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
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

Latest post of the previous page:

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

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

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

#162 Post by LilacHamster » September 10th, 2008, 7:39 pm

MedMae, do you happen to know why it is that if someone has antibodies to a disease it is usually taken to mean that they have had the disease and recovered, but in the case of HIV, antibody presence is taken to mean being at risk of AIDS and not having recovered?

The way that antibodies seem to mean entirely different things with different diseases has always confused me.
With such obvious contradictions how can we be expected to trust the science of vaccination?

I certainly would not feel inclined to accept a vaccine for a disease I was not at high risk of contracting (what is the point?), nor for a disease I felt I had a good chance of recovering from perfectly well such as one of those that were once more common childhood diseases as recently as when I was a child myself (same with my children of course), and I believe that malaria and HIV are two of those diseases which we would be unlikely to get anyway, even though they are serious ones.

As for tetanus, this might be the one exception, and if one of my kids had a deep puncture wound from something dirty with soil or other dirt on it, that might be a circumstance where we would accept the vaccine although I totally object to the fact that it is impossible to get single tetanus vaccine (it's always with diphtheria vaccine).

I don't see what Joanna wrote that was offensive, it's been her experience seeing someone dying of cancer in spite of the conventional treatment. I would not go as far as saying that the drugs don't work but it also seems to me that they are not as effective as one would expect given the amount of cancer research going on, and the side-effects sound terrible. I can quite understand someone refusing such drugs (not saying I would refuse them as I really do not feel so certain as Joanna), even if that meant less chance of a cure. Since many humanists support voluntary euthanasia as an option for people suffering terribly near the end of a terminal illness I would think many here would be able to understand the importance of quality of life at least as much as life itself.

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

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

#163 Post by MedMae » September 10th, 2008, 8:48 pm

Maria wrote: 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?
Basically the point I am stumbling towards making is that children with asthma or a significant risk of developing asthma are more likely to be vaccinated, because doctors and parents are aware that asthma sufferers are much more vulnerable to respiratory infections and if you get the jabs fro them you get the jabs for the rest at the same time.

I hope thats a bit clearer.
Maria wrote: Excuse my ignorance but I thought there was a vaccine for malaria. What is being referred to when people talk of anti-malaria jabs
The only vaccines for Malaria that I am aware of are in clinical trials, and there usefulness has yet to be determined. In th article you linked to they seem to be confusing anti-malarial tablets with jabs given for other diseases. There may be some I am not aware of though.
Complexity is just simplicity multiplied to a point which exceeds a particular level of comprehension. - Theowarner

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

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

#164 Post by MedMae » September 10th, 2008, 10:14 pm

LilacHamster wrote:MedMae, do you happen to know why it is that if someone has antibodies to a disease it is usually taken to mean that they have had the disease and recovered, but in the case of HIV, antibody presence is taken to mean being at risk of AIDS and not having recovered?

The way that antibodies seem to mean entirely different things with different diseases has always confused me.
With such obvious contradictions how can we be expected to trust the science of vaccination?
Because some viruses have a tendency to go latent. This means that the virus is dormant within the cells of the host. There are no indications of disease and as far as the body is aware there is no infection. Thus with viruses like HIV you can have the antibodies and the virus will still be latent in your cells because once you have HIV you will have it for the rest of your life. Occasionally some of the virus will come out of latency and start a fresh active cycle of the infection.
LilacHamster wrote:I certainly would not feel inclined to accept a vaccine for a disease I was not at high risk of contracting (what is the point?), nor for a disease I felt I had a good chance of recovering from perfectly well such as one of those that were once more common childhood diseases as recently as when I was a child myself (same with my children of course), and I believe that malaria and HIV are two of those diseases which we would be unlikely to get anyway, even though they are serious ones.
Ths point is not is not the risk you have of catching the disease, it's about the ability to finally eradicate diseases which cause death and suffering of millions. If you look here you will see that malaria is the 4th leading cause of death in children under 5 with measels following in 5th. In order to eradicate these diseases everyone needs to be vaccinated to have any chance of success. So anyone refusing to take these vacinations in this situation is preventing their eradication. Oh and if you think there is no risk to you from malaria, then remember that malaria was present in the uk until the 1950's and only the vigilance of the NHS prevents it returning.
LilacHamster wrote:I don't see what Joanna wrote that was offensive, it's been her experience seeing someone dying of cancer in spite of the conventional treatment.
Thats because you don't know the amount of research done on cancer, or the number of people who have dedicated their lives to finding a cure for cancer. Speaking as someone who knows some of the work which has/is being done, it is highly insulting to those who have dedicated their lives to this work.

