Newborn And Baby/child Vaccinations

[pmcd8243]

To the original poster,

Is there a particular vaccine you are opposed to or do you plan on no vaccines of any kind for your child?

P

[Sheryl]

To the original poster,

Is there a particular vaccine you are opposed to or do you plan on no vaccines of any kind for your child?

P

The original post is almost 2 years old, I doubt OP is still following the thread.

[Artisi]

The above post is contains factually incorrect statements and would have been deleted had the Mods seen it more quickly.

Since however it has been posted for over 24 hours the following factual corrections are offered for those who may already have read it:

1. "According to the FDA, there are no serious reactions to the hep B vaccine. ".

I am not sure if this is meant to refer to the US FDA or the Thai FDA but not accurate in either case. All drugs and vaccines have side effects and these are clearly described, along with contraindications and precautions, in the literature, in the vaccine package inserts, etc. For concise information about the Hepatitis B vaccine, including both its potential benefits and risks, see this link:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloo...s/ucm110138.pdf

2. "In a letter published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, Dr B Classen, who had been commissioned to investigate possible after-effects of the NZ government's hep B vaccination campaign a few years ago, stated that he found a 60% increase in juvenile insulin-dependent diabetes in New Zealand children, as a result of the hep B vaccination programme"

This refers to findings in the 1990's which did not claim to establish cause and effect but rather simply noted that diabetes had increased in children (a trend worldwide) and hypothesized that it might be related to the introduction of the Hep B vaccine since the latter had come in at about the same time. In response, a large scale case-control study was done. The results, published in 2001, conclusively found there to be no link between the receipt of any of the vaccinations currently in use at that time (inc. Hep and the occurrence of juvenile diabetes, see http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/...full/108/6/e112

I am not aware of any further statements or publications by Dr. Classen on that topic since this research came out, but his descriptive report of 12 years ago, minus the details of the findings of the study it prompted, continue to be cited by various vaccine conspiracy theory groups.

3. "In France, the government was forced to discontinue its hep B vaccinaton programme for school children because of a high number of neurological disorders in children who were given this genetically engineered vaccine, and a large number of ensuing lawsuits by parents wishing to clam compensation for their vaccine-injured children."

Routine Hep B vaccination of schoolchildren was temporarily suspended in France in the mid 1990's after reports that several persons had developed multiple sclerosis a few weeks after they had received the vaccine. The possible relationship was thoroughly investigated and Hep B vaccination re-instituted after careful case-control studies showed no difference in the incidence of multiple sclerosis between children who had received the hep B vaccine and those who had not. Since then 7 large scale studies have been done, including one that followed over half a million people in Canada; these all failed to show any association between the vaccine and multiple sclerosis. Hep B is a routine part of the child immunization schedule in France .

3. "As regards the hep B vaccination at birth, unless their mother is Hep B positive, babies are not an at-risk group of getting hep B."

The vaccine is recommended even in cases where the mother is Hep B antigen negative. The reason for this is that children can indeed contact the disease through routes other than maternal-to-child transmission; the Hep B virus, unlike HIV, is able to live for some time outside the body and on objects (toothbrushes, clothes etc) and hence it can be contacted if a child's mucous membranes or a cut/scraped area of skin comes into contact with anything that has previously been in contact with the bodily fluids of another (infected) person – even days afterwards. The risk is highest in households where somebody (not necessarily the mother) is a Hep B carrier and in day care settings or other situations where large numbers of very young children are together, but it can haoppen outside of those contexts as well. This type of transmission would be possible in older children and adults too, but is less likely since older kids and adults are less prone to cuts, scrapes etc, putting dirty objects into their mouths etc, and know to keep cuts and open skin away from potentially infected objects.

Hep B is far more serious in children and infection in childhood carries a much higher risk of chronic infection (a risk factor for cancer of the liver and cirrhosis) than infection in adults. About a third of all chronic carriers of Hep B in the West, and most carriers in SE Asia, acquired the infection in childhood. So even though the overall incidence of Hep B in young children is small, its greater severity means that the incidence of severe and/or chronic Hep B cases in that age group is disproportionately larger.

