or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › The More "vaccines" we take the more they attempt to FORCE into us, now at birth
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The More "vaccines" we take the more they attempt to FORCE into us, now at birth

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 

"In his letter Professor Gordon makes it very clear that the government knew that there was a problem with this vaccine but was choosing to ignore it. However, it was not just the whooping cough element that was proving a problem. The DPT vaccine as a whole had been causing huge problems as a document published by the WHO in 2000 (7) proved."

 

http://vactruth.com/2012/09/12/mandatory-vaccines-newborns/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ad8ffdf852-09_12_2012_ukgovt&utm_medium=email

 

Folks please take a little time  to COMPLETELY understand this issue. It is IMO coming HERE and perhaps soon.

 

This whole "Whooping Cough Propaganda Push" IMO is a sham designed to weaken in one way or another or BOTH your newborns immune system.

 

Are they attempting to reintroduce the DPT back into the USA? This could certainly be the case. They seem to be currently giving this proven toxin to the British and Indian kids at least.

 

Autism and the ASDs went off the chart when they started giving the Hib at birth.

post #2 of 19

Moving this to the general Vaccinations forum where it belongs. 

post #3 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

.

Autism and the ASDs went off the chart when they started giving the Hib at birth.

I believe it's the hep B shot that's given at birth, not Hib.
post #4 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

 

Are they attempting to reintroduce the DPT back into the USA? This could certainly be the case. They seem to be currently giving this proven toxin to the British and Indian kids at least.

 

Maybe?

 

From what I have read, and what the stats seem to say, DPT is more effective than DTaP.

 

Policy makers seem to be way more concerned with VPD's than vaccine reaction, so it would not surprise me at all if they moved towards DPT.

 

For what is it worth, when my son was born in 1996 people were more worried about DPT than any other vaccine (including MMR, which has had a lot more press in more recent years).  I don't think people remember quite how unpopular and reactive DPT was.

 

The other alternative is that they will introduce a booster shot around 7-10 yrs old, as the DTaP is not effective for very long.


Edited by kathymuggle - 9/23/12 at 7:28pm
post #5 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

 

Are they attempting to reintroduce the DPT back into the USA? This could certainly be the case. They seem to be currently giving this proven toxin to the British and Indian kids at least.

 

No. British children do not get vaccines at birth. The NHS offers the DTaP/IPV/Hib (or 5 in 1) vaccine to babies (a series at 2, 3, 4 months). 

This is the link to read more about the UK recommended vaccination schedule: http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinations/Pages/childvaccines.aspx

post #6 of 19

It looks like the UK is considering vaxxing newborns for DTaP:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19454493

post #7 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

It looks like the UK is considering vaxxing newborns for DTaP:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19454493

Although I do understand what they are trying to say, I particularly like this quote:

               " Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, is more dangerous for young babies because they do not get the benefits from vaccination until about four months."

post #8 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

It looks like the UK is considering vaxxing newborns for DTaP:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19454493

The article doesn't state whether it is the DTaP or the DPT vaccine. But they do speak of expanding the "vaccination programme" which I assume implies the DTaP.

 

The Department of Health doesn't seem to be able to blame the rise in incidence on the unvaccinated, but claim to no know why there has been such an increase in whooping cough; because the vaccine is ineffective, maybe?. 

 

 

 

Quote:

A Department of Health spokesman said: "We continue to see high uptake of vaccination against whooping cough and are investigating the recent increase in cases. This highlights the importance of vaccination against this and other illnesses.

 

 

 

 

Nevertheless they are pushing for more boosters,

 
Quote:
This could mean booster doses for teenagers, and jabs for pregnant women and newborn babies and their families.

 

post #9 of 19

I could see a move towards DTP by politicians without regards for reaction. It was/is quite reactive. My mom said she was very worried each time we got it - 40 degrees celsius fevers, crying and so on. My parents had no choice living in a communist country were vaccines were absolutely mandatory. And even that government was smart enough to not vaccinate before 6 months, only doing one vaccine at a time (my charts show DTP at 6,8 and 10 months and OPV at 7,9,11 and measles at 12 months, done from there on out until 6 when another DTP and OPV was given a couple months apart; later on it was after the Cold War and I was simply offered rubella at 12 years; scared into HepB at 17 by a video shown at school).  

