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

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

#141 Post by joannaatvan » August 25th, 2008, 11:36 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

To the man who lost his wife to cancer (sorry I don't know your name), I did not intend my post to be 'patronizing', I was simply trying to be nice but maybe I should just take all the human aspect away from myself when discussing these things and just cite studies, if my comments are viewed as patronizing.

My group is a parent's support group, primarily for parents who don't vaccinate but also for parents who want alternative vaccine schedules, for those who are worried about it (for instance, one mum I had phone me in tears because her GP yelled at her so badly about not vaccinating that she couldn't walk home for half an hour and her breast milk stopped from the shock for a couple of days so the baby ended up in hospital with dehydration. She did get her milk back but was very upset and I just helped calm her down and I affirmed her parenting choices and after she was done crying she thanked me for the support).

I have a diploma in Person-Centred Counselling and a diploma in family therapy and I've worked at Rape Crisis and an alcoholics drop in centre before so I am qualified to counsel people via my phoneline although I do tell people to inform me if they want it confidential as I do use case histories unless they tell me not to. I also have a diploma in anatomy and physiology (A grade) and in neuro-psychological immunology (psychosomatic medicine) - also A grade.

I am also a parent of 5 who has read numerous medical journals and books over a 13 year period, I don't vaccinate, and I am vaccine damaged so I think this qualifies me to run a support group on the subject.

Let's just say I disagree with you about the benefits of vaccines, but then you know that anyway.

Joanna.
I understand yours and your wife's choice to have chemo, but I personally wouldn't even if I was going to die. As I said, I am glad you and your wife found the right choice for her, it just wouldn't be my choice.

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

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

#142 Post by joannaatvan » August 25th, 2008, 11:42 pm

Hi Alan :)

Hell no. I wouldn't take that shot made of animal brains, and I wouldn't drown in saliva, either.

Bahri F, et al. [See Related Articles] [Neurological complications in adults following rabies vaccine prepared from animal brains]. Presse Med. 1996 Mar 23;25(10):491-3. French. PMID: 8685108; UI: 96306396. OBJECTIVES: Despite well-known neurological complications, post-exposure semple-type rabies vaccine is still used in Tunisia. We retrospectively studied neurological manifestations following post-exposure rabies vaccine. METHODS: Over a 3-year period, semple-type phenol inactivated lamb nerve tissue vaccine (Pasteur Institute, Tunis) was given to 1392 adults after exposure to rabies. RESULTS: The frequency of neurological complications was 1/200. Seven patients presented complications 4 to 14 days after the first vaccine injection (median 11 days). Central nervous system manifestations occurred in all 7 patients with peripheral neuropathy in 5. Manifestations were meningoradiculitis (n = 3), meningomyeloradiculitis (n = 2), meningomyelitis (n = 1) and myelitis (n = 1). No vaccine-associated death occurred, but one patient suffered persistant paraplegia. CONCLUSION: Semple-type adult animal nerve tissue vaccine produces an unacceptable rate of severe post-vaccinal neurological complications in adults. Human diploid cell rabies vaccine should be used for post-exposure rabies vaccination.

Hemachudha T, et al.Immunologic studies of rabies vaccination-induced Guillain-Barre syndrome. Neurology. 1988 Mar;38(3):375-8. PMID: 2450302; UI: 88157125
Patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) induced by rabies vaccines prepared from either suckling mouse brain (SMB) or mature sheep brain (Semple vaccine) and patients with sporadic, idiopathic GBS were studied for antibody to myelin basic protein (MBP), P2 protein, and Schwann cells. Sera from all four Semple vaccine- and one of five SMB vaccine-induced GBS patients, but none of the sporadic GBS patients, had antibody to MBP. Sera from Semple vaccinees also had antibody to fixed, transformed Schwann cells, but similar amounts of antibody were found in sera from Semple vaccinees with CNS complications and with minor non-neurologic complications, suggesting that this antibody was not specifically linked to the development of polyneuritis. None of the sera had detectable antibody to P2 protein. We conclude that patients with GBS constitute a heterogeneous population and that different target antigens may serve as a focus for this presumed autoimmune disease.

Manghani DK, et al. Pleomorphism of fine structure of rabies virus in human and experimental brain. J Neurol Sci. 1986 Sep;75(2):181-93. PMID: 3760910; UI: 87010723.
Identification of the Negri bodies in the brain of an 8-year-old boy who died 8 days after a paralytic illness and 20 days after a dog bite, and who had received 9 injections of Semple's anti-rabies vaccine, provided evidence that he died of acute rabies encephalitis and not of post-vaccinal allergic encephalomyelitis. The Negri bodies in the human subject and those seen in the inoculated mouse differed in their morphological structure: the former consisted of a matrix of very fine granular material bearing larger granules or strands of higher electron-density resembling nucleic acids and representing products of host cell-virus interaction; and the latter showed better defined areas of granular matrix containing tubular, bullet-shaped and elongated forms of viral structures, and nucleocapsids or capsule-deficient cores, representing the virions, emerging from them. Fine structural examination of the patient's brain and of the inoculated mouse has provided evidence of the pleomorphism of the Negri bodies and the various stages of formation of viral material and virions in them, the animal alone showing the mature virions of rabies, and proving the infectivity of the Negri bodies of the human brain.

