Whooping cough vaccine for pregnant women

[ticking.clock]

I'm even more determined than I was to get the vaccine after reading this thread. I had no idea we had so many conspiracy theorists out there and mid informed people..who could end up coughing next to me in the bank queue. Roll on next week when im protected!!

im not missinformed as you state, my son was vaccine damaged by a childdhood vaccine, FACT
i have been advised by my Dr to not vaccinate FACT

so i would say YOU are the missinformed person here

also, vaccines do NOT protect you from the illness, it just preps your body for being able to fight the illness, IF the vaccine works, as not everyone will respond in the way the vaccine makers/ drs hope...... and that is NOT a myth

Vaccine failure is when disease occurs in a person despite being vaccinated for it. It is of two types:

primary vaccine failure: This is when a person fails to produce antibodies (at detectable levels) or does not produce enough antibodies considered necessary to protect from the disease.

secondary vaccine failure: This is when a person does produce antibodies in response to vaccination however the levels wane and decline at a faster rate than normally expected. However, antibodies to almost all vaccines decline over time, even after booster shots, so secondary vaccine failure in outbreaks of disease amongst the vaccinated is frequent.
You can find examples of failures here: vaccine failure and secondary vaccine failure.

Another thing to note is that disease occurs even when a person has more antibodies than deemed sufficient to prevent disease.

 

[Gemlou78]

My post was not directed at you personally and as I previously stated although I disagree with many things you have said I can understand why you feel the way you do. I'm saying there seems to be alot of conspiracy theorists out there who think our government are out to get us. I am well aware of the fact the vaccines don't always work for everyone and im also aware that they work for the vast majority...thats the point!!!! Vaccines have kept diseases at bay for many years FACT. Countries that have vaccination programs in place have a lower mortality rate for these diseases than countries that don't have vaccines FACT. There are ladies who work in the field who have posted both informative and work bases experiences on here but people who want to read scaremongering sites will ignore it and carry on regardless. More people will have car accidents than children who have severe reaction to vaccines its just common sense.

People will do as they please....as will I.

 

[poutie]

I actually don't see where there's been any talk of conspiracy theories on this thread. (Maybe I didn't catch it?) It's clear that everyone has their firm opinion that, for the most part, can't be deterred. In my case, what happened to my son was quite a scare and because of what happened to him, I saw first hand that vaccines can and do cause damage. Whether or not it's rare, the fact that it can happen (and did happen) makes me extremely scared to continue with any vaccinations with any of my children, and therefore, the risks outweigh the benifits.

I've also read that children who have adverse side effects from vaccines are much more susceptible to it happening again in the future, if they continue with vaccinations.

 

[Gemlou78]

I'm on my phone at mo so can't copy and paste but there has been things said like..we can't trust the government, we can't trust the motives and then there id the masses of mis-information from dodgy websites. To be honest novmum and a few others have dealt with most of them beautifully and corrected the mis-information they have printed...there is no need for me to copy and paste.

Nobody has ever said that there aren't a minority of children who may have some sort of reaction and as I've said before a number of times now if you are someone its happened to its going to color your judgement! You would feel just as strongly FOR the vaccine if you had a child who had contracted that (as I've got friends who had it as children and ended up with pneumonia and still suffer with very weakened respiratory systems now who wish their parents had vaccinated and who make damn sure their kids are so they don't suffer the same way).

Your point of view comes from your experience which as we have already established is rare...it doesn't apply to the vast majority and shouldn't be written as though it does.

 

[Kismo]

Gemlou, where is your proof that the website links I provided are in fact, 'dodgy'? The burden of proof lies with the claimant - please prove this point, thanks.

All I did was provide written 'anecdotal evidence' from families whose children have suffered as a result of vaccinations - how on earth is this scaremongering? Providing two sides to an argument is hardly scaremongering. Even as there is 'anecdotcal evidence' from women on this thread plus you say your friends/acquaintances also had bad experiences, still you are referring to this information as 'dodgy'? You are basically saying that as long as you don't get affected by the vaccine, it's okay to go ahead and get it, because there are so few people who do? So, how would you feel if you were one of the ones who DID get affected and tried to reach out to those who had not vaccinated their children yet, would you feel you needed to voice your experience or would you just leave them to get on with it, knowing there was a risk, due to your own personal experiences?

In every situation, it is good to take a view from both sides, read supporting evidence and information and make an informed decision. In no way whatsoever is providing links to websites of people's real experiences scaremongering nor is it 'conspiracy theorist' territory.

Spare a thought for the ones that have been affected and please don't belittle their experiences, just because you have been fortunate enough to not go through what they or their children have.

 

[Kismo]

and p.s. there is a contact page on the website of the '900 Voices' experiences of real families affected by vaccination damage.

Please - I would recommend that you contact the Editor, have a chat about it, then come back and post your feelings afterwards and see whether or not the website is dodgy.

Also, I recommend contacting the people from 'Arnica', there is also a heap of information on their website, which I have joined - not dodgy, I can vouch for that.


https://arnica.org.uk/

Ask questions - you might be surprised of what you learn. Don't close your mind to one side - be open.

 

[nov_mum]

I don't think ganging up on people is helpful and targeting Gemlou is just taking it to a personal level. Perhaps the argument has reached a point where everyone has had their say, as usual not many people actually change their minds about their stance on this topic. I also felt that anecdotal stories are being represented as generalisations and that some of the links provided are lacking in robust scientific evidence. For some, they don't care about science but their own experiences. Many still believe that Autism is still heavily linked to immunisations. Gemlou was just pointing out that some of the ideas being expressed - for example 'aluminium and formaldehyde being toxic chemicals that don't belong in the body' were somewhat inaccurate and as misleading as saying all vaccines come without risk.Still, at least it took til page 17 til it got nasty which has to be a record for a immunisation thread.

 

[Kismo]

and it didn't get nasty from me..... again I will repeat.... all I did was provide ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE from real families who have experienced vaccination damage.

Dear dear, there is NO ganging up here. I think you are being dramatic. Gemlou wrote that the website links that I provided were 'dodgy'. I am asking her to prove that they are. If she cannot prove that they are dodgy, she has no right to suggest that they are. Doing so is both belittling the experiences of the people writing them and closing her mind to the possibility that a problem with vaccines exists, has existed and continues to exist due to the real experiences of those involved.

If a poster decides to claim that something is 'dodgy' then the burden is on them to prove that is in fact true. Quite simple really.

 

[ticking.clock]

All vaccines are harmful, this is a fact.
If they were totally safe we wouldn't have the need for the vaccine damage payment scheme

 

[Kismo]

if vaccines were fool-proof and safe, there would not be accounts of thousands and thousands of women/families the world over with children whose lives are now damaged forever. This, in my eyes, CANNOT be ignored and CANNOT be coincidental. Thus, anecdotal evidence will forever be the biggest tool for proving the fact that vaccines do damage. Why people continue to take risks in having them, is beyond me. After having my eyes open to what can happen and DOES happen, I have totally changed my personal stance, because if there is such a catastrophic risk, even of the slightest chance, in my child becoming affected, then I won't take that risk. I will however, do the best by my child to ensure that it is as healthy as can be, has all of my antibodies through breastmilk, for as prolonged a period as possible, provide it an organic, free range, pesticide free, nutritious diet thus ensuring its immune system can naturally cope with illness/disease without the need for vaccinations.

This is my personal wish for my family. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and path in life. Having had my eyes open to what can happen has altered my path. I just hope that women everywhere arm themselves with both sides of the argument and don't ignore something because it doesn't sound too appealing or they believe it will 'never happen to them' because statistics show that so few are affected. We are all but a number in life and anything can happen to anyone at any time.