 

Shouldn't they be more worried about parapertussis and how DTaP vaccinated individuals are more susceptible to it? And maybe a whole different vaccine than aP or P? There seems to be no incentive. A vaccine that looses as much as 40% effectiveness yearly does not appeal to me especially since it is so reactive. We choose to give it as we want tetanus protection, if there only was a DT licensed for kids formulated like Daptacel... Or tetanol pure, which is available in Europe.... Ay. 

post #10 of 19

this is a fact:  when a baby needs a new heart, they try to get it done before they're a year old.  why?  bec the heart doesn't need to be a tissue match and the baby will never need anti-rejection drugs.

 

why is this?  bec at about a year old, the immune system kicks fully online and registers the mistyped heart as belonging to the body.

 

what i wanna know is, if the infant's immune system is so nonfunctional that it can't tell the difference when there's a huge chunk of the wrong type of tissue in the body, how ARE these vaccines supposedly working?

 

my second daughter was brought up from zero to fully up to date for school when she was 4yrs old - given in two shots, one month apart.    if that is sufficient, why are we blasting babies, at the most neurologically delicate time of life, over and over and over again?

post #11 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by threenorns View Post

this is a fact:  when a baby needs a new heart, they try to get it done before they're a year old.  why?  bec the heart doesn't need to be a tissue match and the baby will never need anti-rejection drugs.

 

why is this?  bec at about a year old, the immune system kicks fully online and registers the mistyped heart as belonging to the body.

 

what i wanna know is, if the infant's immune system is so nonfunctional that it can't tell the difference when there's a huge chunk of the wrong type of tissue in the body, how ARE these vaccines supposedly working?

 

my second daughter was brought up from zero to fully up to date for school when she was 4yrs old - given in two shots, one month apart.    if that is sufficient, why are we blasting babies, at the most neurologically delicate time of life, over and over and over again?

mo money mo money mo money for pharma and the dr's administering them

post #12 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

mo money mo money mo money for pharma and the dr's administering them


Plus to train the patients and doctors.

post #13 of 19

Great point. It's pretty scary and there is no data to support these new decisions for earlier and earlier vaccines.

post #14 of 19

The UK's department of health are currently considering this idea and weighing the data. They say 

 

 

 

Quote:
"The joint committee on vaccination and immunisation is looking at whether more people need to be vaccinated. Careful consideration is always needed around expanding any programme.

 

So they are thinking carefully about it. There's a good article about it on the BBC website. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19454493

 

Also note vaccinations in the UK are not mandatory - this is a consideration of making in availalble (free on the NHS) to all newborns. 

post #15 of 19

Hi emmy526,

I am just wondering ... when you said that your daughter was up-to-date in two vaccines, can you let me know how you did this?  My children are 4 and have not had vaccines yet...on the fence about which ones to give.   Maybe I read your post wrong, but just wondering if there are ways to catch them up for school if we decide to.

thanks so much!

post #16 of 19

oops...just realized, the above question is for "threenorns".  Thanks.

Mom of Twins

post #17 of 19

first off, i'm in canada - dunno if that makes a difference.

 

the only shots she had were the original basics:  she had the dtp...t... whatever, then the MMR a month later.  apparently vaccines are a whole other kettle of fish when you have a fully-functioning immune system so one shot was sufficient.

 

f.ex, they want to give 3 shots of the hepB vaccine to infants.

 

me, i had ONE shot when i was 18yrs old.  it made me sick as two dogs so i never went back for the second shot.  when i was pregnant with my youngest daughter, nearly 30yrs later, i tested positive for exposure to HepB.  i had forgotten about the vaccination so the hospital was about to go on red alert until public health replied with the record of the shot received.  once that came in, they just advised me to get the second shot any time it was convenient for me to which i politely replied where they could put that shot.

post #18 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmandaT View Post

               " Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, is more dangerous for young babies because they do not get the benefits from vaccination until about four months."

 

Whooping cough is more dangerous today because MANY mothers DO NOT pass whooping cough immunity to their children as they once did. The reason they do not pass immunity to their children is because they were "vaccinated" for Whooping cough. This "vaccination" problem is intergenerational and is sure to grow worse and worse as more and more vaccine damaged mothers have children.

 

NO VACCINATION is an answer.

 

"Whooping Cough Vaccination" is most of the Whooping Cough problem.

post #19 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by threenorns View Post

 

  apparently vaccines are a whole other kettle of fish when you have a fully-functioning immune system so one shot was sufficient.

 

With a good immune system you do not need "vaccinations" IMO.

 

With a poor immune system "vaccines" may severely damage you; Autism IMO.

 

With a VERY weak immune system "vaccinations" may kill you; SIDS IMO.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › The More "vaccines" we take the more they attempt to FORCE into us, now at birth