unimunised?

[Barefoot]

The term unimunised is used much recently.
Its probably the way my mind works but how can a child be unimunised.
They can either be immunised or non immunised but how can they be unimunised which suggets immunity has been removed.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

IMO the correct term is unvaccinated, if you have not had a vaccine. Technically... "Immunised: can mean, has immunity via either a vaccine or the disease. So if you are "immune" to a disease, that means that your immune system will protect you, from it. Technically, you can also be vaccinated and unimmunised, meaning that you have no immunity regardless that you were vaccinated. I think the medical preference is simply to say that you aren't immune.

That probaly sounds like mud, It's just technical mumbo jumbo. They should stick to vaccinated, or non-vaccinated, immune or non-immune.

[Barefoot]

Yes MT "unimunised" by which they mean you have not had the vaccination and yet can still be immunised naturally so i prefer the term non vaccinated against x which is a far more informative term.

[Sakura]

I always refer to vaccinations as vaccinations, never as immunizations, even when other people are referring to them as immunizations. During a phone interview, a reporter actually got a bit exasperated with me because I kept answering his questions about immunizations with answers about vaccinations. Once I explained to him the difference between being immunized and being vaccinated, he understood, but he was probably not happy that he didn't get the consistently worded sound bite that he was looking for.

Oh, well. Not our problem.

Unimmunized (or, in your regional spelling, unimmunised) does imply that the immunity has dissipated, which for some vaccinated people, is probably describing the state of their immunity to a given disease, but it doesn't work as a term to describe people who are free of vaccinations.
;)

[Quickening]

I see what barefoot is trying to get at. Shes talking about "un". Regardless of whether its "un" immunised or "un" vaccinated or "un" assisted birth or "un" circumcised or even "un" pasteurised, the very use of "un" is a strong implier that it is not the normal or natural state of being when in reality, it is. Raw milk opposed to pasteurised milk, Birth opposed to medicated assisted birth, Biologically designed immune system opposed to vaccinated, changed immune system, Penis opposed to penis with skin chopped off and missing.

Its language propoganda in play here, a way that the media and policy makers and 'authorities' can change society's perception of what is normal and natural to accept states of being that aren't normal or natural to be normal and natural if you're still with me :LMAO:Its called misrecognition according to robbie e davis floyd in authoritative knowledge system research.

[Sakura]

Absolutely. This is one of the reasons why intactivists avoid the term uncircumcised, because it implies that circed is the default.

It stinks because there is no quick, succint way to say "unvaxed". A lot of people may not understand if we say that our children have intact immune systems, because most people don't even know that vaccines negatively affect the immune system.

It's also difficult because the whole vax/immunity has more variables than the state of foreskins or milk. A penis is either intact, or not. Milk is either raw, or not. But a person can be free of vaccinations, but immune. A person can also be vaccinated but not immune.
:cool:

[Barefoot]

Hi Quickening thanks you said it better than i did.
I am a man though :LMAO:

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

I upset a few doctors on Wednesday night. Apparently challenged their ethics. I told them hypocritical PCism in their language had to stop. I asked a doctor what she would say to a woman who had just been found to be pregnant and was a smoker. She said that she would say to the mother that smoking would reduce her baby’s IQ and cause low birth weight as well as other biological consequences such as in utero anoxia. Then I asked her what she would say if a mother was going to bottle feed, and she said something about that breastfeeding would be better as it would increase the babies IQ. I pointed out that that was hypocritical and normalised bottle feeding, treating breastfeeding as an extra bonus. That the “norm”, like non-smoking, was breastfeeding, that that the response was back to front, and she should have to the mother that, “bottlefeeding will reduce your baby’s IQ, make your baby sicker, more likely to have diabetes, cancer and autoimmune diseases.”

You should have heard the gasps go round the room. They considered that much too brutal. I said, “What’s the difference between that and the answer on smoking?”

A bit later on, when discussing what happens when you vaccinate a baby in a key period of time and what the long term consequences of that could be in terms of allergy etc, I asked a question that no-one answered, “So if you think it’s okay to be PC to a mother who wants to bottlefeed, even though that’s going to cost her baby’s health so much both short term and long term, why do you think it’s okay to treat a mother who wants her baby’s immune system to develop normally, as if she’s a social criminal”? There was silence. I carried on, “A mother who doesn’t WANT vaccination, because she wants her baby to have a normal immune system with no allergies, no asthma, no problems, are criminals? And a bottle feeding mother, who you know is going to inflict a whole raft of preventable illnesses on her child is not?”

It was very interesting.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

It stinks because there is no quick, succint way to say "unvaxed".

I just say that my children are vaccine-free. After all, they use the term disease-free.

[kiah]

Interesting Hilary,
You it the nail on the head!
I would have loved to see the looks on their faces :giggle:


I upset a few doctors on Wednesday night. Apparently challenged their ethics. I told them hypocritical PCism in their language had to stop. I asked a doctor what she would say to a woman who had just been found to be pregnant and was a smoker. She said that she would say to the mother that smoking would reduce her baby’s IQ and cause low birth weight as well as other biological consequences such as in utero anoxia. Then I asked her what she would say if a mother was going to bottle feed, and she said something about that breastfeeding would be better as it would increase the babies IQ. I pointed out that that was hypocritical and normalised bottle feeding, treating breastfeeding as an extra bonus. That the “norm”, like non-smoking, was breastfeeding, that that the response was back to front, and she should have to the mother that, “bottlefeeding will reduce your baby’s IQ, make your baby sicker, more likely to have diabetes, cancer and autoimmune diseases.”

You should have heard the gasps go round the room. They considered that much too brutal. I said, “What’s the difference between that and the answer on smoking?”

A bit later on, when discussing what happens when you vaccinate a baby in a key period of time and what the long term consequences of that could be in terms of allergy etc, I asked a question that no-one answered, “So if you think it’s okay to be PC to a mother who wants to bottlefeed, even though that’s going to cost her baby’s health so much both short term and long term, why do you think it’s okay to treat a mother who wants her baby’s immune system to develop normally, as if she’s a social criminal”? There was silence. I carried on, “A mother who doesn’t WANT vaccination, because she wants her baby to have a normal immune system with no allergies, no asthma, no problems, are criminals? And a bottle feeding mother, who you know is going to inflict a whole raft of preventable illnesses on her child is not?”

It was very interesting.

[Quickening]

No worries Barefoot :) Hilary, when you put it oh so logically like that, it always results in that shocked silence while their brains scramble to compute basic logic and reasoning ahhahha

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

The gasps were involuntary, and only a few were open faced. Generally they are well enough trained to keep facial expressions under control. That only lapses when you verbally hit them so hard, that the reaction is instinctual. Hence the gasps.

[Spy]

Well done Hilary, they need to hear more of this. Gasp away. :LMAO:

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

ha! they might never invite me again. Once might have been enough... :D