Choosing not to vaccinate

sullivlo

Neyite wrote: »

To answer your specific question OP, most creches request proof of adherence to the vaccine schedule. I think the ones that don't might be few and far between.

And with the demand for creches spaces and waiting lists they can pick and choose which kids they want. Which will likely be the ones who's parents trust conventional medical practices. Our creche is strict on infectious conditions - any child appearing unwell, their parents will be called to take the child home. No if's or buts. And not allowed back until they are well, or following doctors orders and medicating appropriately.

I'm in my forties. I remember older relatives since passed away, who never got vaccinated and who were disabled as a result of a childhood infection that we now vaccinate for. And they were the lucky ones, because many died. It was commonplace for my parents to return after the school holidays and every year one or two of their little friends never did because their parents had buried them over the school break.

We, ironically have become immune to the horror of these diseases because we rarely see them anymore, so we have no idea how terrible they were.

Can I ask you OP, what's your plan of action if your child contracts whooping cough /measles/ tetanus / TB? You have one I'm sure, since you researched it all so well and given your massive distrust of drug companies and doctors, I'm curious as to what you'll treat the condition with.

Probably homeopathy :rolleyes:

ted1

Maggie007 wrote: »

Hi. I was hoping you could help me.i toochose not to vaccinate my son. I was wondering if there is a fb page or a forum for parents like us in ireland? Also did you face any problems when yourchild want to creche or school?

When you say research what sites where you looking at? Because I would question their medical basis.

sullivlo

Maggie007 wrote: »

how can you be worried that your child will get sick from my unvaccinated child, dont you believe that vaccinations work? Then you have nothing to worry about

Some kids can't be vaccinated though. And some illnesses wipe out immunity.

ted1

Maggie007 wrote: »

I know all there is to know

Then why look for a group

Charles Babbage

There were never any problems regarding school or pre-school.I can't remember the pre-school ever asking,and when we've had vaccination consent

A definite limitation, one of many, in the Irish education system.
OP, If herd immunity is not brought about by vaccination, would you be kind enough to explain what happened to Smallpox.

ted1

Maggie007 wrote: »

If you think its a stupid idea to chose not to inject your child with a dose of mercury 2500 % higher than the safe amount that is your choice, i could go on with the cons forever but i know many people see more pros, we all have our choices i dont abuse you for yours and i expect not to be abused for mine.

*Mod Note*Please back your claims up

But you are making the choice for a child not for yourself and your choice goes against all sound medical guidelines.

livedadream

Charles didn't you read on Facebook that smallpox was invented by the CIA to keep the black babies in Africa sick so they would never get out of debt and be inslaved to the superpowers forever?

FYI I actually read that on Facebook it's all nonsense and nothing anyone here will say will change her mind, she's the type who would vote for trump, thinks Hilary Clinton is a lizard queen from Venus and that the illuminati control everything... There's a medical term for it...

iguana

Maggie007 wrote: »

If we stick to natural immunity, acquired from mild childhood illnesses, without the added toxins from vaccines, we'd be *much* better. We no longer live in the dark ages. With access to clean water and proper sanitation, proper diet and nutrition, we simply don't have the need for concern like we used to. Our bodies' immune systems are powerful gifts, when properly cared for.

Taken in isolation part of what you are saying is true. As a 3 year old in the early 80s I got measles, it was an unpleasant experience which I can describe in retrospect as being like the worst migraine ever. I never saw a doctor, my newborn brother never contracted the illness, after a few days I was back to feeling normal and was able to enjoy the books and toys visiting family brought me. After another week or so the rash cleared up and life went on.

When I was 5 I got rubella. I had a rash but was otherwise fine, I watched tv, played in the back garden, enjoyed visits from my grandparents who brought me books. After a week or so the rash cleared up but I came down with mumps. That was like having a mild sore throat and I got to eat lots of custard and ice-cream. My brother somehow remained uninfected. And two years later he and my youngest brother, then a newborn, were both given the MMR as it was finally available in Ireland.