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

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

#143 Post by Anna of Arnica » August 25th, 2008, 11:56 pm

Regarding fevers and the use of ‘Calpol’ – antipyretic agents…

MINE IS NOT ALTERNATIVE VIEW…taken from our web site
http://www.arnica.org.uk/26801/34501.html

I thought you may be interested that even the medical profession are starting to realize that trying to reduce a fever may not be a great idea.
The NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) 'Guidelines on Management of feverish illness in children younger than 5 years' was summarized in the British Medical Journal last week and among the recommendations stated;
1. do not routinely use antipyretic agents with the sole aim of reducing fever in children who are otherwise well

2. do not routinely administer paracetamol and ibuprofen either in combination or alternately

3. antipyretic agents do not prevent febrile convulsions and should not be used specifically for this purpose.

So even the scientific evidence is now showing what many of us have always suspected or known! Being a trained doctor myself, I suspect that it may be many months or years before doctors and health visitors take these guidelines on board but perhaps you could begin to educate them!
Best wishes and carry on the good work.
Liz E., ex GP

Here is some more info if you need…
The body USUALLY raises a temperature for a reason - to raise antibodies to fight infection and / to detox through the skin.

Unless the person has a serious poisoning, or is in a fire, then the body should not exceed 107 degreesF. Fever above this can cause brain damage and death if not ‘treated’…and fevers in babies under 3 months are also worrying. Fevers lasting 5 days in children usually indicate an infection. Treatment is then open to discussion. For example, some mothers have reported that Calpol does not work for their child and use homeopathy. There are several remedies for reducing fever, and I have found that they work within minutes if I want to bring down my child’s temperature to make them more comfortable. I have never used an antipyretic for a fever but I have used Calpol for acute ear ache, when I could not reduce the pain naturally, which worked very well. I would always be open to suggestion from the GP or hospital if needed, although have never taken the antibiotics prescribed…most parents in my peer group of vaccinated children use Calpol and have taken antibiotics.

Fits and convulsions are not just because of high temperatures, they can occur at low temperatures too. Within Arnica, parents of vaccinated and non- vaccinated children, report that fits occur only in their vaccinated children. I can find no evidence, I am afraid, but it may be that fit and convulsions are less likely to occur in children who have a stronger immune system (fewer vaccinations and fewer antibiotics) and who have been able to deal with a fever 'naturally' i.e. not have antipyretics to suddenly reduce the temperature. Fits and convulsions associated with fever are not threatening, although they can be alarming to witness. Another friend's daughter has had 3 fits at low temperatures and has called 999 - each time the ambulance crew implied not to call them please. One large long term study I read showed that fits linked to temperature gave no long term damage to the brain. (A fit can be explained as when a person needs to 'shut down' and deal with the infection / fever etc for a few minutes.)

Other fits when the person is otherwise unwell, however, is a problem. And fits 'out of the blue' should be monitored immediately and the patient kept calm and from fitting (very possibly with a valium type drug says my friend who is a nurse) while tests are done.

If a child has a fever, of course, you make a person comfortable, use a fan, sponge key areas with tepid water, keep them hydrated, etc but an otherwise healthy child should be able to ride a fever and allow the body to work naturally. Bringing down a fever as soon as it arises with a medical product, seems to be today's answer by parents who are fearful and uninformed about illness. Indeed my neighbour who is a scientist, believes that the antibodies are raised immediately and so is not interfering with the bodies response by bringing down the fever. Indeed, hospitals in the UK like to bring down the fever too with medication although as you can see with the first item, NICE guidelines clearly state how antipyretics should be used. I don't know what other countries do but you can be sure that different approaches will be used, for example, in Holland antibiotics are only given as a last resort, compared to here where they have been prescribed for my children EVEN WHEN NO INFECTION WAS FOUND "just as a precaution".

Of course, one looks at the symptoms and this is key. If a child is listless, has a rash, etc then one needs a diagnosis to rule out serious problems. However, I believe, along with many parents, that children have many fevers, far more than adults, as part of growing up. How the body is allowed to deal with fever is vital to its ability to deal with more serious things in later life.

Hope that this answers Alan H and Cambell
Anna

Dear Nick
This is the best information I have at the moment - If I learn otherwise I may use Calpol more

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

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

#144 Post by Alan H » August 26th, 2008, 12:01 am

joannaatvan wrote:Aluminium is toxic! Even if the amounts in each vaccine are small, there are loads of vaccines so it all adds up. Even if it didn't, I personally would not choose to put aluminium into my baby, or any of the other junk in vaccines. Let's just pretend I made my baby drink deodorant (with aluminium in), some anti-freeze with 2-phenoxyethanol in it and I could give him some ant powder made of sodium borate that is in tetanus containing vaccines and American Gardasil. If he didn't die from this assault, I'd have social services banging my door down and they'd take him off me and charge me with child abuse.
As I have said several times, I am agreeing with you that aluminium is toxic, but you have not convinced me that in the small quantities that can only be present in vaccines and in the aluminium compounds in vaccines they are in any way harmful. As for the 'loads of vaccines', do the sums: let's say 10 vaccines. This would give (assuming my crude approximations) 100 µg, still a relatively small amount.

I find your analogy with deodorant, anti-freeze and ant powder totally spurious. We are trying to establish whether your claim that aluminium in vaccines are toxic; not deodorant (whether or not it contains aluminium compounds); not antifreeze; not ant powder. (However, it is a non sequitur to assume [---][/---] as you have [---][/---] that small amounts of these substances would, indeed, be harmful.)

The first article you cited was Aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines transiently increase aluminium levels in murine brain tissue. From the abstract you quoted, this reports a rise in aluminium in the brain, possibly caused by vaccines. However, it appears to say nothing about whether or not this causes any harm.

