Some have questioned the validity of the original post, which is why I posted the above link.

"what are the repercussions of injecting said ingredients into our bodies and the bodies of very young children?"

That is precisely my point.

If someone chooses to get their children immunized, even knowing what goes IN to those vaccines, then so be it. But if a parent chooses to NOT get their children immunized based on what it in those vaccines, then SO BE IT.

It is as I have said before, there is no right or wrong answer to this question. It is all about what each individual feels is important, and NO ONE on EITHER SIDE has the right to undermine the choice of the other parent. Most of us make the choices we make for our children based on what WE believe to be in the best interest of our children. Our choices may be different, but that doesn't make one any better than the other.

I only posted the original post so people know what goes in to the vaccines. I don't care one way or the other how someone chooses to use that information. But you can't make a truly informed decision unless you are TRULY informed. Most people have absolutely no idea what goes in to the vaccines.

I made my decision based on the research I did. Had I known back then what I know now, I may not have had my children immunized at all. But it is each parents responsibility to have all of the information before they make the decision, and it is up to each parent to make the decision that THEY FEEL is best for their children based on the information given to them.

And as I said above, NO ONE has ANY RIGHT to criticize a parents decision TO immunize or to NOT immunize, AS LONG AS that parent made the decision they felt was the best decision for their children.

I have actually found that this is a forum topic that COULD have left everyone open to critisism, no matter which way someone was swinging.
Everyone seems to be discussing and questioning (curiosity I guess?) No one is getting their knickers in a twist over things being said. I honestly see no critisism.

There is maybe a lack of understanding as to why someone may choose either way, but no ones been bashed for their choices.

I didn't specifically mean this thread. This is probably the least bashy thread going on right now, oddly enough. lol

But it does seem to be a common belief that those who choose not to immunize their children are misinformed, which may be the case some of the time, but not all of the time. While some people may just want to jump on a bandwagon, some of us did extensive research from reliable resources.

Makes a change, hey! Good one too! :P

I know I'm just jumping on the bandwagon... I certainly don't have any good research done... I receive information I need/request from my doctor and I will ask for more from my ante-natal clinic as well...
I guess for me its a case of weighing up what if I do's against if I don't. For some things, I don't even see the point in vaccinating (chicken pox, for example)... but in others, I've seen what CAN happen (and I'm not saying in all kids) and would rather take every step to try and prevent that.
My mum chose not to vaccinate according to schedule... because she was lazy. Couldn't be bothered taking us down. Couldn't be bothered if we got a fever. THAT I think is a stupid reason not to vaccinate. If someone has a justified reason not to, then thats good for them. I just wanna hope that its not because they're lazy! Which is not something I've seen in anyone against vaccinating here.

i can agree there.
i have watched VICIOUS debates on this topic unfold on various websites.
There is no right or wrong answer on this topic, its one where you usually have to agree to disagree and move on.

the problem is, there is a big difference between things used in development and the actual literal vaccine doses themselves. it's misleading when people say vaccines 'contain' all of those things...because it isn't that simple. the CDC link you posted at least makes some distinctions at the top of their charts/lists.

I agree with Christina... it's not about the ingredients... it's about the effect they have. And there is absolutely no evidence that any of these vaccines are harmful. There is plenty of evidence that measles and mumps ARE harmful.

As a doctor, it is very hard for me to see children being put at risk of a deadly disease, and not say anything. Particularly when so many parents have been poorly informed about vaccines via the media (eg. the non existent MMR-autism link).

Yeah, I suppose that's really the bottom line regardless.
it's just frustrating that there is so much misinformation altogether-people act as though they know what these charts mean and that it equals harm, when as you said, there isn't much supporting that at all.

On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence to support vaccines, but that doesn't really work for people who have already decided they are bad, so then it starts sounding like some sort of conspiracy, which is just bizarre. They didn't CREATE these vaccines years go to make money, they did it to eradicate deadly horrible diseases people died from.

People today have no idea what polio and measles and mumps were like before these vaccines existed. It's scary to me that now, because they have been gone awhile, people think it's not a big deal to not protect against it.
it really irks me.

