Printable View
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:
Wooo - what's going on?
Sent a message a little while back and now it looks like a heated debate?
It's a personal choice.
Google the info and way up the pro's and con's
Think everyone needs a good night sleep and agree to disagree:think:
Opps, on that note I'd like to say my repeated question marks are coming across like I'm standing here demanding answers like an old school marm. Gonna go add some smileys!
:lol: Point duly noted Lulu.
I don't understand the point being made about unvaccinated children posing a threat to vaccinated children. Surely, if vaccinations are the be all and end all, the vaccinated children shouldn't have a problem?! And what about people like my sister, who has had both the chicken pox AND the vaccine, yet continues to get chicken pox - is it their fault if they pass on the disease?
I agree with Lulu and Melbel 500% that children are far more in danger from parents who insist on taking their children to public places when they are clearly sick than they are from children who's parents have made the informed, reasoned choice to vaccinate homeopathically. Honestly, I am offended by the implication that I have not researched and thought out my decision to not vaccinate my future children as per government guidelines.
*Trying desperately to be unemotional and not 'shirty', but possibly failing miserably, in which case PM me :)
Did you quarantine them two days before they showed any sign of illness? Mumps, & most viruses, are infectious before any symptoms are displayed. For mumps, depending on the source of the info, the contagious period starts anywhere from 2 to 6 days before obvious symptoms.:
Lulu, you're the exception, not the rule.
The ultimate aim of vaccinations is to elimate a disease from a population like polio & smallpox have been in Australia. If enough people in a population are vaccinated against a disease then the disease may pop up occasionally but cannot get a foothold in that group because there will be herd immunity. When more people are not vaccinated, the disease can get into a population and stay around, infecting people who don't have any resistance to the disease with devistating effect. While vaccinations cannot make a person totally impervious to a disease, it can lesson the ramifications which for some diseases - worst case scenario is death.
While you may do the right thing in quaranting your child when sick, wouldn't you rather your child didn't catch that disease in the first place? I know I would. What about when your child grows up? The diseases can be much more severe when caught in adulthood. Mumps can cause infertility, chicken pox laid my husband sick & off work for 5 weeks, rubella can cause birth defects when non-immune pregnant women are exposed to it.
Sunflowa_Girlie, do your beliefs play a part in this decision? *Honestly interested, not being shirty, just wanting to understand more where you are coming from.*