My experiences of the latter two illnesses are actually really quite lovely and the first was bad but not really a big deal. I also contracted whooping cough as a baby in the 70s and was barely bothered by it. So I can sort of see where anti-vaxxers come from when they are blasé about those illnesses. An awful lot of older people had those illnesses and had no particularly bad experience. And yes, our naturally acquired antibodies are generally somewhat stronger than vaccine acquired antibodies, that is true. So when my son was born, I was hearing a lot about how awful those diseases are while my experience was very different. I could see how easy it would be to make the decision that my son, my fully breastfed, big, strong, healthy son who aged nearly 4 has yet to need an anti-biotic or see a doctor for anything other than a leg injury, would probably also sail through those illnesses like I had.

But he and I are members of a wider society and our responsibilities extend beyond just ourselves. I have cousins who were hospitalised with measles. My mother's cousin contracted Rubella while pregnant and her baby was permanently disabled because of it. There are men who are sterile because of when they contracted mumps. And those are the outcomes for otherwise healthy people. There are people who are immuno-compromised who really could die if infected. Real people, with real conditions who could lose their lives because I thought it preferable for my son to have a very slightly improved immunity to an illness that probably won't effect him that much one way or the other!

gar32

Maggie007 Your on the right track and I have been online here getting the same unhelpful answers for the same oh my god don't question vaccine crowd. Go with your gut and read only the governmental & makers info. Best not to ask here for help. Sometimes the wrongs done take a long time to be make public.

p.s. Vaxxed is out soon.

lazygal

zoe 3619 wrote: »

Hi maggie.
My kids aren't vaccinated.I would have gone with the vacinations,but my husband did a lot of research and was very strongly against it.
You're certainly not a nut job,or conspiracy theorist for questioning what is injected into your son.
There were never any problems regarding school or pre-school.I can't remember the pre-school ever asking,and when we've had vaccination consent
forms home from school there's a yes section and a no section.

Has your husband conducted longitudinal pharmacological research involving millions of doses? Or did his 'research' consist of reading spurious claims on blogs which do a great line in correlation equaling causation?
We don't allow non vaccinated children in our home. I don't want my children being at risk. I think parents who don't vaccinate are among the most selfish and ill-informed groups on the planet. Schools should require vaccines for entry unless there is a certified medical reason for a child not to be vaccinated.

kirving

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Parents who don't vaccinate should have kids removed and sterilised

I'm 100% pro vaccination. In ANYTHING you do, there will be a risk involved, and it is globally accepted the vaccination poses significantly less risk than contracting the actual disease.

The problem with the post I've quoted is that you're just not going to win anyone over who might be considering whether or not to vaccinate their child.

I always like this graph.

evolving_doors

Maggie007 wrote: »

The entire premise for vaccination compliance is based on the myth of "herd immunity". Herd immunity is a term used to describe a situation where an outbreak from an illness in a community is followed by natural immunity. When 65% of the community (herd) acquires the illness, the rest of the community becomes protected.
Vaccine induced herd immunity is a myth borrowed from true, naturally acquired herd immunity. It only exists in theory, not reality. It's believed that approximately 95% (not 65%) of the community needs to be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity. We have *never* had 95% compliance, not even 65% complaince, yet where are all the deadly outbreaks?? THEY DON'T EXIST. Ironically, the only places we see outbreaks are in highly vaccinated communities such as schools. Students are required to be vaccinated, but the rest of the community is not. Therefore, the adult community is largely unvaccinated, as they are not not up-to-date on their vaccine boosters. So there is not even the possibility of herd immunity even taking place. Yet, this is the reasoning behind vaccine compliance, to protect the herd.
Not only is the herd not protected, but either are the vaccinated. Live viruses and bacteria from vaccines shed/spread and infect others. The additives used in vaccines are highly toxic, and are purposely used to trigger an immune response in the body. But as the body works to fight off these foreign matters, suppression from fever/pain reducers etc takes place and causes an autoimmune response. Thus, the exponentially growing number of chronically ill children in our country. Asthma, diabetes, food allergies, ear infections, learning disorders, cancers etc are at a historical high. We have traded mild childhood illness for life-long health problems.
If we stick to natural immunity, acquired from mild childhood illnesses, without the added toxins from vaccines, we'd be *much* better. We no longer live in the dark ages. With access to clean water and proper sanitation, proper diet and nutrition, we simply don't have the need for concern like we used to. Our bodies' immune systems are powerful gifts, when properly cared for. Synthetic, untested and dangerous medicine isn't the answer.
Not to mention...almost all adults born before 1986 in the US did not receive hep a, hep b, rotavirus, varicella, pneumococcal, meningococcal, or hib vaccines. adults over the age of 30 make up about 65% of the population. almost all adults aren't vaccinated for many of the diseases children are vaccinated for, yet, adults are not experiencing epidemics of these diseases, nor are they spreading them to their children. with 65% of the population not vaccinated for 7 diseases, how can there ever be VACCINE-derived herd immunity as it's been defined? and things like typhoid & scarlet fever, and croup have declined right along with all the other diseases we vaccinate for...yet there's never been a vaccine for those diseases.