RedFraggle, you keep talking about "media hype" and "autism link". I just wanted to clarify that there are many many parents (myself included) who choose not to vax based on their own research (not media hype) and for reasons wholly unrelated to any (existant or non-existant) autism link. Actually, I'm confused about the claims of media hype, as any "media hype" I've seen has leaned strongly towards vaxing, not against (i.e.: exaggerated claims of "measles epidemics", etc).

I am not interested in entering a vax debate nor in picking apart our reasons not to vax - our reasons are our own and not up for public debate or scrutiny - I just wanted to make that clarification since you keep bringing up those two points (media hype and autism links).

Perhaps I should have said in the UK. Here there was huge media hype a few years ago suggesting a link between autism and the MMR. As a result, many parents at that time chose not to give the MMR, and there is good evidence this has led to an increase in incidence of measles and mumps in children who would otherwise have been vaccinated at that time. Very few parents in the UK withold all vaccines, but there are a number who still choose not to give the MMR, out of fear over autism links (it is still well publicised here, although not as bad as a few years ago, and the MMR uptake rate has thankfully improved since the 'evidence' of a link was disproved).

I stand by what I said though, as a doctor, it is very difficult for me to see parents put their children at risk of a disease which could kill them (over fears of vaccines being harmful, for which there is no medical evidence), and say nothing. Perhaps you did do your own research, but many many parents don't.

Just thought i'd add that i'm taking the baby for her MMR this afternoon and i think i'm thankful for this topic discussion for teaching me a few things.

UK readers, it's worth remembering that the vaccines used over here will have different ingredients. You can find out what they are, if you're concerned, by contacting your local GP surgery and speaking to the nurse in charge of childhood immunisations.

In the UK, the current vaccination programme is to be fully immunised against diphtheria, tetanus, polio, pertussis (whooping cough), HIB, Meningitis C, MMR and HPV (girls only) by school leaving age. The BCG (tb jab) is no longer given, unless you are travelling to a high risk area (in which case you pay) or you have immediate family members from at risk countries (in which case it's done at birth).

I have worked in a small general practice for five years and have only known two children to have reactions to childhood imms. They were not fatal. Conversely, I have known very very few cases of any of the diseases against which routine immunisation exists. The most common by far is mumps, usually contracted by people who missed the MMR as it was introduced in 1986.
My job in the practice involves summarising older medical notes. I would approximate that between 50+60% of all the patients aged 30+ I have summarised have had at least ONE major childhood disease due to lack of vaccination. In my own family, my grandmother almost died of diphtheria in the mid-1930s, my father had mumps and my sister had rubella before she reached an age to be vaccinated.

It's worth remembering that smallpox has been ERADICATED in the west by a comprehensive vaccinaton programme.

I personally suffer quite severe reactions to intra-muscular injections of any kind. This has nothing to do with the substances being put into my body, just the reaction of my muscles to being poked. This won't stop me having my own children vaccinated.

Everyone freaks out about vaccines, but the real problem in medicine is overmedication. I've seen far too many people on antibiotics for the common cold, or minor illness which would clear up naturally on its own. Same goes for the anti-bacterial soaps, which merely breed more resistant strains of bacterium. And the antibiotics injected into livestock, which creates a baseline giving rise also to antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains.

The human immune system has cured more diseases than any other drug. If you want to find the root of problems, start with antibiotics, which are far overprescribed (generally at the demand of the patient.)

I agree. People are very quick to complain about MRSA and 'dirty hospitals', yet as soon as they have so much as a sniffle or a sore throat they go running to their GP for antibiotics! We may not have had MRSA at all if it hadn't been for the overuse of antibiotics leading to their resistance.

Although I should say that here hospitals are now making a real effort to not use antibiotics unless REALLY necessary, to reduce antibiotic resistance. For example, not so long ago we would routinely give an IV antibiotic to the majority of patients undergoing any sort of surgery. Now the peri-operative prophylactic antibiotics are only given if clearly indicated.

(I don't see this as an argument against vaccines though. Resistance is not a problem with most vaccines. When a vaccine doesn't work it's usually because the person has caught a different strain of the virus, e.g. with flu, or HPV) I know that wasn't what you were saying, but just in case anyone misunderstands me!)

Argh the 'dirty hospitals' pisses me off! My mom is a supervisor of the housekeepers at weekends in our hospital, and she told me a few months ago that she had to stop a contract cleaner from going in to clean the maternity theatre as she said the mop and bucket were disgusting. She went straight to her boss, kicked up a huge fuss, and nothing was done. It's ridiculous. She regularly fails all the wards on maternity, and they still bring in the contract cleaners.

Lol. I think you missed my point. My point was that the public seem to think 'dirty hospitals' (and while I'm horrified by your story, I do think the majority of hospitals take cleanliness very seriously, and I've never had any concerns about any ward or maternity unit I've worked on) are to blame for MRSA... when really the bigger blame should lie with the patients who hassle their GPs for unnecessary antibiotics (and indeed the GPs who prescribe them!).

Oh no I realised that was your point, I just took it as a starting point for my story ;)

Also, I think my mom fails the wards so much because she is so much more of a cleanliness freak than the average person, which can't be a bad thing! Haha.

Indeed, I wasn't saying vaccines give rise to the same argument, but rather pointing out the hypocrisy of these "concerned mother" scares that merely serve no purpose other than to create unfounded hysteria. It's very similar to the CCA (chromated copper arsenate) treated wood, that while having arsenic in it, was never linked to any sort of illness due to arsenic poisoning. However, a group of "concerned mothers" got their hands on an MSDS and freaked out, leading to the voluntary banning of CCA-treated wood (much to the delight of timber producers.)

If it's not one thing, it's the next, all this hysteria-inducing nonsense, similar to the whole "peanut allergy" nonsense, which is significantly less severe than believed (being struck by lightning and killed is more likely), as it is more likely a psychosomatic response to hysteria.

It just makes me concerned, with so many falsely or poorly informed people, whom comprise the bulk of the voting public, what sort of future does the world have?

I am writing a thesis for graduate school on the use of non-medical vaccination exemptions for school entry in the United States and I'm very pleased to see how this thread progressed! I have frequented a few other message boards about the topic (from differing viewpoints) and was disappointed at how often the discussions quickly turned into bashing.

A lot of good information has been discussed here. While I am by no means an expert, I think it's very important to consider the information source and the motives of the author(s) for BOTH sides of the discussion. While a lot of focus is given to the potential bias of government funded "pro-vaccination" studies, there is also a lot of bias in "anti-vaccination" sources. I use quotes because there is often a lot of gray area between the two sides - refusing certain vaccines, splitting up multiple vaccines into single ones, delayed schedules, etc.

I personally believe that a portion of the anti-vaccination movement is fueled by the fact that vaccine preventable diseases are rare today. While generations in the past experienced the effects and consequences of these diseases, most of us today will not encounter them. As the memories of the diseases fade, the concern for some is likely to shift from preventing the disease to concern about the vaccine.

'As the memories of the diseases fade, the concern for some is likely to shift from preventing the disease to concern about the vaccine.'

What a brilliant line. We haven't seen people dying in agony from preventable diseases. Well, if some parents continue to believe hype, then maybe we will!

SOME parents do their own research from both angles and don't make their choices based on "hype" though. Unfortunately, it seems the majority of the people in this thread who are pro-vaccination at all costs seem to think that those of us who have chosen otherwise are simply believing "hype". I DID my research, I didn't pay attention to what anyone else said. I did my research from both angles and came up with my decision based on everything I found out. Not the hype, not because some other mother told me her decision, but because I cared enough to do my own research.

Yeah that's you, but many, MANY don't do their own research and just do what seems to be popular, without ever engaging their brain. As Red Fraggle has said, the MMR hype in England (even now) is ridiculous, and I know over here if a mother told me she wasn't vaccinating her child, I would hedge my bets that it was down to media and what the mothers had been discussing outside the nursery gates. Unfortunately, many parents don't have the brains to think for themselves.

My cousin didn't give his son the MMR, but he knows virtually nothing about it.

Proved my point! Haha.

I'll agree that is true for some, but not all. And unfortunately, those of us who DO have the brains to think for ourselves and do our own research on this subject get put into the same category as those who do NOT have the brains to think for themselves.