My partner has just provided me with a document on his laptop from his peers (he is a scientist) - a peer reviewed paper from the British Medical Journal from Phd's and other respected medical professionals which is about the vaccination programme - and their belief that it is WRONG. This should be an interesting read for me.

Anyway, I am off to Third Trimester - I wish you ladies all the very best in your pregnancies and best wishes for the impending births of your respective children.

Take Care.

Kismo

 

[Gemlou78]

I'm not belittling anyone in fact I have painstakingly gone out of my way to say I understand why those who have had a child affected in some way would feel the way they do so please don't tell me im belittling people when im not. As for the link to all the posts of families stories I wasn't the only person who commented but since you only seem interested in why I personally have commented I will say as someone else did that anyone can compile a list of people affected by anything it doesn't make it any less rare to put it in a big list that way. Also writting info about the ingredients that are not correct is irresponsible. The argument has run its course people will believe and do as they please.

 

[Kismo]

I think it is clear that we have to agree to disagree here.

However, I asked you to prove the point that the website link I provided was 'dodgy', which you haven't managed to do. I rest my case. You were the one making the comment Gemlou, so it only stands to reason that you are the one I ask to explain yourself. You should not write such things if you can't prove it. That is irresponsible. I on the other hand, did not do anything irresponsible. I only provided information from real experiences from a very real and current website. Whether a consolidated list of people's experiences can be listed on a site to prove their authenticy is neither here nor there. The fact is that is has and they are authentic stories from real people, regardless of how many of them are in the one place. All it proves is that DAMAGE DOES HAPPEN as a result of vaccination.

It's probably a bit braver of me to provide that information than NOT provide it wouldn't you say? Some people are totally unaware of the damages that can be caused and even despite the fact that my child, thus far, has not had any adverse effects does not stop me from passing on information that I have found to be of great use and hope to help other mothers come to some sort of informed decision or at least lead them in the right direction. It's take it or leave it advice/info. Read it or don't read it - just don't call it 'dodgy' when you have absolutely no proo that it is. Neither is it misinformation. Writing that other posters have 'set me straight with the correct information' is just as ignorant. Who is to say that they are correct??? Anecdotal evidence from real people will be the deciding factor I would imagine, not so-called 'scientific statistics' or how children 'should' react to vaccinations. How about taking the real experiences a bit more seriously and not calling them 'dodgy' or 'misinformed'. Seeing the cold hard truth and facts can be quite alarming to some, but I would personally rather be armed with all the information from both sides. Yes, sorry but you WERE belittling the people affected - by telling me the website link with their stories and experiences were 'dodgy'. How could you NOT be belittling their experiences. IF you were not belitting them, you would have replied with something along the lines of 'gosh it is so very unfortunate for these people on that website sharing their stories and how sad for them and that you understand that vaccines can and do cause damage', instead you called the website 'dodgy' citing that 'anyone can write a list bla bla'. Sorry but you can't have it both ways. You either think the website is dodgy and all the people's accounts therein is dodgy or you don't.

 

[Kismo]

I'm on my phone at mo so can't copy and paste but there has been things said like..we can't trust the government, we can't trust the motives and then there id the masses of mis-information from dodgy websites. To be honest novmum and a few others have dealt with most of them beautifully and corrected the mis-information they have printed...there is no need for me to copy and paste.



So I have copied and pasted for you - your are telling everyone the links I provided are 'dodgy' - where is your proof and that means by default you believe all the stories contained therein, are dodgy or at worst lies.



Nobody has ever said that there aren't a minority of children who may have some sort of reaction and as I've said before a number of times now if you are someone its happened to its going to color your judgement! You would feel just as strongly FOR the vaccine if you had a child who had contracted that (as I've got friends who had it as children and ended up with pneumonia and still suffer with very weakened respiratory systems now who wish their parents had vaccinated and who make damn sure their kids are so they don't suffer the same way).

