Childhood Vaccinations??, page 3

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