.

4. "The BCG vaccine against TB has been discontinued in virtually every country, as it was found to be ineffective in preventing TB. I don't know why it is still given in Thailand; maybe the WHO forgot to inform the Thai health authorities".

WHO still recommends the BCG vaccine in countries with as high burden of TB. BCG is not "ïneffective", it has been proven to reduce the incidence of TB meningitis and other forms of severe extrapulmonary TB in children under the age of 5. (Note that it is not expected to prevent TB altogether).

Remember there are vested intersets in ensuring that the more drugs spld the better.

http://www.visainfo.org.au/pages/04_Vaccin...Sandra_HepB.htm

[Sheryl]

Remember there are vested intersets in ensuring that the more drugs spld the better.

http://www.visainfo.org.au/pages/04_Vaccin...Sandra_HepB.htm

Please note that the discussion in this link refers to Hep B vaccination in Australia, a country with low burden of Hep B. WHO recommends routine Hep B vaccination in countries with high Hep B endemicity. Australia is not one, but Thailand most certainly is.

The midwives in this link are providing Hep B to all infants of mothers who are HB Ag positive and letting parents decide in other cases. It would be much more prudent to screen not only the mothers but all immediate household members. If any member of the immediate household is a carrier, immunization of the infant is essential. I certainly agree with the idea of informed consent, just hope they are also informing parents of the increased risk if the child is placed in day care or pre school.

One can debate the risk-benefit equation of various vaccines r for specific individuals, groups of individuals, or countries, and indeed very detailed analyses of this type are made before any country includes a vaccine as part of its public health recommendation.

But the idea that vaccines are being pushed on the public to make money simply does not hold up. There is far more money to be made from treating the diseases vaccines prevent than from marketing the vaccines; in fact vaccine research and development (unlike other drug R&D) is so unprofitable that it has to be heavily subsidized by government and international organizations. And in most countries, the government has to pay for the cost of any vaccines it makes mandatory or recommended - in some countries for all its citizens and in others, for the poor -- so it is a big drain on public coffers to add on a new vaccine recommendation and it is not done lightly.

[swiss kiwi]

There are only 2 vaccines given at the time of birth:

- BCG (for TB)

- Hepatitis B

As far as I know, you can refuse both of these; patient have the right to refuse any and all treatment and in the case of a minor, the parents have that right. You will need to make those wishes known and keep watch tho because they tend to be part of standing orders in the hospital.

In the case of the Hep B, if you plan to refuse it, you should be sure that your wife is tested before or during pregnancy to make sure she is not a carrier. If however she is shown not to be a carrier then you can choose not to have the child immunized and let him or her decide this matter for themselves when old enough (just make sure they know that they never had the vaccine, and since the disease can be sexually transmitted, have that talk around the time of puberty).

The other vaccines are all administered later on during infancy. I don't recommend it, but you can choose not to bring your child to get them. What I am not sure of is whether proof of immunization is required at time of school registration here like it is in many countries, perhaps others can advise on that.

********************************************************************************

************************************************

Sheryl, you say that "If she (the mother) is a Hep B carrier and the baby is not immunized within 12 hours of birth, there is a strong likelihood of neonatal hepatitis B and believe me, the risks of that outweigh whatever risks of immunization you are concerned about, by a long shot."

That may be your personal or even medical opinion, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. Babies occasionally die as a result of vaccination, including reactions to the hepatitis B vaccine. This is what happened to Ian. whose parents posted photos of their son's reaction (which proved fatal) on 'Ian's Voice' on the internet.

Personally, I would not vaccinate even if my wife was hep B positive, because I don't believe that the hep B vaccine is effective in preventing the disease. I have arrived at this conclusion as a result of studying official statistics. I guess some would argue that this is just a personal choice and opinion, which it indeed is.