As usual if you have any questions, ask.
Complexity is just simplicity multiplied to a point which exceeds a particular level of comprehension. - Theowarner

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

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

#165 Post by Anna of Arnica » September 12th, 2008, 1:34 am

Hello MedMae,
Thank you for that clarification and graph regarding immunity...Indeed, in some countries, such as Cuba, the general public are told that vaccination will not necessarily stop disease developing but will reduce incidence and will reduce severity of symptoms if certain diseases do occur. Many parents here do not seem familiar with this, and as a result they feel that full vaccination will 'protect' their children and can feel that the non vaccinated pose a great threat.

However, many people, and a growing number of virologists, question the actual route of infection and the role of the virus. Trevor Gunn, ex bio chemist, argues that the virus present in a diseased system is not the cause of disease.

"There are major things wrong in modern virology. No other modern science is in such trouble. This is my reluctant conclusion after nine years of investigation. " Janine Roberts 'Fear of the Invisible - How scared should we be of Virus and Vaccines, HIV and AIDS?'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fear-Invisible- ... 0955917727

Magda Roberts, in the latest Informed Parent writes "Vaccination is based on Pasteur's germ theory and even this theory was rejected by Pasteur himself at the end of his life...in the USA there have only been 70 cases of measles compared to 971 in the UK last year...if we look at the general health of the US we do not see an exceptionally healthy nation...it may be that American children are in such a suppressed state of health, that they haven't the vitality to develop measles!..absence of disease does not equate health." http://www.informedparent.co.uk

You suggest that asthma suffers are more likely to be vaccinated anyway. Well as most babies are vaccinated at 2 months this may be a little early to diagnose. As studies previously mentioned in this forum, comparing the vaccinated and non vaccinated, indicate that Asthma is 3 times more likely in the vaccinated and as asthma kills more children than measles did before vaccination, I feel that this is a valid risk/assessment for/against this vaccine. (Around 30-50 children per year died from measles in the decade before the measles vaccine but 200 children die each year from Asthma which has doubled since childhood vaccination programs.)

"After contracting measles and other childhood illnesses (e.g.. chickenpox, scarlet fever, whooping cough, rubella, mumps and may be others), it has been widely accepted by many health practitioners, including experienced orthodox paediatricians that this is often beneficial for the general health of many children. Specifically it has been shown that children contracting measles naturally were less likely to suffer from allergic conditions such as asthma, eczema and hayfever, (Lancet June 29 1996).

And as for herd immunity, when the measles vaccine was introduced in 1968 measles cases still were continuing to fall as they had been during this century. Uptake was slow, as it took a while for the health professionals to promote this vaccine, even the BMJ in 1959 referred to measles as 'the most commonest disease in the world and normally a mild infection, complications are rare'. By 1980 there was around 60% uptake - still measles had been going down.

What I and many are suggesting that the role / success of the vaccine is not clear. Just because certain diseases have reduced since vaccination, this does not mean that vaccination can take credit if cases had been dropping hugely previously. And if vaccines are supposed to make us healthier where is the evidence...no major research or study has ever looked into this even though various small studies have found significant differences.

You mention the common experiences after vaccines are because the body is reacting the the vaccine to raise antibodies, but it should be mentioned that this is not the route that the body would always take. Raising antibodies are usually the last in the line used, not the first, which some think may be a part of the problem for some auto immune conditions. Also the other contraindictions and precautions and side effects are a considerable issue...copied again from the Merck MMR vaccine insert...

