Mothering Forum banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Was stumbling today, and came across this:<br><br><a href="http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=21034" target="_blank">http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=21034</a><br><br>
I wondered what some of the delayed/selective/non vax folks might think of it. If the primary concern is too many of x harmful ingredient... is there a point where the amount is small enough to be acceptable, or does the lack of need for an adjuvant make it so?<br><br>
As of now it's not up to human trials yet, but it's interesting and was interested in some thoughts. I find it intriguing myself, and would like to know how it would affect reactions, since it also negates the need for multiple vaccinations. I have been told that my children, when I have any, should be on a delayed schedule because of reactions my brother had to his. Maybe this would change that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
I haven't given any shots to my DS yet. I feel that vaccines work to a certain extent, but their risks are very high (higher than catching a disease and really get a bad case).<br>
I think I could live with shots if they had non-toxic ingredients and were not bred in any medium such as human or animal tissue. That is rather utopic, unless you could individualize them and use your own cells as growth medium, because I wouldn't have trouble with the DNA and RNA and disease fragments in that case, since it already came from MY body. I think if we could use our own cells I would totally go for it (but only some shots there - things like mumps or chickenpox will just never scare me).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,474 Posts
I do not see this as a potentially safer option at all. There has been alot of buzz about nanotechnology recently and they are finding that it is may not be safe at all. (just like most every synthetic material that is used that we are assured is safe until years later when it comes out that it isn't....this will be no different.<br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Some have compared the situation to that of asbestos dust -- another material that was assumed safe until it was learned that it can cause cancer from accumulation in the body.</td>
</tr></table></div>

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Complicating the dangers of nanotechnology, size and shape of nanoparticles affect the level of toxicity, preempting the ease of uniform categories even when considering a single element. In general, experts report smaller particles are more bioactive and toxic. Their ability to interact with other living systems increases because they can easily cross the skin, lung, and in some cases the blood/brain barriers. Once inside the body, there may be further biochemical reactions like the creation of free radicals that damage cells.</td>
</tr></table></div>
<a href="http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-possible-dangers-of-nanotechnology.htm" target="_blank">http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the...technology.htm</a><br><br><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=government-fails-to-assess-dangers-of-nanotechnology" target="_blank">http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nanotechnology</a><br><br><a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/1/44108334.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/1/44108334.pdf</a><br><br><br>
jusy google dangers of nanotechnology and you could spend the next few weeks reading about it.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top