is produced in small amounts by most living organisms as part of normal metabolic processes. I haven't got time to go back over what I wrote this morning - but if I did not say this then let it be heard... Formaldehyde is produced in small amouts by living organisims... That is an indisputable fact!
Nothing incorrect is being "pedalled" by this thread. PB made the large leap that bananas have formeldehyde in them and therefore it is okay to have this as an ingredient in vaccines.
I was pointing out that it is in fact a naturally occuring compound & in the context of it's useage and exposure to humans is a known carcinogen. Because contrary to what you have said Winter the compound is altered when it is manufactured. Many people react to this compound & as with most things some are more sensitive than others.
It is also incorrect that there are only 1 form of a compound and thus the same effect is had by it in all areas. Your hypothesis on water being another - you have portrayed this very simplistically and it is not accurate at all. Water is still H2O however depending on where you have collected that sample and after what chemical reaction it will have different traits. So water is not the same at all collected from a moutain spring or from the steam off a kettle. Yes it will all contain H2O but with the added extras from whatever reaction has occured from boiling in perhaps aluminium, chlorine etc etc.
Formaldehyde exists in several forms aside from H2CO - I won't go into it here but again you can probably access information on the internet about this.
It is an absolutely terrible thing when a child reacts the way your child did. It is truly something I would never wish on anybody..... ever ! This is my point. I don't want my DD being at risk of catching preventable diseases and if you don't immunize that's exactly will happen to the community as a whole.
Pretty Butterfly if I don't immunise what happened to my daughter will happen to a community as a whole? I don't understand what you are saying.
It could be true that when our vax rate drops below 50% that we have more deaths due to childhood illnesses. It could be true... However, what those that do not vaccinate are saying is that they have weighed up the cons and the pros and the cons came out on top. The risk of injury due to the vaccination is greater than the risk of serious debilitation or death from the illness that these vaccines are aiming to prevent.
You PB are doing what you believe is right for YOUR child. Leave each individual to make the decision that is best for THEIR child. You have not experienced what some have - nor have you seen it. So you have every faith in the vaccine and its safety and you are doing what you think is safest for your child.
Myself and many others have a different experience and we are doing what we think is safest for our children.
Your comments with regard to WHO - these are worldwide statistics. Undoubtedly vaccination programmes especially in third world countries have done much to halt the spread of illnesses that kill in areas where hygiene levels are low. I have been there and I have seen it with my own eyes. Vaccines have prevented much in those countries.
We don't live in a third world country - we have clean water and soap to wash our hands, we have access to helath care. We also have questions about the risk of injury to our children.
I have seen these countries and I know just how amazing vaccines have been at halting the spread of contagious disease. I also understand very well the need for the majority of the community to be immunised to make it effective. As I have said tirelessly I lament at the conflict I have with this personally.
However, seeeing all I have I still cannot inject my babies with these vaccines. I am doing what I think is best for my children.
Those that do vaccinate believe they are doing the best for theirs.
But Barb says all the time in the breastfeeding section wrt the WHO breastfeeding guidelines::
So how come it's good to follow their guidelines about BFing but not about immunisation? (no need to answer, I'm just posing it as a point):
It's the World Health Organisation, not the Third World Health Organisation.
I didn't say that Barb did so perhaps it would be more seemly to direct that question her way.
However, I will say it again. The WHO stats with regard to the spread of disease are of course and clearly for everyone to see with very little prompt.
Obviously the rate of death of immunisable childhood illnesses is tremendously higher in third world countires. For obvious reasons. Lack of health care, unclean water, poor nutritional status etc etc.
Clearly our risk of dying of measles in Australia is quite different to that of a child in ... Tanzania.
The stats on the decrease in death are due to many factors but one of the greatest is that there have been mass immunisations in third world countries.
We have a very small population comparatively for example to the continent of Africa - so therefore it sways the figures.
If this doesn't convince anyone - please google the rates of death of MMR in Australia over the last 50 years. It has decreased but if you then google the rate of death to the same disease in India you will see that it is quite disparate. I haven't googled these and the countries are flying from my fingers. But I have no doubt if you are a child in India your risk of death to measles is very much highr than if you are a child in Australia now or in fact 50 years ago.
Because Breastfeeding isn't introducing foreign substances not designed to be introduced to the body.:
It isn't comparing apples with apples. It's two different topics. I choose to follow BF advice from that sort of organisation, but I wouldn't be so accepting if the guidelines asked me to coat my nipples in arsenic and offer it to my newborn.
.....
So does that mean because I don't agree with the WHO's stance on vaccination, I must therefore not agree with anything they've written?:
I'm confused (not being a smarty pants) - whatever happened to being able to pick what "feels right" and ignoring what doesn't? I wouldn't call that a double standard.
I see a double standard as asking a mum to not vaccinate and that same day taking my kids to the Dr for a vaccination
ETA - has anyone asked for there to be a WHO sticky on vaccination? If not, why not? If so, we should also have a sticky illustrating BOTH sides of the argument
And people travelling from Tanzania or India don't import these diseases? Any traveller can bring back these contagious diseases, just one person has to bring it in to have an outbreak. I find it frustrating that everyone relies on herd immunity but some in the herd say, no- not my kids while relying on the rest of our children to be immunised.
