Originally Posted by Sunshine7

Ah, but it's an issue which won't just go away, and as it evolves, with new vaccines being developed all the time, it's something which should always be discussed IMO.

I really don't see what the problem is with this thread. It's offering a lot of useful information and I would have thought parents would be grateful for every little bit they can get their hands on. This thread offers links to studies and a great starting point for people wishing to research the issue for themselves. As I said, the information FOR vaccines is readily accessible for everyone from the GP.

I think that if GP's were handing out information which truly allowed parents to make an objective decision, then there would be a lot more debate. I think that if they told parents straight what ingredients are in these vaccines, and their effect on the human body, then many parents would be compelled to look in to the whole issue a lot more.

I would never try to persuade anybody not to vaccinate their child. I would, however, try to persuade parents to digest ALL the information, both for and against, before they come to their decision. Our children are the most precious things in our lives, and at the end of the day, everyone on here just wants what is best for them.

I think is is true to say that some posters on here just don't seem to have read any of the information presented, and that's a shame. It would be great to have a proper, informative debate of the issues / studies raised. We all have so much to learn about this.

Originally Posted by Tuxtrip

Post of the day. Thank you Sunshine7. It is great to have people discussing such an important issue and there has been some excellent information put forward in these 200 posts.

Originally Posted by Princess Leia

1) Yes mortality rates were declining before vaccination was introduced, but the actual number of reported cases of the vaccinable diseases did not decline until vaccination was introduced.

2) Just because fewer people were not dying from the diseases, it did not mean they were not suffering. There was widespread disability and pain from polio, rubella (caused deafness and brain damage in unborn babies), infertility caused by mumps and so on. Only looking at mortality statistics overlooks the widespread impact of these diseases. When vaccination came in the rates of incidence of these disabilities dropped dramatically.

Have at look at these stats:

In 2005, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control issued parent's guide with some interesting statistics about the impact of vaccination on childhood diseases.

* Diphtheria
Cases per year (average) before vaccines: 175,885
Cases in 2003: 1
Decrease in cases per year: 99.9%

* Hib (<5 yrs old)
Cases per year (average) before vaccines: 20,000 (estimate)
Cases in 2003: 259
Decrease in cases per year: 98.8%

* Measles
Cases per year (average) before vaccines: 503,282
Cases in 2003: 56
Decrease in cases per year: 99.9%

* Mumps
Cases per year (average) before vaccines: 152,209
Cases in 2003: 231
Decrease in cases per year: 99.9%

* Pertussis (whooping cough)
Cases per year (average) before vaccines: 147,271
Cases in 2003: 11,647
Decrease in cases per year: 92.1%

* Polio (paralytic)
Cases per year (average) before vaccines: 16,316
Cases in 2003: 0
Decrease in cases per year: 100.0%

* Rubella
Cases per year (average) before vaccines: 47,745
Cases in 2003: 7
Decrease in cases per year: 99.9%

* Smallpox
Cases per year (average) before vaccines: 48,164
Cases in 2003: 0
Decrease in cases per year: 100.0%

* Tetanus
Cases per year (average) before vaccines: 1,314
Cases in 2003: 20
Decrease in cases per year: 98.5%


Source: http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPr...ents-guide.pdf

Originally Posted by Sunshine7

Interesting. Can I just ask, where it gives the average cases per year before vaccines, over which years, and how many years is that averaged out? If it was, say, for the five years prior to vaccines then that is one thing, but if it was over about 100 years prior to vaccines then that is another thing entirely, and would not take into account improved sanitation and diet etc. Does anybody have this info? Princess Leia? I have tried googling it without much success.

Also, can I ask if you have the same sort of statistics for Britain? Am I right in thinking that over the years different states in the US have had different vaccination schedules, whereas Britain has one schedule for the whole country?

I would also be interested to see a similar thing done with diseases which have died out naturally, i.e. cases averaged out exactly the same was as those above and cases in 2003.

I suppose I'm just a bit greedy for information. Anybody on here help?

