Mothers Lose Vaccination Fight
Tinkerbell
including the controversial MMR jab - have lost their battle at the Court of
Appeal.
The fathers of the girls, who are not married to the mothers, launched the
legal action after the mothers refused to allow the children to have the
jabs.
The women took the case to the Court of Appeal after Mr Justice Sumner ruled
last month that the girls, aged five and 10, should have the medical
treatment.
Now three appeal judges have again ruled against the mothers, one of whom is
considering taking the case to the House of Lords.
The mothers cannot be named to protect the identities of the children.
In a hearing at the appeal court last week, Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel,
representing the mothers, told the court that Mr Justice Sumner had not
taken sufficient notice of the mothers' wishes and the effect the ruling
would have on the families.
The mothers, the sole carers of their daughters, argued that immunisation
should be voluntary and it was not right to impose it against the wishes of
a caring parent and it would cause them great distress.
The elder girl had asked not to be given the MMR jab but had asked for
meningitis protection.
Some parents fear the MMR vaccine could be linked to autism, even though
doctors and most experts say there is no evidence of a link.
Mr Justice Sumner decided both children should receive the jab because the
benefits outweighed the risks.
Lord Justice Thorpe said the High Court judge`s approach had been "above
criticism".
He said: "What is plain is that ultimately these applications were decided
by applying the paramount consideration of the welfare of the two children
concerned."
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1098644,00.html
This is awful :o( Regardless of what anyone's views are on vaccinations,
imagine the implications of this! As parents we will no longer have the
final say on what we think is best for our children. It will undoubtedly be
used to bring in a mandatory vaccination programme too, if left
unchallenged.
What do you all think about the judgement, and the implications?
--
June
www.he-ed.org.uk
Tim Hobbs
>This is awful :o( Regardless of what anyone's views are on vaccinations,
>imagine the implications of this! As parents we will no longer have the
>final say on what we think is best for our children. It will undoubtedly be
>used to bring in a mandatory vaccination programme too, if left
>unchallenged.
>What do you all think about the judgement, and the implications?
Undoubtedly?
That's a big leap. In this case it seems the fathers believed that
they should be vaccinated and the mothers didn't. It has nothing to
do with Government or health authorities.
So parents still have final say, but in this case the parents
disagreed and couldn't resolve the matter without going to law.
That's very sad, but hardly uncommon. For what it's worth I think the
sole carers should have the final say, just as long as the decision
they make is considered and is not reckless or negligent. But the
judges heard all the details, neither you nor I did. The decision has
been reviewed independently and the same verdict reached.
I personally believe that all children should be vaccinated, but
accept that others will not vaccinate their children. I believe
nobody should smoke, but accept that others will. We can't all have
our own way unfortunately.
Tim Hobbs
Thom
> That's a big leap. In this case it seems the fathers believed that
> they should be vaccinated and the mothers didn't. It has nothing to
> do with Government or health authorities.
Yes, though, interestingly, virtually none of the news reports I've seen
place any prominence on the father's wishes. This does seem to be a
_very_ different case from that taken against the wishes of both
parents. The examples I'm thinking of are emergency blood transfusions,
separation of siamese twins and so forth that have been in the news over
the past few years.
Thom
Tim Hobbs
>Yes, though, interestingly, virtually none of the news reports I've seen
>place any prominence on the father's wishes.
Who does nowadays?
>This does seem to be a
>_very_ different case from that taken against the wishes of both
>parents. The examples I'm thinking of are emergency blood transfusions,
>separation of siamese twins and so forth that have been in the news over
>the past few years.
>
>Thom
It's a difficult one. I agree entirely with the fathers wanting their
children vaccinated. However we can't have High Court judges deciding
where little Johnny goes to school, how he spends his school holidays,
what time he goes to bed etc etc. It seems right that the sole carer
should be able to take those decisions.
On the other hand it must be very difficult for the father to have no
say in crucial decisions in their childs life. For me, not
vaccinating does border on negligence and recklessness so I can
understand why they made such a big deal of it.
It's quite uncomfortable on this 'ere fence....
Tim Hobbs
Chris French
<t...@101ambulance-urine.net> writes
>
>>This is awful :o( Regardless of what anyone's views are on vaccinations,
>>imagine the implications of this! As parents we will no longer have the
>>final say on what we think is best for our children. It will undoubtedly be
>>used to bring in a mandatory vaccination programme too, if left
>>unchallenged.
>>What do you all think about the judgement, and the implications?
>
>Undoubtedly?
>
for this reason.
>That's a big leap. In this case it seems the fathers believed that
>they should be vaccinated and the mothers didn't. It has nothing to
>do with Government or health authorities.
>
Indeed not, though ISTR there have been cases already where the wishes
of the both parents have been over ruled - wasn't there a case regarding
blood transfusions and a child of Mormon parents for one.
>So parents still have final say, but in this case the parents
>disagreed and couldn't resolve the matter without going to law.
>That's very sad, but hardly uncommon.
I agree that is what is really awful about cases such as this - that
they end up in court in the first place.
> For what it's worth I think the
>sole carers should have the final say, just as long as the decision
>they make is considered and is not reckless or negligent. But the
>judges heard all the details, neither you nor I did. The decision has
>been reviewed independently and the same verdict reached.
There seem to me to be 3 aspects to this sort of case.
1. should the courts be involved in this sort of dispute at all? -
sadly I can see no other way of resolving at least some of these kind of
disputes except by resorting to the courts.
2. should there be an assumption that one parent has more right than the
other for their views to be upheld? Maybe. But I don't think it can be
any sort of 'blanket' right .There are all sorts of varying care
arrangements - from one parent being totally absent, to varying levels
of shared care - it's something that needs judging on a case by case
basis.
3. the specific issue that is the cause of the conflict - in this case
the giving of the MMR vaccine.
Assuming that we get to no. 3 then I think this judgement was probably
correct. I expect judges to be making judgements based on good evidence
. The scientific evidence in this situation is very much on the side of
the MMR vaccine being safe.
Most of the press headlines I've seen about this case seem have taken
then 'mothers lose court case' type line. There is an another approach:
'Fathers win vaccination fight'
--
Chris French, UK.
Dad to Elinor (born 2001/02/25)
Elinor's Cloth Nappy pages:
<http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/nappies/index.htm>
Hannis
i think you mean the Jehovah's witness'
Chris French
<han...@bombsrus.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>being a mormon...ummm we don't disbelive in blood transfusions
>
>i think you mean the Jehovah's witness'
>
Jo Ling
>
> 'Fathers win vaccination fight'
> --
Applause!
Tinkerbell
> Undoubtedly?
In my opinion, which is all I can go by, yes. MMR take-up rates are falling,
putting the government under pressure. I can't believe that they won't use
this judgement to their advantage, they seem to take advantage of every
other situation they can.
> That's a big leap. In this case it seems the fathers believed that
> they should be vaccinated and the mothers didn't. It has nothing to
> do with Government or health authorities.
I don't think it's a big leap at all, the judgement sets a precedent that
could be used in this way. This judgement goes beyond the vaccination issue,
let's ignore that for a moment as it just gets people arguing anyway. What's
to stop judges forcing all kinds of issues because they feel it's 'in their
best interests'? It's not illegal not to vaccinated your child in this
country, and yet these children are to be compulsorily vaccinated, against
the wishes of the parents that they live with. At least that's how it stands
now, who knows what will happen when it goes to the European Court of Human
Rights, which I'm sure it will do.
> So parents still have final say, but in this case the parents
> disagreed and couldn't resolve the matter without going to law.
> That's very sad, but hardly uncommon. For what it's worth I think the
> sole carers should have the final say, just as long as the decision
> they make is considered and is not reckless or negligent. But the
> judges heard all the details, neither you nor I did. The decision has
> been reviewed independently and the same verdict reached.
On the contrary, I know quite a lot of the details of the younger child and
mother, as I know them. They split up when she was in her first trimester of
pregnancy. He followed her here from another country, lived off the state
and has never paid a penny in maintenance. He's never lived with the child.
IMO this isn't about the father wanting the child vaccinated, this is about
trying to exert control over their lives :o/ The mother is a midwife, she
made an informed decision...she wasn't just someone that read about the
vaccination risks in the newspapers and let it scare her in to not having
them done.
> I personally believe that all children should be vaccinated, but
> accept that others will not vaccinate their children. I believe
> nobody should smoke, but accept that others will. We can't all have
> our own way unfortunately.
Indeed we can't, but when a judge upholds what I see as bullying by a
controlling personality things have gone wrong somewhere.
Tinkerbell
"Thom" <t.s.b...@lboro.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3F27D3B1...@lboro.ac.uk...
> Yes, though, interestingly, virtually none of the news reports I've seen
> place any prominence on the father's wishes. This does seem to be a
> _very_ different case from that taken against the wishes of both
> parents. The examples I'm thinking of are emergency blood transfusions,
> separation of siamese twins and so forth that have been in the news over
> the past few years.
There was also a case where a father was forced to give his child HIV
treatment I think, against his wishes. I can't remember how long ago that
was though, and whether there was a mother involved.
Tinkerbell
> children vaccinated. However we can't have High Court judges deciding
> where little Johnny goes to school, how he spends his school holidays,
> what time he goes to bed etc etc. It seems right that the sole carer
> should be able to take those decisions.
>
> On the other hand it must be very difficult for the father to have no
> say in crucial decisions in their childs life. For me, not
> vaccinating does border on negligence and recklessness so I can
> understand why they made such a big deal of it.
>
> It's quite uncomfortable on this 'ere fence....
*Hands Tim some Magnesium Sulphate paste, in case he gets splinters in his
bum* ;o)
Tinkerbell
<snipped>
> 3. the specific issue that is the cause of the conflict - in this case
> the giving of the MMR vaccine.
It wasn't just the MMR, the children are totally unvaccinated I think. The
media are mostly only focusing on the MMR aspect though, surprise, surprise.
> Assuming that we get to no. 3 then I think this judgement was probably
> correct. I expect judges to be making judgements based on good evidence
> . The scientific evidence in this situation is very much on the side of
> the MMR vaccine being safe.
>
> Most of the press headlines I've seen about this case seem have taken
> then 'mothers lose court case' type line. There is an another approach:
>
> 'Fathers win vaccination fight'
The fathers had already won the fight I guess, at the original hearing...the
mothers lost the appeal, so they got the headline.
Tony
<t...@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote:
<snip>
>It's a difficult one. I agree entirely with the fathers wanting their
>children vaccinated. However we can't have High Court judges deciding
>where little Johnny goes to school, how he spends his school holidays,
>what time he goes to bed etc etc. It seems right that the sole carer
>should be able to take those decisions.
It may be a rather fine point, but perhaps all such decisions may not
always be well informed decisions, in which case the 'sole carer'
should not perhaps carry the ultimate authority. To illustrate, one
obviously not so well informed mother could be seen on the national
television stating , 'Well, I never 'ad my children done. I never 'ad
vaxinations (sic) an' it never did me any 'arm'.
Just a thought.
T.
--
When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing
those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending
those that do. [William Blake]
Andy Pandy
"Tinkerbell" <bugc...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:105961039...@iris.uk.clara.net...
> > Most of the press headlines I've seen about this case seem have taken
> > then 'mothers lose court case' type line. There is an another approach:
> >
> > 'Fathers win vaccination fight'
>
> The fathers had already won the fight I guess, at the original hearing...the
> mothers lost the appeal, so they got the headline.
ISTR the headlines after the original hearing were "Mothers lose vaccination
fight" rather than 'Fathers win vaccination fight'.
--
Andy
Andy Pandy
> In my opinion, which is all I can go by, yes. MMR take-up rates are falling,
> putting the government under pressure. I can't believe that they won't use
> this judgement to their advantage, they seem to take advantage of every
> other situation they can.
Next they'll be forcing us to wear seatbelts in cars, and helmets when riding
motorbikes.
> > That's a big leap. In this case it seems the fathers believed that
> > they should be vaccinated and the mothers didn't. It has nothing to
> > do with Government or health authorities.
>
> I don't think it's a big leap at all, the judgement sets a precedent that
> could be used in this way. This judgement goes beyond the vaccination issue,
> let's ignore that for a moment as it just gets people arguing anyway. What's
> to stop judges forcing all kinds of issues because they feel it's 'in their
> best interests'? It's not illegal not to vaccinated your child in this
> country, and yet these children are to be compulsorily vaccinated, against
> the wishes of the parents that they live with. At least that's how it stands
> now, who knows what will happen when it goes to the European Court of Human
> Rights, which I'm sure it will do.
I think the ECHR has quite a good record of taking into account both parents'
wishes.
> > So parents still have final say, but in this case the parents
> > disagreed and couldn't resolve the matter without going to law.
> > That's very sad, but hardly uncommon. For what it's worth I think the
> > sole carers should have the final say, just as long as the decision
> > they make is considered and is not reckless or negligent. But the
> > judges heard all the details, neither you nor I did. The decision has
> > been reviewed independently and the same verdict reached.
>
> On the contrary, I know quite a lot of the details of the younger child and
> mother, as I know them.
Do you know the father? Or do you just have one side of the story?
> They split up when she was in her first trimester of
> pregnancy. He followed her here from another country, lived off the state
> and has never paid a penny in maintenance.
So? What if it was the mother living off the state and the father paying
maintenance? Should that mean he gets to make all the important decisions and
her wishes be disregarded?
> He's never lived with the child.
Was it his choice not to live with his child?
> IMO this isn't about the father wanting the child vaccinated, this is about
> trying to exert control over their lives :o/ The mother is a midwife, she
> made an informed decision...she wasn't just someone that read about the
> vaccination risks in the newspapers and let it scare her in to not having
> them done.
How is a midwife more qualified than any ordinary member of the public to assess
the risks associated with MMR?
> > I personally believe that all children should be vaccinated, but
> > accept that others will not vaccinate their children. I believe
> > nobody should smoke, but accept that others will. We can't all have
> > our own way unfortunately.
We can choose not to sit in the same room as smokers though.
> Indeed we can't, but when a judge upholds what I see as bullying by a
> controlling personality things have gone wrong somewhere.
Wanting a say in the upbringing of your own child is bullying??
--
Andy
Chris French
<bugc...@clara.co.uk> writes
>"Chris French" <newsp...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote in message
><snipped>
>> 3. the specific issue that is the cause of the conflict - in this case
>> the giving of the MMR vaccine.
>
>It wasn't just the MMR, the children are totally unvaccinated I think.
sorry yes, I think you are right, a bit of sloppiness on my part.
> The
>media are mostly only focusing on the MMR aspect though, surprise, surprise.
>
Quite.
>> Assuming that we get to no. 3 then I think this judgement was probably
>> correct. I expect judges to be making judgements based on good evidence
>> . The scientific evidence in this situation is very much on the side of
>> the MMR vaccine being safe.
>>
>> Most of the press headlines I've seen about this case seem have taken
>> then 'mothers lose court case' type line. There is an another approach:
>>
>> 'Fathers win vaccination fight'
>
>The fathers had already won the fight I guess, at the original hearing...the
>mothers lost the appeal, so they got the headline.
>
AFAICR, all the headlines have been of this angle from early on in the
case
Jo Ling
Tony <lo...@host.com> wrote in message
news:7pngiv4pbubhv4utq...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:04:20 +0100, Tim Hobbs
> <t...@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >It's a difficult one. I agree entirely with the fathers wanting their
> >children vaccinated. However we can't have High Court judges deciding
> >where little Johnny goes to school, how he spends his school holidays,
> >what time he goes to bed etc etc. It seems right that the sole carer
> >should be able to take those decisions.