It's more than obvious that someone affected by vaccine damage is going to biased towards non-vaccination - a point I don't think needs to be made. How do you know that the ones you knew who got ill would not have got ill anyway? How can you be sure that because they didn't get vaccinated they got ill - where is your proof? How do you know it wasn't because they ate bad diets and had a total lack of vitamins/low immune system?


Your point of view comes from your experience which as we have already established is rare...it doesn't apply to the vast majority and shouldn't be written as though it does.

And are you telling me that you 'just know' you will be one of the ones whose kids will 'be spared' and not one of those few statistics. Nobody says the information is written to portray an idea that vaccine damage happens to everyone...that is obvious........what is trying to be established is that NO-ONE can be sure that their child will be the 'unlucky one' and be struck down by some horrendous side effect. There is no 100% guarantee for anyone and for you to try to classify yourself someone angelicly in the category of the vast majority who won't be affected is just sheer arrogance.

 

[Gemlou78]

You know what I never mentioned you personally with regard to dodgy sites although as I've said we can all compile lists. Maybe to even things out and give a realistic picture there should be a list of all the children who haven't been affected and then lets see what people believe!

There is no argument from me that 'a few' children are affected. Many people have expressed the same views as me but if you feel the need to vent your feelings at me then fine you go right ahead...ive obviously hit a nerve unlike the many other posters who have disagreed with what's been said.

Using the logic that people (other than those with kids who may have been affected) should not vaccinate because there is a small risk would mean presumably that we should not fly as there is a small risk of the plane crashing, that we should wear masks when out due to risk of pollutants entering our systems, we shouldn't cross the road due to the small risk of being knocked over. You are entitled to not get the vaccine due to your experiences or feelings but you cannot say because there is a small risk other people shouldn't!

 

[Kismo]

Gemlou, I am not out to get anyone here. I am saying that YOU were the one, not anyone else, that said in YOUR post that I had posted links to dodgy websites. No-one else posted any links that you classified as dodgy other than me. You and I both know you directed that comment at me.

I do not take kindly to anyone, no matter who they are, trying to make out that I am somehow providing mis-information (whatever that actually means - bit of an oxymoron!) and providing links to 'dodgy' websites. I have done NEITHER. To all posters in this thread, all I tried to do was provide information from real sources and REAL they indeed are! There is absolutely no merit whatsoever of compiling a list of all the kids that have not contracted an illness due to the fact that they were vaccinated - that is to say the least, a moot point, since statistics have already demonstrated that a small minority of children have adverse side effects to the vaccinations and that outbreaks of certain diseases have been controlled. Nowhere does this prove that damage does NOT occur to vaccinated children!!!! That was NOT the point, albeit a related one. The point was about you making out to another poster that I provided DODGY website information.

The point about lists is irrelevant too - the point I was trying to make was that REGARDLESS of how many lists are written, there is clear evidence of damage done....... Deary me......


Okay, I throw in the towel here, I can't discuss this topic any further with someone who quite clearly doesn't either remember what they have written or who contradicts themselves. There is no point. You have your belief and I have mine.

 

[NoodleSnack]

All vaccines are harmful, this is a fact.
If they were totally safe we wouldn't have the need for the vaccine damage payment scheme

By that standard, we must say that everything is harmful. Medical care itself, or McDonald's coffee, for example.

The correct statement ought to be: vaccine is harmful to a small minority of people. For the majority of us, it does no harm and is quite beneficial. For example, I have to be in close contact with people with hepatitus b, thanks to vaccine, I am protected against the disease.

Kismo, while there's no guarantee that anyone will be part of the majority, unless you know of something specific to you that makes you different, there's more than 90% chance that you are in the more than 90% group.

And the reason we dismiss anecdotal evidence is because they are inferior to scientific evidence when it comes to decision making. One, they are not consistent, therefore may not be credible. Two, they do not provide the whole truth, i.e. vaccine is safe for the majority of people.