Did you just type that all out of your head or is that lifted from another source?

lazygal

gar32 wrote: »

Maggie007 Your on the right track and I have been online here getting the same unhelpful answers for the same oh my god don't question vaccine crowd. Go with your gut and read only the governmental & makers info. Best not to ask here for help. Sometimes the wrongs done take a long time to be make public.

p.s. Vaxxed is out soon.

:rolleyes:

You're not still pushing this Vaxxed nonsense are you?

Day Lewin

i grew up in the 1950s. There were people all around me walking crooked, or paralysed, by polio.
Do not risk polio, my friends: it can paralyse the muscles that enable you to breathe. They ended up with that unlovely medical aid called an "iron lung"

Measles was common. You get a very high temperature, with the famous rash: you are very, very ill. Did you know that it can leave you blind? or with brain damage? This happened, in living memory.

Ever heard a child with whooping cough? They can't draw breath: they go blue and gasp and choke. Its horrible to hear. Oh, and it kills babies.

My mother went to school in the 1930s when there was no treatment for diphtheria; every child in her class had lost a sibling to diphtheria or TB.

Thanks be to God and good chemists and doctors, that children now can be protected against these awful, dangerous diseases.
Don't be so spoilt as to think that because the other kids aren't catching it, your child is safe: there have been mini-epidemics recently where this kind of thinking has tragically misfired.

We all have a duty to get vaccinated and not to endanger others who may be unable to resist.

PLEASE BELIEVE THIS, OP: you may be deluded but I don't want your kids to get sick, either.

livedadream

She copied it from here:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/04/29/children-vaccines.aspx

lazygal

Post polio syndrome is another awful legacy where people get sick again decades after contracting it.
There is also the risk of TB causing infertility in women if it spreads to the uterus-apparently this was a major cause of women being unable to conceive until the vaccine was widespread. I read on another forum many stories of heartbreak where women only found out much later on why they couldn't have children.

brightspark

Charles Babbage wrote: »

A definite limitation, one of many, in the Irish education system.
OP, If herd immunity is not brought about by vaccination, would you be kind enough to explain what happened to Smallpox.

So far the only human disease wiped out by vaccinations, (I have the scar on my arm much better than getting the disease)

Polio is almost wiped out

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2016/09/last-steps-polio-eradication-prove-challenging

But because some communities have not been vaccinated it is still present.

True there are risks and possible side effects, but the complications from diseases aren't pleasant either.

Samaris

Maggie007 wrote: »

Since my previous post was closed here is my answer to the guy with phd in immunology
The entire premise for vaccination compliance is based on the myth of "herd immunity". Herd immunity is a term used to describe a situation where an outbreak from an illness in a community is followed by natural immunity. When 65% of the community (herd) acquires the illness, the rest of the community becomes protected.

Incorrect. And illogical, but we'll stick with the incorrect. When a person catches an illness, they will, in theory, spread it to X number of people around them. Y number of those people may be vaccinated against that disease. Z number, the rest of the original X number catch the disease as they have no protection against the disease. Each of the Z number will pass it on to Y number around them.

If you have a very contagious disease, say the common cold, that few have reliable immunity to - you see the cold season every year! If it's a disease such as bubonic plague however, that rapidity of transmission followed by the actual effects of the illness lead to mass death until the plague can't transmit further (the remainder surrounding the victims have either had it and survived, or have some natural immunity to it.) If, however, all or most of the people that the infected person comes in contact with with their ..say, poliomyelitis, are immune to it as they were vaccinated, the disease can't spread nearly so easily. It will get choked off rather than turning into an epidemic.

