Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners

(78 Posts)
rosi7 Mon 04-Mar-13 09:04:12
undercoverhousewife Mon 04-Mar-13 09:08:39

Shocked but not, sadly, surprised.

CatherinaJTV Mon 04-Mar-13 09:51:43

I would file that under "continuous efforts of a researcher to discredit herself as antivaccine" - here is Tomljenovic speaking alongside Andy Wakefield at a plush anti-vaccine conference in Jamaica. The speakers' list reads like a who is who in anti-vaccine activism (quite handy, actually)

rosi7 Mon 04-Mar-13 10:12:57

... and being antivaccine means discrediting oneself???

CatherinaJTV Mon 04-Mar-13 10:30:28

yes, being anti-vaccine does.

rosi7 Mon 04-Mar-13 12:07:24

Catharina, please explain why

sashh Sat 09-Mar-13 06:21:34

and being antivaccine means discrediting oneself?


specialsubject Sat 09-Mar-13 13:08:04

one word, ranting OP - smallpox.

DazzleII Sat 09-Mar-13 15:26:02

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

bruffin Sat 09-Mar-13 15:41:07

What does it matter who catherina is. She isn't hiding anything although i don't think she is American.
If you are going to post about vaccines you need to get your facts right and be able to back it with legitimate research.

DazzleII Sat 09-Mar-13 15:42:39

Well, I think she should declare her interest - namely that she runs a pro-vax blog and afaik only comes onto MN to post about vaxes.

Closing down debate is against the spirit of the site.

bruffin Sat 09-Mar-13 15:52:09

Rosi7 only posts about vaccines as well.

The only reason debate gets closed down is because people cant back up their evidence.

DazzleII Sat 09-Mar-13 15:58:37

Surely the OP is backing up her evidence?

CatherinaJTV Sat 09-Mar-13 16:03:07

Dazzle - I am not American and you will see me post about loads of things, just not here, since this is the vaccination board (I am tempted to say d'uh). If you followed my posts as closely as you are alleging, you'd know that I do post vaccine-critical things and I do take real parents' concerns very seriously. Post and runs of anti-vaccine members on the other hand....

LilQueenie Sat 09-Mar-13 16:20:00

Lets look at what we know. Politicians will lie and do god knows what for money. Life saving drugs are held back from those who need them. Childrens organs were taken without consent. Lots of sex abusers coming out of the woodwork and many well known and in many cases respected people hid the fact something was wrong. Many drugs taken off market because of effects that became apparant years after being used despite tests before being released. At what point do we actually trust professionals? As for internet anyone can post what they want. Even sites listing fraudulent papers could easily slip a link whether true or not. In actual fact we know zero.

DazzleII Sat 09-Mar-13 16:23:16

OK, sorry if you do post elsewhere - I've just never encountered you. smile I assumed you were American because you describe yourself on your blog as Science Mom and in the UK mums don't usually use the term "mom".

DazzleII Sat 09-Mar-13 16:34:21

LilQueenie: "Politicians will lie and do god knows what for money" - do they ???? shock


DazzleII Sat 09-Mar-13 16:43:43

At least we can be sure that no Lib Dem would ever put his own financial or political interest above the interests of the general populace.

FrameyMcFrame Sat 09-Mar-13 16:55:15

Ooohh vaccination debate, I've not seen one of these for a while...
I just opened a new bag of popcorn too smile

CatherinaJTV Sat 09-Mar-13 17:24:18

Can I have some Framey, please?

Dazzle - Science Mom is American. I am not Science Mom. There are more nationalities than British and American, btw.

I have no interests to declare. I like evidence-based reasoning, I am allergic against alarmist hogwash and conspiracy theories. Easy, really.

DazzleII Sat 09-Mar-13 17:42:06

I'm rather allergic to sarcasm and rudeness.

DazzleII Sat 09-Mar-13 17:44:26

Is your blog a blog run by you and Science Mom, then? It seems very American?

rosi7 Sat 09-Mar-13 21:24:53

and being antivaccine means discrediting oneself?


Sash and Catherina please explain why

rosi7 Sat 09-Mar-13 22:08:09

Catherina - is withholding data and information then "evidence-based reasoning"?

I do like a scientific approach as well - but for that there is a need for openness and transparency. It is just too simple to brush aside every criticism and request for proper information as conspiracy crazy stuff.

I find it useful to trust my experience and my gut feeling and to sometimes use common sense if those who claim to be scientific in their approach find no better way to defend their truth then by discrediting other people.

sashh Sun 10-Mar-13 06:48:16

Sash and Catherina please explain why

Because it is so stupid. It ignores science. It ignores common sense.