Adverse reactions - Too long to list inc..
Deafness!
Measles from the vaccine
vasculitis
pancreates
Diabetes
thrombocytopenia
anaphylatic shock
chronic arthritis
pneumonia
retinitis

Finally, of course we all want children to be healthier, and there is no question that good nutrition (of which Drs only receive 6 hours for in their whole degree), long term breast feeding, low toxicity intake, exercise, stable emotions, etc are the tools for health. However, I think there are many questions surrounding vaccination. If only part of the billions and billions spent on vaccines around the world had been put into support and education for a natural health approach ...
Anna

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

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

#166 Post by MedMae » September 12th, 2008, 11:38 am

Anna of Arnica wrote:Hello MedMae,
Hello Anna
Anna of Arnica wrote:However, many people, and a growing number of virologists, question the actual route of infection and the role of the virus. Trevor Gunn, ex bio chemist, argues that the virus present in a diseased system is not the cause of disease.

"There are major things wrong in modern virology. No other modern science is in such trouble. This is my reluctant conclusion after nine years of investigation. " Janine Roberts 'Fear of the Invisible - How scared should we be of Virus and Vaccines, HIV and AIDS?'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fear-Invisible- ... 0955917727
Haven't read the book but a number of factors make me skeptical as to the value of it's content. The authors of the quotes on the back: US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has what expertise in virology? Dr. Roberto A. Giraldo at least is a medical doctor however with a major bias of his own as he has published a book on the same subject, however I have not been able to find any peer-reviewed papers by him on the subject, which again undermines the value of his work. In case you are wondering The function of peer-reviewing papers is to ensure scientific validity of the work contained within. On a more positive note the author does appear to have made an effort to reference the book well.
Anna of Arnica wrote:Magda Roberts, in the latest Informed Parent writes "Vaccination is based on Pasteur's germ theory and even this theory was rejected by Pasteur himself at the end of his life...in the USA there have only been 70 cases of measles compared to 971 in the UK last year...if we look at the general health of the US we do not see an exceptionally healthy nation...it may be that American children are in such a suppressed state of health, that they haven't the vitality to develop measles!..absence of disease does not equate health." http://www.informedparent.co.uk
Vaccination has a proven efficacy: Small pox and Polio to name 2 examples.
Anna of Arnica wrote:You suggest that asthma suffers are more likely to be vaccinated anyway. Well as most babies are vaccinated at 2 months this may be a little early to diagnose. As studies previously mentioned in this forum, comparing the vaccinated and non vaccinated, indicate that Asthma is 3 times more likely in the vaccinated and as asthma kills more children than measles did before vaccination, I feel that this is a valid risk/assessment for/against this vaccine. (Around 30-50 children per year died from measles in the decade before the measles vaccine but 200 children die each year from Asthma which has doubled since childhood vaccination programs.)
The risk of a child developing asthma is determined by whether any of their parents or grandparents have asthma, because asthma is primarily a genetic disease. Thus before a child is born the risk of developing asthma can be determined, I for example was born with a 9 in 10 chance of becoming asthmatic (Surprise surprise I am asthmatic now). Environmental effects may trigger asthma attacks but it's the genetic suseptibility which casues asthma. The reason I mention the likelyhood of children at risk of becoming asthmatic is because it is a major confounding factor for thier study and they have made no effort to accout for it. This undermines all the concusions of the study, because if you do not take into account the confounding factors then you do not produce reliable results.
Anna of Arnica wrote:"After contracting measles and other childhood illnesses (e.g.. chickenpox, scarlet fever, whooping cough, rubella, mumps and may be others), it has been widely accepted by many health practitioners, including experienced orthodox paediatricians that this is often beneficial for the general health of many children. Specifically it has been shown that children contracting measles naturally were less likely to suffer from allergic conditions such as asthma, eczema and hayfever, (Lancet June 29 1996).
But on the other hand Measels killed approximately 395,000 children between the age of 0 and 5 between 2000 and 2003. Now you might say vaccinate in the 3rd world (Wher the makority of deaths are) but not here, the problem with that is they would constantly be getting reinfected by those nations which do not vaccinate against measels. It also creates the perfect breeding grounds for nastier strains of measels and measel epidemics.
(http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/impact/index.htm)
Anna of Arnica wrote:And as for herd immunity, when the measles vaccine was introduced in 1968 measles cases still were continuing to fall as they had been during this century. Uptake was slow, as it took a while for the health professionals to promote this vaccine, even the BMJ in 1959 referred to measles as 'the most commonest disease in the world and normally a mild infection, complications are rare'. By 1980 there was around 60% uptake - still measles had been going down.
Herd immunity is false because measels imfection rates kept on going down once vaccination was started? That makes no sense, if anything that shows that herd immunity is a valid theory. Speaking as a biologist the herd immunity theory makes perfect sense. The more people who are resistant to a particular disease means that there will be a smaller proportion of the population in which the disease will be able to reproduce to a significant amount. Therfore there will be less people capable of infecting others, therfore there will be less of that disease.
Anna of Arnica wrote:What I and many are suggesting that the role / success of the vaccine is not clear. Just because certain diseases have reduced since vaccination, this does not mean that vaccination can take credit if cases had been dropping hugely previously. And if vaccines are supposed to make us healthier where is the evidence...no major research or study has ever looked into this even though various small studies have found significant differences.
And the role of vaccination in dealing with polio and small pox is not clear?
Anna of Arnica wrote:You mention the common experiences after vaccines are because the body is reacting the the vaccine to raise antibodies,
No. The symptoms I metion are there because the body does not yet have the antibodies to fight the disease therefore it is having to use other more risky ways of dealing with the disease until the antibodies are available. Fever can cause death.
Anna of Arnica wrote:but it should be mentioned that this is not the route that the body would always take.
Yes it is the route allways taken.
Anna of Arnica wrote:Raising antibodies are usually the last in the line used, not the first,
Antibodies work by augmenting the rest of the immune system. They work as biological marker molecules which enable other parts of the immune sytem to target any infection. They are the single most powerful tool the immune system has. Hence the reason why vaccination is so effective. The main reason that malaria is such a nasty disease is baceause it hides in the hosts red blood cells most of the time thus avoiding all the antibodies circulating in the blood stream.
Anna of Arnica wrote:which some think may be a part of the problem for some auto immune conditions.
Autoimmune diseases are where the body develops antibodies which target some cells in the body, thus leading to them getting killed by it's own immune system.
Anna of Arnica wrote:Also the other contraindictions and precautions and side effects are a considerable issue...copied again from the Merck MMR vaccine insert...
Please look at this: http://www.sciencestuff.com/msds/C2959.html
It's a material saftey data sheet for ultra pure water. Please note it says "Avoid long term exposure to skin or by inhalation."

The companies are required to put all risks linked with that drug/vaccine on the sheet (Hense the line I pointed out in the water MSDS, would you stop drinking water or having baths duee to the related risks?), However tenuous that link may be. Also they will put anything on their they wish to protect themselves form being sued for whether there is a risk of it or not.
Anna of Arnica wrote:Finally, of course we all want children to be healthier, and there is no question that good nutrition (of which Drs only receive 6 hours for in their whole degree), long term breast feeding, low toxicity intake, exercise, stable emotions, etc are the tools for health. However, I think there are many questions surrounding vaccination. If only part of the billions and billions spent on vaccines around the world had been put into support and education for a natural health approach ...
Anna
With regards to the doctors only get 6 hours bit: I doubt this because I know people doing biomedical science and they just had 3 months of 6 hours a week on nutrition. The low toxicity intake is also debatable, there is some evidence that early exposure to toxins and diseases created a much healthier immune system in later life.
So what questions are there about Vaccination? So far you have not created a convincing argument against vaccination.
You have presented data showing that some vaccines do not result in a reduction in the number of people with the disease, but this is not a valid argument as the vaccines are not being used to eradicate the disease just reduce the severity of a disease. Indeed vaccination is not a viable way of eradicating all diseases.
You have commented on the mercury compunds used in vaccines; If you put a lump of calcium on your skin it will burn you, however you have a lot of calcium in your body. It ocurs as calcium carbonate in your bones but your bones don't burn you. The same principle applies to mercury and it's compounds as Alah H pointed out.

I have to say one thing I do not think you should be advising people on vaccines because you have shown some major gaps in your knowledge of the way vaccines work and the way the imune system works. This I think is key knowledge to be able to give good advice on the issue.

I've probably missed out a few of your points but it's a loooong thread. :D and feel free to remind me of any.

Again feel free to ask questions.
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...

#167 Post by Maria Mac » September 12th, 2008, 1:45 pm

:popcorn:

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

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

#168 Post by LilacHamster » September 12th, 2008, 2:46 pm

MedMae, in your reply to me you said that "the point is not the risk you have of catching the disease, it's about the ability to finally eradicate diseases which cause death and suffering of millions".

Later on in reply to Anna you stated that "the vaccines are not being used to eradicate the disease just reduce the severity of a disease". Indeed you then go on to say that "vaccination is not a viable way of eradicating all diseases".

Which is it? Or is it different with different diseases?

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

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

#169 Post by MedMae » September 12th, 2008, 3:04 pm

LilacHamster wrote:MedMae, in your reply to me you said that "the point is not the risk you have of catching the disease, it's about the ability to finally eradicate diseases which cause death and suffering of millions".

Later on in reply to Anna you stated that "the vaccines are not being used to eradicate the disease just reduce the severity of a disease". Indeed you then go on to say that "vaccination is not a viable way of eradicating all diseases".

Which is it? Or is it different with different diseases?
It is different with different diseases. Take flu for example it mutates so rapidly a different vaccine has to be made each winter and even then it's only made for the strain of flu which is most likely to cause fdeaths, the other starins may be covered by this or they may not. And somtimes the strain they think will be a problem turns out to be a damp squib but another one will be a big problem. Small pox on the other hand does not have this problem, the one vaccination will cover all known strains. There are also many other factors which govern whether a disease can be eradicated by vaccination. Malaria for example probably will not be eradicated by vaccine alone because it is such a git of a disease. Vaccination is of limited use with malaria because it hides in your own cells, however with diseases like malaria every little helps.

The other point is that vaccines in the UK are not being used in a way which is compatible with eradicating any of the relative diseases because people can choosse not to have it. Though this would have to be done as part of a global scheme to eradicate the diseases wherever they are otherwise they will usually spread back from areas still infected. This does not mean that the vaccination program as it is has no worth, it does. It just is not aimed at eradicating the diseases.

If you have any more questions ask them. (You getting fed up of me saying this yet? :D )
Complexity is just simplicity multiplied to a point which exceeds a particular level of comprehension. - Theowarner

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

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

#170 Post by Nick » September 12th, 2008, 3:42 pm

Great post MedMae :thumbsup: Though I am not qualified to judge conclusively, it looks like a demolition job to me! :laughter:

With regard to water and the facts cited, I will endeavour, like Clinton, not to inhale, and while I'm at it, avoid extremes of temperature :laughter:

A question, if I may?
MedMae wrote:The risk of a child developing asthma is determined by whether any of their parents or grandparents have asthma, because asthma is primarily a genetic disease. Thus before a child is born the risk of developing asthma can be determined, I for example was born with a 9 in 10 chance of becoming asthmatic (Surprise surprise I am asthmatic now). Environmental effects may trigger asthma attacks but it's the genetic suseptibility which casues asthma.
I guess the key word here may be "primarily", but I'll ask anyway. I've heard that asthma has increased significantly over the last few generations. If true, this would suggest (to me, at least) that non-genetic factors have a greater influence on whether asthma develops than you seem to imply. Also, I have heard that younger siblings, and families with dogs, are less likely to be asthmatic than normal. Sorry I can't quote sources- it may just be shoddy popular journalism. I can think of some influencing factors,for example that where families have a greater chance of producing asthmatic kids, they are less likely to have a dog, as it may trigger asthma in a parent, but if you can spare the time, I'd be interested in your comments.

Thanks :D

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

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

#171 Post by MedMae » September 12th, 2008, 5:00 pm

Nick wrote:I guess the key word here may be "primarily", but I'll ask anyway. I've heard that asthma has increased significantly over the last few generations. If true, this would suggest (to me, at least) that non-genetic factors have a greater influence on whether asthma develops than you seem to imply. Also, I have heard that younger siblings, and families with dogs, are less likely to be asthmatic than normal. Sorry I can't quote sources- it may just be shoddy popular journalism. I can think of some influencing factors,for example that where families have a greater chance of producing asthmatic kids, they are less likely to have a dog, as it may trigger asthma in a parent, but if you can spare the time, I'd be interested in your comments.

