Baby vaccine mandatory

[aquario33]

Which vaccines are compulsory for babies in Thailand ? What kind of side effects are common and how to avoid , if possible???

[Sheryl]

The vaccine schedule for children in Thailand is:

 

At birth: BCG (for tuberculosis) and Hepatitis B

 

At ages 2, 4 and 6 months: Diptheria-Pertussis-Tetanus (DPT), Oral polio vaccine (OPV), and Hep B booster

 

At 9 months: Measles-mumps-rubella

 

Around  1 1/2 - 2 years: Japanese B encephalitis  (JE) (2 injections 4 weeks apart) and DPT, OPV booster

 

Age 2 1/2 - 3 years: JE boster

 

Age 4-5 years: DPT, OPV booster

 

Age around 7 (grade 1 in school): MMR booster

 

Age 12: Tetanus-diptheria booster (pertussis no longer needed at that age)

 

Except for the BCG, Hep B and JE, this is similiar to vaccination schedules in Western countries

 

The above is what is provided currently by the government health system to all children free of charge. There are additional vaccinations which are advisable and recommended by the Thai Pediatric Society but  not currently included in the national program i.e.  one would have to pay  for these and obtain at a private hospital. These are:

 

• rotovirus (common cause of diarrhea in infants and young children) 
• hemophilus influenzae (common cause of pneumaonia in children and also of meningitis)
• hepatitis A (self-explanatory)
• varicella (chickenpox)
• penumococcal vaccine (pneumonia)

Note: I could be wrong about the rotavirus as there has been talk about phasing it into the routine public health program - and I am not sure about the status of that. It was supposed to be phased in regionally so might be available free in some places but not others.

 

There is also ongoing discussion on including pneumococcal vaccine and studies re cost effectiveness (which is a key concern for what goes into  the free government vaccine program) but AFAIK no decision reached yet.

 

Lack of inclusion of Hep A and chickenpox were both based on cost-effectiveness consideration, not on any question that the vaccines are beneficial.

 

Table 1 in the attached file summarizes the (publically provided) immunization schedule and also includes information as to how/why specific vaccine recommendations were formulated.

 

There is no law making vaccination compulsory per se but proof of vaccination will be required to enter school..and these vaccines are recommended for very good reasons.

 

With all of them, the most likely side effects are soreness at the injection site and possibly slight fever/flu-like reaction usually not lasting more than a day. Serious adverse effects are extremely rare and it is far, far riskier to not get these vaccines.

 

 

Vaccines Thailand .pdf

[aquario33]

please ONLY refer to my question.

are you sure that these are all mandatory ? we have different informations from our hospital.

we are not interested to collect as many vaccines as possible but as less as possible.

Thank you.

[Sheryl]

Please re-read my post. I have already addressed the "mandatory" aspect in it.

[aquario33]

btw, i once saw some other posting regarding this matter, cant remember under which title. i remember you ( sheryl) was involved there too. any idea?

[aquario33]

Have a LOOK AT THIS.

 

 

 

This case was reported by a health professional via a regulatory authority (DE-Paul-
Ehrlich-Institut # DE-PEI-PEI2011016343) and described death of a 3-month-old
female subject who was vaccinated with combined diphtheria, tetanus-acellular
pertussis, hepatitis B, inactivated poliomyelitis and Haemophilus influenzae type b
vaccine (Infanrix hexa, GlaxoSmithKline) and pneumococcal vaccines (non-gsk,
Prevenar 13) for prophylaxis. Previous vaccinations with Infanrix hexa and Prevenar
13 (on 14 April 2011) have been well tolerated. On 16 May 2011 the subject
received the second dose of Infanrix hexa (intramuscular, unknown thigh) together
with the second dose of Prevenar 13 (intramuscular, unknown thigh). At this time the
subject had suffered from a mild intestinal infection. In the morning of the following
day, on 17 May 2011, the subject was found dead. An autopsy was performed and a
preliminary autopsy report was provided. According to the autopsy protocol very
early in the morning of 17 May 2011 the subject had been found "cold and lifeless"
by her parents. On 05:02 an emergency physician had been called. Cardiopulmonary
resuscitation by the parents and later by the emergency personal failed and death was
testified. Policemen were involved at 06:20. Interrogation of the subject’s parents
revealed that the subject and her four siblings had always been healthy. Follow-up
information was received from the institut of legal medicine Halle (Saale) on 04
August 2011: The final autopsy report was provided. The causes and mode of death
could not be clarified. The infant had been suffering from an acute unilateral otitis
media at the time of death (smear from the left middle ear: proof of Haemophilus
influenzae; smear from the right middle ear: no proof of microorganisms). Within the
scope of additional examinations no alcohol (alcohol concentration 0.00 %) or other
pharmacologic could be detected. There was neither evidence of an allergic reaction.
(total IgE 5.65 kU/l, reference <20kU/l) nor of a gastrointestinal infection. Nor was
there any evidence of a postvaccinal disorder." According to the autopsy report, the
onset date of the subject’s otitis media was "very recent", but it could not be clarified
whether it had been prior to or following the vaccination. Although no evidence of a
relation of the event to the vaccination was found during the autopsy, the close
CONFIDENTIAL
21
CONFIDENTIAL
69
temporal relation might be seen as an indication that the subject’s death was possibly
related to the vaccination with Infanrix hexa and Prevenar 13.
Company comment: This case described a SUDI in a 13 month-old female subject 1
day after 2nd combined vaccination with Infanrix hexa and Prevenar. A recent acute
haemophilus influenzae otitis media was diagnosed on autopsy.

