The case for vaccination - Page 9 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#241 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 12:12 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,751
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)

Someone a while ago posted a statistic about the fraction of flu vaccines containing thimerosol still. This came up in another thread on these boards a few weeks ago. I tried to track down the 90% number which many anti-vaccination sites quote, but can only find it on anti-vaccination sites (as I explain below). 

 

This is the full thread: 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1350106/misleading-reports-about-autism-data

 

 

I'll copy one of my posts from there: 

 

 

Quote (myself!):

 It could be seen as misleading to cite these new autism numbers as "proving" and increase in autism is continuing despite the removal of thimerosol in vaccines. The dates do seem a bit tight, and unless I'm missing something I do think reporting the results in this way is doing a disservice to our intelligence. However, my facts (with references) do differ somewhat from the ones previously posted: 

 

Since 2001 no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosol, and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children younger than 6 years of age have been thimerosal–free, or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal, except for multi–dose formulations of influenza vaccine.(http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm). The original suggestions to start removing/reducing thimerosol seems to have come in 1999 (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#act)

 

In 2011-2012, out of 13 flu vaccination formulations, 4 contain thimerosol (which is 30% of them; and is only those sold in multi-dose vials where risk of infection is high and therefore the antibacterial properties of thimerosol are needed). http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm

I have yet to find information on the usage rates of the different vaccination formulations, but I cannot find any suggestion that 90% contain thimerosol. What I did find was a press release from "Put Children First" from 2006 which claimed the 90% figure, but gave no data, and NVIC also claim 80-90% on their "Mercury in Vaccines" page, but again no data. 

 

Recent media news about autism rates were based on data collected on 8 year olds in 2008 - and therefore they were indeed born in 2000, receiving most childhood vaccines presumably in 2000 or 2001 just around the time thimerosal was being removed from all childhood vaccines. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

Interestingly the rates in boys and girls were drastically different (as they have been in all previous reports). Autism rates are 5 times higher in boys than girls, while vaccination rates I assume are similar (for that I have found no data I admit!). 

 

If the autism study dates follow the pattern in the table here http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html the next report will be published in 2014 based on data collected in 2010, before any change to the ASD diagnosis information, and based on children born in 2002, after thimerosol was removed from all childhood vaccines. It will be interesting to see the outcome of that. A study based on new guidelines if they are implemented this year would not be published until 2016 (if it continues to be 4 years between data collection and study publication. 

 

Independent studies show no link between thimerosol containing vaccines and autism, for example: 

" In our study of MCO (managed care organization) members, prenatal and early-life exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was not related to increased risk of ASDs (autism spectrum disorders)."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/09/13/peds.2010-0309

 

I also should reference the wikipedia page on Thimerosol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal. If you think they have their facts wrong you can try to edit it following their rules for properly referencing the source of your facts. 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#242 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 12:15 PM
 
tonttu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Hello luvmyangels , a warm welcome from me as well ! I am also an attachment Mother ( as much as possible ) and I VACCINATE !!!

Yes , I BELIEVE in the power of vaccines and I BELIEVE in the protection of herd immunity , so you are not alone !!! grouphug.gif  winky.gif


vbac.gifafter 3 cs fambedsingle1.gifbfinfant.gifHappily single Momteapot2.GIFknit.gif

tonttu is offline  
#243 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 12:33 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Thanks for the fact check!
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#244 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 01:52 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetSilver View Post

Thanks for clarifying what you mean by "harm" because many non-/anti-vaxxers also make their decisions based on love for their children and the desire to keep them from harm.

 

Also, it is not my personal impression that AP="anti-vax".  While I do find this in spades, for sure, there is another camp that prefers it to be a *choice*.  The first camp will argue the benefits of immunity (or "immunity" in case someone cares to argue) from vaccines, and the benefits or lack of benefits from herd immunity.  The second camp will (also?) point to the known risks of vaccination, the shortcomings and shortsightedness, conflicts of interests and will remain skeptical of these issues in general and specifically for their children.