You also cited an article titled Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants receiving intravenous-feeding solutions, but it is about feeding solutions in premature babies and at doses far higher than in vaccines so I'm not sure what this has to do with vaccines. Also, it looks like this study has been criticised for not being rigorous. I also notice that the research was 'Supported by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust', so surely it is suspect ? :)

You also cited Adverse reactions after injection of adsorbed diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus..., but all this is about is an alternative to aluminium and doesn't seem to be about the toxicity of aluminium in the compounds and amounts in vaccines.
joannaatvan wrote:Everyone knows it's not good for you so why would someone want even little amounts of it in their child's vaccine?
Again, this bypasses the pertinent question: is aluminium harmful in the compounds and amounts in vaccines?
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...

#145 Post by joannaatvan » August 26th, 2008, 12:34 am

1. Which vaccines are we talking about?
2. Do you think these vaccines are efficacious?
3. Do you think vaccines help prevent the spread of diseases to others?
4. Do you think all vaccines are toxic/dangerous to all children?
5. Do you think all vaccines are toxic/dangerous to some children?
6. Do you think some vaccines are toxic/dangerous to all children?
7. Do you think some vaccines are toxic/dangerous to some children?
8. Is the vaccine(s) themselves that are toxic/dangerous or the adjuvants or other additives that make them toxic/dangerous.
9. What do you mean by toxic/dangerous.


1. I refer to all of them.

2. No.

The Lancet, vol. 353, January 9, 1999, pp. 98-102---"Effect of subclinical infection on maintaining immunity against measles in vaccinated children in West Africa" : Subclinical measles occurred in 45 percent of vaccinated children exposed to natural measles. "new epidemics, albeit milder in form, may occur in vaccinated areas[, a fact] which should be recognised in campaigns to eradicate measles."

Aaby P, et al. (1990) Measles incidence, vaccine efficacy, and mortality in two urban African areas with high vaccination coverage. J Infect Dis. 1990 Nov;162(5):1043-8. PMID: 2230232; UI: 91037153.

Measles incidence, vaccine efficacy, and mortality were examined prospectively in two districts in Bissau where vaccine coverage for children aged 12-23 months was 81% (Bandim 1) and 61% (Bandim 2). There was little difference in cumulative measles incidence before 9 months of age (6.1% and 7.6%, respectively). Between 9 months and 2 years of age, however, 6.1% contracted measles in Bandim 1 and 13.7% in Bandim 2. Even adjusting for vaccination status, incidence was significantly higher in Bandim 2 (relative risk 1.6, P = .04). Even though 95% of the children had measles antibodies after vaccination, vaccine efficacy was not more than 68% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39%-84%) and was unrelated to age at vaccination. Unvaccinated children had a mortality hazard ratio of 3.0 compared with vaccinated children (P = .002), indicating a protective efficacy against death of 66% (CI 32%-83%) of measles vaccination. These data suggest that it will be necessary to vaccinate before age 9 months to control measles in hyperendemic urban areas.

Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 179, April 1999; 915-923. "Temporal trends in the population structure of bordetella pertussis during 1949-1996 in a highly vaccinated population "Despite the introduction of large-scale pertussis vaccination in 1953 and high vaccination coverage, pertussis is still an endemic disease in The Netherlands, with epidemic outbreaks occurring every 3-5 years." One factor that might contribute to this is the ability of pertussis strains to adapt to vaccine-induced immunity, causing new strains of pertussis to re-emerge in this well-vaccinated population.

3. No.

Albrecht RM. Poliomyelitis from a vaccinee. Lancet. 1968 Jun 22;1(7556):1371. No abstract available.PMID: 4172671; UI: 68278677.

Nicoll A. Vaccine related poliomyelitis in non-immunised relatives and household contacts. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987 Feb 7;294(6568):374. No abstract available.PMID: 3101887; UI: 87129607.

Strebel PM, et al. Paralytic poliomyelitis in Romania, 1984-1992. Evidence for a high risk of vaccine-associated disease and reintroduction of wild-virus infection. Am J Epidemiol. 1994 Dec 15;140(12):1111-24. PMID: 7998593; UI: 95091240.
BACKGROUND. In Romania the rate of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis is for unexplained reasons 5 to 17 times higher than in other countries. Long ago it was noted that intramuscular injections administered during the incubation period of wild-type poliovirus infection increased the risk of paralytic disease (a phenomenon known as "provocation" poliomyelitis). We conducted a case-control study to explore the association between intramuscular injections and vaccine-associated poliomyelitis in Romania. ...RESULTS. Of the 31 children with vaccine-associated disease, 27 (87 percent) had received one or more intramuscular injections within 30 days before the onset of paralysis, as compared with 77 of the 151 controls (51 percent) (matched odds ratio, 31.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 4.0 to 244.2). Nearly all the intramuscular injections were of antibiotics, and the association was strongest for the patients who received 10 or more injections (matched odds ratio for > or = 10 injections as compared with no injections, 182.1; 95 percent confidence interval, 15.2 to 2186.4). The risk of paralytic disease was strongly associated with injections given after the oral polio virus vaccine, but not with injections given before or at the same time as the vaccine (matched odds ratio, 56.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 8.9 to infinity). The attributable risk in the population for intramuscular injections given in the 30 days before the onset of paralysis was 86 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 66 to 95 percent); that is, we estimate that 86 percent of the cases of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis in this population might have been prevented by the elimination of intramuscular injections within 30 days after exposure to oral poliovirus vaccine. CONCLUSIONS. Provocation paralysis, previously described only for wild-type poliovirus infection, may rarely occur in a child who receives multiple intramuscular injections shortly after exposure to oral poliovirus vaccine, either as a vaccine recipient or through contact with a recent recipient. This phenomenon may explain the high rate of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis in Romania, where the use of intramuscular injections of antibiotics in infants with febrile illness is common.

