Rob12paws

Like Crocodileseamus, I resent being labelled "daft" for refusing to vaccinate my daughter. I consider myself an educated and reasonably intelligent person, and I have spent the last eleven years reading as much information, referenced and otherwise, as I can find on the subject of immunisation. I consider myself intelligent enough to be able to weed out the "gold from the dross" too. When you have gone away and read the same amount of information for as long as I have, I will happily debate the topic with you, but to label someone who has made an informed decision "daft" only shows your own ignorance on the topic.

I believe if you check the government statistics, you will see that the vast majority of cases of pertussis now occur in vaccinated individuals. (If you go back far enough, you will also see that deaths from pertussis had started to decline long before vaccination was introduced.) That is why the medical profession now recommends several *boosters* to keep up immunity. If it ever confers it in the first place....

You - and so many others on this thread - plainly have your own opinions on the validity and efficacy of vaccinations - I respect your opinions, and I don't expect to be called "daft" for mine. Until vaccination becomes compulsory in Australia, it appears that the government is on the fence about the issue too.

Trekrider

Whilst it is true that hundreds of thousands of children die because of whooping cough each year it would appear that these are primarily in the so called under developed world. Here is a fact for you:

In the United States in 1998 there were 7,405 reported cases. There were 5 reported deaths. In 1999 there were 7,288 cases. In 2000 there were 7,867. The provisional number of deaths for 2000 is 12. only 82% of children in the US are fully immunized against pertussis (2000).

It is also a fact that the number of deaths from whooping cough were falling dramatically in the developed world long before the introduction of vaccination as Rob12paws has said.

Both my wife and I were vaccinated against whooping cough, We also both had whooping cough - obviously vaccination didn't help us did it? Or are you going to claim we only had a mild version because we were vaccinated?

Ozzidoc

Yes. Same happened to me with measles.

I really, really, really wish that immunology were taught at both primary and high school. Then people really could make informed choices.

asprilla

asprilla

In the paragraph above - you talk about:
a) trends in the number of US cases of whooping cough prior to immunisation, or
b) you and your wife's personal experience

But I don't understand how either can be used to support your argument. Data in (a) is completely unrelated to vaccination. And the sample size in (b) is too small to rely on the data.

If I am to use the same kind of logic as you seem to be using (just for argument's sake) then, I might draw your attention to the 5 deaths in 1998, 12 deaths in 2000, and the apparent decrease in immunisation rates. But I wouldn't do that, because that is not a logical argument.

asprilla

Well, you are incorrectly jumping to conclusions there, and you don't have any evidence to back up your argument. Imagine how silly I would look if I said:


Contrary to your position, I have a credible argument that the government does in fact support immunisation.

I can state, as a fact, that the Australian federal government supports immunisation by providing funding to state governments. A component of each year's Hospital Funding Grant is actually set aside to provide for immunisation programs.

Not only do the government demostrate their support through providing free immunisations, they also provide much in the way of free literature to educate people. Take a look at the following site:
http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/

asprilla

Oh come on....The very same website is offering this video on 9/11 conspiracy theories!!!

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=8340

asprilla

Sorry Trekrider, your way of thinking really worries me (hence I'm still trying to win you over in this debate).

Consider this example. There is a disease called "disease X". Every year, 1 in 10,000 children die of this disease. It would be unlikely that you would know any families of victims as 1 in 10,000 isn't all that common.

Now, there is an immunisation available against disease X. By and large it is very successful. In a few cases, (1 in 100) it is completely ineffective. In even fewer cases, there are some unwanted side effects. Furthermore, approximately 1 in 1,000,000 die directly as a result of taking the vaccine.

In the above example, would you immunise your children and pets?

Cheetah7

The pets vaccine is interesting.

When I worked as a veterinary nurse, I used to vaccinate my two cats against everything that was going, although we wouldnt do the whole lot at once, we would give say 2 weeks apart.

Mine had the usual flu/enteritis and I was persuaded to do FeLV and then a drug rep said 'Oh do Chlamydia as well' - so I did. My poor cats were pin cushions.

A couple of years later, my first cat developed pancreatic cancer which is not common in cats at all, our vet had only seen one case in his time.

Less than two years later, my other cat developed the same thing - pancreatic cancer.

Both cats were negative for Leukaemia and Aids.

