What about carrier people butch. If one is not vaccinated it can slightly infect do ens of kids ans one in a hundred will be a carrier without showing simptoms.
What type of vaccines are dangerous ones.
Measles only exists in Australia today because someone is not vaccinated.. Polio was eradicated from Australia only because of compulsory vaccination.

I'm not against vacination doog, both my kids were done and my grandson as well. I'm just saying ive seen first hand what can go wrong. t's a tough one for some.

yeah Rechtub I know of a guy who received whooping cough vax and is now not much better than a vegetable. Though I would not consider myself anti vax the science is not as settled as many make out.

I don't know if my position is typical of anti-vaxxers, but I'll quickly summerise the position of most of the independent media that I watch or listen to.

We're not against the science of innoculation.
We''re not against vaccines, just unsafe ones.
If just one child has a bad reaction, then they cannot be considered safe.
If a child suffers side effects then was it safe for them? No.
If an immunised child catches a disease from an unimmunised child then they can't be considered effective.
If a child catches a disease they've already been innoculated for it wasnt effective for them was it? No.

Why risk side effects if a product isn't even effective?
It's not as though these criticisms are unreasonable or without cause.

Being forced to allow a doctor to administer to your child something which may have major side effects is a serious issue.
Should there be side effects the parent/s will have to live with their decision.

What the anti-vaxxers essentially want is 'Informed Consent'

Where the doctor tells you the potential side effects prior to administering the vaccine, and where the parent has the right to choose whether of not they are comfortable with the risk of side effects and whether they want their child taking the vaccine.

This isn't anything to necessarily be afraid of, it's sensible.

They will try to tell you all anti-vaxxers are are these evil people who are rubbing their hands together with glee hoping other peoples kids die from not taking shots...
Do you really believe that's true?
Or are you thinking about anti-vaxxers just precisely the way the vaccine makers want you to think?

Hey Toni,
Here's an article and an interview.
http://vactruth.com/2011/01/07/media-vultures-have-another-go-at-andrew-wakefields-research/#comment-85835
Wakefield Interview.
http://youtu.be/f-u0UnOF5xU

Armchair Critic,

Thanks for summarising the angle presented by fake news outlets such as www.vactruth.com and www.naturalnews.com.

<<We're not against the science of innoculation.>>

Some anti-vaxxers are. Some believe that (fed the right nutrition, along with a bit of crystal healing and reiki) our immune systems are virtually invincible, and that inoculation will only ever compromise this balance.

<<We''re not against vaccines, just unsafe ones.>>

And which vaccines would they be? The ones with less aluminium in them than an antacid? (Cue ‘injection vs. ingestion’ myth.) The one’s with the mercury-based preservative, thiomersal, which is claimed to be straight up mercury? The one’s with foetal tissue in them that isn’t really foetal tissue, but viruses grown in human skin cells derived from a foetus in the ‘70s? Or the ones with less formaldehyde than our own bodies make?

(There's nothing like the stuff they preserve mummified bodies with to scare the bejesus out of people.)

<<If just one child has a bad reaction, then they cannot be considered safe.>>

They’re still far safer than millions of children contracting deadly and preventable diseases. Your ability to weigh risks is appallingly lacking.

<<If a child suffers side effects then was it safe for them?>>

No, but given the risks of not immunising, your point is irrelevant.

<<If an immunised child catches a disease from an unimmunised child then they can't be considered effective.>>

They can if this only happens in a tiny percentage of cases. Besides, it’s also about protecting children who legitimately cannot be vaccinated, such as newborns. Big Nana pointed this out. You seem to have missed it.

<<If a child catches a disease they've already been innoculated for it wasnt effective for them ...>>

Not for them, no.

<<Why risk side effects if a product isn't even effective?>>

Hang on, how did you get from 'not effective for one' to 'not effective for anyone'? But to answer your question: because vaccinations only fail in a tiny percentage of cases.

<<It's not as though these criticisms are unreasonable or without cause.>>

Apparently they are. They’re also ignorant and dangerous.

Continued…