INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Should parents have the right to refuse vaccinations...

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Post Reply

Should parents have the right to refuse vaccination for their children?

No way!
15
28%
Yes indeed!
19
36%
Depends
18
34%
Other
1
2%
 
Total votes: 53

Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#81 Post by Alan H » August 13th, 2008, 9:43 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Anna

Thanks for your response. There's lot there for us to get our teeth into, particularly since I don't think you've answered some of the questions raised by others in response to your original post. I'll respond more fully on your comments on my post when I have a bit more time.

One thing that would help: you have quoted from posts by various people and it would be helpful to name them for clarity. The best was to do this is to either use the quote button (and delete everything but the text you want) or to add quote tags around the quote with the person's name like this:

[quote="alan h"]You talk about giving weight to anecdotal evidence. The problem is that all anecdotal evidence can tell you is that there may be something worth investigating: it says nothing of worth by itself.[/quote]

In the middle of editing a post, you can use the Quote button in the toolbar above to help. If you are unsure about this, there is a thread in Reception where everyone can practice.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

joannaatvan
Posts: 13
Joined: August 13th, 2008, 10:17 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#82 Post by joannaatvan » August 13th, 2008, 10:49 pm

Hello

I am Joanna at Vaccine Awareness Network. I confess I am not Humanist and I do have a belief system (not Christian, though), but I did hire a Humanist Celebrant once to do my first daughter's Name Day and we had one for our wedding because I didn't want a Christian church do.

Anyway, I gather you've been debating my website. I haven't read most of the posts because I'm ill but I skimmed through some. I would like to say that I do try to hear other people's views on my site and I try to be balanced but obviously the function of VAN is show people the other side of the vaccine argument and since the NHS have millions of pounds to spend on promoting their pro arguments, I obviously have included the con side of the argument.

I do have a pro-vaccine arguments page where I put the medics pro arguments (not written by me, I copied it from them) and then my responses. I also have a debates page where people can publicly disagree with me and I have a Christian on there arguing that she thought my religion article was incorrect. I would like others to join in with other debates but no one has yet.

I also assist people who want to get single vaccines even though I am personally against it, and I have assisted nurses who have telephoned my helpline to ask for more details of contraindications. Until the last few months, half of the calls to my line were from medical professionals.
And I am on NHS Direct's database so that if anyone has concerns about vaccines, they refer them to me.

NHS Direct send me quite a few people, actually, because they are not legally allowed to say anything negative about vaccination but I am.

As far as the comments about whooping cough, my now 11 year old daughter had it for 3 months so I know it isn't pleasant. In the majority of cases it doesn't kill. My pro vaccine source that I used for my page said there were between 1 and 3 deaths from pertussis every year in Canada. Obviously tragic, I'm not downplaying any death, but the vaccine has caused more deaths, brain damage problems than that.

As far as the comment about Mary Amber's autism and cerebral palsy - her mother wanted her story to be on my site. I'm sure she'd be upset to hear her daughter's vaccine reactions and multiple disabilities described as a 'sob story.'
She is the one who has to deal with her daughter's handicaps on a daily basis. I am a cerebral palsy sufferer myself and know it isn't easy sometimes, and I've been fully vaccinated and suffered with two rare neurological dysfunctions as a result. Obviously no one's fault here. I just think that's a little insensitive to people who are suffering side-effects.

I know that personal stories of damage aren't in any way scientific, but medicine's attitude seems to be 'we will welcome you as long as you go along with our view of healthcare, but if anything goes wrong, we don't want to know.'

These things have happened to these people, and their experiences have just as much right to be heard as the mother who lost her child to whooping cough.

If the other side of the coin is viewed as a 'sob story', maybe the NHS should abandon their adverts about children dying of diseases, because that could be considered to be a 'sob story' too.

I haven't read the others as I'm ill but I would be happy to have a discussion tomorrow if people keep it polite.

Joanna.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#83 Post by Alan H » August 13th, 2008, 11:16 pm

Anna of Arnica wrote:Yes, Lesley did invite me onto this forum...Perhaps one should not invite others to forums - what is the etiquette please?
No problem at all! The more the merrier.
Anna of Arnica wrote:Re anecdotal evidence, yes it can get very fuzzy...women comparing notes about their children, etc. But there are some studies comparing non vax communities with vax. eg the Rudolf Steiner schools where 50% are vaccinated, and The Hopewood Children Orphanage in Australia. These studies show that the health of the un vax is far better and that allergy and acute conditions etc are far lower.
There really isn’t any point in trading studies unless a source is given that can be checked. It’s not that we don’t trust each other, but it behoves us all to make sure we are all quoting valid results and conclusions from good quality trials.

The one I gave:
alan h wrote:…in the first five years of the Measles Initiative (started in 2001), the number of deaths from measles was reduced by 91% from over 400,000 to 36,000. (Quoted in Singh & Ernst, Trick or Treatment, 2008.)
is a pretty overwhelmingly convincing result and I’d be interested to hear if you think this is a valid result and if not, why not.

The Hopewood example you gave may be worth investigating further, but the first hits on Google are somewhat disturbing and there are accusations about ‘Nazi style eugenics’ and abuse.

Can you give references for the Steiner and Hopewood studies?
Anna of Arnica wrote:Yes research is peer reviewed etc, but one piece of research comparing the summaries of papers with the actual data found that the summaries in 40% of studies reviewed did not accurately reflect the findings and that the summaries were more likely to lean towards the desired outcome. Also that the summaries are often read in place of the whole research, which can be hundreds of pages long, even when peer reviewing. Another piece of research found that if outcome was not 'liked' by the the researchers / funders then it was unlikely to be published or done again. Conversely, if the outcome was favorable, the same research would be repeated again and again gaining more coverage. I think that we are talking human nature here, we all have a bias, lets admit it and emotions / politics / economics will always get in the way to some degree.
Two things here:

1. You mention research that investigated summaries of research with actual data. Was this in vaccine research or a more general area? How much did the summaries diverge from the data?

2. You say that ‘the summaries were more likely to lean towards the desired outcome’. The problem I have with this is that I’m not sure how the researches knew what the ‘desired outcome’ was! How did they know what the researchers were trying to prove or whether the researchers ‘liked’ the outcomes? Can you give a link to this so we can investigate this further?