My vet said there could be a link to the chlamydia vaccine and I had heard from a client whose cat also had the chlamydia vaccine, that her cat had developed pancreatic/bile duct cancer as well.

Linked? I don't know, there is no concrete evidence so I couldn't say but my cat Gordon only has a flu jab.

I wouldn't take the chance again and have seen some nasty reactions to cats who have had lots of vaccines as in flu, chlamydia, rabies, FeLV vaccines - although it isn't common.

Perhaps I was unlucky but I wouldn't take the chance again.

Now getting back to humans, I was reading in an MMR leaflet that the vaccine contains a small amount of formaldehyde(?) - is that true?

Because in a smoking in pregnancy leaflet that I read, it said pregnant women shouldnt smoke because fags contain a small amount of formaldehyde which in any amount is bad for the baby. Fair enough, pregnant women shouldnt smoke anyway.

But if formaldehyde in any amount is bad for the baby as they said in this leaflet, then how is it different if its in a vaccine as a preservative?

Just curious to know.

Ozzidoc

I'd be very interested in hearing about the chlamydia vax for cats!

Cheetah7

In those days it was called 'Felovax 4'.

Who knows if it was linked but I do remember both cats spiking a temperature with the vaccine and their glands were enormous - thinking about it, they were ill for a couple of weeks after the course of two jabs.

Chlamydia in cats was a problem in the area that I worked in, although there was no need for my two to have it as they were indoor cats. I just shouldnt have listened to the rep.

Who knows, I guess I will never find out but it was a very upsetting time.

I know how ill I feel when I have vaccines, the worst was my Tet, Dip, Polio in a triple - blood hell I was ill for ages after that.

The nurse where I worked two years ago told me that the jabs upset my immune system. I asked her about babies immune systems saying it must be hard for them and she said 'they have different immune systems'

My glands swell up after each and every vaccine and my practice wont give more than one vaccine at a time, we had to space them out.

Yet small babies are given several at once - it must be so hard for the parents.

Tuxtrip

Now getting back to humans, I was reading in an MMR leaflet that the vaccine contains a small amount of formaldehyde(?) - is that true?

Because in a smoking in pregnancy leaflet that I read, it said pregnant women shouldnt smoke because fags contain a small amount of formaldehyde which in any amount is bad for the baby. Fair enough, pregnant women shouldnt smoke anyway.

But if formaldehyde in any amount is bad for the baby as they said in this leaflet, then how is it different if its in a vaccine as a preservative?

Just curious to know.[/QUOTE]


Formaldehydes are found in most vaccines, together with Mercury, aluminium and other chemical preservatives, animal proteins and diploid cells from aborted foetuses, to name just a few - quite a nasty mixture of toxins we inject into our children. The more vaccines we include in the childhood schedule, the more toxins we commit them to.
I thought the information at www.naturalparenting.com.au was quite good, especially under the heading 'If you choose to conventionally vaccinate'.

I_Will_Freckle

Slutty pussy?

comet555

Ok, I think we can all agree their are risks associated with vaccinating and non-vaccination. So I'm not even going to go there. For me the benefits of vaccinating compared to the risks is worth it compared to the risks of not vaccinating. I know others disagree.

Anyhow.... my big question to the non-vaccinators is:

If the diseases we are trying to protect against start making a comeback, would you feel the same way? In other words... do you feel the risks of vaccinating aren't worth it at the moment because the likelihood of disease is low? Would you still choose not to immunize if these diseases were more widespread?

My big problem with vaccinating is that for it to work effectively (for most) there needs to be a large percentage of the population protected. If the majority of the population is protected then the few people that aren't vaccinated or whose vaccinations fail are still covered.

My concern is that as more people chose to not vaccinate it brings down the percentage of the general population that is protected. This opens the gate wide open for diseases to make a comeback and infect the un-vaccinated and vaccinated but not protected.

Here's a thought worth looking into:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Here's an article I quite liked:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com....rring_immunity

I would never even think about taking away choice to not vaccinate from parents. I think we all have the right to decide for ourselves what we want for our kids. However, I know I'd feel a lot better if most of the population was protected.

While I was pregnant with my son I was not protected against rubella. I did feel slightly vulnerable and I actually hoped that most of the people around me were protected. I know outbreaks are really rare, but I did not like knowing that if one were to happen that my baby would be seriously harmed.

hitchcock71

i did not know that cats got chlamydia you learn something new every day