Childhood Vaccinations??

.

Just once I would like to see a Thimerosal "defender" say "You know, I learned something today."

Its always the same thing though...

instead.... they deflect... with statements about the MSDS like "It's just legalise" (like that suddenly means its safe, thanks professor...)

and then qualify it with an "I do it all the time with other chemicals in my profession"

You want us to assume the MSDS and the manufacturer warnings are just smoke and mirrors, when in fact it is doctors defending thimerosal standing behind the mirrors and queing up the smoke machine.

Eventually .... their arguement ends up with, "Well if they can use something besides Thimerosal, I won't complain." as some kind of way out.

Then pray tell, why start defending Thimerosal at all?
If this issue comes up on the board again and there isn't someone to set the record straight, are you going to step in again and "defend Thimerosal" in the hopes that you can sway a few ignorants? Please tell me no.






[edit on 1-2-2006 by KDX175DUEX]

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Also, if 3-6 in 1,000 children having autism is too high a rate of side effects for you, perhaps you should consider the other 994 children who won't contract measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, etc.

So its ok to create new lifelong diseases if you combat some temporary diseases??

I'm sorry but I don't think its ok to create new diseases, just so we can combat others.
Apparently you do. And a medical student no less.... lord help us.

ok let me get your opinion on the Hepatitus vaccine given "moments" after birth. Is that necessary? (Hepatitus infected mother excluded)

The first week of life is the most crucial don't you agree?
Could we, in our vast wisdom, at least wait 1 week before introducing our "home-made toxins" into a developing baby?

Would really like to get all doctors opinion on this.




[edit on 1-2-2006 by KDX175DUEX]

Originally posted by KDX175DUEX
So its ok to create new lifelong diseases if you combat some temporary diseases??

Apparently there are many people of the opinion that "It's okay to sacrifice the few to protect the many." What a selfish age we live in.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by riley]

Hi to all who have posted (and thanks)! WOW, I never even knew of half the risks associated with the vaccines. It is incredible that they can even continue as they do. I was particularly interested in BadMojo's link that included each vaccine and the ingredients.

Tell me how it is that chick embryo, fetal tissue, metals (mercury, aluminum), vesicle fluid from calf skin, monkey kidney cells, formaldehyde, etc...cure/prevent these diseases in children (even adults for that matter). I would like to see the evidence to back that up.

Also, no one has even mentioned the fact some of these vaccines contain aluminum, which has been linked to Alzheimer's. I just can't see how these ingredients are effective in keeping said diseases away, could someone please explain further on this?

In April the Committee conducted a hearing reviewing the epidemic of autism and the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS) response. Ten years ago, autism was thought to affect 1 in 10,000 individuals in the United States. When the Committee began its oversight investigation in 1999, autism was thought to affect 1 in 500 children. Today, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) estimates that autism affects 1 in 250 children.
..

Source

Not 1 in 166, although i believe it's just a more recent figure, but a very significant increase, don't you think? I think it's safe to attribute this development to external factors.

There are obvious counter-arguments to misdiagonsed Autism, namely that the symptoms are very hard to overlook and don't go away with adulthood...

.. since you're going to demand a source, i'll gladly provide one...


With that out of the way, i think it's time to directly adress the obvious, namely what to do about those cases where infants immediately responded strongly to vaccination eventually emerging with permanently altered behaviour...

Well, these cases may coincidence, but this needs to be investigated, otherwise, the credibility of any treatment is at stake, and it had better be the preservatives, the alternatives would be way too ugly, wouldn't they?


PS: I believe that any medical treatment should be handled with an appropriate amount of caution, vaccines, like anything else are not omnipotent and are of course potentially hazardous This is imho, a tragic example of the more-is-always-better mentality gone bad. Lack of discourse is sooner or later going to hurt - everybody.

Hi. You're kind of knocking at an open door with me about thiomersal, but can you provide evidence about the 1 in 166 figure from some sort of validated epidemiological study?

Seems like several people have done this for me. There's an awful lot of info out there on this problem.

So its ok to create new lifelong diseases if you combat some temporary diseases??

I'm sorry but I don't think its ok to create new diseases, just so we can combat others.
Apparently you do. And a medical student no less.... lord help us.

ok let me get your opinion on the Hepatitus vaccine given "moments" after birth. Is that necessary? (Hepatitus infected mother excluded)

The first week of life is the most crucial don't you agree?
Could we, in our vast wisdom, at least wait 1 week before introducing our "home-made toxins" into a developing baby?

Would really like to get all doctors opinion on this.

You're right, measles, mumps, rubella, and infant hepatitis B ARE temporary. You know why? They're most often fatal or produce long term tissue damage such as hearing and vision loss. But you're absolutely right, the actual infection is temporary. I don't see why you and a few other people think it's okay for a pandemic of measles, mumps, and rubella to occur just to prevent 3 out of 1000 children from developing an autism spectrum disorder. Technically speaking, I believe that's about the same number of people who experience adverse effects from the smallpox vaccine. Should we have not vaccinated for that in the 60s and 70s to protect those 3 in 1000 people, but let 200 out of those 1000 contract smallpox?

Ciao,
~MFP

Believe me, we all clearly see your stance on the issue of "trading one disease for another", as disturbing as it may be.
All this "trading diseases" could be avoided by simply waiting longer to vaccinate, and\or spreading it out a bit, OR REMOVING THIMEROSAL, but you can't seem to understand that??

Instead of the "Lesser of 2 evils" arguement that you are fond of, how about "No evil at all?" Ever consider that?

since you side-stepped the question that I really wanted you to answer, I will repeat it again.....

Let me get your opinion on the Hepatitus vaccine given "moments" after birth. Is that necessary? (Hepatitus infected mother excluded)

The first week of life is the most crucial don't you agree?
Could we, in our vast wisdom, at least wait 1 week before introducing our "home-made toxins" into a developing baby?

Would really like to get all doctors opinion on this.





[edit on 1-2-2006 by KDX175DUEX]

Believe me, we all clearly see your stance on the issue of "trading one disease for another", as disturbing as it may be.
All this "trading diseases" could be avoided by simply waiting longer to vaccinate, and\or spreading it out a bit, OR REMOVING THIMEROSAL, but you can't seem to understand that??

Instead of the "Lesser of 2 evils" arguement that you are fond of, how about "No evil at all?" Ever consider that?

since you side-stepped the question that I really wanted you to answer, I will repeat it again.....

Let me get your opinion on the Hepatitus vaccine given "moments" after birth. Is that necessary? (Hepatitus infected mother excluded)

The first week of life is the most crucial don't you agree?
Could we, in our vast wisdom, at least wait 1 week before introducing our "home-made toxins" into a developing baby?

Would really like to get all doctors opinion on this.

I didn't feel that I side-stepped it, but now I'll answer it exclusively. I just assumed you were able to use the power of inference from my other answers.

Yes, it is necessary. When an infant is born, it only has an innate immune system, as opposed to an adults complementary acquired immune system. This is why it is so easy for an infant to contract colds and such. Now, if even one hepatitis virus were to enter an infants system, the infant would not have enough cytotoxic T cells (also called CD8 cells, those responsible for fiting viral infections). This would lead to massive liver damage and most likely death due to organ failure or shock. Now, if you know this is a major risk factor, it would seem to make the most sense to me that immunizing them BEFORE they leave the sterile hospital (well, more sterile than their home) would help prevent infection in the less than sterile world outside. Of course not every infant is going to even be exposed to the HepB virus, but there's no way to look into an infant's future and see whether or not contant with the virus is in their near future.

I especially take offense to your idea of me choosing the lesser of two evils instead of no evil at all. There is most certainly evil in waiting to immunize the infant. I would bet a good sum of money that by waiting a period of one week, you would see many more cases of hepatitis B related liver infections in infants. Not to mention, I don't see why you would wait only one week. There's really little to no change in an infant's immune system in the first week. It takes generally 5-10 days for the body to produce antibodies against ONE agent. Now, imagine all the agents your baby is encountering the first day out of the womb. And the second. And third. Every day of our lives, we are encountering agents, some of which we have never seen. A person's immune sytem never stops adapting. Do you think the statistics that lead to a government mandate on hepatitis immunization at birth showed little to no change in case rates? No, they most certainly showed that early immunization leads to lower case rates in children. I don't see preventing 90% of children from being infected by hepatitis B as a "lesser evil", I see the side effects as a necessary risk included in the best solution.

As for thimerosal, no immunizations intended for children 6 and under actually contain more than a trace amount of this compound, and many of the adult immunizations have been reformulated with cheaper preservatives. I know in my country, very few immunizatios contain any thimerosal at all. On your own FDA site, it shows that the FDA works with the WHO to eliminate exposure to thimerosal to the point where any exposure is nearly harmless
[quotethe maximum cumulative exposure to mercury from vaccines in the recommended childhood immunization schedule was within acceptable limits for the methylmercury exposure guidelines set by FDA, ATSDR, and WHO.
www.fda.gov...

The only risk associated with immunizations prior to 2000 in the United States seems to be infants exposed to methylmercury, not ETHYLmerucry, the natural metabolite of thimerosal. In fact, the hepatitis B vaccine you are so worried about contains NO thimerosal as dictated by law

New pediatric formulations of hepatitis B vaccines have been licensed by the FDA, Recombivax-HB (Merck, thimerosal free) in August 1999 and Engerix-B (Glaxo SmithKline, trace thimerosal) in March 2000.

So, my question to you is, how do you account for the increase in autism rates while in the same span of time, there was a decrease in thimerosal exposure? Seems like there's no connection to the two to me, but who knows how you anti-immunization people will see it.

Ciao,
~MFP

Originally posted by riley
Did you have any trouble finding a doctor to test your son? Have you heared of any other Aussie doctors refusing tests?

No, but I didn't rely on general practictioner, as I said b4 you need to source E & N Doc. On the website I provided there is a list of Doc's around AU...so you can choose one. The tests were v expensive so too the treatment program but all worth it. The blood panel took 10 days as blood sent to Vic as testing is carried out there. That was the hold up. If you have had the test and results not forthcoming then you need to be asking 'why'...and perhaps find a different doctor and get test done again.

KDX

I think your last post was referring to me, because of the use of the word 'legalese'.

Whoah! When did I *once* defend Thiomersal in this post?

And I quote, from this thread:

As for thiomersal - the link I posted before showed it probably *wasn't* really dangerous, but again - *what's the point?*. You can use other preservatives in vaccines - they just cost more. If it means that people will take up effective vaccines at a higher rate I for one wouldn't complain if people stopped using it.

And also:

I agree though, Thiomersal - don't see the point, and you can get TM-free versions on the NHS if you ask nicel

I thought I had mentioned it, but must have taken it as being implicit in the above quote (my bad) - we got thiomersal-free DTP for our son. We didn't have any problem with vaccination, but just *couldn't see the point* of using TM as a preservative when there were other things available.

Originally posted by KDX175DUEX
Just once I would like to see a Thimerosal "defender" say "You know, I learned something today."

Its always the same thing though...

instead.... they deflect... with statements about the MSDS like "It's just legalise" (like that suddenly means its safe, thanks professor...)

As for this - read *any* box of pharmaceuticals. They'll basically tell you that you're an idiot for taking it and that it's not *their* fault if anything bad happens. I'm pretty sure it *is* just legalese.

and then qualify it with an "I do it all the time with other chemicals in my profession"

Lidocaine has been used billions of times in dentistry. It's extremely safe and effective - I wouldn't touch it if it wasn't because dead patients aren't a practice builder. And the manufacturers basically tell you that you would best advised to leave it in the cupboard and not bother.

What do you suggest? Root canal without analgesia? Drug companies to admit that, on the balance of probabilities, their product isn't going to have any side effects? *That's* not going to happen.

You want us to assume the MSDS and the manufacturer warnings are just smoke and mirrors, when in fact it is doctors defending thimerosal standing behind the mirrors and queing up the smoke machine.

Not saying that about Thiomersal, and if in any way I was unclear and caused confusion, I apologize. Like I said, I don't see the point of using it when there are other equally effective options possible.

Then pray tell, why start defending Thimerosal at all?

Wasn't and didn't.

If this issue comes up on the board again and there isn't someone to set the record straight, are you going to step in again and "defend Thimerosal" in the hopes that you can sway a few ignorants? Please tell me no.

If you're referring to *me*, I don't have a problem with vaccination and think the evidence backs the pro-vaccination camp. My son got 'done' with everything and is fine. I might have been slightly more concerned if he was a low birth weight, for example.

Haven't really defended thiomersal at all - unless this post refers to someone else.

TD






[edit on 1-2-2006 by KDX175DUEX]

Would really like to get all doctors opinion on this.

Take it easy on bsl....he's only a med student. He only knows what he reads in books. He hasn't experienced the real world yet.

Hey Excitable_Boy,
I'm going to take your last post as meaning "Wow, bsl4doc, I can't possibly find a hole in your airtight argument and will instead make a personal attack on your education which, for all intents and purposes, surpasses mine in the field of medicine. This field, being the topic at hand, has nothing to do with street smarts, and more to do with research and comprehension of analytical medicine and pathophysiology, in which I have no credentials. Bravissimo, bsl4doc."

Did that sum it up about right?

Ciao bella =).

~MFP

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy

Take it easy on bsl....he's only a med student. He only knows what he reads in books. He hasn't experienced the real world yet.

Fair goes, even as an undegrad he'll have been hammered with anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, epidemiology, micriobiology and immunology - so he's going to have a *fair* grasp of the difference between worthwhile data and rubbish.

He might only know what he reads in books, but the books are probably going to be pretty valid.

TD

It is obvious that you and I parted philosophies, at a very basic level, long ago in this discussion.

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Yes, it is necessary. When an infant is born, it only has an innate immune system, *snip*

you mean the innate immune system that has been refined over millions of years of evolution?
And here we are experimenting with little babies in the past 100 years, like we know better than god? deflate your ego a bit please.

I especially take offense to your idea of me choosing the lesser of two evils instead of no evil at all. There is most certainly evil in waiting to immunize the infant.

There is also evil in not fighting for the safest vaccines possible.
If you downplay the side-effects as insignificant, then vaccine safety has no reason to ADVANCE.
Your voice seems to be a common and loud one, on the side of "Just shut up and take your vaccine."

Not to mention, I don't see why you would wait only one week. There's really little to no change in an infant's immune system in the first week. It takes generally 5-10 days for the body to produce antibodies against ONE agent. Now, imagine all the agents your baby is encountering the first day out of the womb. And the second. And third.

So your theory is.... introducing even more toxins into the baby is the solution, as they are already stressed by adapting? Logic behind this please.

I don't see preventing 90% of children from being infected by hepatitis B as a "lesser evil", I see the side effects as a necessary risk included in the best solution.

So your saying 10% or 1 in 10 children contract hepatitis B even with the vaccinations? amazing.
Please provide reference for this.

So, my question to you is, how do you account for the increase in autism rates while in the same span of time, there was a decrease in thimerosal exposure? Seems like there's no connection to the two to me, but who knows how you anti-immunization people will see it.

Your statement is completely unfounded. PLEASE do some VERY BASIC research into Thimerosal history if you plan to make an arguement.

The increase in Thimerosal exposure started in 1990. when the vaccine schedule was increased.
They finally realized the problem in 1999 timeframe, and reduced the Thimerosal in vaccines. SINCE THEN the Autism trend has been leveling off, as shown in the latest reports from California autism rates declining for the first time in more than 10 years. LINK


Ya... your arguement is about as airtight as swiss cheese.

DENY IGNORANCE


[edit on 1-2-2006 by KDX175DUEX]

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Haven't really defended thiomersal at all - unless this post refers to someone else.

TD

TD I sincerely apologize, I think I got your post confused with another.
some of the things you said in your post did remind me of the arguements I have dealt with before, and I think I misunderstood your stance.

Congrats on choosing a Thimerosal free vaccine for your child.

My Best,

KDX






[edit on 1-2-2006 by KDX175DUEX]

Deadly Immunity

Even more alarming, the government continues to ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries -- some of which are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines. The World Health Organization continues to insist thimerosal is safe, but it promises to keep the possibility that it is linked to neurological disorders "under review."

From Here LINK

Originally posted by POTTOS
Get the vaccinations, borderline child abuse if you don't. There are plenty of us that have not been affected. Plus your child/children wouldn't be able to attend school......

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'll start out by saying that I've had My children vaccinated since They were born. After researching not only the ingredients used in them but the possibility of severe, irreversable damage, I've declined them for the last 3xs. The reasons are many so I'll start small.

1. MMR- contains fertilized chickens eggs. Linked to autism and Crohns Disease. Contains 12 MCG. of Mercury which is 30x safe amt as stated by the EPA & Amer. Acad. of Peds.

2. Hep B- contains formaldehyde. Lethal reaction % is 1%. If 7 mill. kids are vaccinated then 700,000 will die. Mercury in vaccine has been replaced with aluminum which is linked to Alzheimers.

3. Diphtheria- putrified beef broth containing the diphtheria bacillus is injected into a horse until the horse has symptoms of blood poison. 2-3 gal. of blood is drawn from the horse over a 6-7 wk. pd., or until the horse dies. Your being injected with another latent animal virus. Contains 50 MCG. of Mercury which is 60x safe amt as per EPA & AAP.

4. Pertussis- Is not even a virus, it's a bacteria and can be cured with antibiotics. In 1935 the death rate dropped by 82%- before the vaccine was put into use.

5. Formalin- Used in vaccinations, a derivitive of formaldehyde. Ing. are- 37%-40% formaldehyde, H2O, and 10% methanol as a tissue fixative.

6. Flu vaccine- grown in fertilized chicken eggs or caterpillar cells, using millions of eggs a yr.

Autism rates rose from 900,000 in 1991 to 5 million in 2005. Mercury linked to autism. Mercury is 1 of the most toxic elements on earth- 2nd only to plutonium.

These are just a few reasons why I've changed My mind concerning vaccinations for My children. Refusing these does not border on child abuse. One could say that about those who allow their kids to be innoculated if You want to go that route. You can refuse vaccines on many counts. One being religious. I live in PA where there are a lot of Amish. They don't vaccinate their children either. Another is a strong moral or ethical conviction. As far as not being allowed in school, that's silly. My kids attend public school, every day. What would happen to all of the kids that medically cannot receive vaccines? The school and Drs office probably have forms dealing with refussal of vaccines for kids. If not look it up online.

Peace. K* p.s. Deny Ignorance.





[edit on 2/1/06 by Demetre]

It is obvious that you and I parted philosophies, at a very basic level, long ago in this discussion.

quote: Originally posted by bsl4doc
Yes, it is necessary. When an infant is born, it only has an innate immune system, *snip*


you mean the innate immune system that has been refined over millions of years of evolution?
And here we are experimenting with little babies in the past 100 years, like we know better than god? deflate your ego a bit please.

Pardon me? Deflate me ego? I wasn't saying we know better than nature. What I'm saying is that the infant is not exposed to hepatitis B in utero, and thus has no innate immunity to it. I don't see how you see that as being egotistical. It's basic science. I learned that in my secondary school physiology class, and have since learned advanced methods and mechanisms that support it.

quote:
I especially take offense to your idea of me choosing the lesser of two evils instead of no evil at all. There is most certainly evil in waiting to immunize the infant.

