Why not vaccinate?

[Lulu]

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

[Inanna]

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*

[Lulu]

However when it is chemically reproduced it is a toxin.

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 ...maybe it's not though after all.

[Schmickers]

dont forget that most babies get whooping cough from adults.. not children

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.

[Winter]

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:

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).

I think a lot of misinformation is peddled out there about a lot of things.

[Lulu]

Regardless, I still don't want it injected into my bubs body.

[Trillian]

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.

[Winter]

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 that

Formaldehyde is a natural bi product of cells. It is part of organic cells.

are incorrect. It makes me question what else is being peddled in this thread that is incorrect too.

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.

[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.

[melbel]

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......

[Inanna]

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.

[Epacris]

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.

But Barb says all the time in the breastfeeding section wrt the WHO breastfeeding guidelines:

It's the World Health Organisation, not the Third World Health Organisation.

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)

[Inanna]

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.

[Mummato2]

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)

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.

[Visitor3]

.....

[Mummato2]

If the WHO is good enough to have a sticky on what their stance is on BF'ding then why not for vaccines??....double standard as usual !

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