8. D0072663A (Germany): Death
This case was reported by a German regulatory authority (DE-Paul-Ehrlich-Institut #
DE-PEI-PEI2011029271) and described the occurrence of unexplained death in a 9-
week-old male subject who was vaccinated with combined diphtheria, tetanusacellular
pertussis, hepatitis B, inactivated poliomyelitis and Haemophilus influenza
type b vaccine (Infanrix hexa, GlaxoSmithKline) for prophylaxis. Co-suspect
vaccinations included 13 valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (non-GSK)
(Prevenar 13, Pfizer Pharma). Pregnancy and birth had been normal. The subject’s
medical history included neonatal jaundice. The subject was developing normal.
Family history included no allergies. Concurrent medical conditions included
suspicion of congenital hip dysplasia. Hip ultrasonography, performed on 09 August
2011, showed type IIa left and type I right. Follow-up hip ultrasonography,
performed on 05 September 2011, showed type I both sides. At the time of
vaccination, on 05 September 2011, the subject was well. The subject showed small
white plaques in oral mucus (oropharyngeal plaques) left but most likely no oral
candidiasis. Previous vaccination with Rotavirus vaccine (non-GSK) (RotaTeq;
Sanofi Pasteur MSD), given orally at 2 ml on 09 August 2011, was well tolerated.
Concurrent medications included colecalciferol + sodium fluoride (D-Fluoretten) and
paracetamol (Ben-u-ron). On 05 September 2011 the subject received the first dose
of Infanrix hexa (0.5 ml, intramuscular, unknown thigh lateral) and the first dose of
Prevenar 13 (.5 ml, intramuscular, unknown thigh lateral). Approximately two days
post vaccination with Infanrix hexa and Prevenar 13, on 07 September 2011, the
subject died. The cause of death was unknown (death unexplained). The event had
also been reported as life threatening. An autopsy was performed on 07 September
2011 at an institute for forensic pathology. At the time of reporting, on 08 September
2011, examinations had not been finished and no autopsy results have been reported.
The German regulatory authority (DE-Paul-Ehrlich-Institut) has requested further
information. Quality test result was received on 11 October 2011. A complete review
of the batch records has been performed by Quality Assurance and Production. No
deviation that could impact the quality of the product has been highlighted during the
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals investigation. At the moment no further information
was available.
Company comment: This case described a SUDI in a 9 week-old male subject two
days after combined vaccination with Infanrix hexa and Prevenar. An autopsy was
performed but results are not yet available.
Since 12 September 2011, five cases linked to batch A21CB094A were reported to
GSK (D0072663A, D0072852A, D0072638A, D0072908A, D0072920A). All five
were serious reports and two had a fatal outcome. A complete review of the batch
records was performed by Quality Assurance and Production. No deviation that
could impact the quality of the product was highlighted by the GlaxoSmithKline
Biologicals investigation. There is insufficient information provided in the individual
CONFIDENTIAL
22
CONFIDENTIAL
70
case reports to make a thorough causality assessment. Autopsy reports of the
fatalities.were pending. The three non-fatal cases were all different in nature (no
cluster of any kind). These subjects all received Infanrix hexa with either Prevenar
13 or Synflorix. Allergic reactions, febrile convulsions, exanthema and fever are not
unexpected to possibly occur after vaccination.