All vaccines have a risk, but so do all foods, you don't know if you have an allergy until you eat something that makes you react. That is not a reason to be anti food.

If you have a reaction to a food it is sensible to avoid it and possibly have your children tested. To be antivax is like telling people to stop eating all food because someone somewhere told you their cousin reacted to peanuts.

rosi7 Sun 10-Mar-13 07:44:28

Sash, sorry, but how you look at things is just one way of doing it. There are other ways and I find it disrespectful to label them stupid without looking at them in detail.

Your way of dealing with an allergy is to avoid eating the food - an other way would be to avoid the food but at the same time find out the true cause of the allergy and heal it. I do know sufficient real people who were able to heal an allergy - I cannot see any stupidity in their approach.

And your example of the allergy does not quite fit - as not eating something is very different from getting something injected into your body that can have massive adverse effects.

Withholding data is very unscientific - it means you are disrespectful, dishonest and cheating. I find it stupid to believe somebody or some organization or company who does not tell me the truth. If this happened once I am willing to believe that it might have been a mistake but if it happens frequently and intentionally then I simply stop believing them. If you find that stupid - I find that a healthy way to look after myself.

DazzleII Sun 10-Mar-13 09:56:13

Good post, rosi7. smile

There is a difference between being anti-vaccination and cautious. One is stupid, the other sensible.

bruffin Sun 10-Mar-13 10:16:22

The allergy thing is perfect analogy. You are still putting something in your body that has the potential to kill you. Its a risk you balance up.
Although not eating certain foods could open you up to malnutrition, by not having a vaccine you are open to a disease that can leave you dead or with life long consequences.
The anti websites are dishonest as well. The likes of schreibner and sids which keeps being repeated around the internet.
Whale misses out years in graphs to make it look like measles was on decline.
There was that awful Angela women you like to link to who altered the kiggs figures to make it look unvaccinated are healthier.
There is the Martin walker gmc transcripts which are fairy tale but seen it repeated time and time again.

CatherinaJTV Sun 10-Mar-13 19:51:16

rosi - you are assuming that Tomljenovic is telling the truth. I am not. I would recommend Ben Goldacre's "Bad Pharma" over Lucija T every day. I would not say that she is "stupid" though. There is some very determined reputation building going on in her lab (with boss Christopher Shaw). I expect to see them as "experts" in vaccine law suits soon (most likely Gardasil) and they'll argue on the basis of the "scientific literature" they have published (almost no month goes by without a vaccine bashing article of the two at the moment). Honi soit qui mal y pense and all that. I doubt they'll be very successful, but the money is in testifying (like pere and fils Geier before they were eventually laughed out of court)...

rosi7 Sun 10-Mar-13 20:36:47

Food is something that nourishes my human body. If my body cannot cope with food anymore there is something seriously out of balance in my body.

Eating poison like aluminum or formaldehyde is certainly not nourishing my body. If some people decide that it is and feel it is a suitable comparison - it is up to them. Everybody has their choice.

If pharmaceutical companies and vaccination industry would fulfill the requirements of a scientific approach which includes openness, transparency and giving all the data requested, there would be no need to seek information with conspiracy theorists. They only fill the vacuum.

Withholding data and information but claim to be scientific at the same time does not fit together - and for me - to be quite honest - it means abusing science for the sake of manipulation.

bruffin Sun 10-Mar-13 21:00:21

Nuts would kill my son as would sesame seeds.
Everyone had the potential to become allergic to foods like that at any time so you are taking risk overtime you eat them.

Aluminium occurs in your every day food,
a baby has its biggest body burden of aluminium the day it is born which has crossed the placenta while in the womb . Formaldihyde is also made naturally in your body.
Eating too much of any food will damage your body just as a small amount of aluminium will not do damage just as too much of most foods could do you harm.

bruffin Sun 10-Mar-13 21:01:21

The websites you get hour info from are not open or transparent.

CatherinaJTV Sun 10-Mar-13 21:02:26

rosi - do you eat oranges or bananas? Packed full of formaldehyde - it is a normal metabolite in our bodies that we break down with a half life of 1 to 1.5 minutes. The dose is the poison and all that (think the pinch of salt that your body needs to function and the tablespoon full of salt that would make you vomit). Did you know that orthorexia is a disease? ( - you do read German, if I recall correctly?)

rosi7 Sun 10-Mar-13 21:19:31

Vaccination and pharmaceutical industry claim to be scientific, open and transparent. So they have to deliver the proof of playing the game according to the rules.