Thanks :D
There are a number of theories I shall descride a few. They are all based upon the understanding that asthma is primarily genetic but environmental effects trigger it. It is possible to have all the genes for asthma but nothing ever triggers it.

1) Allergens such as pollen are around in greater quantities due to the intense farming, oil seed rape for example has a bad reputation amongst asthmatics. Also the increas in polution has brought out more asthma.

2) Parents being too protective of their children and thus not allowing them to play int he mud and get exposed to all sorts of icky stuff. This results in a immune system which is less healthy and less developed, which means it is more prone to allergic reactions.

3) It is also possibly due to better diagnosis.

4) Or all of the above and more simutaneously.

If you have any more questions ask them. If you don't ask you don't learn.
Complexity is just simplicity multiplied to a point which exceeds a particular level of comprehension. - Theowarner

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

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

#172 Post by Anna of Arnica » September 13th, 2008, 12:45 am

Dear MedMae,
The common / scientific view is that a virus makes us ill and that the best way to health is to protect against certain virus. Vaccines are safe and effective, and vaccines have eradicated Polio and Small pox. The amount of adverse reactions and occasional death from vaccines do not outweigh the risk to our health compared to contracting certain diseases. Billions of vaccines have been used around the world successfully to save lives...and so on

The majority of people and research hold this view. However, around 10% will question vaccines and miss the MMR and a smaller percentage will refuse vaccines altogether. Apparently some refuse on religious ground, although my experience is that there is a personality / philosophy that will place natural health and immunity above vaccines even before undertaking extensive research, and there is also a large proportion who have experienced adverse reactions from vaccines in their children or themselves and understandably make a different risk assessment.

(In the UK only around 1 in 25 cases to the Vaccine Damage Unit are awarded the £100,000 for 80% disability but 1 in 4 cases are successful in the US, where the payouts are on a vastly different scale.)

I have a clear bias towards Natural Immunity, as I have said before. I am not a biologist, bio chemist, DR or nurse or Complimentary practitioner ,such as a Homeopath or Chiropractor, like several members of Arnica and our Yahoo Group. So I do not give 'advice' (I hope that the website makes our position clear http://www.arnica.org.uk). However, I do include a page about 'Reducing the risks from adverse reactions' which is the closest I come to giving 'advice'. It certainly felt uncomfortable but I had the info checked by Dr Jayne Donegan and Dr Halvorsen, GPs with special vaccine interest, and considering most parents are not even given the drug insert, full informed consent is only fair.

Re Polio - I am reading much more about possible links to DDT rather than a virus GOOGLE Polio and DDT or see http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/56729
and as for Small pox there is SO much written which questions the common view that vaccine is the hero...

"After an intensive four-year effort to vaccinate the entire population between the ages of 2 and 50, the Chief Medical Officer of England announced in May 1871 that 97.5 percent had been vaccinated. In the following year, 1872, England experienced its worst-ever smallpox epidemic, which claimed 44,840 lives. Between 1871 and 1880, during the period of compulsory vaccination, the death rate from smallpox leapt from 28 to 46 per 100,000 population
... About 10 to 15 years ago, some of my colleagues in the United States gave me some very interesting information. They said that smallpox vaccination had been stopped, not because smallpox had been wiped out, but because they were having trouble with the vaccine. They would vaccinate an individual and that individual would give active smallpox to a contact. The whole thing was out of control and they weren't game to use it."

This is probably why Professor Ari Zuckerman, a member of the World Health Organization's advisory panel on viruses has stated, "Immunization against smallpox is more hazardous than the disease itself." IAN SINCLAIR
http://www.naturodoc.com/library/public ... accine.htm

As for Asthma, genetic disposition plays a big part, but some will not fall prey to their inherited traits, and there are many things that we have learned about controlling / reducing Asthma...smoking for example. And I would say that vaccines can be the trigger in susceptible people and so for a life threatening condition avoiding triggers is a consideration (although the evidence conflicts on this one). For a child with Asthma in their family I propose that breast feeding, avoiding carpets and smoke, increasing fresh fruits and vegetables, avoiding perfumes and other toxins, and avoiding or delaying vaccines will decrease their risk of developing asthma. Even some childhood diseases seem to offer some protection - a spokesperson for Asthma UK on their old website stated that "what is needed is a vaccine to replicate childhood disease" - no mention today of this today however!