9. D0072852A (Germany): Circulatory collapse, Sepsis, Shock, Crying, Pallor
This case was reported by a regulatory authority (DE-Paul-Ehrlich-Institut # DEPEI-
PEI2011030856) and described the occurrence of circulatory failure in a 5-
month-old male subject who was vaccinated with combined diphtheria, tetanusacellular
pertussis, hepatitis B, inactivated poliomyelitis and Haemophilus influenzae
type b vaccine (Infanrix hexa, GlaxoSmithKline) for prophylaxis. Co-suspect
vaccination included 13-valent pneumococcal vaccine (non-GSK) (Prevenar 13,
Pfizer). First vaccination with both vaccines on 23 August 2011 was well tolerated.
Information about anamnesis was provided by a hospital report from intensive care
treatment after birth. The mother had been pregnant for the first time. The mother
had former surgery because of false lung vein opening and received permanent
treatment with bisoprolol. The subject was delivered prematurely in 31+4 weeks of
gestation, by section from breech presentation after pathologic CTG. There was no
premature rupture of the amnion and amniotic fluid was clear. The subject had an
APGAR of 6/10/10, a weight of 1490 g, length of 39 cm, head circumference of 32.6
cm, navel artery pH was 7.16. After birth the subject had neonatal respiratory
distress syndrome grade I with continuous positive airway pressure for 24 hours. The
subject developed possible meconium ileus due to microcolon, transient intestinal
transportation disorder, cholestatic hepatosis after parenteral nutrition, with increased
transaminases (alanine aminotransferase 131 U/l, aspartate aminotransferase 100 U/l,
creatine kinase 342 U/l, total bilirubin 3 mg/dl, direct bilirubin 2.75 mg/dl).
Additional diagnoses after birth included neonatal anemia and iron deficiency,
asymmetry from lying, small hemangioma right gluteal and dystrophic growth and
weight increase. On the sixth day of life, the subject’s condition worsened and he
was transferred to an intensive care unit for neonates. Intravenous antibiotics were
given for seven days. The subject had abdominal distension since birth and not yet
passed meconium. Acute abdomen was suspected on the seventh day of life. The
subject was transferred to a pediatric chirurgic unit for further intervention, but after
conservative treatment the symptoms resolved. Test results were normal for ions,
blood gases, immune reactive trypsin (tested on 06 May and 06 June 2011),
sonogram of head, abdomen and hip (Graf classification Ib) and hearing screening.
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) and toxoplasmosis IgM and IgG antibodies were negative.
Initially increased Thyroid stimulating hormone normalised on control. Bile acid was
increased (74.6 mcmol/l), pancreatic kinase was decreased (68 mcg/g). Eye
examination showed vascularisation limit zone III at both sides. The subject was
discharged after 39 days in good condition and received rachitis prophylaxis and iron
substitution. On 20 September 2011 the subject received 2nd dose of Infanrix hexa
(unknown route and application site), 2nd dose of Prevenar (unknown route and
application site). On 20 September 2011 in the evening, less than one day after
vaccination with Infanrix hexa and Prevenar, the subject had been crying and turned
grey while lying in bed. The vaccinating physician was consulted and admitted the
CONFIDENTIAL
23
CONFIDENTIAL
71
infant to hospital, where the subject died on 21 September 2011, from circulatory
depression or possible sepsis. Different lot numbers were reported on follow-up.
Approximately 20 hours after vaccination with Infanrix hexa and Prevenar 13, the
subject experienced shock with circulatory failure. An emergency physician was
called and the subject was hospitalized on emergency to an intensive care unit.
Approximately 10 hours after onset of symptoms the subject died despite intensive
care. According to follow-up information received on 07 October 2011 via the
German regulatory authority (PEI), the lot number A21CB094A was documented in
vaccination certificate, while there was no documentation for the mentioned lot
numbers A21CB105A and A21CB115A. Quality test result was received on 11
October 2011. A complete review of the batch records has been performed by
Quality Assurance and Production. No deviation that could impact the quality of the
product has been highlighted during the GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals investigation.
An autopsy was performed. A duplicate case was reported by a physician, via a sales
representative and no further details about the reported event were provided.
Company comment: Case D0072949A was identified as a duplicate of case
D0072852A that was voided. A complete review of the batch records has been
performed and no deviation was evidenced during investigation process. Due to lack
of relevant information the causality remains uncertain: possible circulatory or
sepsis shock of unknown origin several hours after 2nd vaccination with Infanrix
hexa and Prevenar. An autopsy was performed, but the results were not available
(see also Section 8.2).
Since 12 September 2011, five cases linked to batch A21CB094A were reported to
GSK (D0072663A, D0072852A, D0072638A, D0072908A, D0072920A). All five
were serious reports and two had a fatal outcome. A complete review of the batch
records was performed by Quality Assurance and Production. No deviation that
could impact the quality of the product was highlighted by the GlaxoSmithKline
Biologicals investigation. There is insufficient information provided in the individual
case reports to make a thorough causality assessment. Autopsy reports of the
fatalities.were pending. The three non-fatal cases were all different in nature (no
cluster of any kind). These subjects all received Infanrix hexa with either Prevenar
13 or Synflorix. Allergic reactions, febrile convulsions, exanthema and fever are not
unexpected to possibly occur after vaccination.