What everybody else is doing is up to them. If they are or are not, claim to be or do not claim to be scientific, open and transparent - it does not take the responsibility from the vaccination industry to meet the claims of science.

DazzleII Sun 10-Mar-13 22:19:40

You don't do your "cause" much good when you are so rude, Catherina.

bruffin Sun 10-Mar-13 22:29:25

Doesn't do a cause any good when you come on a thread specifically to make a personal attack which is against the talk guidelines of MN

DazzleII Sun 10-Mar-13 23:02:26

I came on the thread to read the OP's link, which is very useful to me and others. I hope she will continue to link to this kind of thing, but she won't if she is continually subjected to personal abuse, and if no-one decent stands up for her.

DazzleII Sun 10-Mar-13 23:05:48

It is not against Talk Guidelines to point out when a poster's post is rude, which is what I have done. Accusing the OP of being orthorexic is however a personal attack.

bruffin Mon 11-Mar-13 02:56:27

I do know sufficient real people who were able to heal an allergy - I cannot see any stupidity in their approach

Nobody knows why allergies happen so anyone claiming they can find the cause then heal it is a quack.

Suspect they are the type of people who use kinesiology or Vega machine NAET to diagnose a non existent allergy then miraculously heal it. There is no evidence that any of this works.

There are allergy specialist who are curing allergies such as peanut at the moment but its still in the experimental stage but it looks very promising.

rosi7 Mon 11-Mar-13 05:58:46

Dazzle, thank you for pointing out the rudeness. It is a common pattern of behavior that those who dare to express their concerns about the effects of vaccination are either being ridiculed or attacked in a very disrespectful and powerful way.

I personally do have great respect for people who have the courage to speak out their own truth despite the fact that they might be the only ones amongst millions of people thinking the opposite and within a system holding all the power in terms of money and information.

But - thank God - we are moving out of a world of institutionalized monopolization of power and information - and this process is not reversible - the world is going there and the process is accelerating.

specialsubject Mon 11-Mar-13 14:22:52

very few truths are absolute, except gravity and the fact that smallpox is no longer in the population. Now, how did the latter happen?

CatherinaJTV Mon 11-Mar-13 15:44:11

Rosi - I am sorry you feel offended. What I wanted is to point out that it is nigh impossible to not eat formaldehyde and that people can get so obsessed with what they eat that it becomes a disease (not saying you have that, just saying that it is currently becoming a recognised disease, not unreasonably).

Further: there is such a thing as "opinion" and everyone is entitled to their own. However, facts are facts and no one is entitled to their own facts.

I do disagree that information becomes monopolised, too. On the contrary - more and more sources are now open access, especially scientific outlets (you shouldn't get vaccine information from the media anyway ;) ).

rosi7 Mon 11-Mar-13 17:06:06

Catherina - I did not say that I feel offended.

I agree. Facts are facts. But if a person, an organization or a company withholds part of the facts the facts they deliver are useless or even dangerous as they do not mirror reality but are used to manipulate people.

bruffin Mon 11-Mar-13 20:24:34

Its a pity you don't hold the same principles for your sources rosi

rosi7 Mon 11-Mar-13 21:05:34

Bruffin, it's a pity you haven't read my comment earlier.

Here it is again:

What everybody else is doing is up to them. If they are or are not, claim to be or do not claim to be scientific, open and transparent - it does not take the responsibility from the vaccination industry to meet the claims of science.

bruffin Mon 11-Mar-13 22:30:55

I have read it but hypocritical to want open and transparency in one industry then relying on completely unscientific and unproven therapies yourself. Not only that but you promote them as cure.

rosi7 Tue 12-Mar-13 06:15:09

What means unscientific? It is no less scientific to rely on a healing method which present science in its limited framework cannot yet explain than relying on a system that abuses scientific methods to distort the results.

Bruffin, your viewpoint is very limited. In your world still everything that cannot be explained does not exist and therefore all of these people are quacks as you labelled them earlier.

We have moved into a world where the understanding of quantum mechanics and neuroscience are flooding us with so much research and information that all the "quacky" stuff seems to be valid so that more and more medical doctors are integrating it in their daily work.

Like the "quack" that healed an allergy. She was an ordinary medical doctor, Bruffin, working in a hospital and as an emergency doctor. All she did was using alternative complementary medicine like color light to achieve healing.

bruffin Tue 12-Mar-13 08:27:05

Quantum mechanics
Your very funny Rosi

CatherinaJTV Tue 12-Mar-13 08:30:50

the understanding of quantum mechanics and neuroscience are flooding us with so much research and information

none of which supports "alternative" "healing" approaches. You may get better explanations of placebo effects, but what we have mostly seen over the past decade are solid studies finding what methods are indeed ineffective (see "Trick or Treatment" by Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh). Or take this fantastic research and information from Neuroscience/Human Genetics:

SCN1A mutations were identified in 11 of 14 patients with alleged vaccine encephalopathy; a diagnosis of a specific epilepsy syndrome was made in all 14 cases.