Thank you .  Well said.

purslaine is offline  
#245 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 02:07 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Someone a while ago posted a statistic about the fraction of flu vaccines containing thimerosol still. This came up in another thread on these boards a few weeks ago. I tried to track down the 90% number which many anti-vaccination sites quote, but can only find it on anti-vaccination sites (as I explain below). 

 

This is the full thread: 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1350106/misleading-reports-about-autism-data

 

 

I'll copy one of my posts from there: 

 

 

 

Ok.  So you do not like the 90% figure as it came from a non-vax site (the 90% was for all populations, though, not just pregnant women and children).

 

 Do you have a figure you prefer from a mainstream site on how many pregnant women and children get the flu vaccine with thimerosal in it? 

purslaine is offline  
#246 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 02:23 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


On the us schedule except for some boosters at 4-6 and flu hits you're pretty much done at 2.

 

Even way back when I was a kid (in Canada), there was another booster at 15-16, and tetanus boosters every 10 years, and now there's the HPV vaccine, etc..., etc..... which isn't to say that vaccinations are all bad, but it's definitely not something that's pretty much done at 2 if you have any intention of maintaining immunity.

rachelsmama is offline  
#247 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 02:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I guess I call having had 90% of the shots pretty much done. Particularly with the childhood shots.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#248 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 02:40 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I guess I call having had 90% of the shots pretty much done. Particularly with the childhood shots.


LOL  I guess I plan to live a lot longer than you, because if I planned to keep up with my boosters, the childhood shots wouldn't even come close to 90% by the time I kick it. 

rachelsmama is offline  
#249 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 02:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Well, point being, I guess I see where the op was coming from.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#250 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 02:50 PM
 
nukuspot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I want to say that I am part of an AP community where I live. There is a loose knit group of about 15 of us. 3 (including myself) do not vax (but are not anti vax), 2 fully vax on schedule, and the remainder either do delayed or selective or a mix of both.

I do not think that AP=anti vax at all. At least from my own life experience and reading.

All our kids play together by the way. I am glad that the viciousness on this board regarding vax doesn't exist in my physical life.
purslaine and chrisnjeri like this.

Midwife mama bellycast.gif to DD1 bouncy.gif (4.5) and DD2 h20homebirth.gif (1.5)
nukuspot is offline  
#251 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 02:54 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Mine either, Nuku. I'm also grateful for that.
purslaine likes this.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#252 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 03:33 PM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

When I see people use the term fully vaccinated, I assume they mean up to date and on schedule not that a child will never need another vaccine.
 

AbbyGrant is offline  
#253 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 04:11 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


On the us schedule except for some boosters at 4-6 and flu hits you're pretty much done at 2.

Here is the US schedule for older kids, ages 7-18:

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/who/teens/downloads/parent-version-schedule-7-18yrs.pdf

 

They call for TDaP at age 11/12, 3 doses of Gardasil or Cervarix, also at 11/12 (for girls AND boys), MCV4 with a booster at age 16, and yearly flu shots.

That's 17 vaccines, plus 5 flu shots between age 2 and age 7.

 

Taximom5 is online now  
#254 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 04:32 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Jeepers, done for awhile, then. Is this really that important?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#255 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 04:59 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Jeepers, done for awhile, then. Is this really that important?

Yes Rachel. It is a matter of life and death. Obviously. :-/
Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#256 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 05:04 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,349
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


On the us schedule except for some boosters at 4-6 and flu hits you're pretty much done at 2.

Here is the US schedule for older kids, ages 7-18:

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/who/teens/downloads/parent-version-schedule-7-18yrs.pdf

 

They call for TDaP at age 11/12, 3 doses of Gardasil or Cervarix, also at 11/12 (for girls AND boys), MCV4 with a booster at age 16, and yearly flu shots.

That's 17 vaccines, plus 5 flu shots between age 2 and age 7.

 

I read this the exact way- not even close to fully done. also CP is given again (booster) after age 2


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#257 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 06:29 PM
 
luvmy2angels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

When I see people use the term fully vaccinated, I assume they mean up to date and on schedule not that a child will never need another vaccine.
 


Thanks Abby, this is how I perceive the term "fully vaccinated" and why I said it...as in "received all vaccines on schedule"...is that better??

luvmy2angels is offline  
#258 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 06:30 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Jeepers, done for awhile, then. Is this really that important?

Yes, it's important.

 

"Done" means something entirely different from "done for one year, with 22 more shots to go before college."  Your statement implied that those 22 shots don't exist.

Taximom5 is online now  
#259 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 06:39 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Great, well glad we cleared that up then.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#260 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 07:12 PM
 
lah7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Let's stop this semantics argument about what "done" means and get back to what I was really wondering about.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

When "vaccinated" your body also TRIES to get the foreign matter out. A baby will cry to alert his mother that something is wrong. How many more years are we going to ignore this call of distress? If your babies immune system is over taxed by the "vaccination" your baby will often use every means at its disposal to TRY and eliminate the toxin; projectile vomiting; explosive defecation, fever and anything else to GET IT OUT.

Do you really think that the cry is because the baby is alerting the mother to the toxin that it must then try to dispel, or because it was, you know, poked by a foreign object which, in this instance, broke the skin.  I mean, if I poke the baby with any needle, it's going to cry, even if I don't inject anything.  Do you then disagree in, for example, blood draws for diagnostic testing?  Crying for injections of non-vaccinations, say if the child required antibiotics for an infection?  (I'm aware it's risky to go there, as I don't know your stance on infections, but let's just assume it was an entirely natural, wild-caught case of something requiring either IM or IV antibiotics.)

 

I just find this entire argument rather silly.  Since my babies didn't do any of the other things you listed to expel the toxin, should I assume they weren't trying to alert me of their distress and that their body was just fine with it?  In which case, only the cry which alerted me to their initial pain was the problem, so...then what's the problem with things like FluMist?

prosciencemum likes this.

Busy, hectic, HAPPY single mom to 3 awesome kiddos jumpers.gif DD1 (10) DS (8) DD2 (6)

lah7 is offline  
#261 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 07:15 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,349
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Quote:

Yes, it's important.

 

"Done" means something entirely different from "done for one year, with 22 more shots to go before college."  Your statement implied that those 22 shots don't exist.

because it doesn't at college either!

 

 

It's very important and was grossly misstated. 

It's not some little thing but in some minds it must be or you won't phrase it as such.


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#262 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 07:22 PM
 
katelove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,832
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

r. We should like the taste of blood it has the EXACT same composition as the sea we came from.


I assume you're referring to the sodium content here and I'm afraid that is incorrect. The average amount of sodium in seawater is 3.5% although that varies depending on the ocean. The amount of sodium in human blood is 0.9%.

Mother of two spectacular girls, born mid-2010 and late 2012  mdcblog5.gif

katelove is online now  
#263 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 07:29 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

because it doesn't at college either!

 

 

It's very important and was grossly misstated. 

It's not some little thing but in some minds it must be or you won't phrase it as such.

??????

 

__________________

 

I am not sure why it is important if one poster is done vaccinating or not  - or whether she misused the word the word or not.  Are we really hyper annalysing the word "done"?  

 

I am sure we can find more meaty things to argue about discuss duck.gif

purslaine is offline  
#264 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 07:35 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lah7 View Post


Let's stop this semantics argument about what "done" means and get back to what I was really wondering about.

 

Do you really think that the cry is because the baby is alerting the mother to the toxin that it must then try to dispel, or because it was, you know, poked by a foreign object which, in this instance, broke the skin.  I mean, if I poke the baby with any needle, it's going to cry, even if I don't inject anything.  Do you then disagree in, for example, blood draws for diagnostic testing?  Crying for injections of non-vaccinations, say if the child required antibiotics for an infection?  (I'm aware it's risky to go there, as I don't know your stance on infections, but let's just assume it was an entirely natural, wild-caught case of something requiring either IM or IV antibiotics.)