 

 

 

Thats FACTS.

 

 

[Crossy]

38 minutes ago, aquario33 said:

Thats FACTS.

 

It's also unreadable cut-n-paste from an unreferenced source, could you let us know the source and summarise it for us?

 

[aquario33]

Take your time !

 

If you are really interested ....

 

 

 

[Sheryl]

These appear to be from http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/

 

That is a vaccine-conspiracy theory site, not a valid scientific reference.  In fact this site is dedicated to propagating  inaccurate information about vaccines. They do not have legitimate access to adverse effect reports on vaccines from the DE-Paul-
Ehrlich-Institute or any other source, and there is no way to verify the accuracy of quoted documents purportedly obtained from them illicitly  -- however, from a reading of what they have posted, these appear to be genuine but selectively edited -- as well as apparently not understood, since  they do not make the point the site - and the OP here - seem to claim that they do. They do not show that any deaths occurred as a result of vaccination; on the contrary, they describe the workings of a robust and thorough quality control system and thorough investigations of deaths occurring within a few days of vaccination to see if there was any possible linkage to the vaccine (including batch testing of the vaccine given to rule out any sort of contamination) with negative findings in all cases.

 

Sudden Unexplained Infant Deaths  (AKA Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDS, and commonly known as "crib death") occurs in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children alike, with no higher incidence in one group than the other. That a child dies hours or days after a vaccination does not mean the vaccination caused the death, anymore than it means whatever the child ate hours before the death was the cause of the death, or that the clothing the child had on caused the death, etc.   The deaths described here were thoroughly examined and failed to show any indication of being due to the vaccine.

 

One can only assume that neither the people who posted this as supposed evidence of vaccine danger nor their readership have sufficient medical knowledge to understand what the reports in fact clearly say.

 

That said, no one denies that vaccines have side effects, and while the overwhelming majority of these are very minor, rare cases of serious side effects do occur. These are closely monitored and the incidence is known in quantifiable terms. Also known, in quantifiable terms,  is the incidence of serious adverse effects as a result of not being vaccinated. That risk is equal to the risk of getting the disease in question if not vaccinated times the percentage of people with the disease who will die or suffer serious impairment (since many of the vaccine-preventable diseases cause death/permanent disability in only a subset of patients).

 

The decision to recommend a vaccine is made by public health authorities based on  risk-benefit calculations - vaccination is recommended when it is safer to do so than to not do so i.e. when the risk of both getting the disease and then dying or suffering permanent disability from it are greater than the risk of a serious side effect from the vaccine. Neither risk is ever zero, there is no option that is 100% risk free. The best that can be done is to choose the option that is, statistically, the safest...and that is what recommended vaccine schedules do.

 

Caveat: vaccine recommendations are based on risk-benefit calculations for healthy populations. Children with chronic diseases need to be evaluated on a case by case basis as  their risk profile may vary.

 

To not vaccinate your child because of the unscientific nonsense spouted on vaccine conspiracy sites like this is extremely misguided, and could cost your child his/her life. It could also endanger other children who might catch an infectious disease as a result of your child not being vaccinated.

 

[aquario33]

How can a unvaccinated child endanger another (vaccinated )child if the vaccines are protecting it from said diseases??