The point I'm making is that parents should not blindly subscribe to anyone's beliefs, including those of medical authorities, doctors or myself; they owe it to their child to do some research covering both sides of the fence, then decide according to what feels right for them. I have a 36-year-old, very strong and healthy son who was never in any danger of succumbing to an infectious disease and whose mother never got him jabbed, simply so she says, because "I've always had a funny feeling about vaccinations."

As for myself, I was vaccinated against diphtheria and smallpox as a child. I now wish I hadn't been vaccinated at all, but I didn't have any say in the matter and my parents thought they were doing what was best for me. At least I only got two vaccines. Today, American children get about 40!

I have lived in Thailand for the past 3 years, without any vaccinations, or health problems whatsoever. Two of my friends, one of them American, the other English, decided against vaccinating their babies who were born in Bangkok hospitals. There was no problem, as they had sought out hospitals for their Thai wives to give birth in where the staff was happy to acommodate their wish not to get their babies vaccinated. All three unvaccinated children are doing well, as unvaccinated chldren usually do, unburdened as they are by the toxic substances in vaccines.

The 'thinktwice' Global Vaccine Insitute is a good source of information, as is the 'Vaccination Information Network' on facebook.

[feens]

Remember there are vested intersets in ensuring that the more drugs spld the better.

http://www.visainfo.org.au/pages/04_Vaccin...Sandra_HepB.htm

Please note that the discussion in this link refers to Hep B vaccination in Australia, a country with low burden of Hep B. WHO recommends routine Hep B vaccination in countries with high Hep B endemicity. Australia is not one, but Thailand most certainly is.

The midwives in this link are providing Hep B to all infants of mothers who are HB Ag positive and letting parents decide in other cases. It would be much more prudent to screen not only the mothers but all immediate household members. If any member of the immediate household is a carrier, immunization of the infant is essential. I certainly agree with the idea of informed consent, just hope they are also informing parents of the increased risk if the child is placed in day care or pre school.

One can debate the risk-benefit equation of various vaccines r for specific individuals, groups of individuals, or countries, and indeed very detailed analyses of this type are made before any country includes a vaccine as part of its public health recommendation.

But the idea that vaccines are being pushed on the public to make money simply does not hold up. There is far more money to be made from treating the diseases vaccines prevent than from marketing the vaccines; in fact vaccine research and development (unlike other drug R&D) is so unprofitable that it has to be heavily subsidized by government and international organizations. And in most countries, the government has to pay for the cost of any vaccines it makes mandatory or recommended - in some countries for all its citizens and in others, for the poor -- so it is a big drain on public coffers to add on a new vaccine recommendation and it is not done lightly.

Sheryl,

As my Thai wife is soon to have a baby I thank you for your factual contribution to this discussion.

[MJo]

Yep, thanks again Sheryl.

IMHO it is better to trust someone who knows what she is talking about than someone who studied the subject on internet and from very odd conspiracy theory sites

Sure there might be some side effects but how about all those thousands or millions of childs that have been saved thru vaccinations ?

I do understand if someone decides to voluntarily improve our geenpool and not to vaccinate their offspring (by removing them from it as sooner than later) but why to recommend and advocate it in every opportunity ?

Edited June 3, 2009 by MJo

[robblok]

Im sure it would be far more profitable to let people get sick and cure them with medicine then to vaccinate them. I mean from big pharma point of view.

That kinda eliminates the money point.

[jumnien]

I was vaccinated as a child and have come to regret it. I have a sort of chronic fatigue syndrome whereby this extreme laziness to do anything I don't want to do kicks in. I also procrastinate a lot. It must have been that vaccine when I was an infant; I can't think what else would have burdened me with this condition.

Nevertheless, I have gotten all the vaccinations for my boy and girl and they seem fine.

[Sheryl]

I was vaccinated as a child and have come to regret it. I have a sort of chronic fatigue syndrome whereby this extreme laziness to do anything I don't want to do kicks in. I also procrastinate a lot. It must have been that vaccine when I was an infant; I can't think what else would have burdened me with this condition.