Sorry to hear that you suffer Asthma, I have a friend who suffers greatly. I hope that the Buteyko breathing will prove useful for you both...this method is being widely used in Australia. I organized a speaker in my home town who had been taking every inhaler going from the age of 6 years with the result that he was increasing his medication annually. He is 30 now but has not had an attack or taken any medication for over 2 years.

The theory is that by only breathing through the nose you regulate the correct amount of O2 and CO2, asthma sufferers often breath through their mouths as they experience blocked nasal passages. The body produces mucous to retain CO2! Hyperventilation can then occur. The second reason to breath in a more shallow way through the nose is to stop the deflation of the lungs and other airways, which results in a panic / chronic situation. This is a lay person's summary but there is lots on the web about this. At the talk was a nutritionist who had first hand knowledge (and no conflict of interests) of chronic asthma sufferers changing their conditions in just one weekend workshop after using this method. He stressed though that known triggers need to be avoided as normal but that the method can greatly improve daily life and reduce attacks. It can be self taught but there are also practitioners. I hope this is of interest.

Regarding Herd immunity in the case of Measles, what I was suggesting that the uptake of the Measles vaccine did not significantly change the trend which was down by 95% before the vaccine was used.

Regarding the way in which the immune system works, of course I am not a biologist and can only speak as a lay person.
However, from several talks attended and books that I have read, and friends who are scientists and in the medical profession, I understood that to raise antibodies is the last line of attack in dealing with disease, as the immune system is a complex interaction which includes the skin, airways, including the tonsils, the gut, and I would add the emotions or state of stress.

As for the water example, to illustrate that every thing in life has risks, I agree that inhaling too much water can be harmful, I believe the experts call it drowning, and if you suffered eczema then prolonged contact may irritate the skin. However, I do not recall any damages being paid out for this product compared to the total tune of $1,804,415,262 by the Vaccine Injury Payout Unit in the US!!! Furthermore, vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued! "The NVICA, a "no-fault" compensation system, was passed in 1986 to shield the pharmaceutical industry from civil litigation due to problems associated with vaccines."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 020AAd5VRN

You say that I have not created a convincing argument against vaccination and that I show major gaps in my knowledge. Nick thinks that your last post was a 'demolition job' and Campbell bets ' that they accept that and go away quietly' regarding the latest research on the MMR....(I am in the 'they' camp).

I admit that am only a mum who has spent 3 years with this as a special interest and feel pretty blasted by the majority.
However, I hope that some of my replies / explanations are graciously received...

Anna

I have been reading passages from the Janine Roberts book which I last mentioned - it really is a must read. Regarding the low credibility status of the authors on the back, please do not let that put you off...I expect it was very difficult to find many to sanction her research, let alone admit they have read it...remember Dr Wakefield? It is relatively quiet out there among the big boys - it is just left up to us to be able to have freedom of speech!

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

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

#173 Post by Alan H » September 13th, 2008, 12:51 am

Anna

I intend to respond more fully to several previous posts, but this caught my eye from your last post but one:
Anna of Arnica wrote:Magda Roberts, in the latest Informed Parent writes "Vaccination is based on Pasteur's germ theory and even this theory was rejected by Pasteur himself at the end of his life...
What Pasteur thought of germ theory is irrelevant to whether or not vaccines are efficacious. Pasteur certainly did contribute to germ theory, but he was not the first.

The author you quoted (Madga Roberts) seems to be disparaging of germ theory, but it may be that's just what I've taken from the short quote. However, the competing theories in Pasteur's day were the four humours (black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood) and Samuel Hahnemann's (the inventor of the quack pseudo science of homoeopathy) miasma theory of disease. The influence of the four humours was simple: those with too much blood were sanguine; those with too much phlegm were phlegmatic; those with too much yellow bile were choleric and those with too much black bile were melancholic. This is the medicine of the Dark Ages and shown to be absolute nonsense by science and was replaced by the pathogenic theory of medicine (germ theory).
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?