>
> It may be a rather fine point, but perhaps all such decisions may not
> always be well informed decisions, in which case the 'sole carer'
> should not perhaps carry the ultimate authority. To illustrate, one
> obviously not so well informed mother could be seen on the national
> television stating , 'Well, I never 'ad my children done. I never 'ad
> vaxinations (sic) an' it never did me any 'arm'.
>
If that's what she said, how do you know she spelt it like that?
And anyway, just because she did not articulate her argument very well does
not "prove" that she is not so well informed.
> Just a thought.
>
Just a thought.
Jo
Tony
wrote:
>
>Tony <lo...@host.com> wrote in message
>news:7pngiv4pbubhv4utq...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:04:20 +0100, Tim Hobbs
>> <t...@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >It's a difficult one. I agree entirely with the fathers wanting their
>> >children vaccinated. However we can't have High Court judges deciding
>> >where little Johnny goes to school, how he spends his school holidays,
>> >what time he goes to bed etc etc. It seems right that the sole carer
>> >should be able to take those decisions.
>>
>> It may be a rather fine point, but perhaps all such decisions may not
>> always be well informed decisions, in which case the 'sole carer'
>> should not perhaps carry the ultimate authority. To illustrate, one
>> obviously not so well informed mother could be seen on the national
>> television stating , 'Well, I never 'ad my children done. I never 'ad
>> vaxinations (sic) an' it never did me any 'arm'.
>>
>
>If that's what she said, how do you know she spelt it like that?
It's not so much 'if that's what she said', but rather, that is what
she stated. Verbatim. As for the spelling, well, I just thought I
would do her a favour and tidy up her pronunciation a little.
>And anyway, just because she did not articulate her argument very well does
>not "prove" that she is not so well informed.
Prove? You quote that as is you quote me. I was not attempting to
prove anything whatsoever, but rather to illustrate that a PWC may not
always know best. Invariably they dont, or at least, they appear not
to :)
To respond to your point about the articulation of her argument... I
think you failed to spot one very importnat point. She presented no
argument whatsoever, merely a statement reflecting that infers what's
good for her is obviously good for her child. Informed that most
assuredly is not!
>> Just a thought.
>>
>
>Just a thought.
Just another thought.
>Jo
Hannis
Hannis
children should have
them because this is a dangerous world...
i accept that my views aren't agreed upon by everyone else...so be it...
i rather think it's nifty that the views of the fathers are taken into
account for a change.
it seems that no matter how better off theyd be...the courts still rule in
favor
of the mothers constantly.
if the mothers decide to deny visitation rights...well, the fathers still
have to pay
maintainance...even though they get no say what so ever in anything about
the child
most, aren't even allowed to give things like birthday cards.
a very good friend of our family, is in this plight. He is expected to pay
his £110 each month
but may or may not...be allowed to speak to his 5 year old daughter on the
phone.
so in this respect, i think...hurrah for the dads!...
Andy J
vaccinate don't criticise vaccinators for jabbing their kids full of toxic
and dangerous chemicals which undoubtedly DO cause many adverse reactions in
many people.
Most non-vaccinators do not refuse jabs purely out of fear, but most
vaccinators DO jab their kids out of fear of them getting the supposedly
"killer" diseases. IMHO non-vaxxers have taken a decision based on much
research, sole searching and effort. Information about the ill-effects of
vaccination is hard to find, especially if you do not have internet access,
but the alleged benefits are thrust upon us daily.
I have worked for many years in this area and have met many families of
children that have suffered reactions from the vaccines they received. I
myself have 4 unvaccinated and very healthy children. Non of them have any
allegies, chronic ailments and they hardly ever get ill. We have not been
to the doctor with any of them for years apart from Emergency Department
visits for accidents that have occurred. What's more we don't use more
chemicals to try and make them better when they are ill, we support them
through natural remedies and diet.
Diet is the key issue in modern society. We continually stuff junk down
our chidlrens thoats in the form of Coke and other fizzy drinks, or
squash-type drinks that are either chemically made of full of suger. Suger
or chemical sweetners seriously harm children's health by suppressing their
immune system. Children continually eat sweets, chocolate, crisps and other
non-nutritional junk. Food made to appeal to children is laiden with salt
and other immune system-damaging ingredients.
It seems as parents many are ready to subsume their responsibility to
doctors, teachers and any other available person rather than take it on
themselves. Trust in doctors is a falsehood, they are a product of their
training, they will tell you what they have been trained to say. Doctors
who break from this path get ridiculed like the parents who do not
vaccinate, they lose their jobs and get hounded out of the country.
I find it amazing that people readily accept that problems can and do occur
with every other over-the-counter or prescription medicine but vaccines are
put on a false pedestal and are declared safe and effective, with no
possibility of undesired problems resulting.
No-one really knows the medium or long term effects of mass vaccination, no
research has ever been done. Likewise we do not know whether vaccines can
cause cancer or infertility or numerous other problems because again no
research has been done. I for one will not accept this for my children. It
is upto to the distributors (the governement and doctors) and manufacturers
to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there are definately no issues to
be concerned about in this area.
Freedom of choice in the mater is paramount. The main carer should have
the last say when parents are split. This is not about whether the fathers
finally won something and the mothers lost, it is about the RIGHT to
express the freedom of thought and opinion in a democratic country. The
right of the parent to decide what is best for their child. No judge can
say he has the child's best interest at heart in such a case, he does not
know the child or the family, he is making a decision based on information
that supports the current system, anything else, no matter how credible, is
considered junk science! This is very worrying for everyone and we should
all be concerned about the wider implications.
Regards
Tim Hobbs
>Are we not missing something in this discussion? People who do not
>vaccinate don't criticise vaccinators for jabbing their kids full of toxic
>and dangerous chemicals which undoubtedly DO cause many adverse reactions in
>many people.
You have just disproved your own point, by doing exactly what you say
you don't.
>
>Most non-vaccinators do not refuse jabs purely out of fear, but most
>vaccinators DO jab their kids out of fear of them getting the supposedly
>"killer" diseases. IMHO non-vaxxers have taken a decision based on much
>research, sole searching and effort. Information about the ill-effects of
>vaccination is hard to find, especially if you do not have internet access,
>but the alleged benefits are thrust upon us daily.
>
Yes, we are vaccinating because we are afraid our daughter, or the
people she comes into contact with, could be very badly affected by
polio etc etc. And how is meningitis, for example, 'supposedly' a
killer disease?
>I have worked for many years in this area and have met many families of
>children that have suffered reactions from the vaccines they received. I
>myself have 4 unvaccinated and very healthy children. Non of them have any
>allegies, chronic ailments and they hardly ever get ill. We have not been
>to the doctor with any of them for years apart from Emergency Department
>visits for accidents that have occurred. What's more we don't use more
>chemicals to try and make them better when they are ill, we support them
>through natural remedies and diet.
>
I'm genuinely pleased about that. The chances of it would, IMHO, be
much reduced if everyone else around you was also unvaccinated.
>Diet is the key issue in modern society. We continually stuff junk down
>our chidlrens thoats in the form of Coke and other fizzy drinks, or
>squash-type drinks that are either chemically made of full of suger. Suger
>or chemical sweetners seriously harm children's health by suppressing their
>immune system. Children continually eat sweets, chocolate, crisps and other
>non-nutritional junk. Food made to appeal to children is laiden with salt
>and other immune system-damaging ingredients.
>
I agree entirely (although I must admit at this point to having just
eaten a plate of bacon, sausages and eggs).
>It seems as parents many are ready to subsume their responsibility to
>doctors, teachers and any other available person rather than take it on
>themselves. Trust in doctors is a falsehood, they are a product of their
>training, they will tell you what they have been trained to say. Doctors
>who break from this path get ridiculed like the parents who do not
>vaccinate, they lose their jobs and get hounded out of the country.
>
There are good doctors and bad doctors, and I agree that blind belief
is hardly 'responsible parenting', but for many (most?) people they
are a very good source of information and advice. Not the only
source, and not infallible, but better on the whole than the woman in
the post office, Trevor MacDonald or the Daily Mail.
>I find it amazing that people readily accept that problems can and do occur
>with every other over-the-counter or prescription medicine but vaccines are
>put on a false pedestal and are declared safe and effective, with no
>possibility of undesired problems resulting.
>
>No-one really knows the medium or long term effects of mass vaccination, no
>research has ever been done. Likewise we do not know whether vaccines can
>cause cancer or infertility or numerous other problems because again no
>research has been done. I for one will not accept this for my children. It
>is upto to the distributors (the governement and doctors) and manufacturers
>to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there are definately no issues to
>be concerned about in this area.
>
Well we do know that they massively reduce incidence of the
'supposedly' killer diseases. It is a balance of risk. It is,
however, important to remember that it is not only your own children
who are affected by your decisions.
>Freedom of choice in the mater is paramount. The main carer should have
>the last say when parents are split. This is not about whether the fathers
>finally won something and the mothers lost, it is about the RIGHT to
>express the freedom of thought and opinion in a democratic country. The
>right of the parent to decide what is best for their child.
'The' parent? These children had two, and I think both have an
equally valid point of view. At the end of the day there is no
'middle ground' in this argument - you can't 'half vaccinate' or
compromise. So a decision had to be made, and the parents were not
able to agree. I think the judge made the only decision a judge could
make, as evidenced by the Court of Appeal decision.
A judge is bound to make an objective decision based on 'facts' as
they are accepted by the majority at the time. The weight of medical
opinion is that vaccinating is important to a childs welfare (rightly
or wrongly). A judge can hardly go against that, or the Court of
Appeal would probably overrule him.
Just a pity that the case had to go to court at all.
>No judge can
>say he has the child's best interest at heart in such a case, he does not
>know the child or the family, he is making a decision based on information
>that supports the current system, anything else, no matter how credible, is
>considered junk science! This is very worrying for everyone and we should
>all be concerned about the wider implications.
>
I don't think 'knowing the child or family' has much context here.
Vaccination is not really better or worse for certain families over
others. Legal decisions will always follow 'accepted wisdom' and it
cannot really be any other way. There are people out there who
believe the world is flat, but you cannot expect a judge to accept it,
no matter how convincingly they argue. Whilst the case against
vaccination is far more credible than 'flat earthing' it is still very
much a minority view, and grossly overstated by the various media who
are so desparate for a medical scare to follow on from salmonella in
eggs, BSE and Foot and Mouth.
>Regards
>
>AJ
>http://www.vaccine-info.com
>
Tim Hobbs
Jo Ling
Andy J <an...@andyj.org> wrote in message
news:diNWa.52197$9C6.3...@wards.force9.net...
> Are we not missing something in this discussion? People who do not
> vaccinate don't criticise vaccinators for jabbing their kids full of toxic
> and dangerous chemicals which undoubtedly DO cause many adverse reactions
in
> many people.
>
> Most non-vaccinators do not refuse jabs purely out of fear, but most
> vaccinators DO jab their kids out of fear of them getting the supposedly
> "killer" diseases. IMHO non-vaxxers have taken a decision based on much
> research, sole searching and effort. Information about the ill-effects of
> vaccination is hard to find, especially if you do not have internet
access,
> but the alleged benefits are thrust upon us daily.
>
"non-vaccinators" usually also do it out of fear - if not that, then what?
> I have worked for many years in this area and have met many families of
> children that have suffered reactions from the vaccines they received. I
> myself have 4 unvaccinated and very healthy children. Non of them have
any
> allegies, chronic ailments and they hardly ever get ill. We have not been
> to the doctor with any of them for years apart from Emergency Department
> visits for accidents that have occurred. What's more we don't use more
> chemicals to try and make them better when they are ill, we support them
> through natural remedies and diet.
You are very lucky. Lucky that most children around them have been
vaccinated.
>
> Diet is the key issue in modern society. We continually stuff junk down
> our chidlrens thoats in the form of Coke and other fizzy drinks, or
> squash-type drinks that are either chemically made of full of suger.
Suger
> or chemical sweetners seriously harm children's health by suppressing
their
> immune system. Children continually eat sweets, chocolate, crisps and
other
> non-nutritional junk. Food made to appeal to children is laiden with salt
> and other immune system-damaging ingredients.
Diet won't stop you catching whooping cough.
>
> It seems as parents many are ready to subsume their responsibility to
> doctors, teachers and any other available person rather than take it on
> themselves. Trust in doctors is a falsehood, they are a product of their
> training, they will tell you what they have been trained to say. Doctors
> who break from this path get ridiculed like the parents who do not
> vaccinate, they lose their jobs and get hounded out of the country.
>
Like who?
> I find it amazing that people readily accept that problems can and do
occur
> with every other over-the-counter or prescription medicine but vaccines
are
> put on a false pedestal and are declared safe and effective, with no
> possibility of undesired problems resulting.
>
> No-one really knows the medium or long term effects of mass vaccination,
no
> research has ever been done.
OK, so all the studies that followed the "MMR/Autism Link" study did not
occur?
> Likewise we do not know whether vaccines can
> cause cancer or infertility or numerous other problems because again no
> research has been done. I for one will not accept this for my children.
It
> is upto to the distributors (the governement and doctors) and
manufacturers
> to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there are definately no issues
to
> be concerned about in this area.
We also do not know if the Loch Ness Monster exists, or if there is life on
Mars. But what we do know is that a lot of killer (not just "so-called
killer") diseases have been all but eradicated by mass vaccination.
>
> Freedom of choice in the mater is paramount.
Freudian slip? What about the pater?
> The main carer should have
> the last say when parents are split.
OK, so if Mum says vaccinate but Dad says not, do you side with Mum then?
>This is not about whether the fathers
> finally won something and the mothers lost, it is about the RIGHT to
> express the freedom of thought and opinion in a democratic country.
Which they were able to do.
> The
> right of the parent to decide what is best for their child.
But what if the parentS disagree?
>No judge can
> say he has the child's best interest at heart in such a case
But in this case a judge was asked to decide.
> he does not
> know the child or the family, he is making a decision based on information
> that supports the current system anything else, no matter how credible,
is
> considered junk science!
Ah. One flawed study vs many others that have not been able to prove a
link. Junk science, huh?
> This is very worrying for everyone and we should
> all be concerned about the wider implications.
>
Indeed I am concerned. Concerned that fewer and fewer vaccinations will
take place, and we will then ALL be at risk.
> Regards
>
> AJ
> http://www.vaccine-info.com
>
>
Jonathan Larmour
>Are we not missing something in this discussion? People who do not
>vaccinate don't criticise vaccinators for jabbing their kids full of toxic
>and dangerous chemicals which undoubtedly DO cause many adverse reactions in
>many people.
You just did.
>Most non-vaccinators do not refuse jabs purely out of fear, but most
>vaccinators DO jab their kids out of fear of them getting the supposedly
>"killer" diseases. IMHO non-vaxxers have taken a decision based on much
>research, sole searching
Isn't looking at your feet a sign of embarassment?
>I have worked for many years in this area and have met many families of
>children that have suffered reactions from the vaccines they received. I
>myself have 4 unvaccinated and very healthy children. Non of them have any
>allegies, chronic ailments and they hardly ever get ill.
Thanks in no small part to their friends and classmates being vaccinated.
>We have not been
>to the doctor with any of them for years apart from Emergency Department
>visits for accidents that have occurred. What's more we don't use more
>chemicals to try and make them better when they are ill, we support them
>through natural remedies and diet.
