vaccinations for babies

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • Quote from Stormypagan

    But unfortunately having a vaccination doesn't guarantee that you or a child wont get the disease/illness anyway..and in turn passing it on to vaccinated and unvaccinated children


    No but having the vaccination does help the child fight the symptoms.... have you not read my posts?

  • Quote from technoslave

    Really? all I saw were some percentages... how large is the sample they were taken from...



    What you read the whole website and its individual links to articles etc..???

    No, I don't wish my children to be ill but if they are I will nuture them through it, as I have done with chickenpox that my son had when at the time there wasn't a vaccination but still a risk from side effects and possible death... and as healthy beings I have faith that they will be ok!!

    But how do you know that your childs immune system wasn't weakend by the vaccination programme in the first place?

  • Quote from Stormypagan


    And you said that you "don't just decide my opinions and make sweeping statements according to what 'feels' or 'seems' to be true" but you are happy to except the opinions and be influenced by your own mother on this!!


    It would be nice if you could keep personal comments and assumptions about me out of this debate please.


    As you have brought it up, I don't just accept my mother's views on vaccination but have chosen to listen to what she has to say on the subject and then do my own research, mainly looking in peer-reviewed, academic journals for my information. The fact that they are peer-reviewed is very important as it helps to screen out results that may have been misrepresented or deliberately altered.


    Quote

    Anyway, when you have a moment read some of the stuff on here ...

    Quote



    http://www.vaclib.org/indexdoc.htm#basic

    There is a lot of scientific facts for you on there :)


    I can't actually see a single peer-reviewed, academic article on there - however, the layout isn't great so that might be why.


    However, I did look at their 'Basic Facts About Vaccinations' page and couldn't see any references whatsoever, despite the vast claims they were making. If they had referenced where they are getting their 'facts' I might have considered what was said there more seriously.

  • Quote from tekno slave

    No but having the vaccination does help the child fight the symptoms.... have you not read my posts?



    Well again that is what you personally believe I don't believe that, so we have to respect each others beliefs!! ... I believe that good diet, good living conditions and general well being is just as effective!!

  • Quote from Little Mouse

    It would be nice if you could keep personal comments and assumptions about me out of this debate please.



    Well I actually find that you are also casting your own assumptions by saying >>>> "I don't just decide my opinions and make sweeping statements according to what 'feels' or 'seems' to be true" although that is not why I said what I did, I was merely pointing out an obseravtion.

  • Quote from Little Mouse

    Once again, one single reference. It's written by someone without any medical (or even scientific) qualifications and hence I can't take it seriously.



    Well maybe it takes a little life experience not to except some things at face value!!!

  • Quote from Stormypagan

    Well maybe it takes a little life experience not to except some things at face value!!!


    Well the same could be said of someone who believes in what that site reports...:whistle:


    But this is a circular argument and people are entitled to their own opinions! :)

  • Quote from Stormypagan

    Well I actually find that you are also casting your own assumptions by saying >>>> "I don't just decide my opinions and make sweeping statements according to what 'feels' or 'seems' to be true" although that is not why I said what I did, I was merely pointing out an obseravtion.


    Claiming that a well-accepted point of view in medical circles was merely "from your point of view" suggests that it is simply something I have decided is true, which I then denied and stated why it is not true. At no point did I claim that this is what you do, rather something that a lot of people do.




    I am now leaving this discussion as it seems to be becoming increasingly pointless and personal as time goes on. My final point is that vaccination of children is a personal choice, but I think people should be aware of the actual facts and risks of both vaccination and non-vaccination, which unfortunately seem hyped out of all proportion a lot of the time by both sides.

  • Quote from tekno slave

    Well the same could be said of someone who believes in what that site reports...:whistle:

    But this is a circular argument and people are entitled to their own opinions! :)



    I believe what I have found out through many links not just on the internet... and from seeing with my own eyes my children and friends children who have healthily grown to adult hood without having vaccinations...I think you could call that actual evidence ...in fact the website I linked was one I found recently!!

    But as you say everyone is entitled to their own opinions!! and to add, do what they believe is to be right!!!

