Why would someone say this about vaccines? Is it odd?

[PuzzlingPanda]

Was in a health food shop today and mentioned an ongoing issue I'm having with one of my do.

The man mentioned he thought the biggest thing going wrong with our children was all the vaccines they receive. He said they full of nasties, designed to make people ill.

It could be put down to a man having a pointless rant but why would he say this? Is there any sort of truth in it?

Not the first time I've heard negative things about vaccines.

Now I'm worried about it.

DD wasn't given a tb jab, but my friend's DS was - we live 5 mins apart, but in different london boroughs. Although both were born at Chelsea and Westminster so I would have thought it would be the same

Should I be looking to get her done? It seems weird to do some babies and not others!

scared any grandparents born abroad? But as has been pointed out some parts of London have a high incidence of TB. BCG does have complications, so given only to those above a risk threshold. DS got it at birth (and HepB).

Ah that makes sense - my friend's in-laws are from Iraq, whereas mine were all born here. Thank you!

Am a bit freaked now as doctor acted like it was a non- issue. If I did catch it from my father who had no signs of having redeveloped active TB (he died of cancer/renal failure so could have been masked by his general ill health when he was terminally ill) then I can't be the only one. There must be others out there who are carrying latent TB, becomes active without diagnosis, pass to others = latent, become active without diagnosis etc.

I want to get this monitored. My DC are only 9 & 6 and I can't risk passing this on to them but am I bit concerned I'm going to get fobbed off.

It is a non-issue. If you or DC get TB from your late father who had it, pre-streptomycin (actually just introduced), then it will be very easy to treat. When my Heaf test flared up working on a chest ward and I had an op soon after, discussed with anaesthetist, they kept previous day "plumbing" and put me first on list and changed the circuit for the rest of the list, chance tiny but why not protect others?

"There must be others out there who are carrying latent TB, becomes active without diagnosis, pass to others = latent, become active without diagnosis etc."

Exactly, hence guidelines

Thanks drat, I presume you have latent TB and work in healthcare?

Yes, and used to, thankfully retired.

I'm sorry about that (not the retirement!) but that does put my mind at rest a little. No issues with visas travelling abroad? Apologies OP for the derailment of the thread.

I am very happy to be retired, bus pass is great way for back from lunchtime drinks! I have many visas in my expired passports, no one has ever asked about a positive Heaf test. (But then it could be it was a vaccination in NZ or Canada). And I share apologies to op but hopefully of interest to those still on thread.

The doctor didn't say specifically say I had latent TB, just that I'd "been exposed to" TB and my body had "dealt with it by itself". He didn't act like he thought there was any issue with it whatsoever which is why I was suddenly worried there were wider implications that weren't being addressed.

It wouldn't have occurred to me that I had latent TB off the back of the conversation I'd had with him!

Skywasmade So...you blame your mumps on an 'unvaccinated' child.

Clearly, if you caught it, you were also unvaccinated??! The irony! Why weren't you vaccinated in the first place?

I would blame it on the stupidity of the parents taking a poorly child to a party. Irrelevent whether she was vaccinated or not - clearly. As she had it, and gave it to you. How did you know she was unvaccinated?!

Or are you saying, that you think ALL children should be vaccinated to prevent any of them catching it and spreading it to unvaccinated adults? (although being vaccinated wouldn't prevent them catching it anyway)

You see, this is why this type of thinking is just bonkers imo.

The MMR wasn't available in Canada when I was a child so my lack of immunity was not voluntary

If someone is unvaccinated because the vaccine wasn't available or if someone is unvaccinated for medical reasons or if someone is unvaccinated because their parents decided not to vaccinate them or if someone was vaccinated but their immunity has waned - they're all still capable of catching and spreading the disease. I'm not sure why the reasons behind it matter tbh.

"that you think ALL children should be vaccinated to prevent any of them catching it and spreading it to unvaccinated adults? "

Well, yes, that's how mass childhood vaccination programmes work. The idea is that if the number of people who can catch it is massively reduced then you reduce the risk of there being outbreaks that could infect anyone who isn't immune (adults who still don't have immunity, babies who are too young to be vaccinated, people for whom the vaccine didn't "take", people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons). Ad-hoc vaccination of individual adults who are too old to have had a mumps vaccine (which is why I personally "wasn't vaccinated in the first place!" SHOCK HORROR, they didn't offer it in the 70s) wouldn't have the same effect. Not least because it's not 100% effective and you'd still be at risk of being exposed to the disease as it would still be "at large" in the community.