Uh huh. So not only do you not treat your kids' headaches with readily
availebl painkillers (presumably if you are consistent), you presumably
also risk spreading infectious diseases to their friends more because their
illness is not properly treated. That's *selfish*.
What's more, what would you say to a pregnant woman who contracted rubella
from one of your kids? Think about it.
>Diet is the key issue in modern society. We continually stuff junk down
>our chidlrens thoats in the form of Coke and other fizzy drinks, or
>squash-type drinks that are either chemically made of full of suger. Suger
>or chemical sweetners seriously harm children's health by suppressing their
>immune system. Children continually eat sweets, chocolate, crisps and other
>non-nutritional junk. Food made to appeal to children is laiden with salt
>and other immune system-damaging ingredients.
Obviously we should ban salt then. And especially that evil ingredient
found in many foodstuffs, dihydrogen monoxide!
It's true that poor diet is bad for you, but the relationship to the
immune system specifically is less clear unless the children are
nutrionally deficient (and just because they eat junk, doesn't mean they
don't get their RDA of vits.... even (yucky) Sunny D is fortified with
vits).
>It seems as parents many are ready to subsume their responsibility to
>doctors, teachers and any other available person rather than take it on
>themselves. Trust in doctors is a falsehood, they are a product of their
>training, they will tell you what they have been trained to say. Doctors
>who break from this path get ridiculed like the parents who do not
>vaccinate, they lose their jobs and get hounded out of the country.
They have been trained in science and scientific research has shown the
benefits of vaccination in eliminating serious diseases. There may be
anxieties about particular vaccinations like MMR vs. autism, or other
vaccinations containing Mercury, but the principle is sound. With mass
vaccination in particular whole diseases can be entirely eliminated, e.g.
smallpox.
>I find it amazing that people readily accept that problems can and do occur
>with every other over-the-counter or prescription medicine but vaccines are
>put on a false pedestal and are declared safe and effective, with no
>possibility of undesired problems resulting.
No, it's a value judgement, and the value is clearly shown to be towards
vaccination. It's known that some people _do_ have reactions to
vaccinations. They're not and never will be perfect. The benefits outweigh
the risks though.
>No-one really knows the medium or long term effects of mass vaccination, no
>research has ever been done. Likewise we do not know whether vaccines can
>cause cancer or infertility or numerous other problems because again no
>research has been done.
Well it can be difficult because in those countries without vaccination
programmes, people tend to not live long enough for comparative statistics
to be meanginful.
> I for one will not accept this for my children. It
>is upto to the distributors (the governement and doctors) and manufacturers
>to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there are definately no issues to
>be concerned about in this area.
"definitely no"? How smallminded. If you said that the benefits to everybody
(not just your kids) outweighed the risks then that would be fair. What you
write isn't.
>Freedom of choice in the mater is paramount. The main carer should have
>the last say when parents are split.
What about someone who cares for the kid 3 days a week? 4 days? once a
fortnight? Do you assume that because court has awarded primary custody to
one parent rather than the other, that the other parent loves the child
any less? There are heartbreaking cases of quite the opposite where the
kids are torn from the more loving parent. Obviously I don't know what
the situation in this particular case, but we're arguing a matter of
principle here.
> No judge can
>say he has the child's best interest at heart in such a case, he does not
>know the child or the family, he is making a decision based on information
>that supports the current system, anything else, no matter how credible, is
>considered junk science! This is very worrying for everyone and we should
>all be concerned about the wider implications.
I do see one issue with the judge's verdict, from a wider perspective.
It's not uncommon for there to be judgements about *in*action on a person,
but people should be worried more about judgements requiring action
against a person without consent. You can't administer a lethal
injection (unless your name is Shipman) but you can stop feeding a
patient. You can't forcefeed a competent person suffering anorexia, but
you can feed someone who is not compos mentis. The decision should not
have been "is it better to vaccinate or not vaccinate" as much as
"is there a *need* to vaccinate". The answer may well still have been in
the affirmative though.
>AJ
>http://www.vaccine-info.com
If that's your site, I guess your mind is already made up. Feel free to
follow up with your predictable response. The site goes on about the
right to make an informed choice, but it's very clear what side it is
pushing.
Jifl
--
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine
Tinkerbell
news:hc1uv-
> You just did.
Not surprising really when we retaliate with words occasionally. Anti-vaxers
tend to be pro-choice, even if they don't believe that vaxing is safe and
therefore don't do it themselves. Quite a lot of vaxers I've come across
have tried to bully me in to vaxing, ridiculed me, or been downright rude.
> Isn't looking at your feet a sign of embarassment?
A spell flame...very lame. How do you know that Andy isn't dyslexic? And if
he isn't, so what?!
> Thanks in no small part to their friends and classmates being vaccinated.
So you're saying that Andy's children are free from allergies because their
friends are vaccinated? Hmmm.
And chronic ailments too? Double hmmm. The most likely thing to be caught
amongst children would probably be the common cold I would think, and they
don't vaccinate against that. Impetigo has done the rounds locally, they
don't vaccinate against that either. Chickenpox is another, but they're
moving in on that one with a vaccine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt
though and presume what you really meant were things like measles, mumps,
rubella etc. All of which are still caught and passed around by children who
have been vaccinated.
> Uh huh. So not only do you not treat your kids' headaches with readily
> availebl painkillers (presumably if you are consistent), you presumably
> also risk spreading infectious diseases to their friends more because
their
> illness is not properly treated. That's *selfish*.
Not giving children painkillers is selfish? Why? Pain is there for a reason,
to tell us that our body needs something, or is being hurt by something.
It's far better to try and treat the cause than mask the symptoms, and far
less dangerous too. Calpol etc is reached for far too often, it should be
used as a last resort.
> What's more, what would you say to a pregnant woman who contracted rubella
> from one of your kids? Think about it.
Probably the same as someone who's vaccinated child still caught rubella and
then passed it on to a pregnant woman.
> Obviously we should ban salt then.
Now this shows you're being defensive and a bit silly. I'm sure everyone
knows that reducing the salt in our diets is beneficial to our health.
>And especially that evil ingredient
> found in many foodstuffs, dihydrogen monoxide!
*sigh*
> It's true that poor diet is bad for you, but the relationship to the
> immune system specifically is less clear unless the children are
> nutrionally deficient (and just because they eat junk, doesn't mean they
> don't get their RDA of vits.... even (yucky) Sunny D is fortified with
> vits).
And aspartame *shudder*
> They have been trained in science and scientific research has shown the
> benefits of vaccination in eliminating serious diseases. There may be
> anxieties about particular vaccinations like MMR vs. autism, or other
> vaccinations containing Mercury, but the principle is sound. With mass
> vaccination in particular whole diseases can be entirely eliminated, e.g.
> smallpox.
And who pays for that research that tells us that vaccination is beneficial?
Most likely the people selling us the vaccines, or at least people with a
vested interest in these companies. It's big business.
> No, it's a value judgement, and the value is clearly shown to be towards
> vaccination. It's known that some people _do_ have reactions to
> vaccinations. They're not and never will be perfect. The benefits outweigh
> the risks though.
Not in everyone's opinion though.
> Well it can be difficult because in those countries without vaccination
> programmes, people tend to not live long enough for comparative statistics
> to be meanginful.
That's more down to a lack of hygiene caused by poor quality water, or lack
of water. With access to clean water (so please don't ban it) they would
improve the standard of cleanliness (probably to a higher standard than our
MRSA-riddled hospitals here) and avoid a lot of diseases. They could also
grow stronger crops and improve their health with nutritious food. Look at
the cause (lack of clean water), not the symptom (disease caused by the
aforementioned).
> "definitely no"? How smallminded. If you said that the benefits to
everybody
> (not just your kids) outweighed the risks then that would be fair. What
you
> write isn't.
Your opinion only.
> What about someone who cares for the kid 3 days a week? 4 days? once a
> fortnight? Do you assume that because court has awarded primary custody to
> one parent rather than the other, that the other parent loves the child
> any less? There are heartbreaking cases of quite the opposite where the
> kids are torn from the more loving parent. Obviously I don't know what
> the situation in this particular case, but we're arguing a matter of
> principle here.
The main carer would surely be the one on whom the pressure of having a
seriously ill child would fall if the vaccine had an adverse reaction on
them?
> I do see one issue with the judge's verdict, from a wider perspective.
> It's not uncommon for there to be judgements about *in*action on a person,
> but people should be worried more about judgements requiring action
> against a person without consent. You can't administer a lethal
> injection (unless your name is Shipman) but you can stop feeding a
> patient. You can't forcefeed a competent person suffering anorexia, but
> you can feed someone who is not compos mentis. The decision should not
> have been "is it better to vaccinate or not vaccinate" as much as
> "is there a *need* to vaccinate". The answer may well still have been in
> the affirmative though.
>
> >AJ
> >http://www.vaccine-info.com
>
> If that's your site, I guess your mind is already made up. Feel free to
> follow up with your predictable response. The site goes on about the
> right to make an informed choice, but it's very clear what side it is
> pushing.
As it's Andy's site I think it would be fair enough that it reflected his
opinion, don't you? As far as I'm aware we're still allowed to have an
opinion in this country, even if it doesn't conform with the norm.
--
June
www.he-ed.org.uk
Jonathan Larmour
>"Jonathan Larmour" <jifl...@jifvik.org.removethis.invalid> wrote in message
>news:hc1uv-
>> You just did.
>
>Not surprising really when we retaliate with words occasionally. Anti-vaxers
>tend to be pro-choice, even if they don't believe that vaxing is safe and
>therefore don't do it themselves. Quite a lot of vaxers I've come across
>have tried to bully me in to vaxing, ridiculed me, or been downright rude.
I have no intention of bullying, ridiculing or being rude to someone who
is pro-choice... your arguments about vaccination have generally been
thoughtful and informative. But Andy was talking in absolutist and
emotive terms ("toxic and dangerous chemicals"?). And here I was just
pointing out a little hypocrisy on his part.
>> Isn't looking at your feet a sign of embarassment?
>
>A spell flame...very lame. How do you know that Andy isn't dyslexic? And if
>he isn't, so what?!
Sigh... smiley for the humour-impaired --> :-). I would have written
something very different if it was a spelling flame. And Andy clearly
isn't dyslexic from his articulation elsewhere.
>> Thanks in no small part to their friends and classmates being vaccinated.
>
>So you're saying that Andy's children are free from allergies because their
>friends are vaccinated? Hmmm.
Because their friends are vaccinated, they have the best of both worlds
- reduced risk of contracting a disease _and_ a potential (see below)
reduced risk of an allergy.
Besides, the link between vaccinations and allergies is far from proven.
The increase in allergy incidence is quite a recent phenomenon, but
vaccinations have been going on for over 200 years. Cleanliness and
sterility of the home environment is likely to be much more of a factor.
>And chronic ailments too? Double hmmm. The most likely thing to be caught
>amongst children would probably be the common cold I would think, and they
>don't vaccinate against that. Impetigo has done the rounds locally, they
>don't vaccinate against that either. Chickenpox is another, but they're
>moving in on that one with a vaccine.
I believe that's due to the more serious consequences of adult shingles
and chickenpox, not the much milder effect on children (over three quarters
of deaths from this virus are in adults). Certainly there are diminishing
returns and it may be pointless expense, if nothing else, in vaccinating
for low risk diseases.
>I'll give you the benefit of the doubt
>though and presume what you really meant were things like measles, mumps,
>rubella etc. All of which are still caught and passed around by children who
>have been vaccinated.
Only when the vaccines failed, or when aided by increasing numbers of
unvaccinated children. That's what the recent rise of incidences of those
diseases has been put down to after all.
>> Uh huh. So not only do you not treat your kids' headaches with readily
>> availebl painkillers (presumably if you are consistent), you presumably
>> also risk spreading infectious diseases to their friends more because
>their
>> illness is not properly treated. That's *selfish*.
>
>Not giving children painkillers is selfish? Why? Pain is there for a reason,
>to tell us that our body needs something, or is being hurt by something.
>It's far better to try and treat the cause than mask the symptoms, and far
>less dangerous too. Calpol etc is reached for far too often, it should be
>used as a last resort.
I agree entirely. That's not what Andy said though. My wife sometimes goes
on at me to take a painkiller for a headache and I try not to. But sometimes
I cave in because it's just too bad, and the same could well be true for
Andy's children. I don't try and resolve it through diet (assuming I haven't
been eating/drinking anything too wacky like too much caffeine of course).
Sometimes taking a paracetomol to lower one's temperature is exactly the
right thing to do. Sometimes taking an anti-inflammatory is exactly the
right thing to do for joint problems as swollen inflamed joints just get
inflamed more due to the swelling and you need something to break the cycle.
Taking antibiotics (grown from mould so that's natural innit ;-)) reduces
the chances of infecting others, although only if correctly administered
(not overprescribed and always finish the course).
He seems to have an aversion to _anything_ non-natural. It's that absolutist
approach he's taking that irks me.
>> What's more, what would you say to a pregnant woman who contracted rubella
>> from one of your kids? Think about it.
>
>Probably the same as someone who's vaccinated child still caught rubella and
>then passed it on to a pregnant woman.
But to all intents and purposes that doesn't happen unless the vaccine fails
in a few individual cases. Surely you're not trying to deny that the
incidence of these diseases has plummeted since vaccination started?
>> Obviously we should ban salt then.
>
>Now this shows you're being defensive and a bit silly. I'm sure everyone
>knows that reducing the salt in our diets is beneficial to our health.
Maybe. I've had heat stroke due to lack of salt before. There's a right
level, as with most things, you should not have too much _or_ too little.
But having salt in your diet does _not_ damage the immune system per se;
in fact too much salt would cause other problems well before it would
damage the immune system, so it seems Andy is just spreading FUD.
>>And especially that evil ingredient
>> found in many foodstuffs, dihydrogen monoxide!
>
>*sigh*
>
>> It's true that poor diet is bad for you, but the relationship to the
>> immune system specifically is less clear unless the children are
>> nutrionally deficient (and just because they eat junk, doesn't mean they
>> don't get their RDA of vits.... even (yucky) Sunny D is fortified with
>> vits).
>
>And aspartame *shudder*
Well, quite. I hope my kid never drinks the stuff (although I won't pump
his stomach if it does). But Andy was suggesting a concrete link to the
immune system of consuming such things. My point is that your immune
system can weaken without certain vitamins and other nutritional dietary
elements, and if you solely eat certain junk food you'll never get those
benefits. But that's not univerally true because you can get those things
from other things you eat. Just like it would be wrong to eat just
carrots because you don't get enough important minerals.
You have to consider someone's diet as a whole, and someone who ate a
healthy balanced diet in every respect other than drinking Sunny D would,
IMHO, not suddenly get a suppressed immune system.
>> They have been trained in science and scientific research has shown the
>> benefits of vaccination in eliminating serious diseases. There may be
>> anxieties about particular vaccinations like MMR vs. autism, or other
>> vaccinations containing Mercury, but the principle is sound. With mass
>> vaccination in particular whole diseases can be entirely eliminated, e.g.
>> smallpox.
>
>And who pays for that research that tells us that vaccination is beneficial?
>Most likely the people selling us the vaccines, or at least people with a
>vested interest in these companies. It's big business.
Vaccination has been going on for over 200 years. And it undoubtedly does
eliminate the diseases it's intended to fight. Yes big business will often
come up with expensive new treatments, but they don't make the decisions.