Vaccination basically teaches the immune system what to look for without it having to learn it the hard way. Herd immunity is the theoretical number of vaccinated people that would need to surround a carrier of a disease to reduce the likelyhood of their being able to find an open victim to spread to to close to zero. Or, in the reverse, it can protect the odd few who -would- be susceptible by reducing the likelihood that they would ever come in contact with said disease to close to zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Community_Immunity.jpg (good image of it)

Maggie007 wrote: »

Vaccine induced herd immunity is a myth borrowed from true, naturally acquired herd immunity. It only exists in theory, not reality. It's believed that approximately 95% (not 65%) of the community needs to be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity. We have *never* had 95% compliance, not even 65% complaince, yet where are all the deadly outbreaks?? THEY DON'T EXIST. Ironically, the only places we see outbreaks are in highly vaccinated communities such as schools. Students are required to be vaccinated, but the rest of the community is not. Therefore, the adult community is largely unvaccinated, as they are not not up-to-date on their vaccine boosters. So there is not even the possibility of herd immunity even taking place. Yet, this is the reasoning behind vaccine compliance, to protect the herd.

Incorrect, sorry.
There isn't a difference between "vaccine-induced herd immunity" and "natural herd immunity", since the latter doesn't entirely make sense as a concept (immunity to what? How?)

You're misunderstanding how the percentage works. Firstly, you (as the unvaccinated person) -are not immune-! That is not how herd immunity works. Get exposed, you'll probably get the disease. Your "immunity" is more that the vaccinated people around you cannot catch the disease themselves to spread it to you. Your immunity is -them-, nothing to do with you.

Secondly, there is not one specific percentage for all diseases. It's based on how contagious they are. A highly contagious disease will require more of a safety net because it's more likely that it will be passed on to another person from lesser exposure.

For, say, ebola, it is moderately contagious, and (I'm simplifying factors down a bit), and if only 33-60% of the population is immune, the chances of an epidemic breaking out is almost impossible. Compare that to the highly infectious measles, and up to 90% would need to be immune to prevent an epidemic, because it is very rapidly and easily transferred.

Maggie007 wrote: »

Not only is the herd not protected, but either are the vaccinated. Live viruses and bacteria from vaccines shed/spread and infect others. The additives used in vaccines are highly toxic, and are purposely used to trigger an immune response in the body. But as the body works to fight off these foreign matters, suppression from fever/pain reducers etc takes place and causes an autoimmune response. Thus, the exponentially growing number of chronically ill children in our country. Asthma, diabetes, food allergies, ear infections, learning disorders, cancers etc are at a historical high. We have traded mild childhood illness for life-long health problems.

*scratches head* I'm not actually entirely sure where to start with this, but overall, no. That's gotten even bigger than Wakefield's scam if it's now being blamed for food allergies and cancers. And the Wakefield study was absolutely, undeniably and shamefully a scam, I'm afraid. It is disgusting that someone could do that, and I can only hope he didn't realise just what the consequences of his actions would be. As dramatic as it sounds, that man has blood on his hands.

Maggie007 wrote: »

If we stick to natural immunity, acquired from mild childhood illnesses, without the added toxins from vaccines, we'd be *much* better. We no longer live in the dark ages. With access to clean water and proper sanitation, proper diet and nutrition, we simply don't have the need for concern like we used to. Our bodies' immune systems are powerful gifts, when properly cared for. Synthetic, untested and dangerous medicine isn't the answer.

It is -not neccessary- to suffer those illnesses. And make no mistake about it, not all of them are or were "mild". In 1980, 2.6 MILLION people were estimated to have died every year from measles. It kinda has to be an estimate at that sort of scale. In 1990, it was 545,000. In 2000, it was 94,000.

Most of those that die are under the age of five. Almost none are vaccinated.

In 1988, there were 350,000 cases of polio worldwide. In 2015, there were less than 100. Again, that is mostly thanks to immunization.

Clean water, proper sanitation, proper diet and nutrition are wonderful, amazing things that we take for granted these days. But while they may protect you from cholera and bubonic plague, they won't protect you from HIV, measles, rubella, influenza or whooping cough (138,000 deaths in 1990, 65,000 deaths in 2000. Disproportionate number of deaths were of babies under the age of one (1/200).

We are losing antibiotic resistance. WHO has even stated it a worldwide health concern. When that happens, those mild childhood illnesses will go back to claiming children's lives at an unconscionable rate. Before antibiotics, 90% of children that caught bacterial meningitis died. In the 1930s, it was expected in the UK that one child in twenty would die before their first birthday. If we don't find another way around that, vaccination will literally be our -only- protection against the diseases that were endemic amongst our populations and are still there. The system can get away with a certain amount of "free-riding", but eventually it reaches a tipping point.

livedadream

I love that she's trying to explain vaccines to the guy with a PhD in immunology hahahahaha

cassid

I had a baby who caught Bacterial Meningitis before he was old enough for the vaccines. It was an awful time, he swelled up like a balloon, was grey in colour and totally lifeless in a little cot in Temple Street. His head had to be shaved to get access to veins in his head, they all collapsed, he had to go to theatre and got a deep line in his neck. The diarrhoea I remember was dreadful, he would need 10/15 nappies in an hour. His temperature at one point was 42 degrees and nothing they tried would take it down, he was screaming the hospital down, that sound will haunt me until I die, I remember even the trainee nurses were crying at one point.

He spent 6 long draining weeks in hospital, somehow the little guy survived but he did not escape, he has been left with long term problems. This is an infection that can be vaccinated against. I would hate any baby/child to go through what my son did. He was a happy little breastfed baby when this happened and now he has to live with the side effects all his life. He has spent years going in and out of hospital , has to take loads of medication everyday and is under numerous specialists. I love every hair on his body and he inspires me everyday when he achieves a simple new milestone.

I understand parents can be anxious about injections and vaccinations but some of the diseases they protect our children against are just bloody awful. These diseases attack normal little babies and children

M5

Its actually upsetting that people are actually not vaccinating their children based solely on links from facebook.

A 5 min read is enough to dismiss the culmination of a 100 years of medical research, the mind boggles.

sullivlo

livedadream wrote: »

I love that she's trying to explain vaccines to the guy with a PhD in immunology hahahahaha

I love that she thinks I'm a guy

PlamenDon

Excuse my ignorance, but can somebody please explain how an un-vaccinated child can pose a risk to a vaccinated child, if the child is vaccinated does it not make them immune?

livedadream

M5 wrote: »

Its actually upsetting that people are actually not vaccinating their children based solely on links from facebook.

To be fair stupid people will always find a reason to do stupid things before Facebook it was ''my cousin/ aunty/friend in America said if I put lemon juice in my hair and sat outside I'd go blonde'

Herd mentality is easier to follow when you have the same intelligence level as a sheep

sullivlo

Samaris wrote: »

Incorrect. And illogical, but we'll stick with the incorrect. When a person catches an illness, they will, in theory, spread it to X number of people around them. Y number of those people may be vaccinated against that disease. Z number, the rest of the original X number catch the disease as they have no protection against the disease. Each of the Z number will pass it on to Y number around them.

If you have a very contagious disease, say the common cold, that few have reliable immunity to - you see the cold season every year! If it's a disease such as bubonic plague however, that rapidity of transmission followed by the actual effects of the illness lead to mass death until the plague can't transmit further (the remainder surrounding the victims have either had it and survived, or have some natural immunity to it.) If, however, all or most of the people that the infected person comes in contact with with their ..say, poliomyelitis, are immune to it as they were vaccinated, the disease can't spread nearly so easily. It will get choked off rather than turning into an epidemic.

Vaccination basically teaches the immune system what to look for without it having to learn it the hard way. Herd immunity is the theoretical number of vaccinated people that would need to surround a carrier of a disease to reduce the likelyhood of their being able to find an open victim to spread to to close to zero. Or, in the reverse, it can protect the odd few who -would- be susceptible by reducing the likelihood that they would ever come in contact with said disease to close to zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Community_Immunity.jpg (good image of it)


Incorrect, sorry.
There isn't a difference between "vaccine-induced herd immunity" and "natural herd immunity", since the latter doesn't entirely make sense as a concept (immunity to what? How?)

You're misunderstanding how the percentage works. Firstly, you (as the unvaccinated person) -are not immune-! That is not how herd immunity works. Get exposed, you'll probably get the disease. Your "immunity" is more that the vaccinated people around you cannot catch the disease themselves to spread it to you. Your immunity is -them-, nothing to do with you.

Secondly, there is not one specific percentage for all diseases. It's based on how contagious they are. A highly contagious disease will require more of a safety net because it's more likely that it will be passed on to another person from lesser exposure.