Nevertheless, I have gotten all the vaccinations for my boy and girl and they seem fine.

To meet diagnostic criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome, there would need to be not a sense of "laziness"but an outright exhaustion and one that gets much worse after any type of exercise or physical exeertion. What you describe sounds much more like clinical depression. No known relationship to immunization in either case. Have you tried an SSRI? Or cognitive therapy?

[JimShortz]

I was vaccinated as a child and have come to regret it. I have a sort of chronic fatigue syndrome whereby this extreme laziness to do anything I don't want to do kicks in. I also procrastinate a lot. It must have been that vaccine when I was an infant; I can't think what else would have burdened me with this condition.

Nevertheless, I have gotten all the vaccinations for my boy and girl and they seem fine.

I know - it can be a nightmare.... I have a small spot sized blemish on my right foot. I believe this was probably a result of vaccination. Nevertheless, due to the dramatic effect on health on a global scale resulting from vaccination programmes I have also had my son vaccinated - along with all other responsible parents who don't fall for the nonsense spewed by many so-called authorities... for vaccinations to be effective on a large scale it is important that all partake (rather than living off of the backs of the majority who do, thereby avoiding the very tiny risks associated with vaccination.... of course if too many do this, then big problems! You can be a leech if you like I suppose...)

[ciro]

I was vaccinated as a child and have come to regret it. I have a sort of chronic fatigue syndrome whereby this extreme laziness to do anything I don't want to do kicks in. I also procrastinate a lot. It must have been that vaccine when I was an infant; I can't think what else would have burdened me with this condition.

Nevertheless, I have gotten all the vaccinations for my boy and girl and they seem fine.

I know - it can be a nightmare.... I have a small spot sized blemish on my right foot. I believe this was probably a result of vaccination. Nevertheless, due to the dramatic effect on health on a global scale resulting from vaccination programmes I have also had my son vaccinated - along with all other responsible parents who don't fall for the nonsense spewed by many so-called authorities... for vaccinations to be effective on a large scale it is important that all partake (rather than living off of the backs of the majority who do, thereby avoiding the very tiny risks associated with vaccination.... of course if too many do this, then big problems! You can be a leech if you like I suppose...)

Jim, you are saying that those unvaccinated are somehow living off the back of the vaccinated peaople. I somehow can't understand how this can be? As claimed by mainstream pharma, the vaccines protect from the diseases. That means that those vaccinated are perfectly safe and can't contract the disease. The only people who can get infected should be only those who are not vaccinated. But that would be their choice, they knew the risks. So, the conclusion is that those vaccinated shouldn't be affected in any way at all! Or am I missing something?

[swiss kiwi]

The above post is contains factually incorrect statements and would have been deleted had the Mods seen it more quickly.

Since however it has been posted for over 24 hours the following factual corrections are offered for those who may already have read it:

1. "According to the FDA, there are no serious reactions to the hep B vaccine. ".

I am not sure if this is meant to refer to the US FDA or the Thai FDA but not accurate in either case. All drugs and vaccines have side effects and these are clearly described, along with contraindications and precautions, in the literature, in the vaccine package inserts, etc.

********************************************************************************

**********************************************

Sheryl, I agree with you on this one. I was actually referring to the US FDA. Now please explain why the US FDA is providing parents with information which is quite obviously wrong and misleading, as its claim that "There are no serious reactions to the vaccine" is clearly untrue.

Here is an excerpt from the FDA's data sheet:

“Hepatitis B is a viral disease transmitted through blood and body fluids. In its acute phase it can cause liver failure and death. It can also become chronic, causing liver damage, including cancer, over a number of years.

Except for infants born to mothers with this infection, children are not at great risk of developing hepatitis B, but health-care workers, homosexuals, and intravenous drug users are. Attempts to vaccinate adults have been largely unsuccessful, however. It's easier to reach children because school enrollment requires immunization. Therefore, for lifelong protection, CDC has recommended that all infants be vaccinated before 15 months of age in three doses. There are no serious reactions to the vaccine."