If you truly value both sides of the story, I suggest you do some research on the side effects of the diseases these vaccines are meant to prevent, their prevalence before and after the vaccines were introduced, and how they are spread. There are information online, and I can provide you with plenty of anecdotal evidence of people I've known who are paralyzed by polio, suffer from TB, or live with hepatitus B. For some of them, eating healthy did not stop them from getting these diseases. If you still feel the same after reading about those diseases and the risk of getting them, then you may deservedly claim that you are informed about both sides of the debate.

 

[Gemlou78]

Thank you noodlesack that's all I have been trying to say perhaps less eloquantly.

Kismo I am on mobile and can't copy and paste things. What I meant by dodgy was in fact what noodlesack just pointed out that it is inferior to medical research I concede that I could have chosen a better word...but as I was at my son's rugby match and on a mobile it was just the first word that came into my head. You were infact pulled up on that site by someone else after you posted it but chose not to challenge that person. YOU not me are making this feel personal. The information someone posted about ingredients was false, there are many things on here that have been either out of date or from sources that are not based on medical research and people are entitled to point that out.

Also of course I don't know my child wont be one of the rare few who are affected but like most people I look at the facts which are that it is very rare therefore worth the chance that it will protact mine from the disease. As suggested why don't you do some research into these diseases and the long term affects they can cause. I'm done now as this really is pointless

 

[Kismo]

The amusing irony is, that you are clearly unaware of what constitutes research methodology, yet talk about 'scientific evidence' being superior to anecdotal evidence. Do you even know what constitutes 'scientific evidence'? Are you in a position to evaluate scientific studies? Are you even aware that there is no absolute agreement amongst medical experts on the effectiveness of vaccinations???

With regard to all of those people who actually have contracted those viruses and illnesses, that is neither here nor there, because equally there are people who don't get vaccinated and suffer from no diseases and there are also those who do get vaccinated and yet still contract diseases...... It's not as if my point of view is not supported by a single expert in the field of vaccinations/immunisations. Ask yourself a question....who is it that funds the studies that support vaccinations??? More often than not, the pharmceutical companies fund these studies. Don't you think there is a conflict of interest there??

In summary - my point was and is that there is no conclusive evidence to support mass immunisation therefore 'let the buyer beware' - meaning, people need to make their own informed choices rather than blindly follow what they have been told is the only solution or answer. I have made my own informed choice after carefully reading both sides of the argument and unless new compelling evidence comes to light I won't change my stance.

Good luck to you all.

Kismo

 

[nov_mum]

The amusing irony is, that you are clearly unaware of what constitutes research methodology, yet talk about 'scientific evidence' being superior to anecdotal evidence. Do you even know what constitutes 'scientific evidence'? Are you in a position to evaluate scientific studies? Are you even aware that there is no absolute agreement amongst medical experts on the effectiveness of vaccinations???

With regard to all of those people who actually have contracted those viruses and illnesses, that is neither here nor there, because equally there are people who don't get vaccinated and suffer from no diseases and there are also those who do get vaccinated and yet still contract diseases...... It's not as if my point of view is not supported by a single expert in the field of vaccinations/immunisations. Ask yourself a question....who is it that funds the studies that support vaccinations??? More often than not, the pharmceutical companies fund these studies. Don't you think there is a conflict of interest there??

In summary - my point was and is that there is no conclusive evidence to support mass immunisation therefore 'let the buyer beware' - meaning, people need to make their own informed choices rather than blindly follow what they have been told is the only solution or answer. I have made my own informed choice after carefully reading both sides of the argument and unless new compelling evidence comes to light I won't change my stance.

Good luck to you all.