I'm thinking PB that you might just need to re read the post. I was speaking to Winter and I referred to your banana statement. Just have a little reread.
So PB can you just show me where the WHO stats on immunisation is just referring to Australia? I didn't realise they had stats just for Australia - and that you are referring to them... Can you show me a link to them as I didn't realise this.
My sweet you don't need to explain yourself to me at all - I like everyone else in this thread are discussing my stance on immunisation. I made my comments that to me are valid - and you are now pointing out I am incorrect and that these stats are only national stats for Australia. I am more than happy to concede error and learn from any mistake I have made.
Not every thread will have a point for every member - for myself and others though it has been interesting.
Winter I understand your frustration & I have such a conflict as well...:hug:
Over the years I've become more and more informed about vac's.
I wish I knew years ago what I know now - I wouldn't have given the vac's
I wish i had found a good homeopath for my kids, rather than inject them with all the stuff in the vac's.
The Truth About Vaccines by Terri L. Saunders - is very interesting
NVIC Launches Research Fund To Study Health & Vaccination - also might interest you.
Homoeoprophylaxis – a Proven Alternative to Vaccination By Dr Isaac Golden
But at the end of the day the choice is yours. It's what you feel you are willing to do and which side of the "argument" holds more risks vs benefits.
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.
Dm, I chose to vaccinate my ds. (note the word vaccinate,as we've all been using- very important- the word immunisations is misleading I think, it seems to imply a child is completley immune when we know they are not). The mitigating factor for me was that at the time I was working in a children's hospital. I did my research, and weighed up my risks- it was the fact that I would regularly come into contact with people who were possible infectious that swayed my desicion.
Having said that, it's not been such an easy descion with dd because I am no longer working there. However, I decided that because we regularly go to daycare, playgroup, swimming, etc- we are in contact with other kids at least 4 days a week- I'm using that as my justifcation for vaccinating dd.
It's not an easy desicion to make. I am happy with the descions I've made, but I still feel a lot of trepidation reading threads like this- the risks of vaccinating are real, and quite scary.
Just with the Hep B vac- I decided not to do it at birth. The main reason behind that was that if an adult was being vaccinated against Hep B, they would get 3 needles, but for some reason we give little children four. My mw tells me it's because there are a lot of people choosing not to vaccinate, so they try to 'catch' people before the baby leaves hospital.
I think this is the crux of the issue. This is why people who do vaccinate get so upset with people who don't. Our decision to vaccinate affects you in a positive way, in that heard immunity is maintained. Your decision not to vaccinate affect us in a negative way, in that if vaccination rates drop below a certain level, all children, your unvaccinated children and my vaccinated children are at greater risk of becoming sick or dying.:
Formaldehyde's Chemical Formula: HCHO (and CH3OH in water) - same formula whether it's in a banana, in a vaccine, in car exhaust, in an open fire (yes - 'tis formed by combustion), or in furniture.
I can't really reconcile how someone can be anti-vaccinations in this country, but support mass vaccinations in third world countries. Apparently - given that there appears to be an anecdotal link - giving autism to kids in the third world is just fine as long as it's not in our back yard. Never mind that in those countries, they wouldn't have even a sniff of the resources to cope with & manage autism like this country does. Goose Vs Gander?
I hear you Epacris and Winter and that must be frustrating. It is hard for me to explain my viewpoint, but I guess I just want to reassure you that not all parents who choose to avoid or delay vaccination (so far we plan to just be delayers) are blithely taking for granted those who do help towards herd immunity. I am looking forward to joining you, but I need to have a peace of mind about everything first. xo
.....
Agreed. I think this is why vaccination is such an emotive issue, even more so than, say, bf'ing or ff'ing, or cloth or sposies. (DM, maybe that's why it's not so openly discussed?). In their essence, those things only effect you and your child, while the choice to vaccinate or not effects a community as a whole.:
Not suggesting that people should neccessarily put their community before their child, but it does give yo pause for thought.
OK, so my children caught mumps from playgroup, more than likely imported from o/s. As far I was told the other children at playgroup are vacced.
So because I am responsible, and very alert because of my non vacc status I quarantined the children for the required amount of time..and then a little bit more.
Now - I know my children and how they react. The minute I detect a fever we stay at home, because that's an indication they are fighting something off. Fever, runny nose (which they NEVER get usually) and we are all home. That's my responsibility to the community covered AFAIC.:lol:
So how am I spreading it? How am I placing anyone else in danger? I don't mind if my children get sick now and again - what's considered a normal childhood illness? I am happy they caught mumps and measles when they were young, I wouldn't want them to catch either when they are older. :wiggle:
As Mel mentioned before - the amount of people that drag themselves and their kids out all whilst coughing up a lung or whatnot is far more dangerous to other (and immunosuppressed) that me not vaccing. I'm not relying on herd immunity, I'm relying on their own bodies and the natural ability to fight it off.
If I was afraid of them catching these things, I'd probably have to vax, but I'm not.:angelic:
MY decision for my kids - and I also do my utmost best to protect yours, and half that is just plain old manners. It's bloody gross to spread disease.:sick:
*making a point I'm not shirty :lol: