ext_100133 ([identity profile] mireille21.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] dalekboy 2008-08-04 02:31 pm (UTC)

That is the argument put forward to convince everyone to have their children immunised, but it's only part of the picture. Research shows that many epidemic diseases were already in rapid decline many years before regular vaccination, because even improvments in general hygiene, nutrition and living standards all contributed. Polio was a notable exception, and one for which the vaccination really was a miracle cure.

I don't have the schedule in front of me, so a bit from memory, but rotovirus is a live virus, others are genetically modified forms of the virus, such as HepB, Rubella, whooping cough, etc.

I want to make it clear, I am not *anti* vaccination, but I am concerned that the recommended age for all of these on the current schedule is much younger than it was 10, 15 or 20 years ago, and we *know* that in the case of some (especially the more recent vaccinations) there has been insufficient study done into both the short and long term effects (my friend's recent experience is a case in point as there was actually a researcher at the hospital as luck would have it, but that's a longer story.)

They are also doubling and tripling up on these shots a lot more than ever before, and my feeling is that an infant has enoguh trouble fighting against one introduced virus, let alone three at once. If they do suffer a reaction, it also makes it much more difficult to determine what has caused it (and many professionals concede this). For my own peace of mind I'd rather wait a little longer (and I'm only talking 12-24 months old here) and seperate the shots.

Post a comment in response:

If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting