What were your reasons for not vaccinating your child?

[Londonmamma]

I don't think we've done this for a while and I like to keep up to date on the vaccination issue so - fire away!

tatt - i am interested in the rise in allergies.

what are the major causes of an increase in allergies, could you explain please ? thanks !

I wish I could but the research is not there to back it up. There are known linkages to the decline in parasitic worms
www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX033598.html

to peanut oil in skin cream and to soya milk (would have to look those out). There are hypotheses about cleanliness. None of this is proof, that's a long way off.

Countries with high levels of peanut in the diet treat (cook) peanuts differently, that may be relevant. They may have higher levels of parasitic worms and be Ok for that reason.

Injecting allergens into animals is not "vaccinating " them and animal models are not always good indications of what happens in humans.

I would be very interested to see any proof that peanut oil is, or ever has been, in vaccines but I've looked for it in current vaccines and not found it yet. Even it was present it would probably be refined oil and that doesn't contain the most allergenic parts of the peanut. We have to avoid all traces of peanut but our consultant isn't concerned about refined peanut oil. I can find a clinical study to back that up, have looked at it before.

I've just been reading in The Mother magazine about Vaccinations being cultured on Foetal Tissue! and if that tissue has any genetic issues, they can be a cause of some problems in development, I'm not quoting BTW, I read this last night in bed

i'm not sure if vaccines are cultured on human foetal tissue. I think there may be some calf foetal serum involved but the human foetal tissue sounds a bit like scare mongering t o me. I would be happy to see proof tho.

however i do feel some children depending on family history [auto immune illnesses, gut problems] are more susceptible to vaccine damage than others, and research into these areas should not be stifled as it is now.

Tatt, there are quite a few medical definitions of vaccinating.

One of the is; "Administering an antigen to generate long-term antibody or cellular immune responses or both." (taken from a medical dictionary)

This is exactly the process I'm referring to.

Concerning refined peanut oil. Ask your allergist if he/she is talking about ingesting refined peanut oil or injecting it in the presence of aluminium. Not the same thing at all in my opinion.

"A key piece of the hypersensitivity puzzle is the vaccine adjuvant aluminum according to New Zealand researcher and author Hilary Butler. Butler states that ?Aluminium is put into vaccines, because without it, the body will not react to weak strains of antigens. Aluminium is highly reactive, and is a Th2 ?skewer?. This is the whole reason why aluminum is added to vaccines. And Aluminium will ALWAYS create IGE, and if this happens in the presence of proteins from vaccines or food antigens in the body, then there is a high chance of allergy developing.? She points out the study by Yamanishi et al (2003) who immunized mice against Kunitz-type soybean trypsin inhibitor (KSTI) and concluded that...?we demonstrated that, regardless of the inability to adsorb KSTI, alum exerted its adjuvant activity only when it was co-injected with the antigen. These results showed that some biochemical effect, other than adsorptive activity, to enhance the production of the antigen-specific IgE resides in alum. (69) According to Butler, ?this goes along with evidence I have elsewhere that highlights the observation that aluminum does not have to be absorbed onto the antigen in order for an immune response to be stimulated. Another thing is that aluminum produces mostly IgE antibodies (allergic antibodies).? Numerous studies have also shown that aluminum is linked to allergic responses. (70)"

Quoted from page linked in previous post.

Kerrymum I don't know a lot about the mumps virus, however I did come across some information about how any virus (not just rubella) can cause problems for the unborn baby.

have a look here

Ruty some vaccines use human foetal cell lines.

here

I can assure you that some people react to very weak strains of peanut antigen without the presence of aluminium. They don't react to refined peanut oil. You have quoted no proof that peanut oil, refined or unrefined, has ever been in a vaccine. It's just scaremongering.

Of course vaccinations can sometimes result in an allergic response in a few susceptible individuals. I know a few of them personally. That is not the same as a claim that vaccination is behind a general increase in food allergies. CRM 197 is a mutated diphtheria toxin. A reaction to that is nothing to do with food allergy.

See claim number 4 for reference to peanut oil.

patent for vaccine

SORRY meant 'patent for adjuvant' not vaccine.

Tatt, I have posted a link to a patent for a vaccine adjuvant that makes several references to peanut oil. If you read the patent it says that the adjuvant is suitable for use in both humans and animals and says that it would be compatabile with a range of vaccines including but not limited to; diptheria, polio, tetanus and pertussis.

KerryMum, I've been thinking more about the difficult situation that you are in with your son. To be perfectly honest, my own personal view on vaccination is that it is dangerous for any child (or adult come to that). This is my conclusion after extensive research. You must make up your own mind for your children but PLEASE make an informed choice and do not expect your doctor to give you impartial advice.

The reason I'm posting in relation to your son again is because I remembered a couple of things that I have read and just wanted to pass them on to you.
Some children are at more risk of vaccine damage than others. Risk factors include the following;

Allergy in the child or child's family especially if it is an allergy to cow's milk protein.

If the child has been repeatedly exposed to antibiotics.

If the child (or the mother during pregancy) has been exposed to one of the illnesses to be vaccinated against and may already have antibodies.

I believe these all apply to your son. Please proceed with caution and take the time to find out as much as you can about this. I wish you and you children all the best.

yes beach, but what tatt was trying to say and i have double checked this, is that the FORM of peanut oil used (if any) in vaccines and meds. should not cause an allergy respone, because it is refined in a particular way that the allergenic component is removed.

by the way peanut oil (refined) is also often used in common meds we take as adults or give to children, so if you are avoiding it in vaccines, you should also research ALL the common meds given to children too.

The conclusion that highly refined peanut oil does not cause an allergy response is principaly based on ONE trial done in 1997.

Sixty people were tested none of them showed an allergic reaction to highly refined peanut oil.

Okay, good news.

However, the 60 people were all adults, there were no children or babies. NONE of the adults were anaphylactic (i.e. they all had peanut allergy but none of them had previously had an anaphylactic reaction). The peanut oil was ingested not injected.

Also there have been some reports of people reacting to (ingesting) refined peanut oil so we know that such a reaction is possible (it just didn't happen in the trial).

I do not see how it is possible to use this study to prove in any way that it is safe to inject small children with refined peanut oil, particularly when the oil is in the presence of aluminium which is there for the very purpose of provoking an antibody response.

Additionally the peanut oil itself is included in the vaccine as an adjuvant. One of the medical defintions of the word adjuvant is; "A substance added to killed vaccines to stimulate a better immune response by the body. Common adjuvants contain aluminum compounds."

So what that means to me (and I have confirmed through reading) is that the peanut oil is included in the vaccine due to its' ability to stimulate an immune response. Therefore I do not see how it is credible to suggest that peanut oil in vaccines does not provoke an immune response. THAT IS WHY IT IS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE FGS, TO STIMULATE ANTIBODY CREATION!

(Caps are not there because I'm shouting but because my bold facility isn't working.)

I would be really interested in your thoughts on this, yellowrose, tatt and others with knowledge of peanut (or other) allergy.

The existence of a patent does not mean that process has ever been used. You can patent anything, people do and descriptions of the more wierd and wonderful ones can also be found on the net. So you still have no evidence that peanut protein has ever been in a vaccine. Hence scaremongering.

You could look at this government advice on the safety of refined peanut oil
archive.food.gov.uk/dept_health/archive/cot/peanut.htm and at this summary of studies on oil safety
www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v44jec11.htm

where its obvious that studies don't always specific if the oil is refined or not. I haven't seen any confirmed reports of reactions to refined peanut oil and neither has the anaphylaxis campaign. Unrefined oil is a problem, refined isn't. However, if any oil has been previously used to cook nut material ? for example, peanut cutlets ? then the refined oil might be contaminated with peanut allergens. This might not be safe for people with peanut allergy.

Sorry but I don't see the point in further discussing something which is purely theoretical. You don't have any evidence that peanut oil is, or ever has been, in a vaccine. Waste of time to discuss something with no foundation.

beach i really don't know enough to say whether there is peanut oil in vacs. or not. tatt seems to know much more than me.

perhaps we should all lay off. i would feel bad if someone actually went and took advice off this thread either way, because none of us are experts here, we have personal views and have made up our own minds. i wouldn't want any one to take advice from this thread without much caution.

no matter how much personal research we have done, it shouldn't be used to convince someone else what they should do. i don't feel qualified to tell anyone that they should vaccinate. i think there are advantages to it, but i most certainly wouldn't wish anyone to take my word for it.

of course people can take material from anywhere no matter how convincing it sounds and say "it says so here", but none of us seems to be qualified enough to give assuranaces either way.

Thank you for responding tatt. I'm sorry you find this discussion a waste of time, you may no longer be following this thread but I thought I would anwser your post anyway.

You say that the existence of a patent does not mean that the product has ever been used. Fair enough. However the adjuvant in question has a trademark and is referred to in numerous studies, trials, patents and vaccines which apply to human vaccination. The trademark is 'Merck Adjuvant 65' if you want to look it up. Maybe I was too specific when I posted a link to an adjuvant patent, here if you prefer is a link to a patent for a Hib vaccine. It makes for interesting reading, the reference to peanut oil is on page 8, line 62.

patent for vaccine containing peanut oil adjuvant

Now of course you may continue to say that the fact that the a patent for a vaccine intended for use in infants has been issued does not mean that the product has ever been used if you like. I guess it could be true that all these products have been developed and approved for use but never used.

I'm not trying to badger you into continuing a discussion that is of no interest to you, I just wanted to defend myself against your accusation of scaremongering. I take the issue of vaccination extremely seriously and do my utmost to avoid misinformation. I don't think either of us know enough about immunology to say with any authority whether refined peanut oil in childhood vaccines could be responsible for the onset of a peanut allery in a person. I'm not trying to say that it does, I'm just suggesting that it might.

Sorry crossposted with yellowrose.

Okay, no probs. I'll drop it.