See the previous post about how health authorities moved from just vaccinating teenage girls against rubella to vaccinating all children against rubella because that was calculated to be more effective in removing wild rubella from the community that could infect women of childbearing age. Which apparently it was, as it greatly reduced the incidence of congenital rubella syndrome.

(Get the impression in the jury is slightly out on how well it's worked for mumps, but I think that's because the vaccine effectiveness is lower than the rubella one)

MEASLES

Measles, also called rubeola or 'English measles," is a contagious viral disease that can 'be contracted by touching an object used by an infected person. At the onset the victim feels tired, has a slight fever and pain in the head and back. His eyes redden and he may be sensitive to light. The fever rises until about the third or fourth day, when it reaches 103-104 degrees. Sometimes small white spots can be seen inside the mouth, and a rash of small pink spots appears below the hair line and behind the ears. This rash spreads downward to cover the body in about 36 hours. The pink spots may run together but fade away in about three or four days. Measles is contagious for seven or eight days, beginning three or four days be-fore the rash appears. Consequently, if one of your children contracts the disease, the others probably will have been exposed to it before you know the first I child is sick.

No treatment is required for measles other than bed rest, fluids to combat possible dehydration from fever, and calamine lotion or cornstarch baths to relieve the itching. If the child suffers from photophobia, the blinds in his bedroom should be lowered to darken the room. However, contrary to the popular myth, there is no danger of permanent blindness from this disease.

A vaccine to prevent measles is an-other element of the MMR inoculation given in early childhood. Doctors maintain that the inoculation is necessary to prevent measles encephalitis, which they say occurs about once in 1,000 cases. After decades of experience with measles, I question this statistic, and so do many other paediatricians. The incidence of 1/1,000 may be accurate for children who live in conditions of poverty and malnutrition, but in the middle-and upper-income brackets, if one excludes simple sleepiness from the measles itself, the incidence of true encephalitis is probably more like 1/10,000 or 1/100,000.

After frightening you with the unlikely possibility of measles encephalitis, your doctor can rarely be counted on to tell you of the dangers associated with the vaccine he uses to prevent it. The measles vaccine is associated with encephalopathy and with a series of other complications such as SSPE (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis), which causes hardening of the brain and is invariably fatal.

Other neurologic and sometimes fatal conditions associated with the measles vaccine include ataxia (inability to coordinate muscle movements), mental retardation, aseptic meningitis, seizure disorders, and hemiparesis (paralysis affecting one side of the body). Secondary complications associated with the vaccine may be even more frightening. They include encephalitis, juvenile-onset diabetes, Reye's syndrome, and multiple sclerosis.

I would consider the risks associated with measles vaccination unacceptable even if there were convincing evidence that the vaccine works. There isn't. While there has been a decline in the incidence of the disease, it began long before the vaccine was introduced. In 1958 there were about 800,000 cases of measles in the United States, but by 1962-the year before a vaccine appeared-the number of cases had dropped by 300,000. During the next four years, while children were being vaccinated with an ineffective and now abandoned "killed virus" vaccine, the number of cases dropped another 300,000. In 1900 there were 13.3 measles deaths per 100,000 population. By 1955, before the first measles shot, the death rate had declined 97.7 percent to only 0.03 deaths per 100,000.

Those numbers alone are dramatic evidence that measles was disappearing before the vaccine was introduced. If you fail to find them sufficiently convincing, consider this: in a 1978 survey of thirty states, more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. Moreover, according to the World Health Organization, the chances are about fifteen times greater that measles will be contracted by those vaccinated for them than by those who are not.

"Why," you may ask, "in the face of these facts, do doctors continue to give the shots?" The answer may lie in an episode that occurred in California fourteen years after the measles vaccine was introduced. Los Angeles suffered a severe measles epidemic during that year, and parents were urged to vaccinate all children six months of age and older-despite a Public Health Service warning that vaccinating children below the age of one year was useless and potentially harmful.

Although Los Angeles doctors responded by routinely shooting measles vaccine into very kid they could get their hands on, several local physicians familiar with the suspected problems of immunologic failure and "slow virus" dangers chose not to vaccinate their own infant children. Unlike their patients, who weren't told, they realized that "slow viruses" found in all live vaccines, and particularly in the measles vaccine, can hide in human tissue for years. They may emerge later in the form of encephalitis, multiple sclerosis, and as potential seeds for the development and growth of cancer.

One Los Angeles physician who refused to vaccinate his own seven-month-old baby said: "I'm worried about what happens when the vaccine virus may not only offer little protection against measles but may also stay around in the body, working in a way we don't know much about." His concern about the possibility of these consequences for his own child, however, did not cause him to stop vaccinating his infant patients. He rationalized this contradictory behaviour with the comment that "As a parent, I have the luxury of making a choice for my child. As a physician... legally and professionally I have to accept the recommendations of the profession, which is what we also had to do with the whole Swine Flu business."

RUBELLA

Commonly known as "German measles," rubella is a non-threatening disease in children that does not require medical treatment.

The initial symptoms are fever and a slight cold, accompanied by a sore throat. You know it is something more when a rash appears on the face and scalp and spreads to the arms and body. The spots do not run together as they do with measles, and they usually fade away after two or three days. The victim should be encouraged to rest, and be given adequate fluids, but no other treatment is needed.

The threat posed by rubella is the possibility that it may cause damage to the fetus if a woman contracts the disease during the first trimester of her pregnancy. This fear is used to justify the immunization of all children, boys and girls, as part of the MMR inoculation. The merits of this vaccine are questionable for essentially the same reasons that apply to mumps inoculations. There is no need to protect children from this harmless disease, so the adverse reactions to the vaccine are unacceptable in terms of benefit to the child. They can include arthritis, arthralgia (painful joints), and polyneuritis, which produces pain, numbness, or tingling in the peripheral nerves. While these symptoms are usually temporary, they may last for several months and may not occur until as long as two months after the vaccination. Because of that time lapse, parents may not identify the cause when these symptoms reappear in their vaccinated child.

The greater danger of rubella vaccination is the possibility that it may deny expectant mothers the protection of natural immunity from the disease. By preventing rubella in childhood, immunization may actually increase the threat that women will contract rubella during their childbearing years. My concern on this score is shared by many doctors. In Connecticut a group of doctors, led by two eminent epidemiologists, have actually succeeded in getting rubella stricken from the list of legally required immunizations.

Study after study has demonstrated that many women immunized against rubella as children lack evidence of immunity in blood tests given during their adolescent years. Other tests have shown a high vaccine failure rate in children given rubella, measles, and mumps shots, either separately or in combined form. Finally, the crucial question yet to be answered is whether vaccine-induced immunity is as effective and long lasting as immunity from the natural disease of rubella. A large proportion of children show no evidence of immunity in blood tests given only four or five years after rubella vaccination.

The significance of this is both obvious and frightening. Rubella is a non threatening disease in childhood, and it confers natural immunity to those who contract it so they will not get it again as adults. Prior to the time that doctors began giving rubella vaccinations an estimated 85 percent of adults were naturally immune to the disease.

Today, because of immunization, the vast majority of women never acquire natural immunity. If their vaccine-induced immunity wears off, they may contract rubella while they are pregnant, with resulting damage to their unborn children.

Being a skeptical soul, I have always believed that the most reliable way to determine what people really believe is to observe what they do, not what they say. If the greatest threat of rubella is not to children, but to the fetus yet unborn, pregnant women should be protected against rubella by making certain that their obstetricians won't give them the disease. Yet, in a California survey reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, more than 90 percent of the obstetrician-gynecologists refused to be vaccinated. If doctors themselves are afraid of the vaccine, why on earth should the law require that you and other parents allow them to administer it to your kids?

SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (SIDS)

The dreadful possibility that they may awaken some morning to find their baby dead in his crib is a fear that lurks in the mind of many parents. Medical science has yet to pinpoint the cause of SIDS, but the most popular explanation among researchers appears to be that the central nervous system is affected so that the involuntary act of breathing is suppressed.

That is a logical explanation, but it leaves unanswered the question: What caused the malfunction in the central nervous system? My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the United States each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given children. The pertussis vaccine is the most likely villain, but it could also be one or more of the others.