[suzannegoh]

23 minutes ago, aquario33 said:

How can a unvaccinated child endanger another (vaccinated )child if the vaccines are protecting it from said diseases??

 

It's partially because no vaccine is 100% effective but the overall efficacy goes up if everyone gets the vaccine.  Let me try to illustrate that with a made-up example.  Let's suppose that without a vaccine for a given disease there's a 100% chance that you'd become infected if came into contact with an infected person.  Now let's suppose that a vaccine is created that will make it such that only 10 percent of people who come into contact with an infected person will themselves become infected. If you are the only person that gets that vaccine, everyone one else would become infected and there would still be a 10 percent chance that you would become infected. But if everyone gets the vaccine then everyone would only have a 10 percent chance of becoming infected when they are exposed to an infected person and they would only come into contact with 10 percent as many people who are infected. Therefore that vaccine with 90% effectiveness would have an overall effectiveness of more than 90% (because it not only reduces the infection rate of exposed people from but also reduces that number of infected people that you will become exposed to) and the overall risk of becoming infected would be something on order of 10% squared, which is 1%.  The actual match is more probably more complex than that, but this is what's often called herd immunity and it is this phenomena that make it possible to eradicate a disease with a vaccine that is less than 100% effective. 

[aquario33]

In other words, its always around and also natural to get certain illness , which fortifies our immun system in a natural way. Its all depending on the strength of our immunsystem.

[aquario33]

Does anybody  have any leaflets of the currently used products available? As well how the products were produced ? Are there any Placebo studies available??

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, aquario33 said:

Does anybody  have any leaflets of the currently used products available? As well how the products were produced ? Are there any Placebo studies available??

 

Placebo effect in an infant ??? Are you serious ??

1.  

    

[aquario33]

Common substances found in vaccines include:

• Aluminum gels or salts of aluminum which are added as adjuvants to help the vaccine stimulate a better response. Adjuvants help promote an earlier, more potent response, and more persistent immune response to the vaccine.
• Antibiotics which are added to some vaccines to prevent the growth of germs (bacteria) during production and storage of the vaccine. No vaccine produced in the United States contains penicillin.
• Egg protein is found in influenza and yellow fever vaccines, which are prepared using chicken eggs. Ordinarily, persons who are able to eat eggs or egg products safely can receive these vaccines.
• Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for toxoid vaccines, (these are vaccines that use an inactive bacterial toxin to produce immunity.) It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria that might contaminate the vaccine during production. Most formaldehyde is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged.
• Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged when the vaccine is exposed to heat, light, acidity, or humidity.
• Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose to prevent contamination and growth of potentially harmful bacteria.

 

Source :http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

[aquario33]

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Placebo effect in an infant ??? Are you serious ??

1.  

    

It was a general question. 

[suzannegoh]

8 hours ago, aquario33 said:

In other words, its always around and also natural to get certain illness , which fortifies our immun system in a natural way. Its all depending on the strength of our immunsystem.

 

That doesn't follow at all the from previous discussion. You asked why low vaccination rates put vaccinated people at risk and because the answer doesn't support your premise you're shifting to another misleading antivax argument.

 

[suzannegoh]

 

8 hours ago, aquario33 said:

Does anybody  have any leaflets of the currently used products available? As well how the products were produced ? Are there any Placebo studies available??

 

Try googling for info on the specific vaccine that you are concerned about.  That type of information is generally available though it might be better to read the original documents yourself than to trust summaries of the material on vaccineskilledmybaby.com.

[aquario33]

41 minutes ago, suzannegoh said:

 

That doesn't follow at all the from previous discussion. You asked why low vaccination rates put vaccinated people at risk and because the answer doesn't support your premise you're shifting to another misleading antivax argument.

 

I did NOT ask what you mention .Refering to my posting #10 to the last sentence in posting# 9 , if you may read again.

Of course it is NOT misleading either if you see the context in a whole.

 

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by aquario33
specify

[partington]

22 hours ago, aquario33 said:

quoted post deleted by Moderator

 

 

You are posting untruths from sites that exist to spread misinformation. These sites exist just to publish any unvalidated nonsense by anyone, and have no evidentiary basis whatsoever. 

 

You clearly do not have much scientific or medical knowledge of how vaccines work if you believe that catching a potentially fatal or maiming disease strengthens your immune system, but being injected with a non fatal, non-illness causing fragment of the disease organism somehow does not. The truth is that both work the same way, except one gives you immunity with almost zero chance of death, while the other gives a death rate or permanent handicap rate that is the average for the disease itself.

 

I can only assume that you are one of these conspiracy theory adherents who pick a topic, decide what they believe about it, then search for  "references" to mislead other people into the same belief, held for emotional or psychological reasons, rather than evidence.

 

 In some weird way you must think you are doing good, but clearly your level of understanding, and your lack of objectivity (clear from the sites you link to)  is in fact contributing in a small way to the increase of human misery.

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Sheryl
deleted quoted post containing factually inaccurate nformation from unreliable websites removed by moderator

[aquario33]

There is no evidence that our Child despite vaccination on the disease against vaccinated , could  NOT fall ill.

  Its interesting that there exist an incredible double standard when it comes to evidence versus lack of YOUR theory. The proponents of vaccination safety can just say they are safe, without any supporting evidence what-so-ever, and it is to be accepted without question...

 

1.Pathogen uptake by vaccination ( bloodstream injection / muscle tissue ) is unnatural !

 

2.Vaccinations are usually multiple vaccinations ( 6 times / 3 times ) , that is our body has to cope simultaneously UNNATURALLY with several diseases .

 

 

The CIA in the 60's deliberately coined the term conspiracy theory as a way of debunking any alternative viewpoint aside from that presented by the government and its compliant media.... Seems many people got sucked into that paradigm.

 

 

[robblok]

I wish there were more people like you aquario I would invest in tinfoil and get rich.

 

What Gates means by healthcare and vaccinations investing in it to get the amount of people down is something that has been explained to me when i was real young. (was said by others before Bill Gates). Many people in  3rd world countries take more kids because they are not sure they will live to get older. So they make sure they have plenty of kids because many die because of sickness and lack of healthcare. 

 

Now if you make sure that there is good vaccination, heath-care and anti conception people will realize that they don't need many to have many children so just to have 1 survive. Then they just less kids because the chance they all survive is much higher.

 

So instead of taking 3 they can take 2 or 1 and thus you lower the amount of people. Because even though there is a high mortality rate in 3rd world by taking so more kids they often still end up with more kids as intended. 

 

 

[Halsted6]

Look, clearly aquario33 came here to bait us into a debate re the safety of vaccines - initial post seemed to be "harmless" posing as a user with questions re vaccine schedule in Thailand for babies, then clearly indicated he wanted to engage us in a frustratingly baseless (i.e. OP provides no credible sources for his points) debate on the safety of vaccines. Please consider not engaging him/her, walk away, don't respond;  this forum is poorly served by furthering this "debate" and belongs elsewhere. Ask yourself, who is the OP posting for? To make people mad or to find someone/others for whom credible statistics and research are not required?  

[aquario33]

1 hour ago, Halsted6 said:

Look, clearly aquario33 came here to bait us into a debate re the safety of vaccines - initial post seemed to be "harmless" posing as a user with questions re vaccine schedule in Thailand for babies, then clearly indicated he wanted to engage us in a frustratingly baseless (i.e. OP provides no credible sources for his points) debate on the safety of vaccines. Please consider not engaging him/her, walk away, don't respond;  this forum is poorly served by furthering this "debate" and belongs elsewhere. Ask yourself, who is the OP posting for? To make people mad or to find someone/others for whom credible statistics and research are not required?  

..who is us which you refer to ???

As i didnt see any posts from you in the past , form nowhere appearing ?

Everybody is free to communicate, exchange opinions or different views .

As well everybody who doesnt like to join is free to not participate of course.

Why is it so difficult to accept other people with other values and simply take notice regardless whats your belief ?

 

 

 

 

[suzannegoh]

7 hours ago, aquario33 said:

..who is us which you refer to ???

As i didnt see any posts from you in the past , form nowhere appearing ?

Everybody is free to communicate, exchange opinions or different views .

As well everybody who doesnt like to join is free to not participate of course.

Why is it so difficult to accept other people with other values and simply take notice regardless whats your belief ?

 

 

 

 

 

No, he's right.  It's fine to have differing opinions but when you started this thread you were pretending to be a person looking for information about what vaccines are mandatory in Thailand.  In fact you were not looking for information, you were looking for a platform to spread disinformation and dissuade people from getting vaccines. 