The government would have to pay for it if nothing else!
Take the newly extended Meningitis C programme - before that, there were
<fx:googles) an estimated 1530 cases a year with 150 deaths (and as you'll
know Men.C can cause brain damage, disablement and the need for amputation
in the survivors). After vaccination started to be introduced, in 2001
there were 79 confirmed cases and 3 deaths.
Does that sound like the overbearing effect of big business just out for
profit?
>> No, it's a value judgement, and the value is clearly shown to be towards
>> vaccination. It's known that some people _do_ have reactions to
>> vaccinations. They're not and never will be perfect. The benefits outweigh
>> the risks though.
>
>Not in everyone's opinion though.
On a personal scale that's true: the benefits *to me* may not outweigh
some people's perception of the risks.
>> Well it can be difficult because in those countries without vaccination
>> programmes, people tend to not live long enough for comparative statistics
>> to be meanginful.
>
>That's more down to a lack of hygiene caused by poor quality water, or lack
>of water.
True for cholera or typhoid, neither of which I believe have vaccinations,
there being little point for something that can be treated more easily in
different ways.
Smallpox is not water borne for example, nor AFAIK measles or most of the
other diseases vaccinated against. Polio is, admittedly. Clean water is
only part of the solution.
>> "definitely no"? How smallminded. If you said that the benefits to
>everybody
>> (not just your kids) outweighed the risks then that would be fair. What
>you
>> write isn't.
>
>Your opinion only.
You think routine vaccination should be stopped worldwide in all cases?
>> What about someone who cares for the kid 3 days a week? 4 days? once a
>> fortnight? Do you assume that because court has awarded primary custody to
>> one parent rather than the other, that the other parent loves the child
>> any less? There are heartbreaking cases of quite the opposite where the
>> kids are torn from the more loving parent. Obviously I don't know what
>> the situation in this particular case, but we're arguing a matter of
>> principle here.
>
>The main carer would surely be the one on whom the pressure of having a
>seriously ill child would fall if the vaccine had an adverse reaction on
>them?
Do you know how improbable that is? And besides, one could say the NHS
is. Hmm... if a doctor called daily to check progress would that suddenly
assuage your concern.
>> >AJ
>> >http://www.vaccine-info.com
>>
>> If that's your site, I guess your mind is already made up. Feel free to
>> follow up with your predictable response. The site goes on about the
>> right to make an informed choice, but it's very clear what side it is
>> pushing.
>
>As it's Andy's site I think it would be fair enough that it reflected his
>opinion, don't you? As far as I'm aware we're still allowed to have an
>opinion in this country, even if it doesn't conform with the norm.
Of course. And so am I ;-P. His site purports to be something it is not
though. If it were truly pro-choice it would be more even-handed.
Besides, he argues for freedom of choice as if it is something he is
being denied. Even when the government had the recent motivation to do
so with MMR, it didn't even (AFAIK) suggest making vaccinations
compulsory; and I doubt it or any future one ever would. I would disagree
too, even though I'm a mere vaxer.
Tinkerbell
> I have no intention of bullying, ridiculing or being rude to someone who
> is pro-choice... your arguments about vaccination have generally been
> thoughtful and informative. But Andy was talking in absolutist and
> emotive terms ("toxic and dangerous chemicals"?). And here I was just
> pointing out a little hypocrisy on his part.
I think you really need to take in to account how much crap anti-vaxers take
in general, if we become a little defensive or even absolutist sometimes
it's surely understandable. The world and their dogs think they can have a
pop at us, just because we give our opinion. It really does get tiresome
defending your stance after a time :o/ It's like *you* could join a thread
and say yes, I think vaccinations are great, my kids have had them all -
you'll either be ignored, or more likely someone else will post saying that
they agree with you (and probably throw in a comment about how awful
anti-vaxers are for good measure). I, or Andy, could say that we disagree
and don't vax out children anymore...and the onslaught would start. It gets
boring, and even upsetting sometimes.
> Sigh... smiley for the humour-impaired --> :-). I would have written
> something very different if it was a spelling flame. And Andy clearly
> isn't dyslexic from his articulation elsewhere.
See how that defensive thing works? I took it as a mild flame...but then it
*was* a mild insult.
> Because their friends are vaccinated, they have the best of both worlds
> - reduced risk of contracting a disease _and_ a potential (see below)
> reduced risk of an allergy.
With things like measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox etc I actively try
and get my children infected. It's far better to get these childhood
diseases out of the way with, and get true immunity.
> Besides, the link between vaccinations and allergies is far from proven.
> The increase in allergy incidence is quite a recent phenomenon, but
> vaccinations have been going on for over 200 years. Cleanliness and
> sterility of the home environment is likely to be much more of a factor.
I agree the home is now too sterile, if anything needs banning it's all
these antibacterial sprays. I don't use them, in fact I don't use many
pre-prepared household cleaners.
> I believe that's due to the more serious consequences of adult shingles
> and chickenpox, not the much milder effect on children (over three
quarters
> of deaths from this virus are in adults). Certainly there are diminishing
> returns and it may be pointless expense, if nothing else, in vaccinating
> for low risk diseases.
If it's all for shingles then they should vaccinate the adults, not the
children.
> Only when the vaccines failed, or when aided by increasing numbers of
> unvaccinated children. That's what the recent rise of incidences of those
> diseases has been put down to after all.
If the vaccines are failing then what's the point in them?
> I agree entirely. That's not what Andy said though. My wife sometimes goes
> on at me to take a painkiller for a headache and I try not to. But
sometimes
> I cave in because it's just too bad, and the same could well be true for
> Andy's children. I don't try and resolve it through diet (assuming I
haven't
> been eating/drinking anything too wacky like too much caffeine of course).
I can honestly say that 9 out of 10 headaches in my family have been cured
with a simple glass of water, and 10 minutes rest.
> Sometimes taking a paracetomol to lower one's temperature is exactly the
> right thing to do.
Ahh, see...I disagree. I try and trust our bodies, we're designed to be able
to fight infections after all. A high temperature is just the body trying to
kill the virus with heat. I'm not saying that sometimes I don't panic and go
off for antibiotics, but I at least give the body a chance to deal with it
first.
My 6 year old had bad scalds from a kitchen accident at the end of last
year, and became allergic to the type of dressing that the hospital applied.
All around the wound became infected (not the wound itself, just where the
dressing was stuck down) and her temperature rose to 104.5. As she was
delirious I panicked and took her for antibiotics. In retrospect I know I
could have dealt with that without antibiotics. Plus I was pretty miffed
that she would never have needed antibiotics if it hadn't been for the
hospital using a new type of dressing on it in the first place, the scalds
themselves were healing extremely well with a concoction I made up myself,
and homeopathic cantharis for the pain.
>Sometimes taking an anti-inflammatory is exactly the
> right thing to do for joint problems as swollen inflamed joints just get
> inflamed more due to the swelling and you need something to break the
cycle.
Rest and ice works just as well. Besides, I can't take anti-inflammatories
myself, so I wouldn't want them for the children just in case they can't
either.
> Taking antibiotics (grown from mould so that's natural innit ;-)) reduces
> the chances of infecting others, although only if correctly administered
> (not overprescribed and always finish the course).
This is the problem though, isn't it? It's been over-prescribed for
decades.
> He seems to have an aversion to _anything_ non-natural. It's that
absolutist
> approach he's taking that irks me.
I'm pretty sure Andy said that he goes in to A & E for accidents, so he's
not that absolutist :o) And I have to agree with him, if there's a natural
method available I'd always choose it over the synthetic one too.
> But to all intents and purposes that doesn't happen unless the vaccine
fails
> in a few individual cases. Surely you're not trying to deny that the
> incidence of these diseases has plummeted since vaccination started?
Not as much as they'd already plummeted before vaccines were introduced,
naturally. I can't tell you offhand if this is the case with Rubella, but
it's certainly the case with many other vaccines.
> Maybe. I've had heat stroke due to lack of salt before. There's a right
> level, as with most things, you should not have too much _or_ too little.
Bearing in mind that a packet of crisps generally has more salt in it than a
child needs for a whole day, and most processed foods has far too much
hidden away in it too, I think Andy is just being sensible.
> But having salt in your diet does _not_ damage the immune system per se;
> in fact too much salt would cause other problems well before it would
> damage the immune system, so it seems Andy is just spreading FUD.
I think what Andy is getting at is that you need a healthy body to fight
infection successfully. Plus filling your body with too much salt will take
you down the road to heart disease.
> Well, quite. I hope my kid never drinks the stuff (although I won't pump
> his stomach if it does). But Andy was suggesting a concrete link to the
> immune system of consuming such things. My point is that your immune
> system can weaken without certain vitamins and other nutritional dietary
> elements, and if you solely eat certain junk food you'll never get those
> benefits. But that's not univerally true because you can get those things
> from other things you eat. Just like it would be wrong to eat just
> carrots because you don't get enough important minerals.
The more crap you put in to the body the unhealthier it becomes. The more
unhealthy it is the less able it is to fight infection. So yes, eating crap
can eventually lead to a weakened immune system. Surely it's better not to
make the bodies job harder by feeding it rubbish?
> You have to consider someone's diet as a whole, and someone who ate a
> healthy balanced diet in every respect other than drinking Sunny D would,
> IMHO, not suddenly get a suppressed immune system.
But it wouldn't just be Sunny D, would it? It would be all the other rubbish
that kids have thrust at them due to, IMO, immoral advertising which is
aimed at them.
> Vaccination has been going on for over 200 years. And it undoubtedly does
> eliminate the diseases it's intended to fight. Yes big business will often
> come up with expensive new treatments, but they don't make the decisions.
> The government would have to pay for it if nothing else!
I don't trust big business, and I don't trust the pharmaceutical giants. I
have no reason to. And, let's face it, vaccination has changed a huge amount
over 200 years. I'm sure there wasn't mercury and foetal matter in vaccines
back then.
> Take the newly extended Meningitis C programme - before that, there were
> <fx:googles) an estimated 1530 cases a year with 150 deaths (and as you'll
> know Men.C can cause brain damage, disablement and the need for amputation
> in the survivors). After vaccination started to be introduced, in 2001
> there were 79 confirmed cases and 3 deaths.
>
> Does that sound like the overbearing effect of big business just out for
> profit?
If you can give me the figures on how many children have had adverse
reactions to the Men C vaccine then I'll comment.
> On a personal scale that's true: the benefits *to me* may not outweigh
> some people's perception of the risks.
> True for cholera or typhoid, neither of which I believe have vaccinations,
> there being little point for something that can be treated more easily in
> different ways.
> Smallpox is not water borne for example, nor AFAIK measles or most of the
> other diseases vaccinated against. Polio is, admittedly. Clean water is
> only part of the solution.
It's a bloomin' good start. Just general cleanliness and better diet would
help with all of it.
> You think routine vaccination should be stopped worldwide in all cases?
That would be the ideal, yes. Obviously we don't live in an ideal world
though, and until everyone is on an equal footing with clean water, good
nutrition etc it's difficult to say.
> Do you know how improbable that is? And besides, one could say the NHS
> is. Hmm... if a doctor called daily to check progress would that suddenly
> assuage your concern.
Improbable? Maybe if you don't know any vaccine damaged children it might
seem improbable to you, but when you do statistics don't mean crap.
> Of course. And so am I ;-P. His site purports to be something it is not
> though. If it were truly pro-choice it would be more even-handed.
It's surely there for people to read and absorb if they want to? There's
plenty of pro-vax literature available from the government, are you saying
that they should be more even-handed too? Or does this just apply to
anti-vaxers who have a website?
> Besides, he argues for freedom of choice as if it is something he is
> being denied.
It's obvious you've never refused to have your child vaccinated, because if
you had you'd know just how much pressure you have put upon you to do so.
Some people cave in, even though they don't agree with it...so yes, it *is*
denied in a round about way.
>Even when the government had the recent motivation to do
> so with MMR, it didn't even (AFAIK) suggest making vaccinations
> compulsory; and I doubt it or any future one ever would. I would disagree
> too, even though I'm a mere vaxer.
There's a mandatory vaccine programme in the US, so why is it so hard to
imagine that we will be next? IMO this judgement brings it one hideous step
closer. We'll see.
--
June
www.he-ed.org.uk
Jonathan Larmour
>news:aqovv-
>
>> I have no intention of bullying, ridiculing or being rude to someone who
>> is pro-choice... your arguments about vaccination have generally been
>> thoughtful and informative. But Andy was talking in absolutist and
>> emotive terms ("toxic and dangerous chemicals"?). And here I was just
>> pointing out a little hypocrisy on his part.
>
>I think you really need to take in to account how much crap anti-vaxers take
>in general, if we become a little defensive or even absolutist sometimes
>it's surely understandable.
Yeah, fair enough. But it does mean annoying people like me are more likely
to point it out ;-).
> The world and their dogs think they can have a
>pop at us, just because we give our opinion. It really does get tiresome
>defending your stance after a time :o/ It's like *you* could join a thread
>and say yes, I think vaccinations are great, my kids have had them all -
>you'll either be ignored, or more likely someone else will post saying that
>they agree with you (and probably throw in a comment about how awful
>anti-vaxers are for good measure). I, or Andy, could say that we disagree
>and don't vax out children anymore...and the onslaught would start. It gets
>boring, and even upsetting sometimes.
I don't intend to upset, even if I might be a little blunt at times. I
have no intention in forcing my view down anyone's mouth.
>> Sigh... smiley for the humour-impaired --> :-). I would have written
>> something very different if it was a spelling flame. And Andy clearly
>> isn't dyslexic from his articulation elsewhere.
>
>See how that defensive thing works? I took it as a mild flame...but then it
>*was* a mild insult.
I'm not sure what you mean. My comment wasn't a flame, it was just a
little joke because of a simple accidental typo I happened to find
amusing. I don't put smilies after everything partly because I don't
think _anyone_ should read too much seriousness into what they read on
usenet, and mostly because it was obviously just a little typo. No big
deal. And "for the humour impaired" is the standard usenet idiom for
this... don't take it personally ;-).
>> Because their friends are vaccinated, they have the best of both worlds
>> - reduced risk of contracting a disease _and_ a potential (see below)
>> reduced risk of an allergy.
>
>With things like measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox etc I actively try
>and get my children infected. It's far better to get these childhood
>diseases out of the way with, and get true immunity.
I've definitely heard of people in school with me many years ago (don't
know if they'd been vaccinated or not) getting measles twice. Ditto
chickenpox.
>> I believe that's due to the more serious consequences of adult shingles
>> and chickenpox, not the much milder effect on children (over three
>quarters
>> of deaths from this virus are in adults). Certainly there are diminishing
>> returns and it may be pointless expense, if nothing else, in vaccinating
>> for low risk diseases.
>
>If it's all for shingles then they should vaccinate the adults, not the
>children.
They're considering that apparently. Can't see it working as I doubt
adults would bother as the risk is low. I don't see the point trying
to introduce it personally. But the adult deaths are real.
>> Only when the vaccines failed, or when aided by increasing numbers of
>> unvaccinated children. That's what the recent rise of incidences of those
>> diseases has been put down to after all.
>
>If the vaccines are failing then what's the point in them?
Only some don't, in some people. The large majority do. Just like
contracting the illness doesn't guarantee permanent immunity either.