4. Yes, but not all children will react to them or show any damage but I do believe they weaken the immune system in the long term.

See http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

He is a neuro surgeon who has done a lot of work on the brain's immune system and how vaccines affect the brain.

5. No, they are dangerous to all children, but not all children outwardly react or react as badly. Only 'some' children have more severe reactions, but it doesn't mean they are good for the ones who didn't react.

8. Since the vaccines are made up of adjuvants, preservatives, substances to 'kill' the viruses, viruses and bacteria etc and there is no way of making them without, then yes, I think the whole vaccine is toxic.

See http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/ ... #sectionS0

which is the data sheet for cervarix vaccine. You will notice it has been cultured using trichoplusia ni insect and has 'virus like particles' from that insect in the jab. That insect is also called the cabbage looper and you can see it here:

http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/veg/leaf/ ... looper.htm

Totally disgusting in my opinion.

9. This is what I mean by toxic/dangerous:

Belsher JL et al. Fatal multiorgan failure due to yellow fever vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease.Vaccine. 2007 Dec 5;25(50):8480-5. Epub 2007 Sep 18. PMID: 18023511 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Yellow fever vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease (YEL-AVD) is a rare complication of yellow fever (YF) vaccination. A previously healthy 22-year-old female died following YF vaccination despite aggressive measures. Serial viral load titers, cytokine levels and host genetic factors were evaluated in an attempt to understand this unusual and lethal outcome. The patient's high-titer vaccine viremia and possibly related minor genetic anomalies provide clues to exploring the etiology of YEL-AVD.

Baraff, LJ, et al, "Possible Temporal Association Between Diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-Pertussis Vaccination and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome", Pediatr Infect Disorder, Jan-Feb 1983, 2(1): 5-6.

Keenlyside RA, et al. Fatal Guillain-Barre syndrome after the national influenza immunization program. Neurology. 1980 Sep;30(9):929-33. PMID: 6252515; UI: 81031247.
Fifty-eight fatal cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) were reported during the 1976 to 1977 National Influenza Program: Thirty-two (58%) of these patients had received the A/New Jersey influenza vaccine. The mean interval from vaccination to onset was 3.9 weeks, and the incidence of preceding illness in vaccinated or unvaccinated patients was similar. Fifty-eight percent had at least one chronic disease before onset. The clinical features were similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Most deaths followed medical complications of respiratory paralysis: Fifteen had pneumonia, 29 (83%) died suddenly, 15 had sudden arrhythmias or hypotension, and 7 had myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolus.

Rocchi G, Giannini V, Provvidenza G, Andreoni G. [Poliomyelitis due to poliovirus 3, with fatal outcome in an infant vaccinated with Sabin vaccine] G Mal Infett Parassit. 1967 Jul;19(7):463-5. Italian. No abstract available.PMID: 4303743 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Romanov VA, Bereshkova RV. Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol 1975 Jun;(6):66-72 [Pathomorphological and immunofluorescent studies of smallpox vaccine neurotropism]. [Article in Russian]
Experiments were conducted on guinea pigs sensitized with the AK C-vaccine components. In intracardiac injection with smallpox vaccine there was shown a possibility of development of marked hemodynamic disturbances, of the inflammatory-dystrophic processes of irreversibel character, with a subsequent neuronophagia and demyelinization. Injection of smallpox vaccine into the circulation of intact guinea pigs was accompanied by development in the nervous system of insignificant circulatory disturbances and of the inflammatory dystrophic phenomena of reversible character. A method of immunofluorescence was used and the antigen of the vaccine virus was revealed in the neurons of the brain and the spinal cord of the sensitized and intact animals. Marked hemodynamic and insignificant inflammatory-dystrophic processes were revealed in the nervous system of a child which died of the post-vaccinal encephalitis; an antigen of the smallpox virus was found by the immunofluorescent method in the nerve cells and the vessels in various portions of the nervous system. PMID: 239507, UI: 75221294

And here's a story of a 2 year old who got Smallpox from his soldier father's vaccination:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/18/healt ... llpox.html

Joanna.

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

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

#146 Post by Anna of Arnica » August 26th, 2008, 12:40 am

Calculating Aluminum in Vaccines
Here are the current levels of aluminum per shot of the following vaccines, as listed on each vaccine's packaging:

* DTaP (for Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis): 170-��625 mcg, depending on manufacturer
* Hepatitis A: 250 mcg
* Hepatitis B: 250 mcg
* HIB (for meningitis; PedVaxHib brand only): 225 mcg
* HPV: 225 mcg
* Pediarix (DTaP-��Hepatitis B-��Polio combination): 850 mcg
* Pentacel (DTaP-��HIB-��Polio combination): 330 mcg
* Pneumococcus: 125 mcg

In other words, a newborn who gets a Hepatitis B injection on day one of life would receive 250 mcg of aluminum. This would be repeated at one month with the next Hep B shot. When, at two months, a baby gets its first big round of shots, the total dose of aluminum could vary from 295 mcg (if a non-aluminum HIB and the lowest-aluminum brand of DTaP are used) to a whopping 1225 mcg (if the Hep B vaccine is given along with the brands with the highest aluminum contents). These doses are repeated at four and six months. With most subsequent rounds of shots, a child would continue to get some aluminum throughout the first two years. But the FDA recommends that premature babies, and anyone with impaired kidney function, receive no more than 10 to 25 mcg of injected aluminum at any one time.