 

I just find this entire argument rather silly.  Since my babies didn't do any of the other things you listed to expel the toxin, should I assume they weren't trying to alert me of their distress and that their body was just fine with it?  In which case, only the cry which alerted me to their initial pain was the problem, so...then what's the problem with things like FluMist?

While I don't agree that the baby is consciously trying to alert the mother to a toxin, I also think it's equally foolish to link the cry to the skin prick.

 

My babies barely made a peep with the actual shot, and they literally only fussed for a few seconds.

 

Baby #1 started flailing and screaming--not crying, not fussing, SCREAMING like an animal in horrible pain, you would never dream that it was a baby making this noise--approximately one hour after the shots.  He didn't stop for nearly 4 hours.

 

He wasn't alerting me to anything. He was screaming because the shots triggered encephalopathy and seizure activity.

 

But the skin prick?  Not a problem.

purslaine likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#265 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 07:37 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Have you reported that to vaers yet? It's never too late!
prosciencemum likes this.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#266 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 07:41 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Have you reported that to vaers yet? It's never too late!

You seem so concerned about it, Rrrrrachel, maybe you should report it for me.  After all, you have pointed out that anyone can report a reaction.

Taximom5 is online now  
#267 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 07:42 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Well I could, but I don't know all the details, so it would probably be better if you did it. It might seem like a joke to someone if they see a reporting with "taximom5" listed as the name.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#268 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 07:44 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Well I could, but I don't know all the details, so it would probably be better if you did it. It might seem like a joke to someone if they see a reporting with "taximom5" listed as the name.

Oh, I see--you're looking for the name.

Taximom5 is online now  
#269 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 09:15 PM
 
LitMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

An argument about what "done" means for vaxes? I use "caught up" or "on track," since we delay some, but by age 3 we're caught up. Meaning, we do the required ones on schedule from there, booster-wise. I would presume someone saying they're "done" to mean they were through the initial infant/child doses. Sure, there are more after that, but I think most are booster doses of something the kid has had before. Then again, DS had an allergic reaction to dose 2, not dose 1, of a vax so maybe I shouldn't be so blasé about boosters. 


Book loving, editor mom to 2

LitMom is offline  
#270 of 713 Old 06-04-2012, 09:51 PM
 
MichelleZB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmy2angels View Post

I'm glad to see that there are other AP mommas who also vax! I saw this article: http://shotofprevention.com/2011/05/24/when-did-attachment-parenting-come-to-mean-vaccine-refusal/ and I've got to say that I've been wondering the same thing! How has the anti-vax stance become part of the AP principles? I've become very turned off by websites that promote AP and also include the anti-vax stance as something they promote, if not only through its members thinking its a cool trend to hop on and somehow goes along with AP.

 

Why do I vaccinate? Because as someone who loves their children (as we all do) I feel that my job first and foremost is to protect them from harm (illness and disease) and there has not been one piece of (mis)information that I've seen from the anti-vax community that has convinced me that the cost/benefit analysis weighs in their favor...and in fact that the SCIENCE weighs heavily in favor of vaccinations.

 

I'm happy that my second (and last) is almost through her second year and close to fully vaccinated...it makes me care less about those who do not vaccinate, since I feel as though their decision affects me less. I'm also glad that we can be of benefit to them :tiphat: as (atleast some) admit they are relying on herd immunity to protect them for the time being. We'll see how that works out for them, but I've seen firsthand how fast illness and disease spread through my children's daycare and public school and I'm comfortable that we are protecting them in every way possible from possibly debilitating, paralyzing or even fatal diseases. Don't get me started on the CP parties that I'm seeing promoted on these forums as I've got some pretty nasty thoughts for those people.

 

That's a great article, Luvmy2angels! Thanks for posting. I also dislike that anti-vax has become associated with other healthy, science-based parenting decisions like extended breastfeeding. I have no idea why it has.

prosciencemum likes this.
MichelleZB is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
Vaccinations

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off