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

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

#174 Post by Maria Mac » September 14th, 2008, 2:17 pm

Anna of Arnica wrote:Hi Alan,
You are of course right, just because someone changes their mind at the end of their life it does not mean that their previous theory / belief was incorrect...(Pasteur) I merely found it of interest. Yes Magda Taylor (not Roberts sorry) and others do question the germ theory because it does not adequately present what we see around us. That is that healthy people are less likely to get ill. Challenging the germ theory is not something that I can do well as I am only just beginning to become familiar with the alternative. That is that virus and bacteria are around us all the time and health is due to the state of the host. Of course, this theory puts the emphasis on ourselves taking a responsibility of maintaining a healthy life, rather than the need to 'protect' ourselves artificially against disease, and puts doubt on the theory of how a vaccine works, which of course will be more popular with non-vaccinators!
| quote the above to keep it in this thread but as most of Anna's post was about homeopathy I have split it together with a number of other posts about homeopathy to a new discussion here.

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

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

#175 Post by Lifelinking » September 14th, 2008, 10:05 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
Just thought I would put this up again, as I would rather like to hear the view of those who argue against vaccination in general or MMR in particular regarding this research.




L
"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
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

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

#176 Post by Paolo » September 15th, 2008, 8:30 am

Going back to the original question, I hate to sound either idealistic or uncaring, but I expect I am about to do both.

Freedom of choice should be available to everyone - of course the information to make that choice is essential.

The flip side of that choice may be that people die, but everybody dies eventually and many of the social and environmental problems that we face on this planet are a result of overpopulation. Unfortunately there are only two solutions to overpopulation - 1) people die or 2) people don't get born (great in theory, but there will probably be restriction of freedom of choice for this to happen globally and then you end up with a senescent population that is not self sustaining).

I say give people a choice and let nature take its course - as sad and unpleasant as that may be on the personal level.

Dan
Posts: 298
Joined: November 26th, 2007, 5:05 pm

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

#177 Post by Dan » September 15th, 2008, 1:14 pm

Anna of Arnica wrote: This is probably why Professor Ari Zuckerman, a member of the World Health Organization's advisory panel on viruses has stated, "Immunization against smallpox is more hazardous than the disease itself."
This quote pops up a lot on the web, seems like some of "Anna of Arnica's" text is copied and pasted from other sources.

Of course, Zuckerman's quote should be seen in the context of the almost complete eradication of small pox. I would expect Zuckerman to say something very different if smallpox were still a threat.

Dan

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

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

#178 Post by Anna of Arnica » September 16th, 2008, 12:03 am

Thank you Paolo,
For supporting freedom of choice.
Secondary smoking, however, has been found to bad for people's health and so it is banned in many European countries. And driving while intoxicated is also illegal. So until it is proved that the non vaccinated are a risk to the life of others, (unless anyone knows of a court case where by a parent of measles victim sued his unvaccinated neighbour), horray for freedom of choice.

Hmm, that would be an interesting angle on it all!

Anna

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

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

#179 Post by MedMae » September 16th, 2008, 8:14 am

I do intend to make a reply but it's going to have to wait until I am in a bit less pain.

The Germ theory of disease states that:
Many diseases are caused by microogranisms.

It is also know as the pathogenic theory of medicine.
I do not think that there is any doubt that this theory is correct at least for this planet. Whilst many diseases are not caused by microorganisms (or at least not directly caused by) for example cancer, the majority of diseases are caused by infection with microorganisms. Microorganisms in this case includes protists, bacteria, archaea and viruses.

Feel free to ask questions. (Though it may take a while to reply.)
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...

#180 Post by Maria Mac » September 16th, 2008, 10:40 am

Sorry to hear you're in pain, MedMae. :sad: Wish you better.

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

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

#181 Post by Lifelinking » September 16th, 2008, 7:34 pm

Ditto , hope the pain has subsided or subsides soon Medmae.
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

Post Reply