[aquario33]

1 minute ago, suzannegoh said:

 

No, he's right.  It's fine to have differing opinions but when you started this thread you were pretending to be a person looking for information about what vaccines are mandatory in Thailand.  In fact you were not looking for information, you were looking for a platform to spread disinformation and dissuade people from getting vaccines. 

Stop false accusing me. You dont know my intentions and wether i was reading and searching since i started this tread , so i build my own opinion.

Instead bashing on me, why not take position to post #27 and the Bill Gates Crimes comitted  in developing countries.

 Why people get personal if the tread is  NOT about me ?

Its a clear sign there is no arguments anymore to discuss or refer to once somebody shows other kind of evidence then  the mainstream .

Isnt it strange that many of us, had gone trough Measles , Mumps etc and still alive and  probably  grown stronger due to the natural way.

Instead injecting poisons since Day Nr.1 in this beautyful earth as recommended nowaday??? (Post#28 )

I for myself and surely many others are convinced that playing in the dirt and nature is the best and probably only way to build up and boost our immun system.

Nonsense Big Pharma !

[robblok]

47 minutes ago, aquario33 said:

Stop false accusing me. You dont know my intentions and wether i was reading and searching since i started this tread , so i build my own opinion.

Instead bashing on me, why not take position to post #27 and the Bill Gates Crimes comitted  in developing countries.

 Why people get personal if the tread is  NOT about me ?

Its a clear sign there is no arguments anymore to discuss or refer to once somebody shows other kind of evidence then  the mainstream .

Isnt it strange that many of us, had gone trough Measles , Mumps etc and still alive and  probably  grown stronger due to the natural way.

Instead injecting poisons since Day Nr.1 in this beautyful earth as recommended nowaday??? (Post#28 )

I for myself and surely many others are convinced that playing in the dirt and nature is the best and probably only way to build up and boost our immun system.

Nonsense Big Pharma !

I gave you an explanation already but you did not even bother to read it. My explanation has been around since I was young, by giving more healthcare to 3rd world countries they chances an infant lives increase so the parents don't have to take many children just to have one or two survive. That strategy of taking many children to beat the odds often led to more children as anticipated. So by making sure there is healthcare and parents know their kids will survive they take less resulting inn less people. That is what Gates meant and something that has been explain to me when i was 16 or so at school. 

 

Now tinfoil hat people.. your a prime example like to twist and turn things around. You also never came back to me about Japan who according to you raised the age to two.. and had great succes.. if that were true.. why did they lower it back again like my link proves.

 

You are here to spread misinformation.. the others are right. Its better you go find a tinfoil hat site where you can all discuss your theories and be happy together. 

 

 

[aquario33]

38 minutes ago, robblok said:

I gave you an explanation already but you did not even bother to read it. My explanation has been around since I was young, by giving more healthcare to 3rd world countries they chances an infant lives increase so the parents don't have to take many children just to have one or two survive. That strategy of taking many children to beat the odds often led to more children as anticipated. So by making sure there is healthcare and parents know their kids will survive they take less resulting inn less people. That is what Gates meant and something that has been explain to me when i was 16 or so at school. 

 

Now tinfoil hat people.. your a prime example like to twist and turn things around. You also never came back to me about Japan who according to you raised the age to two.. and had great succes.. if that were true.. why did they lower it back again like my link proves.

 

You are here to spread misinformation.. the others are right. Its better you go find a tinfoil hat site where you can all discuss your theories and be happy together. 

 

 

Post # 25

[Sheryl]

12 hours ago, Halsted6 said:

Look, clearly aquario33 came here to bait us into a debate re the safety of vaccines - initial post seemed to be "harmless" posing as a user with questions re vaccine schedule in Thailand for babies, then clearly indicated he wanted to engage us in a frustratingly baseless (i.e. OP provides no credible sources for his points) debate on the safety of vaccines. Please consider not engaging him/her, walk away, don't respond;  this forum is poorly served by furthering this "debate" and belongs elsewhere. Ask yourself, who is the OP posting for? To make people mad or to find someone/others for whom credible statistics and research are not required?  

 

 

I fully agree, and the thread is therefore closed.

 

The various statements he has made -- including about the content of vaccines -- are factually incorrect. A number of the more egregious posts, containing completely untrue statements, have been removed along with replies quoting them.

 

It is tragic that this person is willing to sacrifice his child's health for the sake of a blind ideological belief in junk science/conspiracy theories, and even worse that he seeks to get others to do so.