There is also evil in not fighting for the safest vaccines possible.
If you downplay the side-effects as insignificant, then vaccine safety has no reason to ADVANCE.
Your voice seems to be a common and loud one, on the side of "Just shut up and take your vaccine."

You're right, there is no evil in fighting for a less harmful preservative, which is exactly what has been done. Australia no longer allows therimosal in vaccines, the same goes for many other nations, and the USA is going the same route. You seem to have some idea in your head that doctors love hurting people?

quote:
Not to mention, I don't see why you would wait only one week. There's really little to no change in an infant's immune system in the first week. It takes generally 5-10 days for the body to produce antibodies against ONE agent. Now, imagine all the agents your baby is encountering the first day out of the womb. And the second. And third.


So your theory is.... introducing even more toxins into the baby is the solution, as they are already stressed by adapting? Logic behind this please.

My logic is this: you can either take your infant home and risk infection if ANY contact is made with the hepatitis B virus, which can be passed through some animals, the environment, bodily fluids, etc. OR you can immunize your infant and hope that they aren't part of the 0.006% (6 in 1000) infants that develop a side effect from the vaccine. I'll guarantee you, and you can look this up in any medical resource, that the chances of a newborn contracting the lifelong disease hepatitis B from contact with the virus is MUCH higher than the 0.006% of children who develop a side effect from the vaccine. Basic mathematics.

quote: I don't see preventing 90% of children from being infected by hepatitis B as a "lesser evil", I see the side effects as a necessary risk included in the best solution.

So your saying 10% or 1 in 10 children contract hepatitis B even with the vaccinations? amazing.
Please provide reference for this.

Again, basic mathematics. I'm saying that roughly 90% of children receive the immunization, thus preventing them from contracting hepatitis B. The other 10% has no immunity. Please re-read the statement before attacking me again.

quote:
So, my question to you is, how do you account for the increase in autism rates while in the same span of time, there was a decrease in thimerosal exposure? Seems like there's no connection to the two to me, but who knows how you anti-immunization people will see it.


Your statement is completely unfounded. PLEASE do some VERY BASIC research into Thimerosal history if you plan to make an arguement.

The increase in Thimerosal exposure started in 1990. when the vaccine schedule was increased.
They finally realized the problem in 1999 timeframe, and reduced the Thimerosal in vaccines. SINCE THEN the Autism trend has been leveling off, as shown in the latest reports from California autism rates declining for the first time in more than 10 years. LINK

I hate to break this to you, but there is a whole world outside of California, or, as your movie-star governor who wants to be a politician says, "Kah-lee-for-nee-yaa". Just because the rates have dropped slightly in one state doesn't mean they have worldwide. Just as a reference, California is roughly 0.0059% of the world's population. Wow, good study size. Also, in your own article it states that the state doesn't enter children into the system as autistic until age 6, which would preclude any infants who have received vaccinations since therimosal was reduced, so you really don't have any comparative studies. Sorry.

Also, to Demetre can you provide any sources for your radical claims? Sounds like a bunch of unfounded paranoia to me.

Ciao,
~MFP

Well certainly I have learned something new, if only it had been 4 weeks earlier.
My 4yr old had his 2nd mmr vaccination. Two weeks later he became swollen in his face and developed a rash.
My GP told me he had reacted to the vaccine and was suffering a mild form of measles and mumps, which would clear up within a couple of days.
Having been back to the GP this morning because the rash is not clearing up and becoming worse, I have been told my son has eczema.
He did not have this prior to the vaccination.
I would definately have asked for a Thimerosal free vaccine.

Tomorrow I will phone and ask about the vaccine used.

Before his first vaccination (at 14 months) I was very nervous and considered having them done seperately. I was told that the nearest place I could get them would be France. We live in the UK.
My Doctor told me her children had been given the mmr vaccination.
I did some research at the time but I found arguments for and against, triple or single vaccination.
After reading this thread I now know what I am looking for specifically, previously I had little clue.
I had no idea it was about the preservatives.
I will pass this info on to other mums.

Thankyou all for the information.