Original text can be found here: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/reprints/vaccine.html at time of this posting, January 2009

As for vaccines causing diabetes, when I googled 'vaccines cause diabetes,' I got 1,620,000 results.

Here are some excerpts according to which vaccines indeed cause diabetes:

"Vaccines Proven To Be Largest Cause of Insulin Dependent Diabetes in Children, Diabetics Advised to Seek Legal Counsel Now, Before Their Right to Compensation Expires.

Arlington, September 11, 2000: Dr. J. Bart Classen, an immunologist at Classen Immunotherapies, presented data yesterday at the International Public Conference on Vaccination which proved vaccines are the largest cause of Insulin Dependent Diabetes in Children. His data indicated that vaccines cause approximately 80% of cases of insulin dependent diabetes in children who have received multiple vaccines starting after 2 month of life.

Dr. Classen presented data supporting a causal relationship between many different vaccines and the development of insulin diabetes. His data included the pertussis, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, hemophilus influenza and others. The data indicated people with vaccine induced diabetes may not develop the disease until 4 or more years after receiving a vaccine.

Lawyers attending the conference and who reviewed the data, advise diabetics to seek legal counsel at once. The government provides compensation for vaccine induced injuries however there is a statute of limitations. Insulin dependent diabetes cost the patient about $1 million over their life time.

Dr. Classen’s research has been published in numerous journals and featured in national news reports. For the latest information on the effects of vaccines on insulin dependent diabetes and other autoimmune diseases visit the Vaccine Safety Website ( http://vaccines.net )."

"April 4, 2008: Newly published data in the Open Endocrinology Journal , 2008, 2, 1-4, links vaccination to the development of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome, a group of disorders including obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and altered blood lipids. Asians and possibly other non white minorities are at higher risk of developing metabolic syndrome as an adverse event from vaccination while whites are at higher risk of developing type 1 diabetes and autoimmune disorders from vaccination."

Sheryl, I trust that you will allow me the right of reply to your response to my comments, and won't delete what I have posted here.

PS I have also uploaded 3 graphs based on official government statistics, showing the decline of TB deaths in England, Germany and New Zealand. I have never uploaded anything on TV before, so hope it works ok. The graphs clearly show that the remarkable decline of TB deaths over the decades was completely uninfluenced by the introduction and use of the BCG vaccine (against TB).

[swiss kiwi]

Im sure it would be far more profitable to let people get sick and cure them with medicine then to vaccinate them. I mean from big pharma point of view.

That kinda eliminates the money point.

That makes sense if one accept the claim that vaccines prevent diseases. Infectious disease mortality graphs however show quite clearly that the remarkable decline in the number of deaths from infectious diseases was completely unaffected by the introduction and use of vaccines. Google 'health sentinel graphs'.

If the second scenario is correct, it means that vaccination programmes are used to promote ill-health by injecting the population with toxic substances, and not to prevent diseases, although this is obviously what (most) doctors believe they are doing.

In his article 'The Vaccine Cover-Up,' US neurosurgeon and health educator Dr Russell Blaylock MD says : "Our society is littered with millions of children who have been harmed in one way or another by vaccines. Also, let us not forget the millions of parents who had to watch helplessy as their children's lives were destroyed."

Vaccination is a multi-billion dollar global industry, and like any industry, those in charge of it seek to maximise profits, even if this involves suppressing information the public is entitled to. This is after all how the term 'tobacco science' was coined. The similarity between the tobaco and the vaccine industry is actually quite striking. The days when the vaccine industry will have to face the music may not be very far away.

[ciro]

But the idea that vaccines are being pushed on the public to make money simply does not hold up. There is far more money to be made from treating the diseases vaccines prevent than from marketing the vaccines; in fact vaccine research and development (unlike other drug R&D) is so unprofitable that it has to be heavily subsidized by government and international organizations. And in most countries, the government has to pay for the cost of any vaccines it makes mandatory or recommended - in some countries for all its citizens and in others, for the poor -- so it is a big drain on public coffers to add on a new vaccine recommendation and it is not done lightly.