>> I agree entirely. That's not what Andy said though. My wife sometimes goes
>> on at me to take a painkiller for a headache and I try not to. But
>sometimes
>> I cave in because it's just too bad, and the same could well be true for
>> Andy's children. I don't try and resolve it through diet (assuming I
>haven't
>> been eating/drinking anything too wacky like too much caffeine of course).
>
>I can honestly say that 9 out of 10 headaches in my family have been cured
>with a simple glass of water, and 10 minutes rest.
I think most people with a headache would have a sit down first - I do. But
I hardly count that as a headache if it just passes quickly like that. I've
had whole day headaches occasionally recently, although my assumption is
that lack of sleep recently is more the cause than anything else; but if
it distracts me from my work, then I may need to take a painkiller since
I'm pretty sure the cause is just lack of sleep so there's not much else
I can do. I try and muddle on usually though.
>> Sometimes taking a paracetomol to lower one's temperature is exactly the
>> right thing to do.
>
>Ahh, see...I disagree. I try and trust our bodies, we're designed to be able
>to fight infections after all. A high temperature is just the body trying to
>kill the virus with heat. I'm not saying that sometimes I don't panic and go
>off for antibiotics, but I at least give the body a chance to deal with it
>first.
Yes in general if it's an infection. But only to a point. There are
temperatures above which the body does itself damage, and the temperature
needs to be contained. I did only say "sometimes" :-).
>>Sometimes taking an anti-inflammatory is exactly the
>> right thing to do for joint problems as swollen inflamed joints just get
>> inflamed more due to the swelling and you need something to break the
>cycle.
>
>Rest and ice works just as well.
BTDT with a sore back. Tried the ice (frozen peas specifically), and I was
forced to do nothing but rest! :-)
>Besides, I can't take anti-inflammatories
>myself, so I wouldn't want them for the children just in case they can't
>either.
That's a reasonable precaution in your case.
>> Taking antibiotics (grown from mould so that's natural innit ;-)) reduces
>> the chances of infecting others, although only if correctly administered
>> (not overprescribed and always finish the course).
>
>This is the problem though, isn't it? It's been over-prescribed for
>decades.
That doesn't mean it's intrinsically wrong though.
[ snip, sorry, too long already ]
>> But Andy was suggesting a concrete link to the
>> immune system of consuming such things. My point is that your immune
>> system can weaken without certain vitamins and other nutritional dietary
>> elements, and if you solely eat certain junk food you'll never get those
>> benefits. But that's not univerally true because you can get those things
>> from other things you eat. Just like it would be wrong to eat just
>> carrots because you don't get enough important minerals.
>
>The more crap you put in to the body the unhealthier it becomes. The more
>unhealthy it is the less able it is to fight infection. So yes, eating crap
>can eventually lead to a weakened immune system. Surely it's better not to
>make the bodies job harder by feeding it rubbish?
Unhealthy is a very general term. If you are eating a nutrionally complete
diet, it's hard to see why the immune system would be suppressed. I would
suggest with no evidence :-) that most problems today are more because of
what people _aren't_ eating, then what they are. Can we just say we all
dislike junk food for our own reasons and leave it at that then ;-).
>> Vaccination has been going on for over 200 years. And it undoubtedly does
>> eliminate the diseases it's intended to fight. Yes big business will often
>> come up with expensive new treatments, but they don't make the decisions.
>> The government would have to pay for it if nothing else!
>
>I don't trust big business, and I don't trust the pharmaceutical giants. I
>have no reason to. And, let's face it, vaccination has changed a huge amount
>over 200 years. I'm sure there wasn't mercury and foetal matter in vaccines
>back then.
I don't know, but there could well have been mercury - they loved the stuff
back then. Something on the WHO's site says:
"Although the first vaccines were, in some respects, crude, they have
proved to be robust and efficient, and continue to be the workhorses of
global immunization programmes."
Also remember that big business hates being sued as much or more than it
loves money.
>> Take the newly extended Meningitis C programme - before that, there were
>> <fx:googles) an estimated 1530 cases a year with 150 deaths (and as you'll
>> know Men.C can cause brain damage, disablement and the need for amputation
>> in the survivors). After vaccination started to be introduced, in 2001
>> there were 79 confirmed cases and 3 deaths.
>>
>> Does that sound like the overbearing effect of big business just out for
>> profit?
>
>If you can give me the figures on how many children have had adverse
>reactions to the Men C vaccine then I'll comment.
What they do is place an adverse reaction report if anyone has any
symptom at all after vaccination. It's a blunt tool as it means that
people are likely to be reporting unrelated problems. With that caveat:
http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/cmo00_08.htm gives it as less than 1 in 10,000
serious reactions.
But the more interesting detailed response is in:
http://www.doh.gov.uk/meningitis-vaccine/impactandsafetyofvac.htm
which includes detailed investigation of the 18 reported fatalities,
concluding that, as per the caveat above, 15 of them were in the lowest
category ("unlikely") of being a response to vaccination. Even if all 18
were counted against, it is still a very safe vaccine.
>> Do you know how improbable that is? And besides, one could say the NHS
>> is. Hmm... if a doctor called daily to check progress would that suddenly
>> assuage your concern.
>
>Improbable? Maybe if you don't know any vaccine damaged children it might
>seem improbable to you, but when you do statistics don't mean crap.
I don't doubt it can happen, but I still think statistics are the best
way to look at it when it comes to determining public policy. If you knew
families of one of the three who possibly died due to the Meningitis C
vaccine, it would still suck. But it still wouldn't make it wrong.
Statistics are cold, but that's also part of their value.
>> Of course. And so am I ;-P. His site purports to be something it is not
>> though. If it were truly pro-choice it would be more even-handed.
>
>It's surely there for people to read and absorb if they want to? There's
>plenty of pro-vax literature available from the government, are you saying
>that they should be more even-handed too? Or does this just apply to
>anti-vaxers who have a website?
Yes I think it should be even-handed. Or more precisely, present the
arguments for and against and give the recommendations _why_ it should
be for so people can see for themselves. I really dislike the nanny
state saying "this is best, you will have this", but I don't think
everyone has to make the decisions in a vacuum either.
>>Even when the government had the recent motivation to do
>> so with MMR, it didn't even (AFAIK) suggest making vaccinations
>> compulsory; and I doubt it or any future one ever would. I would disagree
>> too, even though I'm a mere vaxer.
>
>There's a mandatory vaccine programme in the US, so why is it so hard to
>imagine that we will be next? IMO this judgement brings it one hideous step
>closer. We'll see.
I'm not sure I agree or disagree with the judgement. But the
circumstances of that case seem far removed from the arguments for
compulsory vaccination. I'd be more worried about it being done at EU
level. They seem to make a lot bigger decisions without fear of
retribution from the electorate as voters aren't very interested in EU
policy. And EU policy in general tends to be driven by the French who
have mandatory vaccination for polio, tetanus, BCG and diptheria; with a
criminal charge for failure to vaccinate.
If it's any consolation, the BMA is against mandatory vaccination too:
<http://www.epolitix.com/bos/epxnews/000000A91AA7.htm> at least at the
moment.
Jo Ling
> There's a mandatory vaccine programme in the US, so why is it so hard to
> imagine that we will be next? IMO this judgement brings it one hideous
step
> closer. We'll see.
>
Why hideous?
Andy J
I will "attempt" to answer the points you have raised. I hope it will not
come across as deliberately confrontational as it is not intended to be. If
there are typos then so be it, I get little time to do this, it was my
daughter's birthday today and I am going away tomorrow so will respond to
your replies upon my return.
"Jonathan Larmour" <jifl...@jifvik.org.removethis.invalid> wrote in message
news:hc1uv-...@worf.jifvik.org...
> Andy J <an...@andyj.org> enlightened us with:
> >Are we not missing something in this discussion? People who do not
> >vaccinate don't criticise vaccinators for jabbing their kids full of
toxic
> >and dangerous chemicals which undoubtedly DO cause many adverse reactions
in
> >many people.
>
> You just did.
>
Indeed I did. It was deliberate and seemingly engendered the exact same
emotions in you and others as it does when the situation is reversed. It
was meant as a direct challenge because that it what I get all the time from
vaxxers and I wanted to create that same feeling back. This is not being
childish but hoping that people will think before firing their not always
educated opinions back.
> >Most non-vaccinators do not refuse jabs purely out of fear, but most
> >vaccinators DO jab their kids out of fear of them getting the supposedly
> >"killer" diseases. IMHO non-vaxxers have taken a decision based on much
> >research, sole searching
>
> Isn't looking at your feet a sign of embarassment?
LOL
>
> >I have worked for many years in this area and have met many families of
> >children that have suffered reactions from the vaccines they received. I
> >myself have 4 unvaccinated and very healthy children. Non of them have
any
> >allegies, chronic ailments and they hardly ever get ill.
>
> Thanks in no small part to their friends and classmates being vaccinated.
Again LOL. This is laughable in so many ways. Not least because my
children went to a Rudolph Steiner school where over 50% of the children
there were unvaccinated. Laughable because you don't "catch" chronic
diseases or allergies anyway and laughable because according to that analogy
they should be disease ridden leapors wo should be cast off on a far away
island!
>
> >We have not been
> >to the doctor with any of them for years apart from Emergency Department
> >visits for accidents that have occurred. What's more we don't use more
> >chemicals to try and make them better when they are ill, we support them
> >through natural remedies and diet.
>
> Uh huh. So not only do you not treat your kids' headaches with readily
> availebl painkillers (presumably if you are consistent), you presumably
> also risk spreading infectious diseases to their friends more because
their
> illness is not properly treated. That's *selfish*.
As a matter of fact my children don't get headaches and if they did I would
tell them to do as I do and sleep it off. The only headaches I ever get are
tiredness related. I have very occasionally used homeopathic remedies for
this too but never aspirin or paracetamol.
LOL. How can my unvaccinated children possibly spread disease to your
vaccinated child. Of course if they are ill they get "treatment", just I
support the body's natural way of healing and don't use suppressive drugs.
A fever is a body's way of excreting toxins and if you suppress that by say
Calpol then it gets pushed back inside the body and presents later as
something more serious or chronic.
>
> What's more, what would you say to a pregnant woman who contracted rubella
> from one of your kids? Think about it.
>
My responsibility is 100% to my kids, not to yours or to the pregnant woman.
Anyway woman or childbearing age is able to make her own mind up on whether
she thinks the vaccine works or is for her. Also as the vaccine is a live
one children excrete LIVE rubella virus for about 2 weeks after the vaccine
is given which can and does pass to pregnant women. If my child contracted
rubella she would only be passing live virus for about 2 days, which make
the vaccinated child a greater risk! That same woman would not look after
my child if she came down with a vaccine reaction would she?
> >Diet is the key issue in modern society. We continually stuff junk down
> >our chidlrens thoats in the form of Coke and other fizzy drinks, or
> >squash-type drinks that are either chemically made of full of suger.
Suger
> >or chemical sweetners seriously harm children's health by suppressing
their
> >immune system. Children continually eat sweets, chocolate, crisps and
other
> >non-nutritional junk. Food made to appeal to children is laiden with
salt
> >and other immune system-damaging ingredients.
>
> Obviously we should ban salt then. And especially that evil ingredient
> found in many foodstuffs, dihydrogen monoxide!
Now you are just being silly
>
> It's true that poor diet is bad for you, but the relationship to the
> immune system specifically is less clear unless the children are
> nutrionally deficient (and just because they eat junk, doesn't mean they
> don't get their RDA of vits.... even (yucky) Sunny D is fortified with
> vits).
The food we eat is totally paramount. The government would not even have
RECOMMENDED daily amounts if it did not see such. It would not recommend 5
portions of fruit and veg daily, or the reducing of sugar and salt. It
also sees exercise as important and recommends such. Also the "vitamins" in
fortified products products are generally synthetic which I personally also
am wary of. Also the RDA are widely recognised as being too low in key
areas such as Vit C, a key immune system booster.
>
> >It seems as parents many are ready to subsume their responsibility to
> >doctors, teachers and any other available person rather than take it on
> >themselves. Trust in doctors is a falsehood, they are a product of their
> >training, they will tell you what they have been trained to say. Doctors
> >who break from this path get ridiculed like the parents who do not
> >vaccinate, they lose their jobs and get hounded out of the country.
>
> They have been trained in science and scientific research has shown the
> benefits of vaccination in eliminating serious diseases.
Specifically which one? Smallpox that was made many times worse by
vaccination, I can provide scientific documents to back this up if you want.
Diphtheria that declined by over 90% BEFORE any vaccination. Polio that was
first subject to a change of diagnosis methods and where the live vaccine
has been the only maor spead of the disease in the Western world. Polio
where even the World Health Organisation recently stated
"Polio attacks the central nervous system, causing paralysis and,
occasionally, death. It is transmitted through food or water contaminated by
the feces of an infected person. There is no cure. Once an epidemic, the
disease has disappeared from much of the planet."
Thus stating that polio is in fact cured by improving the drinking water
and food supplies and ensuring poo is removed from both! You can not
"catch" polio either.
The examples continue through the rest.
There may be
> anxieties about particular vaccinations like MMR vs. autism, or other
> vaccinations containing Mercury, but the principle is sound. With mass
> vaccination in particular whole diseases can be entirely eliminated, e.g.
> smallpox.
>
See above
> >I find it amazing that people readily accept that problems can and do
occur
> >with every other over-the-counter or prescription medicine but vaccines
are
> >put on a false pedestal and are declared safe and effective, with no
> >possibility of undesired problems resulting.
>
> No, it's a value judgement, and the value is clearly shown to be towards
> vaccination. It's known that some people _do_ have reactions to
> vaccinations. They're not and never will be perfect. The benefits outweigh
> the risks though.
In whose opinion? If your child was life-long disabled and demanded your
care 24/7 I think you would feel differently.
>
> >No-one really knows the medium or long term effects of mass vaccination,
no
> >research has ever been done. Likewise we do not know whether vaccines
can
> >cause cancer or infertility or numerous other problems because again
no
> >research has been done.
>
> Well it can be difficult because in those countries without vaccination
> programmes, people tend to not live long enough for comparative statistics
> to be meanginful.
Can we not have comparative statistics in the UK. 10% of children have
received few or no vaccines, that makes a possible control group of 2
million, obviously unscientific but I make the point. The rate of chronic
illness and terminal illness is getting so great that even in the UK this
may get difficult. These people you refer to live short lives to to poor
living conditions, (bad diet, sanitation, emotional well being and war) full
stop.
Just because it is hard does not mean it should not be done either.
>
> > I for one will not accept this for my children. It
> >is upto to the distributors (the governement and doctors) and
manufacturers
> >to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there are definately no issues
to
> >be concerned about in this area.
>
> "definitely no"? How smallminded. If you said that the benefits to
everybody
> (not just your kids) outweighed the risks then that would be fair. What
you
> write isn't.
>
I could say the risks to everybody outweigh the benefits, would that be
fair? I don't see how it can be small-minded to insist that products are
properly tested for safety before their use. That really would benefit
everyone.
> >Freedom of choice in the mater is paramount. The main carer should have
> >the last say when parents are split.
>
> What about someone who cares for the kid 3 days a week? 4 days? once a
> fortnight? Do you assume that because court has awarded primary custody to
> one parent rather than the other, that the other parent loves the child
> any less? There are heartbreaking cases of quite the opposite where the
> kids are torn from the more loving parent. Obviously I don't know what
> the situation in this particular case, but we're arguing a matter of
> principle here.