As a medical doctor, my first instinct was to worry that these aluminum levels far exceed what may be safe for babies. My second instinct was to assume that the issue had been properly researched, and that studies had been done on healthy infants to determine their ability to rapidly excrete aluminum. My third instinct was to search for these studies. So far, I have found none. It's likely the FDA thinks that the kidneys of healthy infants work well enough to excrete aluminum before it can circulate through the body, accumulate in the brain, and cause toxic effects. However, I can find no references in FDA documents that show that using aluminum in vaccines has been tested and found to be safe.

FROM AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY DR SEARS http://www.mothering.com/articles/growi ... rosal.html

Anna
Don't forget that the liver does not produce bile until 4-6 months and so I presume that it would be hard for a baby to be able to 'excrete aluminum before it can circulate through the body, accumulate in the brain, and cause toxic effects'.

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

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

#147 Post by Alan H » August 26th, 2008, 12:44 am

This is an interesting website:

The Anti-Immunization Activists: A Pattern of Deception
This site focuses SOLELY on the misuse of scientific articles by anti-immunization activists.
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...

#148 Post by Anna of Arnica » August 26th, 2008, 1:00 am

Dear Alan,
I too listed this site on one of my previous posts...glad you enjoyed it!
It is listed under LINKS of the Arnica website http://www.arnica.org.uk/6801.html

This is a site that is pro-vaccination but worth looking at. Detailed criticsm of how some anti-vaccine writers (some on our reading list) cite research
http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm

as is UVIG.

The UK Vaccine Industry Group, working within the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), aims to: promote the positive benefits of vaccination as a key element in improving the health of the nation and represent the UK vaccine industry to all interested parties
http://www.uvig.org/about.asp#about3

Anna

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

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

#149 Post by Anna of Arnica » August 26th, 2008, 1:21 am

Re "Bonkers"
I have just read all posts regarding the phrase "Bonkers"

Thank you for sticking up for me Lilac Hamster, but no offense was taken.

Actually I rather like this term and remember it fondly when my Dad said
"I know you think that I am bonkers but I hope that one day you will find Jesus"...!
He said this with a smile and I too take it with a smile.

Re Bonkers - Hear is Jackie Fletcher's take on the risks v. benefits...
Taken from the equally lively forum from her web site http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/post.asp?m ... FORUM_ID=4

"My youngest son was fit, healthy and neurologically sound until a major reaction to his MMR + Hib vaccines at 13 months of age. From then on he was (and still is) prone to infections. Following this serious reaction I learned that he had acquired a problem with his immune system and I was warned by a paediatrician that he was vulnerable to measles and if he caught it, it could be fatal.

At about the same time here in the UK the DoH announced the threat of an expected measles epidemic. They launched 'Operation Safeguard' in November 1994, a revaccination campaign of 7 - 8 million schoolchildren aged between 5 and sixteen years of age. I have two older sons and they fell into this age range. The dilemma was: should I re-vaccinate my older boys to protect my youngest?

At the end of the campaign the DoH figure for serious adverse reactions came to 530. (Far from the 1 in a million often quoted by the Cheif Medical Officer.) Parents reported to JABS that their previously well children were suffering with a range of severe disabilities. Many families learned through blood tests that their children were already immune through catching a disease or previous vaccination but now had major problems.

I believe that there is a reckless disregard for side effects and until that changes parents have a duty to look after their own children's needs first and if the community benefits that is a bonus.

In case you are interested here is a copy of an item published in the Journal of the Health Visitors' Association at the time: http://www.jabs.org.uk/pages/safeorsorry.asp

Sorry, I don't know what Jackie decided, but just to illustrate the point that DILEMMAS are just that.
I don't feel that I am bonkers in not vaccinating my children but I do feel committed to learning more about health...and to date I hear far more cases of ill health in the vaccinated and problems with the vaccine, than I do problems with non vaccinated children having complications with childhood diseases.

Anna (Miss Bonkers)

tubataxidriver
Posts: 375
Joined: August 3rd, 2007, 10:39 pm

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

#150 Post by tubataxidriver » August 26th, 2008, 1:02 pm

There has been plenty of comment about the way research and information is presented on this very enlightening thread.

People may be interested to hear that the DoH is about to launch a new Information Accreditation Scheme for the health and social care sectors to help ensure that information for the public is produced and evidence presented in a proper manner. It is intended for use and implementation by NHS and by the voluntary sector (including patient groups) and would apply to leaflets, websites, advice etc. It advocates various principles including proper referencing, balance, use of language, impariality and sources. There would be a cost on information providers of gaining the certification.

There is an interesting table of langauge to be used in certain circumstances - see attached file.
Table of language use in health information.
Table of language use in health information.
Table.JPG (50.05 KiB) Viewed 8163 times
The cynical might suggest that the intended message to the public is, of course, "don't believe anything you read that doesn't have the DoH scheme seal of approval".

For further information see: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Pati ... /index.htm

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

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

#151 Post by Anna of Arnica » August 26th, 2008, 10:08 pm

Dear Tubataxidriver
Very interesting indeed. Thank you. I have copied it and will try it myself!
I think that moderating our language when advising on health matters is admirable...Well done the Dept. of Health. (I am looking forward to 'randomised controlled' trials which look into the health of the un vaccinated child compared to the vaccinated...and much prefer the term 'professional interpretation' to expert opinion.)

To follow on...I would be very interested to know whether all our debating has actually changed anyone's original opinions.

Perhaps the forum master could set up a new poll -
Has your original opinion changed since joining this forum?
a. YES completely
b. NO, in fact I feel more convicted
c. NO but I feel more positively understanding towards the opposing viewpoint

My guess is that we will be mostly B's with a few C's. But I may be wrong.
I feel that we all come with a set of experiences / bias / personality type which are very hard to shift during adulthood, and no amount of statement of fact, definitive statements, reported findings or professional interpretations or opinion or beliefs held by others will dent this very much.