The phenomenon you mention about not publishing ‘bad’ results is usually called the File Drawer problem. A good discussion of this can be found here.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#84 Post by Alan H » August 13th, 2008, 11:25 pm

:welcome: Joanna
joannaatvan wrote:I would be happy to have a discussion tomorrow if people keep it polite.
Politeness is a watchword of this forum! However, debate can sometimes be 'robust', but please see that as simply a way of getting to the nub of issues. We all try to ensure we discuss the issues at hand and no one should be making any ad hominem attacks: the arguments must stand on their own, regardless of who makes them. All we ask is for data to be backed up by evidence, but we do expect opinions to be challenged.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Anna of Arnica
Posts: 76
Joined: August 12th, 2008, 8:46 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#85 Post by Anna of Arnica » August 14th, 2008, 1:25 am

Morning Alan H
Michel Odent, a respected natural birth pioneer, has compiled evidence to show the difference in health between the vax and non vax. and ref Steiner Schools. http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/vaccinesPHRC.html

"The second step of our inquiry is represented by our study of 274 pupils of British Rudolf Steiner schools. 125 of them had been immunized against whooping cough versus 149 non immunized. Among the 125 pupils vaccinated against whooping cough, 23 (18.4%) were diagnosed as asthmatic, versus 6 (4.02%).The difference was once again statistically significant."
and
"Almost five years ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association, I published a study of 446 children, half of whom had not been vaccinated against whooping cough. All the children had been breast fed exclusively for at least six months, which eliminated the problem of diet triggering health problems.

The rate of asthma was five times higher among youngsters who had been immunised. The importance of the research is that the vaccinated children had received three or four different vaccines at the same time and it was supported by results from another study where half of children attending British Rudolf Steiner schools were not immunised.

But similar research we carried out in a French Rudolf Steiner school did not find such a link. Far from undermining our case, it highlights the issue of vaccine interaction because the difference with the French children was that they received the anti-TB vaccination (the BCG) at the same time. There is a plausible biological mechanism which would explain how a potentially damaging effect caused by the whooping cough vaccine could be counteracted by the other.

This illustrates my main concern that we know too little about the long-term effects of multiple, early vaccination."
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/odent.html

Lots more references under GOOGLE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARSIFAL_study

And of course you can find research which found no increased incidence of allergy with the vaccine!

RE Hopewood...Leslie Owen Bailey, certainly seemed to have other motives in his quest to improve the health of the children in his care. However, for the purpose of studying the health of the non vax v. the vax, this site summarizes well. http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web2.html

Thank you for the term ''File -draw'... your web link describes 'The file-drawer effect refers to the practice of researchers filing away studies with negative outcomes. Negative outcome refers to finding nothing of statistical significance or causal consequence, not to finding that something affects us negatively. Negative outcome may also refer to finding something that is contrary to one's earlier research or to what one expects.' The word expects is certainly better than my 'liked'.

I am afraid that I can't find the ref. to research which compares summaries to data. From memory, the summaries sometimes seemed to conclude a completely different perspective. And the research reviewed was huge and in general areas.

And finally to the Measles Initiative. These figures are impressive in such a short space of time (91% reduction in Measles in Africa between 2001-2006). The vaccine program certainly seems to have saved many lives in Africa. My first thoughts are that consideration should be made to various factors.
1. These figures are only estimated by WHO http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/4/400

2. The labs available to confirm cases rose from 40 in 1998 to 678 in 2006. So again Measles figures in remote areas difficult to confirm. (180,000 serum samples were taken in 2006.)

3. Measles vaccination campaigns are an opportunity to provide other interventions aimed at improving child survival, such as distribution of vitamin A supplements, delivery of insecticide-treated bednets to prevent malaria, and delivery of deworming medication. Neil Z. Miller reports the research that Vitamin A reduces death from Measles by 50% so perhaps this 91% decrease in Measles should be equally shared between Vit A and vaccines?

4. Measles may have reduced but have other diseases have gone up?
Neil Z. Miller also reports on the experimental EZ-HT measles vaccine used in Senegal. Source: Lancet (Oct 12, 1991). The mortality of the children vaccinated was 80% higher than the control group. Despite this, in 1990 the WHO requested 250 million doses of EZ-HT. 4 years later the CDC admitted 'a mistake was made'. What I am implying is that one would need to look at overall mortality figures for Africa. If vaccines have the potential to weaken the immune system in the susceptible (and the malnourished are surely in this category) then this is a valid line to look into. Too tired to research the net now - perhaps someone else could do that!

Apologies for poor grammar - why am I still struggling to keep my eyes open at 1.30am!

Anna
http://www.arnica.org.uk

Lovely to see that Joanna is joining the forum

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9307
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#86 Post by Maria Mac » August 14th, 2008, 5:33 pm

Welcome Joanna and Anna. :wave:

Joanna, you clearly take exception to my use of the term ‘sob story’. As I think is clear from the context, I used it as a shorthand for ‘one mother’s emotive account’ and, with hindsight, I agree that its use was insensitive and I apologise. I hope, however, that the point I was making about it masking the dearth of scientific evidence on your site, will not be lost. I’m not aware of the “NHS adverts about children dying of disease” but if these are intended to convince people of something in spite of a dearth of evidence, then I would certainly object to them too.

Having raised a family myself, I know how affected parents can be by tragic stories like the one about Mary Amber. Of course people who have suffered tragedies like Mary Amber’s have a right to be heard – nobody is saying otherwise. And, as I said in my earlier post, you are entitled to make the most of the opportunity provided by the web to get your point of view across and are not obligated to provide information that undermines your point of view. But my point was that there is information that undermines your point of view and, by failing to include it, you are doing parents a disservice. That’s up to you, of course. I can only say that I’m glad I didn’t see your site 25 years ago when I was an emotionally vulnerable young mother whose critical thinking skills were not as developed as they are now because I may well have been influenced by its content and risked my own children’s health by refusing to have them vaccinated. I realise that you and other posters at this site are likely to be offended by that comment and I regret this but, like you, I have arrived at my own point of view by carefully considering the evidence available to me.

From the Mary Amber piece on your site:
People need to be more aware of the Very Real Dangers of Immunizations. The doctors will tell you how rare this happens, but I'm here to tell you that it is Not so Rare. Look at the Rise WorldWide in Autism/Spectrum Disorders, and many more Mentally & Physically Challenged children...There are Too many Vaccine Damaged Children.
Mary Amber's mother is stating unequivocally that (1) there is a huge rise in the number of children with physical and/or learning difficulties and autism spectrus disorders and that (2) vaccines are responsible for this rise.

The gullible reader may be forgiven for thinking that this is an authoritative statement backed up by hard evidence that the writer simply forgot to reference. My own conclusion after trawling the web today* is that both parts of the statement are ill-informed and highly speculative.

From your post in this thread:
My pro vaccine source that I used for my page said there were between 1 and 3 deaths from pertussis every year in Canada. Obviously tragic, I'm not downplaying any death, but the vaccine has caused more deaths, brain damage problems than that.
(Emphasis added). This is an unsupported claim. On your site you give the impression of having done lots of research yourself but in fact the responses on your pro-vaccine arguments page, which you present as if they are your own, have been mainly lifted from other websites. For example, you say this:
Austria, Germany and Sweden banned the pertussis vaccine since they found it caused three times as many deaths as natural pertussis (1 in 39,000 children died from the shot in West Germany and 1 in 46,000 died from the shot in Sweden).
This paragraph (and several others) was copied from this blog authored by an Alaskan chiropractor, who obviously has his own axe to grind, which is why he is so selective in the information he provides.

To take the case of Sweden: in that country immunisation against pertussis was indeed suspended in 1979 because of concerns about the efficacy of the vaccine. This resulted in an increase in reported cases of pertussis. Immunisation against whooping cough was recommenced in many areas in 1995 after trials of newer accellular vaccines proved hopeful. Sweden has been highly involved in research into newer pertussis vaccines and is one of several countries where recent data fails to suggest any link between pertussis and autism.

Do you think adding this information to the bit about Sweden suspending the pertussis vaccine in 1979 might make readers see things a bit differently?

I have spent a lot of time today trying to locate the evidence that the pertussis vaccine causes more brain damage problems than pertussis causes deaths in the developed world but I can’t find it. Where is it? All I could find were quotes like this one from the BMJ.
Many conditions with an onset in early childhood, such as autism, convulsions, and sudden infant death syndrome, do not have an obvious cause. As children are immunised at a time when these disorders manifest themselves for the first time it is inevitable that on occasion their onset follows immunisation. It may then be assumed that immunisation caused the problem.
…together with a very strong suggestion that the incidence of death from pertussis in the UK is under-reported and it is actually running at an average 9 deaths per year.**

I note that a very typical response to the argument about where the evidence actually points is that, as Anna puts it,
'research' finding that vaccines are safe and effective are often funded by Pharma companies.
What I don’t understand is why you would expect the findings of this research to be less reliable than the conclusions of a tiny number distraught parents, who believe their children are vaccine-damaged.

On your site you recently added the story of a baby in India who died 10 hours after receiving a shot of both the DPT and hep-B vaccines but omitted to include the last two paragraphs of the story. Here they are:
District immunisation officer Y Nagaraj rushed to the village and seized the samples from various batches of the vaccine. "The vials of the vaccine have been sent to Hyderabad for testing," he said. He said the boy was suffering from aspiratory pneumonia and milk was flowing from his nose when a paediatrician went to check him

The officials could not indicate whether the death was vaccine-related as the parents refused to send the body for a post-mortem to verify the cause of death. DM&HO Rambhatnaik said the boy was forcibly fed milk when he was crying. "Parents could not react properly to the symptoms," he said. Praveen's death was the first vaccine-related tragedy in eight years in the district.
(Emphasis added) The last two paragraphs of this story reveal that the claim that the jabs caused the baby’s death is speculation, not fact. By including the story but leaving them out, you are scaremongering, just as you are with the story about Sweden.

Finally, I am interested in what you say here (from your post in this thread):
And I am on NHS Direct's database so that if anyone has concerns about vaccines, they refer them to me.

NHS Direct send me quite a few people, actually, because they are not legally allowed to say anything negative about vaccination but I am.
(Emphasis added). Can you point to the legislation that prevents NHS staff from saying anything negative about vaccination or are you actually talking about guidelines rather than the law of the land?

Just wondering.


*Sources
http://www.autismspeaks.org.uk/news_and_resources.html
http://www.autismvox.com/2-hypotheses-a ... stitution/
http://www.unstrange.com/dsm1.html (how diagnostic criteria for autism have changed)
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concer ... tsheet.htm (link between MMR and Autism)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kir ... 37647.html
http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/the-m ... /#more-457

**
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:tXc3 ... /Crowcroft
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picren ... obtype=pdf
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320 ... T=&fulltex
http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40026092/

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#87 Post by Alan H » August 14th, 2008, 9:16 pm

Hi Anna,

Just to comment on your numbered points for the moment…

1. Of course the figures are estimated [---][/---] I’m not sure why this is a surprise. Even so, their estimates would have to have an extremely large error tolerance to alter the impact.

2. I’m not sure what your point here is. You say that the number of labs increased and seem to deduce from this that measles figures in remote areas are difficult to confirm. This may have been caused by the lateness of the hour, so can you explain further? Thanks.

3. It’s all very well introducing something with ‘so perhaps’, but unless you have evidence that might point to this, I’m not sure what the speculation achieves. And just because there might be two explanations for something does not mean that the likelihood of each being the cause is 50%. Even if vitamin A was proven to be responsible for some of the reduction, it could have been any figure, so why choose 50%?

However, the Measles Initiative website does talk about vitamin A, but they say:
This strategy includes routine vaccination, vaccination campaigns, surveillance of the disease and treatment of sick children with vitamin A in all countries. The inclusion of vaccination campaigns has a profound impact on reducing measles cases and deaths.
and
During the implementation of measles control activities, two opportunities should be considered for improving overall child health: (i) provide vitamin A supplementation through immunization services and; (ii) where appropriate, integrate rubella vaccination and surveillance activities with those of measles vaccination and surveillance.
4. I can’t find any reference to the withdrawal of the EZ-HT vaccine in 1994 as you state. All I can find is a WHO bulletin dated 1994 that says:
Abstract
Administration of high-titer measles vaccine (Edmonston-Zagreb [EZ] at > 100,000 plaque-forming units [PFU] per dose) before the age of 9 months has been recommended in areas with high measles mortality before the routine age of immunization after 9 months. The study compares the long-term survival after high-titer measles immunization at 5 months of age with that following routine immunization with standard-titer vaccine at 10 months of age. At 5 months of age the high-titer group received Edmonston-Zagreb (EZ-HT, 5 months) or Schwarz (SW-HT, 5 months) at titers of > 100,000 PFU/dose, while the standard-titer group received placebo at 5 months of age and < 10,000 PFU/dose of Schwarz vaccine at 10 months (SW-std, 10 months). All the children were followed up to at least 36 months of age. The mortality ratio (MR) for infants in the EZ-HT, 5 months and SW-HT, 5 months group was 1.32 (p = 0.089) and 1.45 (p = 0.092), respectively, which did not differ significantly from that of recipients of the SW-std, 10 months. The higher MR among recipients of the high-titer vaccines was due to the significantly lower survival among females compared with the females who received SW-std vaccine (EZ-HT, 5 months MR = 1.76, p = 0.013; SW-HT, 5 months MR = 2.14, p = 0.017). For children aged 5-10 months the high-titer measles vaccine did not increase mortality relative to unvaccinated children who had received placebo. (author's)
Apart from the imbalance between the sexes, the last sentence in relevant. This also seem relevant to the concern that ‘we know too little about the long-term effects of multiple, early vaccination’, although it does look like we have to be precise about what vaccine we are referring to.

However, it is completely irrelevant if the Measles Initiative used a different vaccine and I have no information on what they did use. Do you know which vaccine they used? Also, you speculate that other diseases might have gone up, but offer no evidence.

I’m off to look into the Rudolph Steiner schools studies…
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

joannaatvan
Posts: 13
Joined: August 13th, 2008, 10:17 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#88 Post by joannaatvan » August 14th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Hello

As far as Mary Amber's mother's comments, it doesn't take a genius to see that there are lots more learning disabled kids than there ever were before. For instance, Autism, formerly Kanner Syndrome was only 'discovered' in the early 1940's and now we are teaming with these kids. Obviously one cannot say that vaccines caused all of it, but considering they are full of aluminium and other nasties that doctor's have acknowledged cause problems in other mediums (for instance, in paints), it is not that amazing to then hypthosize that vaccines are causing some of or contributing to learning disabilities - especially when you look at non-vaccinating communities like the Amish who have an almost zero autism rate.

Even people in previous centuaries knew how dangerous things like mercury were. Have you ever read 'Alice In Wonderland' ? Remember the mad hatter? He was mercury poisoned. Obviously fiction, but the author knew what mercury could do to your brain. I know you are going to say they've removed thimerosal, but it is still an excipient in many vaccines given to children and is in trace amounts in the vaccines.

As for Mary Amber's mother's comments in particular, it is a free country and everyone can have an opinion or say what they like, for or against, and I am not in control of what she says. Everybody who goes to my site knows I am not a doctor and I have stated this, so I am going to allow people's opinions on there - even those for vaccines such as the Christian lady.

As for whooping cough, I've never seen that blog and don't get my stuff from blogs unless they are fully sourced. I have subscriptions to journals and can search online etc on sites like the Lancet. I usually take a few key points from a study and quote like that because parents want plain English and not the whole study. A lot of times I quote the 'conclusions' of the study rather than the whole study.

Several years ago when I first started looking into this I came across a downloadable Connaught vaccine data sheet for doctors, with a warning on it that it was for physician's only and if you were a member of the public you had to consult your doctor. It stated that there was 1 in every 1,750 that had brain damage from old style DPT. I did print it off and distribute it but I no longer do because it's outdated and I can't refer you to the source because Connaught no longer exist, I think they were taken over by another vaccine company.

But if you look here at the CDC's vaccine information statement http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/do ... s-dtap.pdf

You will see listed in moderate reactions, crying lasting longer than 3 hours is 1 in 1000. This prolonged crying is neurological irritation and they know it, that's why it isn't classed as a mild reaction. In my opinion the rate of seizures is also too high and this is for DTAP, the half cell version which has less reported side-effects.

And here http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/do ... s-tdap.pdf is the info about TDAP (a version of DTAP for kids older than 7), it states that serious side-effects and even death can happen after vaccination, even though that is rare, and 'anyone who went into a coma or had a long seizure within 7 days after DTP or DTAP vaccines should not get TDAP vaccine.' Hardly encouraging.

And in the DOH's guide book on vaccines, 'Immunisation Against Infectious Disease', 1996, which I have a copy of 'Crying, screaming and fever may occur after pertussis vaccine in triple vaccine; they may also occur after vaccines which do not contain the pertussis component. Attacks of high-pitched screaming, episodes of pallor, cyanosis, limpness, convulsions as well as local reactions have been reported after both DTP and DT vaccines.'

And

'More severe neurological conditions including encephalopathy and prolonged convulsions, resulting in permanent brain damage and death, have been reported after pertussis vaccine.' They try to brush it off by saying
'But similar illnesses can develop in the first year of life in both immunised and unimmunised children and there is no specific test which can identify cases caused by the pertussis vaccine. Therefore, no reliable estimate of the risk of such complications due to the vaccine can be made.'

This is on page 160 of the book. They never study unvaccinated children so they've got no way of knowing if unvaccinated children have similar events. They're trying to make it sound normal that a previously healthy child would suddenly start screaming, have convulsions and die. In my opinion, that doesn't happen without an underlying cause. They aren't making any effort to find out or making any test to see if the vaccine is responsible. They don't want to know. If you don't study something you won't know the answer.

I find it strange that people think that by NOT injecting their kids with aluminium and trace thimerosal and phenols and formaldehyde etc is going to risk their child's health?

If I were to force feed my child those products, I would be done for child abuse, yet it's perfectly okay to inject this stuff into a child?

As far as what happens after people stop using DPT vaccines, in the UK the notifications of whooping cough went up (probably because doctors wanted to encourage the vaccine takeup), but deaths actually decreased, according to Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 59, no. 2, February 1984, pp. 162-5): ‘Severity of whooping cough in England before and after the decline in pertussis immunisation’, "Since the decline of pertussis immunisation, hospital admission and death rates from whooping cough have fallen unexpectedly… The severity of attacks and the complication rates in children [who were] admitted to hospital were virtually unchanged.'

My opinions are most definitely on the site, but I have never professed to writing it all myself. I freely state I collect information and pass it on. Some of the articles are entirely mine, others are sourced elsewhere (and I put sources on). The article about the baby who died after DPT was NOT written by me, it's a newspaper article and I put all of it on including the medics comments in the interests of balance.

I find it curious though, that you'd think MILK was more likely to kill a baby than all those poisons in the vaccine? The article said he'd been crying for hours, which is in the DOH's book as a reacton, listed alongside death. There are some other death cases listed on my site, and one listed baby as frothing at the mouth immediately after vaccine, turning blue and then dying whilst still in the vaccine clinic. I am a member of a group where parents have lost their children, a large number of these after vaccines and quite often, the mum reports froth or blood coming from the child's eyes and mouth. In my opinion, having studied a lot of these cases, I feel they are vaccine induced haemorrhages.

As far as NHS people not being allowed to speak about vaccinations, I was told that by NHS Direct ('We have to tell you the government recommendations, if you want another viewpoint, you have to go elsewhere.'). Also, one of my friend's is a health visitor and she told me that all health visitors are not allowed to speak about the bad side of vaccinations and that she'd lose her job if she did. I'm sorry I said 'legally' - I'm not sure if it's legally or not. I do know, having a nurse mother-in-law, that anyone who speaks negatively about vaccinations can face legal action. Look what happened to Jayne Donegan.

My mother-in-law is mandated to get shots every 5 years because of her job and she tried to get out of it because her friend collapsed after hep b shot and now has ME so bad she can't work, so my MIL didn't want anymore shots but they said her job depended on it. Her friend felt the same and in the end was out of a job through ill health anyway. My MIL isn't anti-vaccine, by the way.

I'm not sure if I answered all your questions. I have to go write an article about uterine myoma's and as I'm already 2 days post deadline I can't spend anymore time on here.

I'll be back on in a couple of days because no doubt people will want to debate some more :)

Joanna.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#89 Post by Alan H » August 15th, 2008, 12:01 am

Joanna
joannatvan wrote:it doesn't take a genius to see that there are lots more learning disabled kids than there ever were before.
Emmm, I don't know. Are there more learning disabled kids now? Could it be we are we just 'better' at labelling them now? Of course, there are more kids, so it might seem there are more of them with learning difficulties. Do you have any data? Besides, it’s surely a post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to say that ‘Obviously one cannot say that vaccines caused all of it’, or indeed that vaccines caused any of it! Again, you may be right, but you need to provide some evidence.
considering they are full of aluminium and other nasties…
I know little of the constituents of these vaccines, but I think saying they are ‘full’ of aluminium is somewhat pejorative. Of course, aluminium is dangerous if ingested in sufficient quantities, but so is salt and many other substances (even water), and this does not mean that the small amounts in a single vaccine are toxic.

Mercury is a well known poisonous substance (and the cause of mental health problem in hatters), but (to fall into the fallacy of generalising from anecdotal data), I have handled mercury and it’s done me no harm! The point is whether Thiomersal is toxic. It is a mercury compound (C9H9HgNaO2S) but saying it is toxic because it contains mercury is like saying because oxygen is toxic (in sufficient concentration), H2O must also be toxic. We would be dead if we did not ingest H2O! A quick search for information about Thiomersal produces several conclusions that it is not dangerous (eg see here).
Everybody who goes to my site knows I am not a doctor and I have stated this
People who go to your site will only know you are not a doctor if they know of you already or if you clearly state it there! I have looked through some of your pages (there are a lot of them!), but I can’t find this statement. Can you point out where it is?

I had a headache today and took some ibuprofen tablets. The PIL mentions side effects such as stomach ulcers, allergic reactions (sometimes severe), kidney problems, including kidney failure, liver problems, elevated blood pressure and heart failure, heart attack and stroke. This means that these (sometimes severe and fatal) side effects have been found in the drug’s trials, anticipated or reported by patients. Of course, I doubt there is any medicine that does not have side effects (and I include herbal 'remedies' in this but not homoeopathic ones [---][/---] they can only ever be harmless in themselves!). However, it does not mean that ibuprofen carries an unacceptable risk and I will continue to take them. An occasional headache is certainly not on the same scale as measles or other condition (or the problems contracting these diseases can cause) that’s been discussed here, but a common sense view has to be taken. Does this mean that side effects will never happen or that any particular child will not be affected? Of course not, but, on the basis of the evidence I have seen and am able to understand, I would still vaccinate my children. I’m afraid that nothing that has been said here has changed my view, but don’t think that I am simply being intransigent. I will go wherever the evidence leads, but it seems sketchy to me (at best) and is not leading me anywhere else at the moment.

I hope you manage to submit your article in time!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#90 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » August 15th, 2008, 1:57 am

joannaatvan wrote:Obviously one cannot say that vaccines caused all of it, but considering they are full of aluminium and other nasties that doctor's have acknowledged cause problems in other mediums (for instance, in paints), it is not that amazing to then hypthosize that vaccines are causing some of or contributing to learning disabilities - especially when you look at non-vaccinating communities like the Amish who have an almost zero autism rate.
Very quick and sleepy comment. How do you know that the Amish are non-vaccinating communities and how do you know that they have an almost zero autism rate? An autism blog called LeftBrainRightBrain had an entry on "Autism among the Amish" last April and another on "How many autistic Amish?" this June that suggest that these two "facts" are really not supported by the evidence. There's a lot of other useful-looking stuff about vaccines on the blog, too, but I've barely glanced at it ... zzz

Emma

Anna of Arnica
Posts: 76
Joined: August 12th, 2008, 8:46 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#91 Post by Anna of Arnica » August 15th, 2008, 2:08 am

Morning again,
Re Measles estimated figures - I am not suggesting that it is a surprise. You asked for my take on it.
The point that I was making was that if previous to the Measles Initiative there were very few labs to confirm cases, remote areas and certain African countries political climate made data collection difficult, and if Vitamin A can reduce measles fatality by 50%, then the statement that vaccines have reduced measles by 91% in such a short time frame seems rather high. (A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Vitamin A in Children with Severe Measles N Engl J Med. 1990 Dec 20 ) Other things to consider in mortality in Africa is that more than one cause of death can be registered http://www.statssa.gov.sa/pub and 40% of deaths in S.A. had 2 or more causes. (Measles is not listed in the top 10 causes of mortality.)

I hope that I can use the term 'if' and 'perhaps'...I do find these words in journals and after all we are debating here. We are looking at the data, comparing and contrasting and trying to make sense of it all.

The inclusion about the dangerous EZ-HT vaccine which was withdrawn, was to give but one illustration that vaccines have the potential to cause higher mortality in other areas. Sorry that I only have Miller's book as a source. However, detailed criticsm of how some anti-vaccine writers (some on our reading list) cite research is http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm - I include this site under LINKS on my website. This is a site that is pro-vaccination. Unfortunately, I can't find figures for overall mortality rates in Africa and compare them over time, linked to vaccine programs, so can't look into this further.

I am not saying that the Measles vaccine has not played a part on reducing measles incidence and mortality, I am questioning it's exclusive status and the figures, and the lack of balance addressed with being healthy. I am always trying to put Measles, and other childhood vax diseases, into perspective. For example, visit Water Aid's site and look at mortality figures for Africa, and you will see that 5,000 children die a day from diarroea. Money on Health & Education has nearly doubled since 1990 yet share allocation for sanitation has contracted. Diarrhoea claims more lives in Africa than any other cause. Perhaps there are more basic things which WHO should focus on to save lives. Any ideas why they gave chosen vaccines over clean water?

And in the Western world - 4,000 die on our roads. As a parent, childhood disease is not something that I live in fear with, and the same with crossing the road. I continue to keep informed with improving my children's immune system and recognizing and treating illness, and I drive carefully and teach my children to cross carefully.

The first thread re 'Should parents have the right to refuse' has got lost somewhat but this forum shows how difficult the issues are for many people and how differently people's beliefs are.

I went to an interesting talk by David Kirby, journalist for the New York Times, who was key in reporting the Autism link to the MMR in March in the US. (Which no one has discussed after my post). He said that the Insurance companies in the US were facing increasing payouts for allergy and chronic conditions and were beginning to carry out their own research. I find this an interesting future angle on the whole debate, and should size up the 'Holy Grail' for us all...Do vaccines make us healthier? Risks v. benefits in our developed nation over a long period of time... Perhaps the insurers will carry out randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trials on vaccines!