  • Every discussion and point of view can become personal when it involves peoples lifestyles and belief systems...we are always going to think that as individuals, our beliefs are the right ones for us!!

    But to end on a high note then this is one bit we can agree on :)

    Quote from Little Mouse

    My final point is that vaccination of children is a personal choice, but I think people should be aware of the actual facts and risks of both vaccination and non-vaccination.

  • Quote from Stormypagan

    Every discussion and point of view can become personal when it involves peoples lifestyles and belief systems...we are always going to think that as individuals, our beliefs are the right ones for us!!

    But to end on a high note then this is one bit we can agree on :)


    :clap: Definately!

  • Quote from Stormypagan

    Can I just ask DreadyGeordie... you say about pregnant mothers, and I assume adults in general, being covered by vaccinations but it is in my understanding that as adults we aren't covered by the vaccination programme anymore as it is something that happens in childhood and by the time you have reached an adult hood you aren't covered anymore??? so how will this prevent the spread in your opinion?


    The majority of people who sero-convert (produce IgG antibodies against the infective agent) post vaccine are provided a life-long immunity to many of the dieseases vaccinated againt. For example, the Rubella vaccine given to school children protects the vast majority of women during adult hood (this is shown by the number of immune women during ante-natal screens). However not every one does convert, which is why it is said that we need 85% vaccine coverage to provide "herd" immunity.


    For some reason our immune system continues to produce IgG antibodies against some infective agents for longer than others, where Rubella offers long-term immunity, the Meningitis C vaccine only provides protection (against Sero-type C of Nesseria meningitidis only) for 3-5 years.


    If you have been vaccinated, and you have converted, if you are continously coming into contact with wild type infection in the community, then your immune system will kept being "reminded" to produce IgG antibodies, and you will continue to be protected (preventing spread in adult communities).


    Quote from Stormypagan


    There are also arguments to say that some diseases are kept alive by the vaccination programmes because they haven't allowed natural immunity to develop, to let the disease die out naturally, due to vaccinations not covering our lifetimes!!....therefore adults will be the ones that will carry it on if they are still able to be infected... and those diseases that have been said to have died out by the vaccination programme have actually just evolved to be called something different!!


    I cannot think of any infective agents which have died out naturally. Diseases that used to be killers (in the UK) that have become rare in modern day, have done so because of better sanitation, understanding the diseases and mode of transmission, abilty to treat the disease and vaccination programmes. The only pathogen thought to be completely irradicated is the smallpox virus, and that was achieved via a world wide vaccination programme.


    Although there are emerging diseases and new pathogens discovered (i.e. HIV, several haemorahagic (?sp) fevers, Legionares disease), i have never heard a theory that they had evolved from other eradicated/rare known pathogens. Some "new" discoveries can be put down to better identification techniques, mainly genetic typing. Others are due to there being a need for them to be discovered, for instance Legionnares disease existed long before it was "discovered". It used to affect divers using old fashioned diving bell equipment, but no-one really cared about divers suffering from a respiratory disease. It was only when a conference of American Legionnares developed respiratory problems.........."something had to be done about it!". Other emerging diseases can be the result of a zoonoose jumping the species barrier, usually due to unnatural human interaction with the other species (H5N1 due to poultry farming).

    Quote from Stormypagan


    I can understand where you are coming from, from the perspective of working with children affected, as I am sure it must be very disturbing but to be honest there is a small proportion of children that aren't vaccinated in relation the large number that are... so how many children were vaccinated but still caught the disease as having vaccinations aren't 100% effective?? And how many of them have had their immune system impaired by the amount of vaccinations that are given to them?? And we know that meningitis has been connected to an impaired immune system, and this particular illness has been more prevalent in recent years since the step up in the vaccination programme...and its triple jabs etc...


    Sorry just giving food for thought on the subject!!


    As for meningitis being more prevelant, you would need to qualify that with which cause of meningitis. Meningitis is the inflammation of the lining of the brain. It has many possible causes, both bacterial and viral. There are vaccines available against the bacterial cause Nesseria meningitidis, but only against sero-types A and C. It is sero-group C vaccine which is offered to school and university students. This vaccine has been very affective, and dramatically reduced the incidence of bacterial meningitis. Not only has the overall incidence reduced since the introdution of the vaccine, but we know the vaccine has worked as it is now sero-group B which causes the majority of cases. Unfortunatley the vaccine only provides protection for 3-5 years.


    All of the UK epidemiological data about infectious diseases (many covering vaccination status) is available freely to the public at www.hpa.org.uk


    Information about vaccine programmes, vaccine complications or just for symptoms to look out for in unvaccinated children can be found at
    http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/


    Unfortunatley there a a very small number of children (and adults) who do have bad, even fatal, reactions to vaccines. No, vaccine cannot give 100% protection to 100% of the population. Only a parent can decide the risks involved, and which one they are most comfortable with. Personally, being aware of all of the known facts, I am know that there is less chance of any harm coming to my child if I vaccinate, than if I don't. There is still a chance that we will be unfortunate and my child will be one of the unlucky few to have an adverse reaction, and I would have to live with that decision.


    Les x

  • Quote from DreadyGeordie

    For example, the Rubella vaccine given to school children protects the vast majority of women during adult hood (this is shown by the number of immune women during ante-natal screens)



    But that doesn't take into account those who have had natural immunity from contracting the illness Like I did!! How many of those screened women developed their immunity through having the illness as children!!

    Quote from DreadyGeordie

    If you have been vaccinated, and you have converted, if you are continously coming into contact with wild type infection in the community, then your immune system will kept being "reminded" to produce IgG antibodies, and you will continue to be protected (preventing spread in adult communities).



    But having vaccinations doesn't stop you getting the illness... and therefore the spread doesn't stop unless you get life time immunity from having the illness... so if you get the illness and you have been vaccinated then you are protected for life (you could relate that to the first part of this post too).

    Quote from DreadyGeordie

    I cannot think of any infective agents which have died out naturally. Diseases that used to be killers (in the UK) that have become rare in modern day, have done so because of better sanitation, understanding the diseases and mode of transmission, abilty to treat the disease and vaccination programmes. The only pathogen thought to be completely irradicated is the smallpox virus, and that was achieved via a world wide vaccination programme.



    I agree about the sanitation and improved living conditions but as quoted from http://www.newswithviews.com/health_care/health_care5.htm

    Vaccination programs in the late 19th and early 20th century decimated the populations of many countries where government sponsored vaccination programs were introduced. Japan suffered 48,000 deaths from smallpox vaccination; England and Wales experienced 45,800 smallpox deaths in a population that was 97% vaccinated against smallpox. Australia and Germany combined with a total of 120,000 deaths from the very smallpox for which they had been vaccinated. European deaths amongst the vaccinated portion of the population totaled 3,000,000. Deaths from smallpox vaccination programs began to decline when a revolt against mandatory vaccination programs emerged from the chaos.

    So the programme of smallpox vaccinations wasn't without its fatalities sadly!! And I am not sure if it has been totally eradicated to be honest!! And frighteningly, it is still sitting in laboratories, and can be used as germ warfare!!

    http://www.med.yale.edu/eph/ne…hives/april/smallpox.html

    Quote from DreadyGeordie

    The majority of people who sero-convert (produce IgG antibodies against the infective agent) post vaccine are provided a life-long immunity to many of the dieseases vaccinated againt.



    Unless those people have had the illness too, so then their life immunity is there.

    never the less I appreciate that you have given some good arguments on here, even if we won't agree on all of them :)

  • Quote from Stormypagan

    But that doesn't take into account those who have had natural immunity from contracting the illness Like I did!! How many of those screened women developed their immunity through having the illness as children!!

    If you have been vaccinated, and you have converted, if you are continously coming into contact with wild type infection in the community, then your immune system will kept being "reminded" to produce IgG antibodies, and you will continue to be protected (preventing spread in adult communities).[/quote]

    But having vaccinations doesn't stop you getting the illness... and therefore the spread doesn't stop unless you get life time immunity from having the illness... so if you get the illness and you have been vaccinated then you are protected for life (you could relate that to the first part of this post too).



    I agree about the sanitation and improved living conditions but as quoted from http://www.newswithviews.com/health_care/health_care5.htm

    Vaccination programs in the late 19th and early 20th century decimated the populations of many countries where government sponsored vaccination programs were introduced. Japan suffered 48,000 deaths from smallpox vaccination; England and Wales experienced 45,800 smallpox deaths in a population that was 97% vaccinated against smallpox. Australia and Germany combined with a total of 120,000 deaths from the very smallpox for which they had been vaccinated. European deaths amongst the vaccinated portion of the population totaled 3,000,000. Deaths from smallpox vaccination programs began to decline when a revolt against mandatory vaccination programs emerged from the chaos.


    So the programme of smallpox vaccinations wasn't without its fatalities sadly!! And I am not sure if it has been totally eradicated to be honest!! And frighteningly, it is still sitting in laboratories, and can be used as germ warfare!!

    http://www.med.yale.edu/eph/ne…hives/april/smallpox.html



    Unless those people have had the illness too, so then their life immunity is there.

    never the less I appreciate that you have given some good arguments on here, even if we won't agree on all of them :)[/quote]


    I think you have understood me. Protection provided by vaccination is due to the vaccine stimulating the immune system to produce IgG antibodies against the infective agent. When a person is infected with a pathogen the body produces an accute immune respospone and makes IgM antibodies, the body then produces IgG antibodies, which provide the longterm protection.


    Therefore you do not need to contract a wild type disease to become immune, as both methods allow the body to produce the same protective immune agent.


    The vast majority of people are completely protected from the wild type pathogen once they have been vaccinated. Others may not have enough IgG circulating to completely stop a pathogen in it's tracks, but will have enough to give the immune system a bit of a leg up, and the person will only suffer a mild illness (or milder than it would have been).


    I whole heartedly agree that the smallpox programme wasn't without fatalities (although I'm far too frazzled to check out the stats in the abstract posted lol). The smallpox vaccine is a high risk vaccine (even today), however if there was ever a real threat of re-emergence of small-pox, I would take my chance with the vaccine over the illness any day. I do believe it has been irradicated, even in hard to reach populations. I do share your concern about the known vials held by both the USA and Russia. At the same time I'm not niaive enough to think that they are the only two specimens in existance. For that reason I am against the destruction of the known specimens, in case we need them in the future.


    Les x

  • Thanks for your views people, i agree at the end of the day u gotta go with what u think is right in your heart as a parent, i personally didnt have any injections from day 1 but that was my parents choice now i have to make the choice. im going to check some of the links out that peeps have put up on here. I would also like peeps views on vitamin k injections? does a natural baby mean no injections at all? :confused:

  • Now vitamin K was the only one I did as it is not a vaccine...the reasons being that babies have been know to bleed to death in the past due to their blood not clotting through lack of vitamin K.... I have known one mother who has refused it on all her 4 children...and they have been fine... and I did say OK but in hindsight I do wonder the real necessity as my diet is rich in vitamin K so my children should have inherited it...I think it is to cover themselves legally at the end of the day!!

    Saying all of this it is one think I didn't really research before I gave birth which led me personally more to having it done!!

    Here is some info on this for reference ...

    http://www.larkfarm.com/AP/vitamink.htm

  • Quote from dred

    I would also like peeps views on vitamin k injections?

    About 10 or so years ago I worked with a boy who had a lot of problems which were said to have been caused by him not having the vitamin K injection as a baby - well, I think so, anyway, like I said, it was 10 years ago. He had learning difficulties (by the age of 9 all he could read and write was his own name, despite having had a lot of extra support at school) and behaviour difficulties (e.g. he tried to climb out of the speech therapy room window - on the second floor - because I was talking with his mum, so he wasn't the centre of attention :eek: ).

    Now, obviously not everyone who doesn't receive the injection will end up with these problems (after all, what happened before it was available?), but having seen what could happen, I wouldn't take the risk of leaving my child with something so serious that was potentially so easily preventable.