What does anyone else think?
Anna

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

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

#152 Post by Lifelinking » August 26th, 2008, 10:17 pm

I pretty much disagree with your conclusions Anna, but have critically re-visited a number of my own ideas as a result of this thread. I would not say I was an A, B, or C. (Typical bloody humanist :wink: )
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
LilacHamster
Posts: 209
Joined: August 1st, 2008, 11:54 am

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

#153 Post by LilacHamster » August 27th, 2008, 8:49 pm

Anna, I pretty much agree that we do all have some biases and experiences that are hard to shift in adulthood, but many undecided people might lurk on forums where there are people strongly on both sides of an argument.
I always wonder if it's more the quiet lurkers who might be the most open-minded to looking further into any issue rather than the ones debating.

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

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

#154 Post by Anna of Arnica » August 27th, 2008, 11:18 pm

Lilac Hampster and Lifelinking
Thank you both - I glad I am wrong and that forums really are challenging our views. The posts do not reflect this however, and it can get a little disheartening ...

It seems from most people's posts that certain items are rarely acknowledge e.g.
1. The lack of double-blind placebo testing on vaccines,
No one seems worried that the safety tests on vaccines have been only once and that was ignored. No one has seemed interested that perhaps vaccines have added to the fall in measles deaths (which had fallen by 98% before the vaccine) but may have added to other chronic and life threatening conditions.

2. That it took 50 years to remove most of the mercury in vaccines (mercury was removed from Russian vaccines in the 80's) and still not in flu vaccines despite The American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service requested that all mercury-containing thimerosal be removed from vaccines all the way back in 1999.
http://v.mercola.com/blogs/post.aspx?Ap ... ubscribed=
"At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, infants routinely received three inoculations that contained a total of 62.5 micrograms of ethylmercury -- a level 99 times greater than the EPA's limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin." http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/st ... _immunity/
People have suggested that small amounts are OK. That is what the experts believed re mercury until someone did the math. Most people seem to trust the judgement of the scientists / experts despite them taking so long to remove mercury from children's vaccines.

3. That no research has been done that I know of which follows people's health to compare the vaccinated and the un vaccinated.
Lots of references have been provided for allergy links (more people die now from Asthma, 1.300 annually than ever did from childhood diseases before vaccination - asthma deaths have doubled since the forties) and we have not even begun to look at diabetes and chronic arthritis, multiple sclerosis, SIDS...
Is anyone even a little worried about the ingredients of vaccines? Is animal and human DNA, aluminum, formaldehyde, etc ,etc ok to inject into the blood stream into an infant? Surely I have the right to say NO thank you.

4. And there is Autism.
The first case of autism linked to vaccines in the US with a condition which may affect 1 in 200 people which I mentioned and ref previously. And the Amish mentioned by Joanna. CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding told UPI that the Amish "have genetic connectivity that would make them different from populations that are in other sectors of the United States." Surely still worth some study? The UPI (united press international) found only 4 cases of Autism among a community of 22,000 Amish people who generally shun vaccines. Statistically there should be about 130.
Robert Kennedy/Environmentalist: …and three of them were adopted after receiving their vaccines and the fourth on lived outwards of a coal-burning power-plant. Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy has also studied the issue and wrote about it in a recent edition of Rolling Stone.

Further anecdotal evidence - Thousands of children cared for by Homefirst Health Services in metropolitan Chicago have at least two things in common with thousands of Amish children in rural Lancaster: They have never been vaccinated. And they don't have autism.

"We have a fairly large practice. We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines," said Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, Homefirst's medical director who founded the practice in 1973. Homefirst doctors have delivered more than 15,000 babies at home, and thousands of
them have never been vaccinated. Eisenstein stresses his observations are not scientific. "The trouble is this is just anecdotal in a sense, because what if every autistic child goes somewhere else and (their family) never calls us or they moved out of state?"

In practice, that's unlikely to account for the pronounced absence of autism, says Eisenstein, who also has a bachelor's degree in statistics, a master's degree in public health and a law degree.

Some have said that the autism case was just one odd case (indeed it is at the moment - it only finished in March 2008) and an estimated hundreds of thousands of parents around the world who state that their child changed after the MMR were mistaken, (500,000 autistic cases in the US) but surely it raises more doubt on the safety issues.

5. What about other countries' schedules?
Denmark vaccinates at 3, 5, & 12 months with 12 vaccines compared to 36 vaccines given in the US starting from birth or 2, 3 & 4 months. Which country is correct? Which experts should we follow? More and more vaccines are to follow - breast cancer, chicken pox, rota virus etc. Surely again the parents have the right to question this ever changing 'science' until it is proven that vaccines are safe and make our children healthier?

6. What about conflicts of interests and big pharma?
People seem uncomfortable with looking into this but please read this excellent article in Rolling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/st ... _immunity/

I know I have gone on again and repeated myself from previous emails, but I need my 'faith' in reason restored. Of course I am in the small minority and will always feel the need to justify my position, but I still can't believe that after all these emails a significant minority believe that parents should not have the right to choose vaccination for their children.

Has anyone on this forum begun to doubt the safety and positive effect upon health that vaccines have since joining this debate? Please speak up! Does anyone still think that parents like myself, Joanna and Lilac Hampster are rather misinformed and misguided?

Anna

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

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

#155 Post by Nick » August 28th, 2008, 1:01 pm

From http://www.richarddawkins.net.