For, say, ebola, it is moderately contagious, and (I'm simplifying factors down a bit), and if only 33-60% of the population is immune, the chances of an epidemic breaking out is almost impossible. Compare that to the highly infectious measles, and up to 90% would need to be immune to prevent an epidemic, because it is very rapidly and easily transferred.



*scratches head* I'm not actually entirely sure where to start with this, but overall, no. That's gotten even bigger than Wakefield's scam if it's now being blamed for food allergies and cancers. And the Wakefield study was absolutely, undeniably and shamefully a scam, I'm afraid. It is disgusting that someone could do that, and I can only hope he didn't realise just what the consequences of his actions would be. As dramatic as it sounds, that man has blood on his hands.



It is -not neccessary- to suffer those illnesses. And make no mistake about it, not all of them are or were "mild". In 1980, 2.6 MILLION people were estimated to have died every year from measles. It kinda has to be an estimate at that sort of scale. In 1990, it was 545,000. In 2000, it was 94,000.

Most of those that die are under the age of five. Almost none are vaccinated.

In 1988, there were 350,000 cases of polio worldwide. In 2015, there were less than 100. Again, that is mostly thanks to immunization.

Clean water, proper sanitation, proper diet and nutrition are wonderful, amazing things that we take for granted these days. But while they may protect you from cholera and bubonic plague, they won't protect you from HIV, measles, rubella, influenza or whooping cough (138,000 deaths in 1990, 65,000 deaths in 2000. Disproportionate number of deaths were of babies under the age of one (1/200).

We are losing antibiotic resistance. WHO has even stated it a worldwide health concern. When that happens, those mild childhood illnesses will go back to claiming children's lives at an unconscionable rate. Before antibiotics, 90% of children that caught bacterial meningitis died. In the 1930s, it was expected in the UK that one child in twenty would die before their first birthday. If we don't find another way around that, vaccination will literally be our -only- protection against the diseases that were endemic amongst our populations and are still there. The system can get away with a certain amount of "free-riding", but eventually it reaches a tipping point.

Marry me.

lazygal

M5 wrote: »

Its actually upsetting that people are actually not vaccinating their children based solely on links from facebook.

There's a real problem with scientific illiteracy in this country. People are urged to 'go with their gut' and 'do their research' rather than listen to qualified experts and scientific advice. It's like the more nonsense is out there, the more people believe it and think reading something online is the same as proper research. 'Doing my research' from antivaxxers is always 'I read US blogs by poorly educated homsechoolers who think Obama is the antichrist and Big Pharma wants your children to get autism'.

Maggie007

gar32 wrote: »

Maggie007 Your on the right track and I have been online here getting the same unhelpful answers for the same oh my god don't question vaccine crowd. Go with your gut and read only the governmental & makers info. Best not to ask here for help. Sometimes the wrongs done take a long time to be make public.

p.s. Vaxxed is out soon.

I'm taking your advice and Im out of here.

Anne_cordelia

lazygal wrote: »

We don't allow non vaccinated children in our home. I don't want my children being at risk.

Genuine question - what risk would your children be at?

livedadream

PlamenDon wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, but can somebody please explain how an un-vaccinated child can pose a risk to a vaccinated child, if the child is vaccinated does it not make them immune?

Not always, I was vaccinated against the mumps but have crohns so I did get it it was less severe than it would have been if I did get the jab.
My sister has cancer when she was a child so for after her treatment and once she passed (I think 5 years) of being clear she had to get all her jabs again. My mom found out there was a hippys kid in school with her after her Treatment that had no vaccinations and had to pull my sister out of school.

And vaccinated children( if I remember biology correctly) can be carriers can carry stuff from unvaccinated children home to younger siblings who haven't full immunity yet.

M5

lazygal wrote: »

There's a real problem with scientific illiteracy in this country. People are urged to 'go with their gut' and 'do their research' rather than listen to qualified experts and scientific advice. It's like the more nonsense is out there, the more people believe it and think reading something online is the same as proper research. 'Doing my research' from antivaxxers is always 'I read US blogs by poorly educated homsechoolers who think Obama is the antichrist and Big Pharma wants your children to get autism'.

Christ, I know!

from this thread "I have thanks. Have family members working in the health system and in the actual production of vaccines so i know all there is to know"

Evidently you get a PhD in immunology in a kinder surprise these days