Kismo

I can honestly say that I have engaged in research as part of my post graduation qualifications so I can declare that I understand research methodology. I also teach ethics and I can tell you that it is unethical to make claims that are not founded in research. This is why the Dr that made the tenuous link between vaccines and autism lost his license to practice. The onus is not on the recipient of the information to disprove others claims although it is wise to be able to decipher between good and bad science. Not everyone has an interest or qualifications in this area so it is imperative that claims made about important health interventions, such as vaccines, are made sensibly and with evidence to support he claims. No one has said that vaccines do not come with risk. What has been said is that fro a perspective of world health and community health that vaccines have played a major role in reducing infections and containing outbreaks that would overwhelm health services and result in many more deaths if they were not available. Some people have complications from using morphine for pain relief but making a claim that it is a terrible drug that should never be used for anything or anyone because of it is irresponsible. Some babies are damaged by forcep or c section deliveries and there are a group of mothers that have told me how they personally felt incredibly upset over the harm that it caused. The difference is that you can't make statements that because it happened to a few that these procedures are not valid, not of benefit to the majority of people who are on the receiving end and scientifically proven to be a life saving intervention.

Also, it is a ridiculous claim to make that vaccines have not been proven to reduce disease. There is an overwhelming amount of information that shows a direct correlation to vaccines and prevention of disease. TB and polio are perfect examples of this. TB infections are growing in our country which is a sad state of affairs. If you would like further information please see the WHO website and read about 'vaccine preventable disease' and the Polio eradication programme which is being run world wide.

 

[ticking.clock]

The amusing irony is, that you are clearly unaware of what constitutes research methodology, yet talk about 'scientific evidence' being superior to anecdotal evidence. Do you even know what constitutes 'scientific evidence'? Are you in a position to evaluate scientific studies? Are you even aware that there is no absolute agreement amongst medical experts on the effectiveness of vaccinations???

With regard to all of those people who actually have contracted those viruses and illnesses, that is neither here nor there, because equally there are people who don't get vaccinated and suffer from no diseases and there are also those who do get vaccinated and yet still contract diseases...... It's not as if my point of view is not supported by a single expert in the field of vaccinations/immunisations. Ask yourself a question....who is it that funds the studies that support vaccinations??? More often than not, the pharmceutical companies fund these studies. Don't you think there is a conflict of interest there??

In summary - my point was and is that there is no conclusive evidence to support mass immunisation therefore 'let the buyer beware' - meaning, people need to make their own informed choices rather than blindly follow what they have been told is the only solution or answer. I have made my own informed choice after carefully reading both sides of the argument and unless new compelling evidence comes to light I won't change my stance.

Good luck to you all.

Kismo

I can honestly say that I have engaged in research as part of my post graduation qualifications so I can declare that I understand research methodology. I also teach ethics and I can tell you that it is unethical to make claims that are not founded in research. This is why the Dr that made the tenuous link between vaccines and autism lost his license to practice. The onus is not on the recipient of the information to disprove others claims although it is wise to be able to decipher between good and bad science. Not everyone has an interest or qualifications in this area so it is imperative that claims made about important health interventions, such as vaccines, are made sensibly and with evidence to support he claims. No one has said that vaccines do not come with risk. What has been said is that fro a perspective of world health and community health that vaccines have played a major role in reducing infections and containing outbreaks that would overwhelm health services and result in many more deaths if they were not available. Some people have complications from using morphine for pain relief but making a claim that it is a terrible drug that should never be used for anything or anyone because of it is irresponsible. Some babies are damaged by forcep or c section deliveries and there are a group of mothers that have told me how they personally felt incredibly upset over the harm that it caused. The difference is that you can't make statements that because it happened to a few that these procedures are not valid, not of benefit to the majority of people who are on the receiving end and scientifically proven to be a life saving intervention.

Also, it is a ridiculous claim to make that vaccines have not been proven to reduce disease. There is an overwhelming amount of information that shows a direct correlation to vaccines and prevention of disease. TB and polio are perfect examples of this. TB infections are growing in our country which is a sad state of affairs. If you would like further information please see the WHO website and read about 'vaccine preventable disease' and the Polio eradication programme which is being run world wide.

There are also many studies that shown that diseases were declining well before the introduction of vaccines,

But anyway, in answer to the op question, no I'm not having the vaccine, it is a risk I will take and I doubt anyone on here will loose any sleep over it