Just thought I'd lob it into the pot. :D
B.C. health official says mumps outbreak began with unimmunized religious group
by Canadian Press
Thanks to Eric Klaver for the link.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article ... _Rx9RsfuVg

B.C. health official says mumps outbreak began with unimmunized religious group

AGASSIZ, B.C. — A British Columbia health official says a spreading mumps outbreak began with a Fraser Valley religious group that shuns immunization.

"It's part of their belief system that this is not the right thing to do," said Dr. Elizabeth Brodkin, medical health officer for the Fraser Health Authority. Brodkin said Tuesday that people who aren't vaccinated are at highest risk to contract the viral disease that's passed from person to person through saliva.

"This outbreak at least got going because it took hold in an unimmunized community so they are the ones who are really sitting ducks for infection."

She said 200 people have so far contracted the virus that has travelled west as far as suburban Burnaby, prompting the B.C. Centre for Disease Control to convene a provincial task force that will meet in two weeks to come up with a strategy to deal with the outbreak.

Brodkin said the virus originally travelled to B.C. from Alberta, where 300 people had been infected.

"We've tried to do advertising to the general public about the importance of not sharing spit because that's how this thing has spread," she said.

"We're calling it the don't-share-spit campaign," she said.

Those at high risk include university students living in tight-knit communities that act as factories to spread the virus but everyone is being advised not to share water bottles, drinking cups, musical instruments and cigarettes.

Brodkin said people should cough and sneeze in their sleeve.

Target groups like health-care workers are receiving more than the required two doses of vaccine and doctors in the Fraser Health region have been sent letters advising them of mumps symptoms that could mimic a cold or flu, Brodkin said.

About one-third of people who've been infected with the virus don't have any symptoms but could still be spreading it while those who show signs could have swelling of the glands under the jaw and chin or even have meningitis, she said.

Some men may also have inflamed testicles.

Immunity to mumps isn't lifelong and even people who've had the disease 30 years ago could contract it again and need to be revaccinated, Brodkin said.

In B.C., children are immunized at 12 and 18 months but need to be revaccinated years later, she said.

In an average year, less than 100 cases are reported across Canada, but outbreaks in several provinces have caused numbers to jump considerably.

In Nova Scotia, an outbreak that began in February 2007 affected more than 700 people, mostly university-aged patients.

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

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

#156 Post by Anna of Arnica » August 28th, 2008, 10:16 pm

Thank you Nick for more for the pot - what a stew!
My brother sent me the same article today -

I enjoyed reading Richard Dawkins at Uni so thanks for the link...there was a strong slant on the site
regarding religious attitudes to vaccines which I have not come across myself within my group -QUOTE

"and how the persistence of faith-based thinking kills – not just in the distant witch-burning past, but today, across the world and, yes, even in Britain."

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1 ... ohann-Hari

My non-vaccine peer group's reasoning is more about reduced intervention and avoiding unnecessary chemicals, rather a religious view, so this group of 'non compliers' is an interesting twist to the pot! I wondered whether it was the aborted cells which the MMR is grown on which may have put this religious group off. However, the Catholic Church for example, is against abortion but the Pope has overlooked this for the 'gains' of vaccination. Refusing medical intervention does not seem the normal stand of mainstream religious types, I find that many are quite respectful of medicine and uncomfortable with questioning authority in the hierarchy of society. I

Regarding Mumps
* The year before the outbreak mentioned, Dalhousie University, also in Nova Scotia experienced an outbreak of mumps...but this one was not attributed to a religious group but that mumps victims may have had insufficient immunity to virus from single-dose MMR vaccine.
http://novanewsnet.ukings.ca/nova_news_3588_7452.html
This report states that 'a lack of vaccination doesn’t explain the outbreak at Dalhousie, says health officials, since Canada reports vaccination rates of over 95 per cent. "

* Mumps causing sterility is extremely rare "It was previously thought that mumps could cause sterility in men but in fact it is now known to be extremely rare for mumps to lead to sterility." http://www.med-direct.com/mens-fertility/causes.html
Causes of sterility are far more likely to be excessive heat, excessive smoking & alcohol, and workaholics! Read more on the link above.

* Mumps can lead to deafness, this is true but very rare, and very difficult to find figures.
MMR can also cause deafness - see the vaccine insert by Merck - as the virus' are live.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=71

* As for mumps leading to meningitis, this is true. Any serious viral infection can develop complications, My partner got meningitis after Mumps. However, it is the viral form and not life threatening. In the early days of the MMR, the mumps sprain contained the Urabe virus, very dangerous, which lead to serious complications around the world with children contracting aseptic meningitis...
"The MMR vaccine with the Urabe strain of mumps was first used in Britain in October 1988. It was blamed for the deaths of several children after being withdrawn by the Department of Health in September 1992." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... risks.html
Of course the authorities say that the risks outweigh the odds of catching these diseases.