I must have missed when Natural News,, Mercola, and the other "alternative" outlets covered this in their newsletters, warning parents not to jump to conclusions over temporal associations between vaccination and epilepsy, because intractable epilepsies are usually genetic.

rosi7 Tue 12-Mar-13 11:26:04

Catherina - you seem to know better than I do which healing methods I am talking about - as you are able to give your serious judgement on that.

I find that as interesting as I find bruffins response.

sashh Tue 12-Mar-13 12:17:12

And your example of the allergy does not quite fit - as not eating something is very different from getting something injected into your body that can have massive adverse effects.

Not really.

There is more aluminium in a tuna sandwich than a vaccine. As catherina has said formaldehyde is present in nature. And did you know some fruit is radioactive?

But if a person, an organization or a company withholds part of the facts the facts they deliver are useless or even dangerous as they do not mirror reality but are used to manipulate people.

So instead of saying have '5 a day' the government should be telling people fruit is radioactive?

The information is there for anyone to see, but it doesn't help for it to be taken out of context.

rosi7 Tue 12-Mar-13 16:00:40

I am truly amazed how stubborn people are in ignoring the obvious and defending dishonest and dangerous behaviour.

We are talking here about the fact that vaccination industry and pharmaceutical companies are holding back information.

Some people do not seem to be willing to accept this simple fact - even at a time when - probably for the first time in modern medical history - doctors are taking a pharmaceutical company (GlaxoSmithKline) to court because of the very same reason.

CatherinaJTV Tue 12-Mar-13 16:40:07

the pharmaceutical industry is withholding information. "Our side" (ie the likes of Goldacre and Chalmers, who are very much pro-vaccine) are writing books about it. That doesn't mean that one should not vaccinate or that colour heals allergies.

Tabitha8 Tue 12-Mar-13 18:20:25

If there is aluminium in a tuna sandwich, is it in the bread or the tuna?
(I'm interested also in knowing why it is there).

bruffin Tue 12-Mar-13 19:14:17

What do you mean if?
You cant declare it a poison we shouldn't inject into our bodies, if you nothing about it as element.
Its the third most abundant elements on earth. Its naturally occurring in the soil and water. You get some through meat but mostly through grains and vegetables.

rosi7 Tue 12-Mar-13 21:51:58

This is only partly right, Bruffin.

It is true that aluminum is the third most abundant element on earth. But it is also true that as a pure element it would not exist at all in the world if human beings had not used chemical reactions to extract it.

But the interesting side of aluminum is that so far no living organism has been found on earth that could make any positive use of it.

And yes, you have to declare it as a poison for the nervous system as indeed it is.

bruffin Tue 12-Mar-13 22:09:57

Aluminium and Hydrogen are both naturally occurring and important elements within the soil system

Don't agree
Also as pointed numerous times its the dose makes the poison. It does no harm in normal doses. It takes industrial exposure or kidney failure for it to become toxic because the human body gets rid of it easily.

bruffin Tue 12-Mar-13 22:41:57

Actually want don't agree with rosi definition

clay soils

edam Tue 12-Mar-13 22:50:13

There clearly are some people who are extremists. However, vaccines, just like any other drug, do have the potential to cause harm. The Centers for Disease Control in America issued an interesting statement on the pandemic flu vaccine that was used throughout Europe in 2009 - which researchers now know caused an increased risk of narcolepsy. So let's not assume all concern about vaccines is hysterical scare-mongering. (It's not used any more, and quite right too, but sadly it's too late for some of the people affected.)

bruffin Tue 12-Mar-13 23:03:09

Nobody has said there aren't problems, but it is the denial of the good they do you while concentrating on a risk that is far less than the original disease that is the problem.

rosi7 Wed 13-Mar-13 06:02:22

Sorry, Bruffin, it is the other way round - it is the denial of the bad while concentrating on the good - without taking into consideration that there might be healthier solutions in terms of securing human health.

We have all been brainwashed to believe there is no other solution and that therefore we have to use the solution bearing these risks.