>
TBH this this is petty. The parent with the majority care should be the
main barer or responsibility. I know what it is like on both sides. One
would assume in the majority of cases that the parents when togther made a
joint decision not to vaccinate and it is blatent point-scoring to go the
other way after the split and deserves no court time.
> > No judge can
> >say he has the child's best interest at heart in such a case, he does
not
> >know the child or the family, he is making a decision based on
information
> >that supports the current system, anything else, no matter how credible,
is
> >considered junk science! This is very worrying for everyone and we
should
> >all be concerned about the wider implications.
>
> I do see one issue with the judge's verdict, from a wider perspective.
> It's not uncommon for there to be judgements about *in*action on a person,
> but people should be worried more about judgements requiring action
> against a person without consent. You can't administer a lethal
> injection (unless your name is Shipman) but you can stop feeding a
> patient. You can't forcefeed a competent person suffering anorexia, but
> you can feed someone who is not compos mentis. The decision should not
> have been "is it better to vaccinate or not vaccinate" as much as
> "is there a *need* to vaccinate". The answer may well still have been in
> the affirmative though.
The "need" is subjective though. One person's need is another's desire.
You can't tell someone else what they need (barring food and water etc).
>
> >AJ
> >http://www.vaccine-info.com
>
> If that's your site, I guess your mind is already made up. Feel free to
> follow up with your predictable response. The site goes on about the
> right to make an informed choice, but it's very clear what side it is
> pushing.
>
> Jifl
If you had bothered to read my site at all you will have found that every
article is fully referenced either to a book or medical journal or some
other equally valid source. It is not opinion but the reporting "facts".
You use the government saying that vaccines are safe as "fact" because they
tell you they are and their "facts" are also based on medical reports. We
have a contradiction. They can't both be "fact" yet they are both presented
as such.
I suggest you do further reading. I look forward to your amusing
responses.
Sorry this has got personal, but hey life would be dull if we all thought
the same, did the same and acted the same, ooops, most of you do...
Tim Hobbs
Hi Andy,
Whilst I don't entirely accept all your arguments you have certainly
given me food for thought and I will look further at your site and
probably a few others. It is (IMO) a shame that you put your views in
such a personal manner but they are clearly things you feel strongly
about.
All the best
Tim Hobbs
Andy J
Thanks. You are right that I have gotten perhaps a little too personal with
this and know it would do the cause better if I put some distace between my
own situation and the message I am intending to put across.
Please let me know if I can help you in any way.
Regards
Andy
"Tim Hobbs" <t...@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote in message
news:mfs2jv0l2r7p30d1e...@4ax.com...
Jonathan Larmour
>come across as deliberately confrontational as it is not intended to be.
No probs.
> If
>there are typos then so be it, I get little time to do this, it was my
>daughter's birthday today and I am going away tomorrow so will respond to
>your replies upon my return.
FWIW I'll snip unexciting bits.
>"Jonathan Larmour" <jifl...@jifvik.org.removethis.invalid> wrote in message
>news:hc1uv-...@worf.jifvik.org...
>> Andy J <an...@andyj.org> enlightened us with:
>> >I myself have 4 unvaccinated and very healthy children. Non of them have
>> >any allegies, chronic ailments and they hardly ever get ill.
>>
>> Thanks in no small part to their friends and classmates being vaccinated.
>
>Again LOL. This is laughable in so many ways. Not least because my
>children went to a Rudolph Steiner school where over 50% of the children
>there were unvaccinated. Laughable because you don't "catch" chronic
>diseases or allergies anyway
I wasn't referring to that - just "hardly ever get ill", but it would
seem misleading to have snipped the rest.
> and laughable because according to that analogy
>they should be disease ridden leapors wo should be cast off on a far away
>island!
Um no :-). There would still be a critical mass of other people around
to prevent such a disease getting to you.
>> >What's more we don't use more
>> >chemicals to try and make them better when they are ill, we support them
>> >through natural remedies and diet.
>>
>> Uh huh. So not only do you not treat your kids' headaches with readily
>> availebl painkillers (presumably if you are consistent), you presumably
>> also risk spreading infectious diseases to their friends more because
>> their illness is not properly treated. That's *selfish*.
>
>As a matter of fact my children don't get headaches and if they did I would
>tell them to do as I do and sleep it off. The only headaches I ever get are
>tiredness related. I have very occasionally used homeopathic remedies for
>this too but never aspirin or paracetamol.
See my other posts. Sometimes nothing else can work (and, I know you'll
not appreciate me reiterating something you'll probably expect from me,
but homeopathy is provably no better than a placebo).
>LOL. How can my unvaccinated children possibly spread disease to your
>vaccinated child.
Vaccines aren't 100% foolproof - but they work sufficiently to provide
"herd immunity", where a small percentage can get away with not being
vaccinated. Your kids benefit too, which is the point I made further
above. The accepted success rates are around 90% effectiveness.
That's why rubella can be a problem for pregnant women, even though
they've been vaccinated as a child.
> Of course if they are ill they get "treatment", just I
>support the body's natural way of healing and don't use suppressive drugs.
>A fever is a body's way of excreting toxins and if you suppress that by say
>Calpol then it gets pushed back inside the body and presents later as
>something more serious or chronic.
I don't mean fever in general (but again see my other posts to June -
sometimes the body can go too far).
>> What's more, what would you say to a pregnant woman who contracted rubella
>> from one of your kids? Think about it.
>
>My responsibility is 100% to my kids, not to yours or to the pregnant woman.
Ah, that's a shame, and is indeed revealing about you. Vaccination policy
isn't solely to do with your kids, and if you can't see why not, then
you've missed the point. I absolutely agree there are small but non-zero
risks to vaccination, but it isn't solely for my son's benefit that he is
being vaccinated.
For example, there are very little risks of my child contracting rubella.
But a 90% risk of Congenital Rubella Syndrome if a pregnant woman contract
rubella in the first three months of pregnancy.
>Anyway woman or childbearing age is able to make her own mind up on whether
>she thinks the vaccine works or is for her.
Well, she'd need 3 months notice at least. Of course since an alarmingly
high number of women seem to get pregnant unintentionally, that's not the
final answer.
> Also as the vaccine is a live
>one children excrete LIVE rubella virus for about 2 weeks after the vaccine
>is given which can and does pass to pregnant women.
If you knew more about vaccines you'd know they are weakened virii. Otherwise
children would regularly get the rubella they're meant to be getting
immunised against! But I have never heard of the virus surviving digestion.
The one to watch out for is polio, not rubella.
Besides, other than in third world countries with poor water supplies, this
isn't much of an issue.
>If my child contracted
>rubella she would only be passing live virus for about 2 days, which make
>the vaccinated child a greater risk!
Sorry, that just doesn't sound at all likely. A virus administered by
needle is surely going to be at worst just as infectious as one received
"naturally".
>> [Doctors] have been trained in science and scientific research has shown the
>> benefits of vaccination in eliminating serious diseases.
>
>Specifically which one? Smallpox that was made many times worse by
>vaccination, I can provide scientific documents to back this up if you want.
You can try, but the odds are against that document being justifiable:
smallpox is hardly dying out entirely by itself! Nature doesn't work
like that. Similarly measles and mumps:
"In the late 1980s there were anything from 50,000 to 100,000 cases of
measles in the UK each year. MMR was introduced in 1988. By 2001 there
were 2286 measles cases. This tells us that the incidence of measles has
reduced, if not wholly, then certainly partly due to the MMR jab."
"Before MMR was introduced, 1200 people went to hospital each year with
viral meningitis caused by mumps. Now, there are almost no cases."
>Diphtheria that declined by over 90% BEFORE any vaccination.
Obviously better nutrition and water supplies were important. But to get
from there to trying to eradicate the disease entirely takes more than
that. There were certainly occasional outbreaks. I'd be interested in
knowing the statistics about incidence, rather than mortality. Poor
nutrition would lead to increased mortality, but not affect infection
rates greatly. Any statistics? Oh, and don't cite the experience of
Germany in WW2 - there was far more upheaval, especially population
movement, at that time for statistics to be reliable.
> Polio that was
>first subject to a change of diagnosis methods and where the live vaccine
>has been the only maor spead of the disease in the Western world.
To phrase it more correctly ;-), the vaccine virtually eliminated all cases,
with the side effect of introducing a very small proportion of new cases
contracted from the vaccine itself (generally from not following doctor's
advice about care when handling nappies afterwards).
> Polio
>where even the World Health Organisation recently stated
>"Polio attacks the central nervous system, causing paralysis and,
>occasionally, death. It is transmitted through food or water contaminated by
>the feces of an infected person. There is no cure. Once an epidemic, the
>disease has disappeared from much of the planet."
>
>Thus stating that polio is in fact cured by improving the drinking water
>and food supplies and ensuring poo is removed from both! You can not
>"catch" polio either.
I agree it's plausible that there may well be little point administering
polio in the UK any more, except if intending to travel abroad.
>> >I find it amazing that people readily accept that problems can and do
>occur
>> >with every other over-the-counter or prescription medicine but vaccines
>are
>> >put on a false pedestal and are declared safe and effective, with no
>> >possibility of undesired problems resulting.
>>
>> No, it's a value judgement, and the value is clearly shown to be towards
>> vaccination. It's known that some people _do_ have reactions to
>> vaccinations. They're not and never will be perfect. The benefits outweigh
>> the risks though.
>
>In whose opinion? If your child was life-long disabled and demanded your
>care 24/7 I think you would feel differently.
I'm not trying to deny such cases exist. You have to balance that
against the risks overall, throughout society.
>> >No-one really knows the medium or long term effects of mass vaccination,
>> >no research has ever been done.
>>
>> Well it can be difficult because in those countries without vaccination
>> programmes, people tend to not live long enough for comparative statistics
>> to be meanginful.
>
>Can we not have comparative statistics in the UK. 10% of children have
>received few or no vaccines, that makes a possible control group of 2
>million, obviously unscientific but I make the point.
That's something to try. Obviously the anti-vaxers should be keen to do
such a study, so I wait with bated breath ;-). Although there's probably
a "certain type of person" who doesn't vaccinate, so it would take more
than just naive totalling (and thus a risk of bias in the compilers).
Obviously the flip side of determining the disease incidence rate is
impossible to work out in the UK due to the herd immunity.
> The rate of chronic
>illness and terminal illness is getting so great that even in the UK this
>may get difficult. These people you refer to live short lives to to poor
>living conditions, (bad diet, sanitation, emotional well being and war) full
>stop.
Such illnesses are going up because we're living longer. Everyone's
got to die eventually of something!
>> >It is upto to the distributors (the governement and doctors) and
>> >manufacturers to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there are
>> >definately no issues to be concerned about in this area.
>>
>> "definitely no"? How smallminded. If you said that the benefits to
>> everybody (not just your kids) outweighed the risks then that would
>> be fair. What you write isn't.
>
>I could say the risks to everybody outweigh the benefits, would that be
>fair? I don't see how it can be small-minded to insist that products are
>properly tested for safety before their use. That really would benefit
>everyone.
Properly tested =/= "definitely no issues" - that's my point. Some people
seem to be difficult to persuade with mere research ;).
[The recent trial]
>> The decision should not
>> have been "is it better to vaccinate or not vaccinate" as much as
>> "is there a *need* to vaccinate". The answer may well still have been in
>> the affirmative though.
>
>The "need" is subjective though. One person's need is another's desire.
>You can't tell someone else what they need (barring food and water etc).
I am vaguely agreeing with you. But a judge could rule that there is a
"need" to protect the child's health which medical evidence indicates
towards vaccination. You (and more or less, I) disagree, but I can see
why the court would do that. If it isn't in black and white in law, then
it will always be subjective.
>If you had bothered to read my site at all you will have found that every
>article is fully referenced either to a book or medical journal or some
>other equally valid source.
Yes I had, but there's more than plenty of sources the other way too. It
contradicts, nuff said. We have to weigh up the plausibility of the
sources, including taking into account prejudices of the authors. How
long did the tobacco industry argue that smoking had no ill effects?
Okay, I'll take it as read that you'll say the same about big pharmaceutical
companies, but most research on vaccines wasn't from those earning big
bucks from it.
>It is not opinion but the reporting "facts".
>You use the government saying that vaccines are safe as "fact" because they
>tell you they are and their "facts" are also based on medical reports. We
>have a contradiction. They can't both be "fact" yet they are both presented
>as such.
I think you mean that I believe vaccines to be safe *enough*, *despite* the
government ;).
>I suggest you do further reading. I look forward to your amusing
>responses.
Badumm-tsch!
>Sorry this has got personal, but hey life would be dull if we all thought
>the same, did the same and acted the same, ooops, most of you do...
Baa.
Jifl
Andy Pandy
> given me food for thought and I will look further at your site and
> probably a few others.
Rather than ploughing through massive web sites which give just one side of the
story (I tried that once) - I found it much more helpful to read vaccination
debates on usenet. It's a very heavily debated subject in groups such as
misc.kids.health and alt.parenting.solutions, with very knowledgeable and/or
motivated people on both sides. Convincing articles and research papers (such as
those on Andy's site and also government sites) are frequently referenced or
pasted, but then others point out holes in the arguments/research, set them in
context, or point out other research which gives a different conclusion.
I also found it interesting to look up the posting history of the main
proponents to see what else they post about and what their views on other issues
are, to give some kind of context as to where they are coming from and their
credibility and motivation.
There are quite a few vaccination threads in misc.kids.health now - but if you
want to go back further you can do a google search for vaccines at:
http://groups.google.co.uk/advanced_group_search?hl=en , there are about 40
pages of vaccine debates just since April!
--
Andy
parent
> A fever is a body's way of excreting toxins and if you suppress
> that by say Calpol then it gets pushed back inside the body
> and presents later as something more serious or chronic.
Weird. Totally nutty.
> [ re. vaccinations ]
> My responsibility is 100% to my kids, not to yours or to the
> pregnant woman.
My God, you seem to be a right tosser. So I'll take care of
*my* children on the beach, and if I see one of yours in
danger, I'll leave them to it. Yeah, right.
________________________________________________________________
Sent via the PAXemail system at paxemail.com
Sarah
<an...@andyj.org> writes
>A fever is a body's way of excreting toxins and if you suppress that by say
>Calpol then it gets pushed back inside the body and presents later as
>something more serious or chronic.
What a quaint, simplistic and inaccurate assessment of the causes and
purposes of a raised temperature!
>> >Trust in doctors is a falsehood, they are a product of their
>> >training, they will tell you what they have been trained to say.
I find it quite incredible that so many people who are strongly
anti-vaccination are happy to generalise so much. There are a lot of
doctors and I'd be prepared to wager that most of them have the tendency
to think for themselves... and thus tell you what they believe having
read *and appraised* medical literature. Perhaps I'm odd in believing
that doctors aren't "trained to say" anything in particular... and, if
anything, are "trained" to think.
>If you had bothered to read my site at all you will have found that every
>article is fully referenced either to a book or medical journal or some
>other equally valid source. It is not opinion but the reporting "facts".
Medical journals do not report facts. If you believe that they do, you
are sadly misinformed. They publish papers, often peer-reviewed, but
definitely not always scientifically sound. At a rough guess, at least
2/3 of published papers is drivel of which the conclusions can be taken
with a hefty pinch of salt.
I looked briefly at your site (much the same as any anti-vacc site) and
note that you claim to present both sides of the argument. You don't.