    I think there's a distinction between injections which are vaccinations and injections which are vitamins, so even if you wouldn't want your child vaccinated (although, personally I would) you might feel happy with a vitamin injection.

  • Definately a good idea for the jabs.
    We only feed our son organic baby food or organic foods we've purified ourselves for him, we will bring him up to respect the enviroment and with freedom to express himself (but not be a brat).
    we do let him have his jabs though, we'd never forgive ourselves if he was to get one of those illnesses and it was our fault for not letting him have the vaccine!

  • Sorry but I believe the vaccination process to be intrusive and also unproven. Like many others I can say my son is large and healthy and he is thus after having no vaccinations.

    Anyone seen the extent of the experimentation by the drugs companies on us servicemen - man - I simply do not trust them........

  • Quote from welshlamb


    Anyone seen the extent of the experimentation by the drugs companies on us servicemen - man - I simply do not trust them........


    Aye, my dad can certainly back that one up..... but he's never had the flu since he got jabbed lol. mystery cure mebbes?

  • Quote from welshlamb

    Sorry but I believe the vaccination process to be intrusive and also unproven.

    Oh please people informed debate is one thing but mindless nonsense is another, haven't you noticed the almost complete lack of these diseases in this country, perhaps you think they were eradicated by wishful thinking, either that or the fairies at the bottom of the garden I suppose.

  • Quote from dred

    I would also like peeps views on vitamin k injections? does a natural baby mean no injections at all? :confused:


    'tis the dilema of us rich westerners..how far do we turn our backs on modern science to go natural..i'm a firm believer that 'the middle way' is the best..take the best out of both worlds and live the life you want...but when it comes to vaccinations read up on the subject..has worked for me and mine (am mother to a strapping 6ft3 20 year old and a healthy,bright 11 year old who is growing up and up like a bean pole)

  • Quote from scarlettdee

    when it comes to vaccinations read up on the subject..has worked for me and mine (am mother to a strapping 6ft3 20 year old and a healthy,bright 11 year old who is growing up and up like a bean pole)



    I find this subjective appraisal of the requirements for vaccination extremely dangerous, anyone consider the fact that the reason their offspring is free of the diseases is precisely because the vast majority of people do vaccinate their children.

    Would you say smoking is okay because you can present an old man alive who has smoked all his life, of course you wouldn't, why then is the same logic being presented to "prove" the safety of non-vaccination.

  • Is it a case of "non-vaccination" being "proved safer" or is it that folks think vaccination has not been proved safe, or is at least questionable.


    Its a tricky one as if you criticise the vaccination process you could be accused of paranoia. Similarly if you accept it you could be accused of being a sheep. :insane:


    I can understand the folks who are leary of it as I avoid flouride for reasons that many would call "unproven", but at the same time I can understand parents who do vaccinate as there is a lot of evidence (without discussing the dubiousness or not of such).


    That said; the diseases of a few years ago (TB, Hooping cough etc) seem to be largely absent in todays britain - what reason could this be for if not vaccination. The question then is whether an apparently concurrent rise in occurances of autism is similarly a result of vaccinations or whether there are other matters involved and its just a correlation.


    So as scar said, its a personal choice that each has to make and I dont think anyone can be criticised for choosing either way seeing as the evidence is confusing and the proponants of either side are not necessarily deserving of trust.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from Dapablo

    I find this subjective appraisal of the requirements for vaccination extremely dangerous, anyone consider the fact that the reason their offspring is free of the diseases is precisely because the vast majority of people do vaccinate their children.



    Having a vaccination doesn't mean you won't get the illness and pass it on anyway!!! so whether you are vaccinated or not, the illness can still be around ...but if we all had life time immunity from contracting the illness as children.... I believe that on the whole the illnesses would have practically if not died out naturally by now!! There are arguments to say that vaccinations have kept those illnesses going!!