You live in a different paradigm, Bruffin, but it is also a paradigm ignoring the fact that with our pharmaceutical approach we are slowly but surely destroying our whole planet as we do not consider the long-term consequences of the whole of the model and so far we do not support proper research to find better solutions.

bruffin Wed 13-Mar-13 08:54:06

Its not denial to want to some solid evidence that something works beyond a placebo affect.
We should become bretharian, now that is really healthy wink

sashh Thu 14-Mar-13 05:48:41

Also as pointed numerous times its the dose makes the poison.

The same with chocolate. It's a poison, but you have to eat a lot.

We have all been brainwashed to believe there is no other solution and that therefore we have to use the solution bearing these risks.

Seriously? Please do tell what the cures are for

Chicken pox
Small pox
The common cold
Whooping cough

I know when Elizabeth I had small pox she was wrapped in red. Was that the cure?

rosi7 Thu 14-Mar-13 11:08:36

Seriously, Sashh. Vaccination is a holy cow.

And if you want to find out - go dig it out and ask those who have truly been healed. There is so much more around than pills and vaccinations. But probably in your paradigm those who have been healed with alternative methods do not exist and if they do - they were not truly ill but only pretended to be or were diagnosed wrongly.

It is only for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. Not for those who are happy to carry on living in their narrow paradigm.

Tabitha8 Thu 14-Mar-13 18:30:19

I'm not sure that we would normally be looking to cure the following, more to manage them:
Chicken pox
The common cold
Whooping cough

Note, I left Small Pox off the list.

bruffin Thu 14-Mar-13 19:23:33

Prevention is better than a cure.

rosi7 Thu 14-Mar-13 20:11:54

Certainly, prevention is better than cure. The best prevention is to keep your immune system strong.


I do not believe the story anymore that vaccines keep you healthy.

CatherinaJTV Fri 15-Mar-13 11:16:21

note that "management of measles" can include weeks in intensive care...

bruffin Fri 15-Mar-13 11:18:37

And having a strong immune system can lead to death with certain strains of flu.

rosi7 Fri 15-Mar-13 11:51:08

The fear game is quite strong. Not for me anymore. I know what I am talking about.

I do have four children in their twenties now. Two of them have never been vaccinated at all. All I regret is that I have not been informed and strong enough 25 years ago not to vaccinate my first two children. I can see the difference very clearly. But some people probably want to make me believe that it is all imagination and if enough people tell me the sky is pink - I certainly will believe it.

Life is a risk - and I would rather choose to have healthy children with a good immune system than children who are burdened with poison and chronic diseases for the rest of their lives.

CatherinaJTV Fri 15-Mar-13 11:59:46

I hope you can hide the idea that your older children are somehow "damaged" by vaccines from them. Your post makes me really sad.

rosi7 Fri 15-Mar-13 14:24:12

Hide reality, Catherina? Interesting suggestion - I rather face it and learn from my mistakes.

specialsubject Fri 05-Apr-13 18:24:05

Rosi7 seems to have gone very quiet. Perhaps she is on holiday in Swansea?

LadyGranulomaFortesque Tue 23-Apr-13 10:39:18

Just wanted to say thank you to Rosi7 for this paper. It has made for some very interesting reading indeed.

I am appalled but not surprised at the consistent attempts of some posters in this and other threads to stick their fingers in their ears and yell lalalalalalala in the face of something that doesn't toe the party line yet which cannot be explained away.

Poster 1: I have found evidence to suggest that we may not have the full picture on vaccine safety
Poster 2: Yeah but your kids will die if you don't get them vaccinated
Poster 1: Yes, but how do you explain some of these findings
Poster 2: The person finding them is a dick and your kids will die if you don't get the vaxxed
Poster 1: Yes but the evidence is here in front of your eyes and is compelling
Poster 2: Shut up shut up shut up. Oh and your kids will die if you don't get them vaccinated

JoTheHot Tue 23-Apr-13 12:38:04

Poster 1: I've found something on google which I don't understand, but it fits in with my prejudices, so I'm re-posting it here.

Poster 2: Your link is incoherent, unscientific rubbish summarily contradicted by the following verifiable evidence: link, link, link.

Poster 1: I didn't understand the original piece, so don't expect me to understand your rebuttal. I'm right. My gut instinct tells me as much, and it's infallible. You're a sheeple. You're also rude and patronising. Get off, leave me alone, pineapple fritters anyone, what day is it, I'm Elvis you know....(sound of white coats flapping).

LadyGranulomaFortesque Tue 23-Apr-13 12:44:41

JoTheHot, seriously?

That's my point. lol

JoTheHot Tue 23-Apr-13 18:12:48

That is good. You're comment that the OP's link made for 'very interesting reading indeed' mislead me.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now