* Also there is some evidence which is finding that mumps can lower risk of ovarian cancer "These results may be interpreted to indicate that an immunological incompetence enables the development of OCa possibly through a direct etiologic role of mumps virus." http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 4/abstract

For our information - Ingredients of the MMR live virus vaccine
aborted human embryo tissue
chick embryo cells
gelatin
fetal bovine serum
neomycin
sodium phosphate
sorbitol (How Sorbitol Causes Irritable Bowel Syndrome http://www.foodintol.com/food_intolerance/hot_ibs.htm)

Dr Wakefield , bowel specialist, found a possible link between the MMR and bowel disease but the Dept of Health ignored his pleas to discuss this for 3 years. A court case against him continues due to his suggestion that the live measles presence was more prevalent in many cases of autistic children he was treating also with bowel disease)

Contraindictions - do not administer if
sensitive to gelatin
pregnant or wanting to be pregnant
had previous anaphylactic reaction to neomycin
receiving immunosuppressive therapy
are immunosuppressed eg aids
has a family history of congenital or heridirery immunodeficiency
person has untreated TB

Warnings
Caution if person has history of convulsions
hypersensitivity to eggs

Precautions
Injection ready if an anaphylatic reaction occurs but care not to inject a blood vessel
Defer for 3 months after blood or plasma transfusions

Adverse reactions
Too long to list inc..
Deafness!
Measles from the vaccine
vasculitis
pancreates
Diabetes
thrombocytopenia
anaphylatic shock
chronic arthritis (a 4 year old I met was only just re-learning to walk after her MMR)
pneumonia
retinitis (my friend's brother was blind in one eye 24 hours after the measles vaccine)
encephalitis (some are wondering whether Autism or Shaken Baby syndrome could actually be encephalitis after the MMR)
"In theory there are several mechanisms whereby the MMR vaccine could
have increased potency to induce harmful autoantibodies (antibodies
which attack the body's own tissues and organs, including the myelin
sheathes), once injected into the human system." 1998
http://www.whale.to/v/buttram.html

But of course if one reads the insert inside a Lemsip one finds some scary stuff but this shouldn't put us off!!

Anna

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

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

#157 Post by Anna of Arnica » August 28th, 2008, 10:37 pm

sorry forgot this thread re mumps in the fully vaccinated -
."A large mumps outbreak occurred despite high two-dose vaccination coverage in a population most of whom had received the second dose"
"Mumps vaccination coverage and vaccine effectiveness in a large outbreak among college students--Iowa, 2006.".. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18539365

n.b. I wonder whether students' life style (lack of sleep, stress, poor nutrition, alcohol etc)may be contributing to susceptibility to illness, rather than an air born virus?

"Cases of mumps soaring across UK"
This article carries about 50 comments which include 12 cases of mumps after full immunization, and 5 after one dose. Also mentioned is the wait of up to 2 years if a parent wants the vaccine separately...it is suggested that the govt is restricting the amount imported. One comment suggests delaying vaccination until school age or adding a third booster for teenagers...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4539887.stm

Anna

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

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

#158 Post by Lifelinking » September 6th, 2008, 12:47 pm

Research link re:

Hornig M, Briese T, Buie T, Bauman ML, Lauwers G, et al. (2008) Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.

can be found here
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
gcb01
Posts: 564
Joined: July 8th, 2007, 1:50 pm

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

#159 Post by gcb01 » September 6th, 2008, 1:31 pm

Lifelinking wrote:Research link re:

Hornig M, Briese T, Buie T, Bauman ML, Lauwers G, et al. (2008) Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.

can be found here
I'll bet they accept that and go away quietly.
Regards

Campbell

MedMae
Posts: 167
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 9:46 am

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

#160 Post by MedMae » September 10th, 2008, 3:43 pm

Firstly I think one common missunderstanding about vaccines needs to be addressed.

/lecture mode on :D
A vaccine does NOT grant immunity to a disease. It is not attempting to nor is it expected to. What a vaccine does is provoke a primary antibody response. A primary antibody response is what happens when your immune system first encounters a disease, this is usually when the disease is most severe. The graph below gives an idea fo the difference between a primary and secondary antibody responce (On the left we have the primary response and on the right is the secondary).
Image
(Taken from: http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/mayer/Ab%20 ... on2000.htm)
The secondary response is much faster and much bigger.
In effect the vaccine is simulating exposure to the disease so that when the immune system does encounter the disease it already has the tools to deal with it.

Fever, coughing and drowsiness are part of the non-antibody based immune response, so it is not unusual for vaccines to cause these syptoms becasue the body thinks it has an infection. It is also expected that vaccinated people will still get the infected with the diseases they are vaccinated against, the difference lies in the severity of the disease experienced.

With regards to the studies linking asthma to vaccines, I am not surprised that the results indicate that there is a link because it ignores the fact that asmatics and children considered at risk of developing asthma are perticularly targeted for vaccines because of their increased vulnerability to respiratory infections.

Joannaatvan wrote ....
The so called cancer research campaign has been 'researching' for years and years and the only thing they ever come up with is drugs that end up not being licenced and chemotherapy which we all know doesn't work...
This is an extremely offensive comment, and frankly extremely ignorant.

and a couple of questions:
If a vaccine was developed for HIV would you take it?
If a vaccine was developed for Malaria would you take it?

Oh and feel free to ask for clarification or further information if you need it, i am a biologist but I'm not used to trying to explain these things.
Complexity is just simplicity multiplied to a point which exceeds a particular level of comprehension. - Theowarner

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

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

#161 Post by Maria Mac » September 10th, 2008, 7:29 pm

Thanks very much for that, MedMae.

A couple of questions:
With regards to the studies linking asthma to vaccines, I am not surprised that the results indicate that there is a link because it ignores the fact that asmatics and children considered at risk of developing asthma are perticularly targeted for vaccines because of their increased vulnerability to respiratory infections.
I don't quite understand this. Surely the majority of children (i.e. including those who are not considered particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections) get most of the vaccines they are supposed to? Are you saying that only those children who were likely to become asthmatic anyway would develop asthma after getting their jabs and that they would have developed asthma even if they hadn't been vaccinated?
If a vaccine was developed for Malaria would you take it?
Excuse my ignorance but I thought there was a vaccine for malaria. What is being referred to when people talk of anti-malaria jabs

Post Reply