At least it doesn't take much brain to see your bias from the first
page... so it is obvious that you don't present both sides. No one
looking for a balanced view is going to take it seriously ;-)
Methinks you're closely affiliated with Carol T?!
--
Sarah
Tinkerbell
news:20030807080...@paxemail.com...
> Andy J wrote:
> > A fever is a body's way of excreting toxins and if you suppress
> > that by say Calpol then it gets pushed back inside the body
> > and presents later as something more serious or chronic.
>
> Weird. Totally nutty.
>
> > [ re. vaccinations ]
> > My responsibility is 100% to my kids, not to yours or to the
> > pregnant woman.
>
> My God, you seem to be a right tosser. So I'll take care of
> *my* children on the beach, and if I see one of yours in
> danger, I'll leave them to it. Yeah, right.
Is there really any need to stoop to personal insults?
I think you'll find a more accurate analogy would be if there were two
children in danger on the beach, one of them being your own child, which one
would you help first? Fairly obviously most parents would help their own
child first. If you believe that vaccination is dangerous then of course you
aren't going to go ahead with it just because someone else feels it will
benefit their own child for you to do so.
--
June
www.he-ed.org.uk
http://www.internationalsymposium.co.uk/ The UK's first International
Symposium on Vaccination
Tinkerbell
"Jo Ling" <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote in message news:3f2ec210$1_2@mk-nntp-
> Why hideous?
I would have thought that was self-explanatory, as it's obvious that I don't
agree with vaccinations.
However, there are also wider implications. If vaccination becomes
mandatory, what next? For instance Ritalin for children that a judge decides
would benefit from it, even if their parents don't want to take that route?
One thing could lead to another, and our rights as parents to bring up our
children as we see fit could be eroded.
Tinkerbell
> See my other posts. Sometimes nothing else can work (and, I know you'll
> not appreciate me reiterating something you'll probably expect from me,
> but homeopathy is provably no better than a placebo).
And yet it works on babies and animals, who have no idea that it's supposed
to be making them feel better.
I've never seen anyone explain that one away. And yes I know that by the law
of averages some babies and animals will have become better without any
treatment, but that doesn't explain it all.
parent
> "parent " wrote...
> > Andy J wrote:
> > > A fever is a body's way of excreting toxins and if you
> > > suppress that by say Calpol then it gets pushed back
> > > inside the body and presents later as something more
> > > serious or chronic.
> >
> > Weird. Totally nutty.
> >
> > > [ re. vaccinations ]
> > > My responsibility is 100% to my kids, not to yours or to
> > > the pregnant woman.
> >
> > My God, you seem to be a right tosser. So I'll take care of
> > *my* children on the beach, and if I see one of yours in
> > danger, I'll leave them to it. Yeah, right.
>
> Is there really any need to stoop to personal insults?
What are you referring to? Me referring to the nuttiness of
the first statement? Do you agree with the first statement?
Or are you saying that the repulsive atttitude expressed in
the second statement is not worthy of comment? BTW, I am
not "stooping".
> I think you'll find a more accurate analogy would be if
> there were two children in danger on the beach, one of
> them being your own child, which one would you help first?
No, I do not find that more accurate.
> Fairly obviously most parents would help their own child
> first.
I think that most parents, apart from a selfish or stupid
few, would try and help both or all children.
> If you believe that vaccination is dangerous then of course
> you aren't going to go ahead with it just because someone
> else feels it will benefit their own child for you to do so.
Of course not, but to think that way is to fly in the face
of evidence.
Tinkerbell
> Yeah, fair enough. But it does mean annoying people like me are more
likely
> to point it out ;-).
I'm personally not finding you annoying, just time-consuming ;o) I don't
mind a discussion or debate, providing it doesn't degenerate in to
name-calling.
> I don't intend to upset, even if I might be a little blunt at times. I
> have no intention in forcing my view down anyone's mouth.
You haven't upset me, I was talking generally :o)
> I've definitely heard of people in school with me many years ago (don't
> know if they'd been vaccinated or not) getting measles twice. Ditto
> chickenpox.
I have heard about this with chickenpox definitely. But if you can get these
things more than once whether you vaccinate or not then what's the point of
pumping a vaccine full of rubbish in to a child's system? You're no better
off, in fact you might be worse off.
> They're considering that apparently. Can't see it working as I doubt
> adults would bother as the risk is low. I don't see the point trying
> to introduce it personally. But the adult deaths are real.
I would imagine this is mostly in much older people, and let's not forget
that even 'flu dispatches a number of them at every outbreak (despite the
'flu vaccine). I'm not saying that we shouldn't care about this, we should,
but I don't think we should pump our kids full of vaccine because of it.
It's the same with Rubella, women should make the decision themselves when
they get to child-bearing age as to whether they want to have the vaccine.
It's then their responsibility to keep up-to-date with boosters, not mine or
my children's. Take responsibility for yourself people!
> I think most people with a headache would have a sit down first - I do.
But
> I hardly count that as a headache if it just passes quickly like that.
I've
> had whole day headaches occasionally recently, although my assumption is
> that lack of sleep recently is more the cause than anything else; but if
> it distracts me from my work, then I may need to take a painkiller since
> I'm pretty sure the cause is just lack of sleep so there's not much else
> I can do. I try and muddle on usually though.
Are you drinking enough fluid? It's been very hot, and most people really
don't drink enough even in the cooler weather. Dehydration will cause a
headache, which is why I always give my children some water if they're
complaining of one. If it's also combined with lack of sleep it's no wonder
you have all-day headaches, and probably lethargy too. Try it, there's
nothing to lose :o)
> Unhealthy is a very general term. If you are eating a nutrionally complete
> diet, it's hard to see why the immune system would be suppressed. I would
> suggest with no evidence :-) that most problems today are more because of
> what people _aren't_ eating, then what they are. Can we just say we all
> dislike junk food for our own reasons and leave it at that then ;-).
Ok, why not. Don't tell anyone but there are junk foods I love, I just try
to avoid them is all ;o)
> Also remember that big business hates being sued as much or more than it
> loves money.
It's also willing to take the hits providing the profit still outstrips the
settlements. Think of the car industry for instance.
> What they do is place an adverse reaction report if anyone has any
> symptom at all after vaccination. It's a blunt tool as it means that
> people are likely to be reporting unrelated problems. With that caveat:
> http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/cmo00_08.htm gives it as less than 1 in 10,000
> serious reactions.
Sorry, but I personally believe those figures are skewed.
> I don't doubt it can happen, but I still think statistics are the best
> way to look at it when it comes to determining public policy. If you knew
> families of one of the three who possibly died due to the Meningitis C
> vaccine, it would still suck. But it still wouldn't make it wrong.
> Statistics are cold, but that's also part of their value.
I dunno, maybe I just don't do cold.
> Yes I think it should be even-handed. Or more precisely, present the
> arguments for and against and give the recommendations _why_ it should
> be for so people can see for themselves. I really dislike the nanny
> state saying "this is best, you will have this", but I don't think
> everyone has to make the decisions in a vacuum either.
Unfortunately though the government information is far from balanced, which
is why people like Andy have websites to show the other side of things.
> I'm not sure I agree or disagree with the judgement. But the
> circumstances of that case seem far removed from the arguments for
> compulsory vaccination. I'd be more worried about it being done at EU
> level. They seem to make a lot bigger decisions without fear of
> retribution from the electorate as voters aren't very interested in EU
> policy. And EU policy in general tends to be driven by the French who
> have mandatory vaccination for polio, tetanus, BCG and diptheria; with a
> criminal charge for failure to vaccinate.
>
> If it's any consolation, the BMA is against mandatory vaccination too:
> <http://www.epolitix.com/bos/epxnews/000000A91AA7.htm> at least at the
> moment.
Yes, I was aware that they were. I hope they don't change their mind!
parent
> "Jonathan Larmour" ...
> > [ reporting of adverse reactions after vaccination ]
> > It's a blunt tool as it means that people are likely to be
> > reporting unrelated problems. With that caveat:
> >
> > http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/cmo00_08.htm
> >
> > gives it as less than 1 in 10,000 serious reactions.
.. where the most common "serious reactions" are fainting and
stiff necks!
> Sorry, but I personally believe those figures are skewed.
Ah! How so? Do you believe there's a conspiracy, then?
--
Tinkerbell
> What are you referring to? Me referring to the nuttiness of
> the first statement? Do you agree with the first statement?
> Or are you saying that the repulsive atttitude expressed in
> the second statement is not worthy of comment? BTW, I am
> not "stooping".
I'm referring to you typing that Andy seems to be a right tosser. It added
nothing to your post apart from a nasty taste, and wasn't necessary.
<snipped>
> I think that most parents, apart from a selfish or stupid
> few, would try and help both or all children.
Of course they all would, but I wasn't giving you that choice; one child
only.
> Of course not, but to think that way is to fly in the face
> of evidence.
That all depends on what you call evidence. Most of the so called 'evidence'
I've seen in support of the MMR has been written by people with a vested
interest in the product that they want to sell us. It's far from unbiased.
Tinkerbell
> Ah! How so? Do you believe there's a conspiracy, then?
I believe that a lot of reactions just aren't logged for various reasons, if
you want to call that a conspiracy you can do.
parent
> "parent " wrote
> > the first statement? Do you agree with the first statement?
> > Or are you saying that the repulsive atttitude expressed in
> > the second statement is not worthy of comment? BTW, I am
> > not "stooping".
>
> I'm referring to you typing that Andy seems to be a right
> tosser. It added nothing to your post apart from a nasty
> taste, and wasn't necessary.
OK. Perhaps you will answer my question. Do you agree with
the first statement? It was:
> Andy J wrote:
> > > A fever is a body's way of excreting toxins and if you
> > > suppress that by say Calpol then it gets pushed back
> > > inside the body and presents later as something more
> > > serious or chronic.
Well? Do you agree with that, or not?
parent
> parent wrote:
> > "Jonathan Larmour" wrote...
> > > [ reporting of adverse reactions after vaccination ]
> > > It's a blunt tool as it means that people are likely to
> > > be reporting unrelated problems. With that caveat:
> > >
> > > http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/cmo00_08.htm
> > >
> > > gives it as less than 1 in 10,000 serious reactions.
>
> > .. where the most common "serious reactions" are fainting
> > and stiff necks!
>
> > > [TBell] skewed.
>
> > Ah! How so? Do you believe there's a conspiracy, then?
>
> I believe that a lot of reactions just aren't logged for
> various reasons, if you want to call that a conspiracy you
> can do.
So you think that doctors don't report adverse reactions,
or what? I'm asking *you* whether you think that there's a
conspiracy, not what you think I think. So: is there a
conspiacy, or not?
Tinkerbell
> OK. Perhaps you will answer my question. Do you agree with
> the first statement? It was:
You're totally missing the point, aren't you? Whether or not you or I agree
with what Andy typed makes no odds. There's no need to be rude to people
just because you don't agree with them, *that's* the point I'm making.
> > Andy J wrote:
> > > > A fever is a body's way of excreting toxins and if you
> > > > suppress that by say Calpol then it gets pushed back
> > > > inside the body and presents later as something more
> > > > serious or chronic.
>
> Well? Do you agree with that, or not?
I think that's what homeopaths believe, I'm not really sure on it myself
yet. Possibly. Personally I think a fever is the bodies way of killing a
virus or infection with heat, and is therefore beneficial and shouldn't be
suppressed. If you'd read my other posts you'd already know that. Whether or
not I agree with what Andy thinks isn't important though, it's not hard to
just respect another persons opinion and their right to hold it.
Tinkerbell
> or what? I'm asking *you* whether you think that there's a
> conspiracy, not what you think I think. So: is there a
> conspiacy, or not?
What on earth is your problem? Why are you so interested in what *I* think,
to the degree that you're being so aggressive in your questioning?
I think the information is suppressed, misreported, or conveniently brushed
under the carpet sometimes. If you're trying to label me as some type of
conspiracy theorist, give up now.
parent
> "parent " wrote
> > OK. Perhaps you will answer my question. Do you agree with
> > the first statement? It was:
>
> You're totally missing the point, aren't you? Whether or not
> you or I agree with what Andy typed makes no odds.
No, I'm not missing the point. I asked a simple question.
You seemed to evade the issue.
> There's no need to be rude to people just because you don't
> agree with them, *that's* the point I'm making.
Again, I was not being rude to him. I pointed out how the
statement he made that he made in:
Message-ID: <HbeYa.54618$xd5.3...@stones.force9.net>
which I find odious, and which was this:
> My responsibility is 100% to my kids, not to yours or
> to the pregnant woman.
makes him seem. As someone else noted, it speaks volumes about
his apparent attitude, which comes over as "Eff you, Jack, I'm
alright".
> > > Andy J wrote:
> > > > > A fever is a body's way of excreting toxins and if you
> > > > > suppress that by say Calpol then it gets pushed back
> > > > > inside the body and presents later as something more
> > > > > serious or chronic.
> >
> > Well? Do you agree with that, or not?
>
> I think that's what homeopaths believe, I'm not really sure
> on it myself yet. Possibly. Personally I think a fever is
> the bodies way of killing a virus or infection with heat,
> and is therefore beneficial and shouldn't be suppressed.
Well, there's answer in there at least. You think it is
possible that the above statement by Andy J is true.
> If you'd read my other posts you'd already know that.
I have. I have been posting here for ages, on and off. Some
of your posts are OK, but I find some of the ones on "technical"
matters hilarious!
> Whether or not I agree with what Andy thinks isn't important
> though, it's not hard to just respect another persons opinion
> and their right to hold it.
Oh, I respect people's right to hold opinions - but when
they're so... "quaint?" is that too strong a word? I also
have the right to poke fun at the opinions & ridicule them!
parent
> "parent " wrote in message
> > So you think that doctors don't report adverse reactions,
> > or what? I'm asking *you* whether you think that there's a
> > conspiracy, not what you think I think. So: is there a
> > conspiacy, or not?
>
> What on earth is your problem? Why are you so interested in
> what *I* think,
You told me that you thought the figures in:
http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/cmo00_08.htm
were "skewed". I asked you whether you thought that there is
a conspiracy. You gave an odd reply which said I could think
that there was if I wanted to, and was a bit of a non-answer.
> to the degree that you're being so aggressive in your
> questioning?
As I got no real answer, I just asked again. I was not being
agressive, I was just re-asking a question, which....
> I think the information is suppressed, misreported, or
> conveniently brushed under the carpet sometimes.
..you have answered.
> If you're trying to label me as some type of conspiracy
> theorist, give up now.
But it is true to say, isn't it, that your reply that
you think the information is suppressed indicates that
you think there may be a conspiracy?
Tinkerbell
> No, I'm not missing the point. I asked a simple question.
> You seemed to evade the issue.
I don't have to answer anything you know, however much you try and bully me
in to it. You've taken up too much of my time this afternoon as it is, and I
certainly won't respond to an aggressive tone. This isn't Newsnight, it's a
newsgroup. I'm here by choice, for relaxation, the exchange of views and
support as a parent. It's not a court of law and if I choose not to share my
views on something, anything, with you then that's my choice.
> Again, I was not being rude to him. I pointed out how the
> statement he made that he made in:
>
> Message-ID: <HbeYa.54618$xd5.3...@stones.force9.net>
>
> which I find odious, and which was this:
>
> > My responsibility is 100% to my kids, not to yours or
> > to the pregnant woman.
>
> makes him seem. As someone else noted, it speaks volumes about
> his apparent attitude, which comes over as "Eff you, Jack, I'm
> alright".