Joanna puts it like this - "The trials they are referring to aren't true double blinded trials. They would have one group of people who got the trial vaccine and the other group of people got a different vaccine. This skews the results because then the placebo group are also having similar side-effects.
>
> Merck who made HPV vaccine used aluminum for their 'placebo' group so they would have had 1 group getting side-effects from the vaccine and the other group getting aluminum poisoning.
>
> Traditionally, a placebo substance is supposed to be harmless and was either a saline injection or a sugar pill. Aluminum and water cannot be considered to be harmless.
>
> In fact, if you look at the manufacturer's data sheets that come with all vaccines you will see a statement at the bottom of the page, it says 'This product has NOT been evaluated for it's mutagenic or carcinogenic potiential or for impairment of fertility.'
>
> It says this on EVERY vaccine insert you ever look at. I.e. In any study of vaccines they NEVER study whether the vaccine viruses can mutate into other illnesses, they NEVER study to see if vaccines cause cancer and they NEVER study to see if vaccines cause infertility.
>
> Considering vaccines are given on mass to 95% of the population you would have thought that they would study first to see if they cause other illnesses or infertility - particularly infertility because if they're injecting so many people with a drug and it turns out it does cause infertility, this impacts on the future reproduction of the human race. Kind of important.
>
> If you then market a product and say it's safe but you haven't studied for those things, how can you say it's safe? You don't know. Why haven't they undertaken these important studies? They don't want to know.
>
> You are right in that the only 'real' placebo controlled trial was in India on BCG vaccine. The placebo group truly had 'nothing' - since then it has never been repeated and the placebo group always get some noxious substance, which is not medicine in my opinion, it's junk science."

The reason I want to come back to that point is that if such safety trials have not been done, (and if vaccinated children are still contracting Measles, mumps and whooping cough) can parents be made to have their children to be vaccinated. I expect that as vaccines are always being improved / withdrawn / changed, vaccines should become more effective and safer over time. For example, the FDA inspect vaccine operations and this year they claimed that bulk drug substances for many of Merck's vaccines were adulterated. 49/483 observations of good manufacturing practice was violated.
http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/3567

However, it took 50 years for scientists to calculate the actual amount of mercury a vaccinated baby was receiving on one day, only to find that it far exceeded the safe recommended level for ingested Mercury through Tuna. Source: Dr Halvorsen "The Truth about Vaccines". (Babies in the US were given 17 times the amount of mercury considered to be safe.) It is the mercury which has been linked to Autism in the case of Hannah Poling. I wonder what will come out about Aluminum in the future.

For myself, as a mum with 2 young children, in today's conditions I value my choice not to vaccinate.

Even Sense in Science http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf ... iefing.pdf say 'That a compulsory vaccination programme, in today's climate is not deliverable and would be counterproductive.' It is worth a read, especially as it suggests that less people will vaccinate. To illustrate 'in today's climate' take a look at The Independent forum after the article this month re the Measles outbreak. Twice as many comments are from people concerned about vaccines. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... artindex=0

Indeed, 'top down' policies using health experts and the media, do not seem to be working in the Dept of Health's efforts to immunize more children. They will now be working on 'bottom up' initiatives. Leeds university has worked with groups of parents making the MMR decision and is now working on a computer program to guide parents through the 'evidence'. Research shows that providing people with information and support / discussion groups usually results in them taking the drug / vaccine and taking it on time. (With the exception of HRT & Viagra). I say the results depends who gives the information and prior personal bias, (as we find the opposite outcome within Arnica) but of course The Dept. of Health is funding this research.

This will be my last 'essay' for a while (you will be pleased to learn) as my husband returns and I can't be typing away till the wee hours...

I will try to answer what I can, but meanwhile I am interested to know what you feel the result is from this thread? A few have certainly put in some thinking time. I have enjoyed this forum and felt that it encouraged me to follow my arguments and include references, and made me want to know more about vaccination and health in the third world, but actually did not change my mind on 'Should parents have the right to refuse vaccination'. What you feel has been achieved from all this 'reference ping pong'?

I notice that this thread occurred previously when everyone seemed to think that compulsory vax was the way to go. I wonder where these posters are - it is a shame that they have not contributed this time

all the best
Anna

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#92 Post by Alan H » August 15th, 2008, 8:00 am

Anna of Arnica wrote:the Autism link to the MMR
What link?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#93 Post by Alan H » August 15th, 2008, 12:38 pm

In today's Herald:
********************************************************************************
Huge Rise In Measles And Scarlet Fever (from The Herald )
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... _fever.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Huge rise in measles and scarlet fever
JULIA HORTON August 15 2008
Comment | Read Comments (1)

Cases of measles and scarlet fever in Scotland have rocketed by up to 20 times in the past year.

The number of confirmed cases of measles nationwide reached 68 in June - compared to just three in the same time period last year.

Numbers may rise again as the latest figures from Health Protection Scotland (HPS) reveal a further 50% jump in the number of suspected cases of measles from 108 in 2007 to 159 so far this year.
advertisement

At the same time scarlet fever cases continued to spiral to their highest levels in a decade with more than 700 cases this year - three times the 2007 figure.

The rise in measles is largely due to an outbreak earlier this year when 54 cases were confirmed, mostly in Lothian and Greater Glasgow.

None of the patients confirmed to have measles was fully immunised, fuelling fears that lasting concerns over the safety of the MMR vaccine are putting people at greater risk of developing the potentially deadly disease.

In England, where MMR uptake rates have been hit harder by the now widely discredited suggested link to autism, a new government campaign has been launched to urge more people to receive the full jab. It follows the death in June of a 17-year-old from West Yorkshire, who was Britain's second person to die of measles in 16 years.

Experts at HPS stressed that Scotland was better protected because the MMR vaccination rate was higher than in England, at 91.2% for two-year-olds and 94.3% for children by the age of five.

But they warned there was still a risk of more outbreaks and said uptake rates were still below the so-called "herd immunity" level of 95%.

Dr Jim McMenamin, consultant epidemiologist for HPS, said: "Scotland enjoys a higher vaccination uptake for MMR ... There is then less risk of clusters or outbreaks of measles in Scotland and a higher likelihood that they will be relatively small and stop more quickly."

On the rise in scarlet fever, he said people should not be alarmed because while there was no vaccine, the disease is now successfully treated with antibiotics.

The 731 cases in 2008, up from 226 last year, are the highest recorded since 1998, when there were 883 cases. Dr McMenamin said that the peak was part of the natural cycle of the disease.

Concerns over the safety of the MMR vaccination broke out in the 1990s when Dr Andrew Wakefield said he believed he had uncovered a link between the jab and bowel disease and autism.

His research, published in the Lancet, caused a large drop in the number of children given the triple jab for measles, mumps and rubella. Uptake rates for the UK at two years are now stable at 84.1%.

Dr Wakefield is currently appearing before the General Medical Council on charges relating to the research. Government medical officers backed by other studies have said there is no proven link between MMR and autism.

In 2006 the Scottish Executive launched a catch-up campaign for MMR, targeting those who had missed the jab.

Mary Scanlon, Tory health spokeswoman, called on the government to act on a call made by Health Minister Nicola Sturgeon when she was in opposition for single jabs to be offered as an alternative to the triple jab.

Ms Sturgeon, meanwhile, said that following a "weight" of recent research and the advice of independent expert groups she now felt that the MMR vaccine was the best way to protect children.

[Captured: 15 August 2008 12:37:26]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Anna of Arnica
Posts: 76
Joined: August 12th, 2008, 8:46 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#94 Post by Anna of Arnica » August 15th, 2008, 6:38 pm

GOOGLE Hannah Poling for the media reports of the first pay out in the US where the courts concluded that her autism was bought on by the vaccines. Every news station carried this story for 24 hours but it was hardly covered here. A retired MP told Clifford Miller (lawyer with interest in the vaccine debate) that the govt had given the vaccine issue a national security code which has influenced most newspapers. Heresay of course, but it does explain why this case is not common knowledge here.

At first it was thought that she had a rare condition where the mitochondria (energy in the cells) was damaged by the mercury. Now they think otherwise. If just 1% of autistic children have this disorder then vaccines would be to blame for 10,000 autistic children.

READ THE NEWS ON ONE CLICK
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk

1. New Mitochondrial Research Could Transform Medicine.

Professor Patrick Chinnery
Newcastle University, UK
The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation (UMDF) today announced landmark research finding that one in every 200 people has a DNA mutation that could potentially cause a mitochondrial disease in them or their offspring. Mitochondrial disease is a devastating and often fatal disease, and mitochondrial disorders are at the core of many well known diseases and chronic illnesses, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and autism spectrum disorders. This research, which was partially funded by UMDF, was conducted by Patrick Chinnery, MBBS, PhD, MRCPath, FRCP, Wellcome Senior Fellow in Clinical Genetics and professor of neurogenetics at Newcastle University in the UK.
PR Newswire Press Release, United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation
Information Provided:
* Pathogenic Mitochondrial DNA Mutations Are Common in the General Population (Full Text)
Patrick F. Chinnery et al, DOI 10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.07.004,
The American Society of Human Genetics
* Massive, Revolutionary Breaking News For Patients
David Kirby, The Huffington Post/The One Click Group
* Hannah Poling Autism-Vaccine Case:
Implications for ME/CFS-labelled patients
Lara, Health Advocate

Thank you Alan for the article of the rise in Measles,
Anna

Anna of Arnica
Posts: 76
Joined: August 12th, 2008, 8:46 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#95 Post by Anna of Arnica » August 15th, 2008, 7:34 pm

Sorry - Just realized that my 1% of Autistic cases due to mitrochondria scenario does not add up to the current findings in the same email which reports on 1 in 200 having the disorder which may lead to autism.

However, the fact that Hannah's dad was a neuro surgeon and her mum a medical lawyer probably gave them a voice to push for tests and answers. I wonder what other pre-existing conditions may be understood in the future...
Anna

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#96 Post by Alan H » August 15th, 2008, 9:08 pm

Anna

One case, however tragic, does not prove your case, even if it was proven to be the cause.
A retired MP told Clifford Miller (lawyer with interest in the vaccine debate) that the govt had given the vaccine issue a national security code which has influenced most newspapers.
Eh? What does giving it a 'national security code' mean and is it even true? And which government [---][/---] the US or the UK?
Heresay of course, but it does explain why this case is not common knowledge here.
It explains nothing. I really think that, once the story was out, it would be impossible to stop news agencies in every other country from running with such a sensational story!
At first it was thought that she had a rare condition where the mitochondria (energy in the cells) was damaged by the mercury. Now they think otherwise. If just 1% of autistic children have this disorder then vaccines would be to blame for 10,000 autistic children.
'Now they think': just who are 'they'?

The UMDF reference states that 'one in every 200 people has a DNA mutation that could potentially cause a mitochondrial disease in them or their offspring'. There is no reference to vaccinations in their press release and simply says some people are more prone to some conditions than others. Where's the link to vaccinations? Also, the list of three references does not appear below the press release on UMDF's own website, so I wonder where they were added? Only one of these seems to be relevant to vaccines, and it, indeed refers to Hannah Poling. However, this seems to try to make the link between these mitochondrial abnormalities and problems caused by vaccines, but it is nothing more than a speculation. As the reference says:
It is now imperative that the momentum is not lost on further establishing the links between such disorders and the potential for vaccines, infections or other environmental toxins to precipitate, aggravate or even cause them.
There may well be a case for further research into mitochondrial diseases and possible links to other conditions, but this certainly isn't at all convincing yet. I find it strange that the article never mentions any of the nine vaccines she allegedly received.
While similarities in mt-DNA mutations in ASD and SIDS cannot be taken as evidence of a pre-disposition to vaccine damage in all, it is an unhappy coincidence that the late Sally Clark lost two babies from SIDS; the first Christopher was uncharacteristically dozy after his vaccines and the second Harry, died just 5 hours after he was administered multiple vaccinations with DTP, Hib (Meningitis) and Polio.
An 'unhappy coincidence' is certainly not proof and it may well be just that: an unhappy coincidence. No disrespect to the family here but 'the first Christopher was uncharacteristically dozy after his vaccines' fails all tests of scientific rigour.

It is also strange that the article talks about the Poling case, and even the fact that the issue was 'barely mentioned' in the UK, but with no reference to the 'national security code' you mentioned.

It seems to me looking back through this thread that there are various broadsides being fired at ALL vaccines. But all that has been provided are numerous anecdotes, some anti-vaccine articles and a fair modicum of speculation. Much of what you (and Joanna) have stated has been challenged or disputed, yet you only seem to respond with references to more tragic cases. It really would be helpful if you could answer some of the questions that have been asked about the evidence you have given.

There has been a lot of information given on both sides of this debate. I suggest that we try to focus on one particular issue (you choose!) and try to get to the bottom of the claims made and the evidence for and against?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Anna of Arnica
Posts: 76
Joined: August 12th, 2008, 8:46 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#97 Post by Anna of Arnica » August 16th, 2008, 1:17 am

dear Alan,
[There has been a lot of information given on both sides of this debate. I suggest that we try to focus on one particular issue (you choose!) and try to get to the bottom of the claims made and the evidence for and against?] Alan H

The focus is 'should parents have the right to refuse vaccines', as the thread. And I think that my link to Sense in Science (you make no mention of it) regarding compulsory vaccines is perhaps a good closure to this thread.

Of course discussion of all vaccines are relevant because of the fact that they are not properly safety tested and this is key in a parent's rights. You state

[that all has been provided are numerous anecdotes, some anti-vaccine articles and a fair modicum of speculation. Much of what you (and Joanna) have stated has been challenged or disputed, yet you only seem to respond with references to more tragic cases.]

I don't feel that this is a fair comment at all.

The Steiner and Hopewood studies show that there is a difference in children's health depending upon their vaccine status, that the vaccines contain many toxic elements and the removal of mercury took 50 years, vaccines contain animal virus which are difficult to remove and Merck was found to be using 'contaminants'. I feel these are valid issues to discuss. However, I don't remember you discussing these adequately. Not to mention the recent Autism case in the States.

Re [I really think that, once the story was out, it would be impossible to stop news agencies in every other country from running with such a sensational story!]
Perhaps you know someone living in the US to verify that this was indeed 24 hour news on all stations.
Clifford Miller has had numerous emails with the National Press who are telling him that they won't report the US case because it may damage the vaccine program - I don't find this difficult to believe.

Parents who choose not to vaccinate often do so because their experience of children's health involves more cases of poor health in the vaccinated rather than problems with childhood diseases. Parents of several children mostly find that their children who have received vaccines and / or used antibiotics suffer more health conditions that their subsequent children who have not. Source: Arnica Parents 250 members and The Informed Parent 1,000 members.

This of course is anecdotal and a small sample so please ignore it. Stick to the evidence by all means.

Unless other people can add to this forum, I don't get the feeling that you and I are gaining anything.
Your impatience and animosity comes through too strongly, as does your stance that unless something is researched and approved by the government it is not worthy.

I maintain that their ARE unanswered questions, and that before anything is 'researched and approved by the government', anecdotal evidence, observation and discussion are all valid pre-runners to 'research'.

I feel duly dismissed
Anna

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9307
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#98 Post by Maria Mac » August 16th, 2008, 1:26 am

Thanks for your response, Joanna, I only have time to respond to one point tonight.
As far as Mary Amber's mother's comments, it doesn't take a genius to see that there are lots more learning disabled kids than there ever were before. For instance, Autism, formerly Kanner Syndrome was only 'discovered' in the early 1940's and now we are teaming with these kids. Obviously one cannot say that vaccines caused all of it, but considering they are full of aluminium and other nasties that doctor's have acknowledged cause problems in other mediums (for instance, in paints), it is not that amazing to then hypthosize that vaccines are causing some of or contributing to learning disabilities - especially when you look at non-vaccinating communities like the Amish who have an almost zero autism rate.
Actually I can’t see that there are lots more learning disabled kids than there ever were before. Where did you get this information?

You are saying that there has been in increase in the incidence of autism spectrum disorders since the 1940s. This is highly debatable for the following reasons: (1) the diagnostic criteria for autism change over the years and children who are being diagnosed with autism today would not have been labelled autistic twenty, thirty and more years ago.
Indeed, the 1980 version of the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual (DSM-III) required individuals to meet six of six criteria for an autism diagnosis. In contrast, the 1994 version (DSM-IV), which is currently in use, requires individuals to meet any eight of 16 criteria. Moreover, whereas DSM-III contained only two diagnoses relevant to autism, DSM-IV contains five such diagnoses, including Asper­ger’s syndrome, which most researchers regard as a high-functioning variant of autism.
Source - a historical record of the diagnostic criteria can found here. The article I linked to in the first link also describes research involving 10,000 children in one region of England over a six year period in the 90s which found that, as long as diagnostic criteria remained unchanged - as they did through this period - there was no increase in the incidence of autism.

(2) Having a diagnosis of autism can open doors to educational and other services that are closed to children who might benefit from but can’t otherwise get them. According to an article in Time Magazine
…more parents are seeking a diagnosis they would have shunned 30 years ago, when psychiatrists still blamed autism on chilly "refrigerator" mothers. Doctors are also more willing to apply the diagnosis to help a patient. "I'll call a kid a zebra if it will get him the educational services I think he needs," National Institute of Mental Health psychiatrist Judith Rapoport told Grinker…. In some states, parents of children with autism can apply for Medicaid even if they are not near the poverty line. A diagnosis of mental retardation doesn't always offer this advantage.
(3) There is no correlation between the rate of vaccinations and the rate of autism diagnosis. The former has remained constant or declined while the latter has soared.


I’ll try to get round to a couple of other things you say over the next few days. Hope you managed to get your article done. :)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#99 Post by Alan H » August 16th, 2008, 1:37 am

Anna of Arnica wrote:Your impatience and animosity comes through too strongly, as does your stance that unless something is researched and approved by the government it is not worthy.
You completely misrepresent my position. Where on earth have I said that my stance is that unless something is 'researched and approved by the government it is not worthy'? All I (and others) have asked for is evidence for assertions. Some of the sources supplied don't appear to stand up to close scrutiny. Where on earth does the government's approval come into it?

However, what I do insist on is having evidence for claims made.

I also don't understand why you used the word 'animosity'. Please don't interpret my impatience in not getting what I see as adequate answers to questions as animosity! I am more than willing to continue in a friendly spirit of mutual exploration. I doubt you'll significantly change my views (although as I said somewhere else recently, I am obliged to go where the evidence leads) and I doubt I'll change yours, but that doesn't mean we can't continue to debate in a friendly and respectful manner.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Moonbeam
Posts: 617
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:44 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#100 Post by Moonbeam » August 16th, 2008, 2:14 am

*tentatively steps into thread*
Anna of Arnica wrote: The focus is 'should parents have the right to refuse vaccines', as the thread. And I think that my link to Sense in Science (you make no mention of it) regarding compulsory vaccines is perhaps a good closure to this thread.
Anna, I think it's true to say that, since LilacHamster's intervention, the thread has moved on from the initial topic of whether parents should have the right to refuse vaccination to whether the advantages, if any, of vaccines, outweigh the disadvantages. That does seem to be what you have focussed on and there's nothing wrong with that. As a former nurse who was once all-too-familiar with the arguments but has been away from them for some years now, I have been watching this discussion with some interest.
Unless other people can add to this forum, I don't get the feeling that you and I are gaining anything.
Your impatience and animosity comes through too strongly, as does your stance that unless something is researched and approved by the government it is not worthy.
I don't understand why you think other people should come in when the thread has several participants already who are writing long and detailed posts. There is a great deal to take in as it is. I'm sorry that you don't feel you are gaining anything from participating but I can assure you that people are reading and gaining a great deal. Please don't mistake disagreement and the challenging of your assertions - which is what people are supposed to do in debates - as animosity: as a spectator, I see no animosity in Alan's posts.

:)

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9307
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Should parents have the right to refuse...

#101 Post by Maria Mac » August 16th, 2008, 11:48 am

Alan has started a separate thread to discuss what Joanna says about Herd Immunity on her website. It's in the Science forum here.

Post Reply