Sheryl, I believe that your statement about profit opportunities resulting from treating infectious diseases are greater that profits from vaccines is a deception. It sounds logical, but only to those people who do not know much about the vaccination.

I am sure that vaccines are a perfect profit making tool. First, they earn money to the big pharma when they are sold and administrated to the unaware and trusting public. In some cases, yes, the patent for particular older vaccines can be expired, so there may be no profit at this stage (government subsidies compensate the big pharma in this instance as you mentioned). However, the main profit comes later when treating injured or disabled people as a result of the side-effects the vaccines often do have. This side-effects can be either acute (fever, pain, fatigue) or more importantly chronic (neurological problems, autism, diabetes, alergy, astma, etc).

Additionaly, those side-effects may not manifest themselfs soon after vaccination. Often they can surface months or even years after administrating the vaccine. At that time it is very difficult to prove that the vaccines are the cause for these side-effects. Doctors usualy blaim "environmental factors", genetic, or simply just say that the cause cannot be determined.

Now, tell me what can be more blessing for the big pharma than a pacient with a chronic, life-long disease such autism, epilepsia, diabetes or other chronic diseases? Such pacient will end up taking they drugs for the rest of his/her life. Put it together: it is highly suspected that by pushing the vaccination to the people the big pharma is in fact manufacturing its own future "clients".

After these words many may want to call me another "conspiracy theorist". But please let me cite one more fact: Most infectious diseases were on decline long before the vaccines were introduces in 1950s and 1960s against those diseases. For example death incidence of Diphteria in 1920 was about 100 per milion and steadily declined to 2-3 deaths per milion in 1960 when the vaccine was scheduled and widely used. Similarly, whooping cough deaths of 108 per milion in 1900 compared to about 20 deaths per milion in 1940-1950 when the vaccine was made available. The same with measles: 120 deaths per milion in 1900, 40 in 1910, 15 in 1930 and only about 7 in 1960 when the vaccine was introduced. These facts create a little bit different perspective on the subject, don't you think?

Today the big pharma and its advocates are presenting the vaccines as huge success of humanity in eradicating the infectious diseases. But they somehow forget to mention that most of those diseases were already in decline. And what are the main factors we can thank for that decline? It's mostly improved hygiene, food availability and generaly improved living standards during the 20th century. This is true for most western developed countries. The present incidence of infectious diseases in developing or poor countries today can be eradicated simply by the same measures that worked so nicely in the developed counrties in the past. And by now, I am sure, you already know that I don't mean vaccines... But that would require a courage to admit the mistakes made by WHO and most conventional doctors when they blindly pushed the vaccines to the people. But most importantly it is the greed of big pharma that would need to be eradicated first.

Edited June 4, 2009 by ciro

[Artisi]

But the idea that vaccines are being pushed on the public to make money simply does not hold up. There is far more money to be made from treating the diseases vaccines prevent than from marketing the vaccines; in fact vaccine research and development (unlike other drug R&D) is so unprofitable that it has to be heavily subsidized by government and international organizations. And in most countries, the government has to pay for the cost of any vaccines it makes mandatory or recommended - in some countries for all its citizens and in others, for the poor -- so it is a big drain on public coffers to add on a new vaccine recommendation and it is not done lightly.

Sheryl, I believe that your statement about profit opportunities resulting from treating infectious diseases are greater that profits from vaccines is a deception. It sounds logical, but only to those people who do not know much about the vaccination.

Today the big pharma and its advocates are presenting the vaccines as huge success of humanity in eradicating the infectious diseases. But they somehow forget to mention that most of those diseases were already in decline. And what are the main factors we can thank for that decline? It's mostly improved hygiene, food availability and generaly improved living standards during the 20th century. This is true for most western developed countries. The present incidence of infectious diseases in developing or poor countries today can be eradicated simply by the same measures that worked so nicely in the developed counrties in the past. And by now, I am sure, you already know that I don't mean vaccines... But that would require a courage to admit the mistakes made by WHO and most conventional doctors when they blindly pushed the vaccines to the people. But most importantly it is the greed of big pharma that would need to be eradicated first.

Good to see that someone has introduced the topic of reduction of disease by natural causes.

Improved hygiene, diet and living standards don't figure in the research undertaken by drug companies as it skews their sole and only argument that it's the drugs that have reduced the incidence of "X" disease.

The other thing they steer well clear of are diseases for which they have no "magic bullet" and which have also reduced over time due to improved hygiene, diet etc.

However, having said this I am well used to the purveyors of "magic bullets" and their disciples insisting that they are the only ones who know the truth of these matters so can accept their standard responce of "you'ré wrong what would you know - we have the evidence to prove it - just ask us."

[johnnymoretti]

1000bht shot now or few 100,000 later for a hospital stay!

well you could just have the baby at home and then,you don't even need to worry about it.

Can't understand some people, If every country in the world arees that it is good, preventative measure to vaccinat, you may not need all that they offer, but your child needs most!

Just remeber you are in control of another life! One that can't help it's self yet! Why put it in more danger or pain.

Hmmmm....so its better to put the control of your child's furture in the hands of pharma companies and government agencies? I see it as a deriliction of duty as a parent not to investigate thoroughly and make informed and educated choices for your child. But to blindly go in and allow someone else to treat your child as a pin cushion is downright irresponsible.

[rachels]

It was on the OPRAH SHOW that the medicine company has now admitted that one of the side effects of the mmr (i think thats the name) is infact AUTISM.

[Boo]

Do you have a link to that claim ?

[rachels]

google the oprah show

[Boo]

well, no, if you make a claim like that then please provide a link or some other proof. All other data I have read stated that it was initially suspected that there was a link but subsequent research has proven otherwise but I would be interested in reading or seeing real data to the contrary.

And tbh, Oprah isn't a health professional so thats why I asked for a link.

[Sheryl]

Boo is correct. Extensive case control studies have shown that the incidence of autism is no greater among children who are vaccinated and those who are not.

[doula54]

patrickq, did you end up finding out more information about how to refuse vaccinations in Thailand, or did you get any personal experience with it in the meantime?

Still don't have definitive answers, but as Sheryl says I think they can be legally refused. As I understand it, the hospital may ask you to sign a form confirming your decision. We're hoping to have a homebirth, but this seems far more unusual in Thailand and it is very difficult to find a midwife, so we won't have to worry about an unrequested vaccination being given. However, if you're having a hospital birth I should be extremely careful, as I think there is a fair chance your wishes might be ignored, so you'll need someone else there to watch what goes on. I did read one comment saying that they would want to see vaccination certificate for child if you leave Thailand, which seemed very strange, so probably just an error, but still need to check this.

We visited Samitivej hospital to see facilities for having a natural/water birth and this inclined us even more to have a homebirth if possible ... seeing rows of newly borns lying in a room together, separated from their mum's, it was like some surreal scene from a futuristic sci-fi movie, where children are cloned and manufactured in a laboratory. At first, we thought these must be babies with problems, but 'no' they were all perfectly healthy and just being monitored, how far we have moved from having any understanding about what it is like to be born into this world, I find it tragic.

I agree that babies should not be alone during their first days of life. Not only is it scary for them but feeding and bonding can sometimes be impaired as a result of this separation. In my experience, Samitivej is fine with letting babies "room in" with their mums. However, the key here that you have to state clearly before your baby is born that this is what you want to do. If you do this, they are very obliging.

[Marklb]

Anyone find out for sure if they can force vaccines on babies here???

thank you

[Marklb]

by the way - friend having baby as we speak and he is just asking me now as nurse told him itrs the law (similar tactics I have seen in Canada if it is in fact not the law)