I disagree, you were rude to him. By saying that he sounds like a tosser you
were attacking the person, not the argument. Bad debating.
> Well, there's answer in there at least. You think it is
> possible that the above statement by Andy J is true.
Why are you so interested in getting certain answers out of me anyhow?
Yes, I think it's possible that it could be true, but I also think it's
possible that it's not true too. I'm undecided at the moment. Happy with
that?
> I have. I have been posting here for ages, on and off. Some
> of your posts are OK, but I find some of the ones on "technical"
> matters hilarious!
I was referring to the posts in this thread, not any others. As for finding
my posts hilarious, there you go again with the personal insults. You just
can't help yourself it would seem.
> Oh, I respect people's right to hold opinions - but when
> they're so... "quaint?" is that too strong a word? I also
> have the right to poke fun at the opinions & ridicule them!
Some manners would hold that supposed 'right' in check. It's one thing to
discuss matters and disagree with what another person believes, it's quite
another to be rude and ridicule people.
Tinkerbell
>
> http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/cmo00_08.htm
>
> were "skewed". I asked you whether you thought that there is
> a conspiracy. You gave an odd reply which said I could think
> that there was if I wanted to, and was a bit of a non-answer.
It's my right to answer however I want to, I'm doing you a courtesy putting
up with your tone and even bothering.
> As I got no real answer, I just asked again. I was not being
> agressive, I was just re-asking a question, which....
I'm sorry, but you do have a very aggressive style of asking questions.
> ..you have answered.
>
> > If you're trying to label me as some type of conspiracy
> > theorist, give up now.
>
> But it is true to say, isn't it, that your reply that
> you think the information is suppressed indicates that
> you think there may be a conspiracy?
What you want me to do is label myself a conspiracy theorist, so that you
can poke fun of me. You've already stated 'I also have the right to poke fun
at the opinions & ridicule them!', so why on earth do you think I would lay
myself open to that? In my opinion that goes beyond debating or discussion,
and there should be no place for it here.
Jonathan Larmour
>Tinkerbell wrote:
>> "parent " wrote
>> > OK. Perhaps you will answer my question. Do you agree with
>> > the first statement? It was:
>>
>> You're totally missing the point, aren't you? Whether or not
>> you or I agree with what Andy typed makes no odds.
>
>No, I'm not missing the point. I asked a simple question.
>You seemed to evade the issue.
And _that's_ the aggressive questioning June was referring to.
>> There's no need to be rude to people just because you don't
>> agree with them, *that's* the point I'm making.
>
>Again, I was not being rude to him. I pointed out how the
>statement he made that he made in:
Calling someone a tosser isn't rude?
>> > > Andy J wrote:
>> > > > > A fever is a body's way of excreting toxins and if you
>> > > > > suppress that by say Calpol then it gets pushed back
>> > > > > inside the body and presents later as something more
>> > > > > serious or chronic.
>> >
>> > Well? Do you agree with that, or not?
>>
>> I think that's what homeopaths believe, I'm not really sure
>> on it myself yet. Possibly. Personally I think a fever is
>> the bodies way of killing a virus or infection with heat,
>> and is therefore beneficial and shouldn't be suppressed.
>
>Well, there's answer in there at least. You think it is
>possible that the above statement by Andy J is true.
If Andy had written it as:
"A fever is a body's way of <getting rid of harmful substances>
and if you suppress that by say Calpol then it <stays>
inside the body and presents later as something more serious
or chronic".
That's what I read it as, and the meaning I believe Andy intended. And
that tallies with medical wisdom (June, don't snigger at the concept ;))
just not in every case which was the point I'd been making.
>> If you'd read my other posts you'd already know that.
>
>I have. I have been posting here for ages, on and off. Some
>of your posts are OK, but I find some of the ones on "technical"
>matters hilarious!
That attitude will get you the respect you deserve then I guess.
Jo Ling
Tinkerbell <bugc...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:106035478...@doris.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Jo Ling" <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:3f2ec210$1_2@mk-nntp-
>
> > Why hideous?
>
> I would have thought that was self-explanatory, as it's obvious that I
don't
> agree with vaccinations.
So, hideous to you then. Possibly delightful for others.
> However, there are also wider implications. If vaccination becomes
> mandatory, what next? For instance Ritalin for children that a judge
decides
> would benefit from it, even if their parents don't want to take that
route?
> One thing could lead to another, and our rights as parents to bring up our
> children as we see fit could be eroded.
Let's take the other extreme, seeing as we are talking of extremes. How
about mandatory non-vaccination? Are you "for" that?
Extremes are hypothetical. Let's stick to the point here.
Jo Ling
> "Jonathan Larmour" <jifl...@jifvik.org.removethis.invalid> wrote in
message
> news:aiu801-
> > See my other posts. Sometimes nothing else can work (and, I know you'll
> > not appreciate me reiterating something you'll probably expect from me,
> > but homeopathy is provably no better than a placebo).
>
> And yet it works on babies and animals, who have no idea that it's
supposed
> to be making them feel better.
> I've never seen anyone explain that one away. And yes I know that by the
law
> of averages some babies and animals will have become better without any
> treatment, but that doesn't explain it all.
>
He said "SOMETIMES".
Sometimes people don't read the whole post.
Jo Ling
> "parent " <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>
> > What are you referring to? Me referring to the nuttiness of
> > the first statement? Do you agree with the first statement?
> > Or are you saying that the repulsive atttitude expressed in
> > the second statement is not worthy of comment? BTW, I am
> > not "stooping".
>
> I'm referring to you typing that Andy seems to be a right tosser. It added
> nothing to your post apart from a nasty taste, and wasn't necessary.
>
> <snipped>
> > I think that most parents, apart from a selfish or stupid
> > few, would try and help both or all children.
>
> Of course they all would, but I wasn't giving you that choice; one child
> only.
>
I love your hypothetical arguments! Let's see if I can make one up... if
your child was hypothetically at risk because of another mother's beliefs,
would you not feel a bit miffed?
Jo Ling
> "parent " <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> > So you think that doctors don't report adverse reactions,
> > or what? I'm asking *you* whether you think that there's a
> > conspiracy, not what you think I think. So: is there a
> > conspiacy, or not?
>
> What on earth is your problem? Why are you so interested in what *I*
think,
> to the degree that you're being so aggressive in your questioning?
> I think the information is suppressed, misreported, or conveniently
brushed
> under the carpet sometimes.
Sounds like a conspiracy theorist...
>If you're trying to label me as some type of
> conspiracy theorist, give up now.
>
Oops
Tinkerbell
"Jo Ling" <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote in message news:3f341e71$1_1@mk-nntp-
> I love your hypothetical arguments! Let's see if I can make one up... if
> your child was hypothetically at risk because of another mother's beliefs,
> would you not feel a bit miffed?
Ummm...but my children *are* at risk because of other people's beliefs Jo.
There are people here that believe I should vaccinate my children, which I
see as a danger to them. We don't even need to get in to hypothetical
arguments on that. I fully appreciate that these people think the same thing
about vaxxing as I think about not vaxxing, and that's their right - and
provided they don't try and impose their will on me and my children I'll
respect their right.
Jenn
Address-Header@[127.1]> writes
>Tinkerbell wrote:
>> "parent " wrote in message
>> > So you think that doctors don't report adverse reactions,
>> > or what? I'm asking *you* whether you think that there's a
>> > conspiracy, not what you think I think. So: is there a
>> > conspiacy, or not?
>>
>> What on earth is your problem? Why are you so interested in
>> what *I* think,
>
>You told me that you thought the figures in:
>
> http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/cmo00_08.htm
>
>were "skewed". I asked you whether you thought that there is
>a conspiracy. You gave an odd reply which said I could think
>that there was if I wanted to, and was a bit of a non-answer.
>> If you're trying to label me as some type of conspiracy
>> theorist, give up now.
>
>But it is true to say, isn't it, that your reply that
>you think the information is suppressed indicates that
>you think there may be a conspiracy?
OK - I usually keep well out of vax / anti debates, but I also think the
figures are likely to be somewhat skewed.
Many parents take the 'usual' side effects of vaccines as something to
be expected, and never mention them to their Dr. Therefore the actual
rate of those side effects is considerably higher than the reported
rate. Of those that do speak to their doctor I wonder how many doctors
report it?
I know that I have spoken to my Dr regarding side effects of other
drugs, and always got the impression that as long as it was a side
effect that was already known about then she had no interest in doing
anything other than helping me get over it.
I don't think that this is a conspiracy theory, simply various people
along the line not recording and reporting side effects properly.
I do think that the more serious side effects are probably reported
properly, since the parents would have a strong interest in doing so.
>
--
Jenn
UK
Tinkerbell
> So, hideous to you then. Possibly delightful for others.
I was speaking as myself, not you or anyone else, so most people would find
it obvious that I meant hideous to me.
> Let's take the other extreme, seeing as we are talking of extremes. How
> about mandatory non-vaccination? Are you "for" that?
Not at all, no. I'm 'for' a parents right to choose, without being bullied
by either health workers, the government or even people on a newsgroup.
> Extremes are hypothetical. Let's stick to the point here.
The possible extremes were the whole point of the thread Jo, it's why I
posted it in the first place.
Tinkerbell
>
> Tinkerbell <bugc...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:106035506...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> > "Jonathan Larmour" <jifl...@jifvik.org.removethis.invalid> wrote in
> message
> > news:aiu801-
> > > See my other posts. Sometimes nothing else can work (and, I know
you'll
> > > not appreciate me reiterating something you'll probably expect from
me,
> > > but homeopathy is provably no better than a placebo).
> >
> > And yet it works on babies and animals, who have no idea that it's
> supposed
> > to be making them feel better.
> > I've never seen anyone explain that one away. And yes I know that by the
> law
> > of averages some babies and animals will have become better without any
> > treatment, but that doesn't explain it all.
> >
>
> He said "SOMETIMES".
>
> Sometimes people don't read the whole post.
You're right Jo, they don't. If you read it back you'll find that the
'sometimes' in Jonathan's post referred to whether headache symptoms could
be alleviated without aspirin or paracetamol:
Andy J typed:
As a matter of fact my children don't get headaches and if they did I would
tell them to do as I do and sleep it off. The only headaches I ever get are
tiredness related. I have very occasionally used homeopathic remedies for
this too but never aspirin or paracetamol.
Jonathan replied:
See my other posts. Sometimes nothing else can work (and, I know you'll
not appreciate me reiterating something you'll probably expect from me,
but homeopathy is provably no better than a placebo).
My understanding of that is that the 'sometimes' didn't refer to the comment
about homeopathy being no better than a placebo, which is what I was
tackling with my reply.
Jo Ling
>
>
> "Jo Ling" <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:3f341e71$1_1@mk-nntp-
> > I love your hypothetical arguments! Let's see if I can make one up...
if
> > your child was hypothetically at risk because of another mother's
beliefs,
> > would you not feel a bit miffed?
>
> Ummm...but my children *are* at risk because of other people's beliefs Jo.
> There are people here that believe I should vaccinate my children, which I
> see as a danger to them.
That's how you see it. I see it as my children are at risk because of your
failure to vaccinate.
> We don't even need to get in to hypothetical
> arguments on that. I fully appreciate that these people think the same
thing
> about vaxxing as I think about not vaxxing, and that's their right - and
> provided they don't try and impose their will on me and my children I'll
> respect their right.
Yes, but anti-vaccination parents are imposing a risk on all other
children, vaccinated or not.
Tinkerbell
>
> That's how you see it. I see it as my children are at risk because of
your
> failure to vaccinate.
And I, unlike you it would seem, support your right to think differently to
me (even though I think you're making a huge mistake). Maybe I'm just more
tolerant than you, who knows.
> Yes, but anti-vaccination parents are imposing a risk on all other
> children, vaccinated or not.
I'm sorry that you disagree with what I'm doing, and, needless to say, I
think your children are under far more threat from vaccinations than they
are my children. However, just because I support your right to make a
different choice to me I will certainly not allow myself to bullied in to a
wrong decision by you or people like you.
And with that I think I'll retire from this discussion with you as it's
going nowhere constructive.
Helen Johnson
late, and didn't know where to start!
I am pro choice, and feel that on balance vaccination is the way to go.
However, just cos I vaccinate does not mean that I don't - use herbal
remedies, avoid unnecessary drugs/antibiotics, and feed my child well.
I think the debate has become a bit : if I disagree with one thing,
I~'ll have to disagree with all the others - forgive me if I'm wrong.
However, I do take drugs for my migraines - they last 4-5 days and I get
them at least monthly, and are v severe such that I have considered
jumping out of windows with the pain. Luckilly Imigran came along, and I
would kiss the feet of whoever invented it. However, with this, I hae
tried feverfew [disgusting, and not effective] meadowsweet - slightly
effective, and altering diet. however, still have periods, and my job is
stressful.
Daughter has had negligible calpol over her 2 1/2 years. Husband has
hardly any tablets.
We eat organic, grow a fair bit of our food, and get most of rest from a
box scheme. Elinor will usually choose fruit over crisps and biscuits,
though does have a passion for icecream.
Shock horror, I'm a doctor. Obviously the brain washing we are supposed
to go through at medical school has not been entirely succesful.Even
more surprising, it seems to have failed for a large proportion of my
colleagues who also grow organic, avoid medicines etc.
That said, see a western doctor for treatment, and you'll get a western
answer. I'm not trained in herbal medicines, aromatherapy etc, so can't
advise. It is very difficult however, to not treat someone, there is a
huge fuss, and claims you are rationing healthcare against them. I'm
nnot surprised antibiotics are overused, painkillers and the like.
this was a bit of a rant wasn't it! prob cos I'm fighting off
tonsillitis with meadowsweet tea alternating with ginger, lemon and
honey. [If you have a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it!"]
--
Helen Johnson
Tinkerbell
news:ujRAnDQsk3N$Ew...@familyfrench.co.uk...
Hi Helen,
I'd take high doses of Vit C too (to diarrhoea levels), and eat plenty of
garlic (preferably raw, but yeah...not so good!)
I guess I'm lucky with my own GP as if we ever do see him the first thing
he'll offer me is a homeopathic remedy, unless it's an emergency etc. I'm
not sure how much training he's had as a homeopath, but I do know he has had
some. I imagine he had to arrange and pay for it himself though.
Helen Johnson
>> I'm fighting off
>> tonsillitis with meadowsweet tea alternating with ginger, lemon and
>> honey. [If you have a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it!"]
>> --
>> Helen Johnson
>
>Hi Helen,
>
>I'd take high doses of Vit C too (to diarrhoea levels), and eat plenty of
>garlic (preferably raw, but yeah...not so good!)
>
fruit is at a midpoint, finished strawbs, goosegogs, rasps, and
currants; blueberries nearly gone and plums and apples not ready.
I love garlic raw, and we grow a lot, I just can't swallow anything.
thanks
>I guess I'm lucky with my own GP as if we ever do see him the first thing
>he'll offer me is a homeopathic remedy, unless it's an emergency etc. I'm
>not sure how much training he's had as a homeopath, but I do know he has had
>some. I imagine he had to arrange and pay for it himself though.
offers acupuncture, and they as a practice paid the costs for on of the
gp's to be trained.
>June
>http://www.he-ed.org.uk/
>
>http://www.internationalsymposium.co.uk/ The UK's first International
>Symposium on Vaccination
>
>
>
--
Helen Johnson