  • I want to say some things specifically about TB and the TB vaccination (BCG). TB is not dying out, and if anything, it's probably on the increase. But the group of people who catch TB are mostly the people who weren't vaccinated, plus a few very unlucky souls who did have the vaccination but didn't devlop immunity. It seems to be more common in some populations - ethnic minorities, the homeless and prison populations being the most often identified.

    TB is getting harder to treat too. It's partly because it is still fairly rare, so doctors aren't as used to seeing it as they once were, so they don't always recognise it when someone comes to them with it. By the time it is identified, the illness is often so advanced, it's really hard to treat - and the sufferer is really ill. Another reason is that it is becoming resistant to the drugs used to treat it - but that's to do with overprescription of antibiotics, and not the use of the vaccine.

    Now the reason I know a bit about this - and I know I'm not an expert - is that a family member is getting over TB at the moment. He's one of the people who was given the vaccine, but for some reason he didn't develop the immunity.

    So, I agree that it is true that some people don't get protected even though they're vaccinated, but that's very rare. I think I'm right in saying that some people have a natural immunity but not very many - I'm not sure how that happens, whether it's through exposure to the virus, or another means. I'm pretty certain that TB is one thing where once you're protected, you're protected for life - you don't loose your immunity.

    Right, so imagine a population for a minute where absolutely everyone has had the vaccination against TB - that means that almost everyone is immune to it, and for those who are not immune, they are so few and far between they'd be fairly unlikely to come accross another person without immunity, and even more unlikely to come accross someone who is infected with TB. Basically they are protected by herd immunity.

    Now imagine a population where no-one has been vaccinated. A few people have developped a natural immunity, but most people are at risk of catching TB if they come into contact with it. Once one person has TB, surely it will just spread and spread. Certainly it can be treated, and the spread can be limited by good levels of hygeine, but hygeine alone won't prevent it, IMO.

    Now, the situation we have in this country is somewhere in between the two populations I've just described. The majority of people are vaccinated but not all.

    Well, if you've read this far, well done! So as will probably be obvious from all that ^, it'll be obvious that I think vaccination against TB is a good thing. Yes, vaccination may be intrusive, and the BCG (TB vaccination) is one of the more unpleasant ones - it's the one that goes all pussy and leaves you with a small scar.

    However, having seen my relative's treatment, I can tell you that the vaccination is far less intrusive and unpleasant than TB treatment - he has had a 12 month course of antibiotics, during which time he wasn't allowed to drink any alcohol, and, he said, gave him pee that looked like lucozade. They made him feel really ill at first too, although he did get used to them. On top of that he has had two lots of major surgery on his spine - needing general anasthetic each time, and for one of his opperations they needed to deflate his lung! He is on the mend now, I'm relieved to say, and he's bloody lucky he didn't end up paralysed. He's been left with huge scars on his back and chest (which he intends to use to impress the girlies!). Now he needs to put his weight back on, and build his muscles up again - a year of inactivity has left him very weedy.

    Well, if anyone has managed to read all that, you deserve a drink - ask me to buy you one, if we ever meet!

  • I have thought about what I would do when it comes to the vaccination of my children when it comes to it.


    I am actually pro vaccination. My reason is the risks that are imposed by not vaccinating compleatly outweigh the risks of vaccinating. I have a bit of an interest in diseases and the pathogens that cause them. Having read at what they can do. It is something I do not wish upon even my worst enemy.


    What really pisses me off is the scare that was caused by some anectodal links with the MMR causing Autism. This ment that there were fewer parents giving their kids the MMR jab. The reason it pisses me off is I have seen first hand just how infectious Mumps is! During my first year at uni a number of my hall mates went down with the mumps. This was repeated across the country by the way. The main reason it spread was because of toddlers who were not immunised coming into contact with students who also did not have immunisation as the MMR was not available when the students were toddlers themselves. Some of you may think mumps is not that serious. What gets me the most is the fact that parents choosing not to give their kids the MMR could potentially remove a young mans choice to have children of his own in the future.


    Also I don't think we really appreciate the low infant mortality rate we have in this country thanks to the control of diseases. If these diseases were allowed to spread there would me more children dying as a result.


    Matt