Originally Posted by Princess Leia

It's not a big secret that vaccines fail in some people, at best vaccines are 90% efficient. However, vaccination is not so much about protecting a stand alone individual against the diseases, it's about protecting the population. The more people that are vaccinated, the stronger the "herd immunity" of the population will be to withstand epidemics.
So if an outbreak occurs, then the ability of the diseases to spread will be limited. However, the more unvaccinated people around, the disease will spread much more easily between humans and will affect the weak and vulnerable i.e. people whose vacinations didn't take, those who cannot be vaccinated or who are too young to be vaccinated.

So if an individual is not vaccinated then the failure rate = 100%. If they are vaccinated then the average failure rate is 10% - 25%. So it's quite a different situation and a concern if more people are unvaccinated.

I have a lot of friends who are anti vaxxers so when I had children, I was given a lot of literature from them! I had to do some research of my own.

I found this publication helpful too - a long read but very good:
http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/in...th-edition.pdf

Originally Posted by Princess Leia

It's not a big secret that vaccines fail in some people, at best vaccines are 90% efficient. However, vaccination is not so much about protecting a stand alone individual against the diseases, it's about protecting the population. The more people that are vaccinated, the stronger the "herd immunity" of the population will be to withstand epidemics.
So if an outbreak occurs, then the ability of the diseases to spread will be limited. However, the more unvaccinated people around, the disease will spread much more easily between humans and will affect the weak and vulnerable i.e. people whose vacinations didn't take, those who cannot be vaccinated or who are too young to be vaccinated.

So if an individual is not vaccinated then the failure rate = 100%. If they are vaccinated then the average failure rate is 10% - 25%. So it's quite a different situation and a concern if more people are unvaccinated.

I have a lot of friends who are anti vaxxers so when I had children, I was given a lot of literature from them! I had to do some research of my own.

I found this publication helpful too - a long read but very good:
http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/in...th-edition.pdf

Originally Posted by Japonica

I don't mean to sound snarky, or that I'm beating a dead horse, but with vaxes like pertussis that do NOT prevent transmission, how are they achieving herd immunity and protecting the herd? The herd is still passing the bacteria along...

Originally Posted by Sunshine7

Interesting. Can I just ask, where it gives the average cases per year before vaccines, over which years, and how many years is that averaged out? If it was, say, for the five years prior to vaccines then that is one thing, but if it was over about 100 years prior to vaccines then that is another thing entirely, and would not take into account improved sanitation and diet etc. Does anybody have this info? Princess Leia? I have tried googling it without much success.

Also, can I ask if you have the same sort of statistics for Britain? Am I right in thinking that over the years different states in the US have had different vaccination schedules, whereas Britain has one schedule for the whole country?

I would also be interested to see a similar thing done with diseases which have died out naturally, i.e. cases averaged out exactly the same was as those above and cases in 2003.

I suppose I'm just a bit greedy for information. Anybody on here help?

Originally Posted by Japonica

P.S. thanks for the link...I can bring it in, highlighted and with my evidence and studies to contradict it when I meet with the doctor for our CO form signing...cheers..

Originally Posted by Japonica

Oh well, I don't mind. That's what commitment is all about. I'm not going to say, wow, 53 pages, what a hassle, you're right doctor, my long held convictions are not worth this much time, please vaccinate my children right now!

Edited to add: I just skimmed through it and can already see a number of points I can provide recent contradictory studies for it...like the immunologist from Winnipeg who demonstrated a tangible link between the old DPT and asthma. So, even if it's the older form of the vaccine, the gov't can't claim there is NO correlation between vaccination and asthma.

Originally Posted by Tuxtrip

Post of the day. Thank you Sunshine7. It is great to have people discussing such an important issue and there has been some excellent information put forward in these 200 posts.

Originally Posted by Japonica

Oh well, I don't mind. That's what commitment is all about. I'm not going to say, wow, 53 pages, what a hassle, you're right doctor, my long held convictions are not worth this much time, please vaccinate my children right now!

Edited to add: I just skimmed through it and can already see a number of points I can provide recent contradictory studies for it...like the immunologist from Winnipeg who demonstrated a tangible link between the old DPT and asthma. So, even if it's the older form of the vaccine, the gov't can't claim there is NO correlation between vaccination and asthma.