Dr. William Torch, of the University of Nevada School of Medicine at Reno, has issued a report suggesting that the DPT shot may be responsible for SIDS cases. He found that two-thirds of 103 children who died of SIDS had been immunized with DPT vaccine in the three weeks before their deaths, many dying within a day after getting the shot. He asserts that this was not mere coincidence, concluding that a "causal relationship is suggested" in at least some cases of DIPT vaccine and crib death. Also on record are the Tennessee deaths, referred to earlier. In that case the manufacturers of the vaccine, following intervention by the U.S. surgeon general, recalled all unused doses of this batch of vaccine.

Expectant mothers who are concerned about SIDS should bear in mind the importance of breastfeeding to avoid this and other serious ailments. There is evidence that breastfed babies are less susceptible to allergies, respiratory disease, gastroenteritis, hypocalcaemia, obesity, multiple sclerosis, and SIDS. One study of the scientific literature about SIDS concluded that "Breast-feeding can be seen as a common block to the myriad pathways to SIDS."

POLIOMYELITIS

No one who lived through the 1940s and saw photos of children in iron lungs, saw a 'President of the United States confined to his wheel-chair by this dread disease, and was for forbidden to use public beaches for fear of catching polio can forget the fear that prevailed at the time. Polio is virtually nonexistent today, but much of that fear persists, and there is a popular belief that immunization can be credited with eliminating the disease. That's not surprising, considering the high-powered campaign that promoted the vaccine, but the fact is that no credible scientific evidence exists that the vaccine caused polio to disappear. As noted earlier, it also disappeared in other parts of the world where the vaccine was not so extensively used.

What is important to parents of this generation is the evidence that points to mass inoculation against polio as the cause of most remaining cases of the disease. In September 1977 Jonas Salk, the developer of the killed polio virus vaccine, testified along with other scientists to that effect. He said that most of the handful of polio cases which had occurred in the US since the 197Os probably were the by-product of the live polio vaccine that is in standard use in the United States.

Meanwhile, there is an ongoing debate among the immunologists regarding the relative risks of killed virus vs. live virus vaccine. Supporters of the killed virus vaccine maintain that it is the presence of live virus organisms in the other product that is responsible for the polio cases that occasionally appear. Supporters of the live virus type argue that the killed virus vaccine offers inadequate protections and actually increases the susceptibility of those vaccinated.

This offers me a rare opportunity to be comfortably neutral. .I believe that both factions are right and that use of either of the vaccines will increase, not diminish, the possibility that your child will contract the disease.

In short, it appears that the most effective way to protect your child from polio is to make sure that he doesn't get the vaccine!

Source for above links and this one...

The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them

by ROBERT S. MENDELSOHN, M.D.

MUMPS MEASLES RUBELLA WHOOPING COUGH DIPHTHERIA CHICKEN POX TUBERCULOSIS SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (SIDS) POLIOMYELITIS

I know, as I write about the dangers of mass immunisation, that it is a concept that you may find difficult to accept. Immunizations have been so artfully and aggressively marketed that most parents believe them to be the "miracle" that has eliminated many once-feared diseases. Consequently, for anyone to oppose them borders on the foolhardy. For a paediatrician to attack what has become the "bread and butter" of paediatric practice is equivalent to a priest's denying the infallibility of the pope.

Knowing that, I can only hope that you will keep an open mind while I present my case. Much of what you have been led to believe about immunizations simply isn't true. I not only have grave misgivings about them; if I were to follow my deep convictions in writing this chapter, I would urge you to reject all inoculations for your child. I won't do that, because parents in about half the states have lost the right to make that choice. Doctors, not politicians, have successfully lobbied for laws that force parents to immunize their children as a prerequisite for admission to school.

Even in those states, though, you may be able to persuade your paediatrician to eliminate the pertussis (whooping cough) component from the DPT vaccine. This immunization, which appears to be the most threatening of them all, is the subject of so much controversy that many doctors are becoming nervous about giving it, fearing malpractice suits. They should be nervous, because in a recent Chicago case a child damaged by a pertussis inoculation received a $5.5 million settlement award. If your doctor is in that state of mind, exploit his fear, be-cause your child's health is at stake.

Although I administered them my-self during my early years of practice, I have become a steadfast opponent of mass inoculation because of the myriad hazards they present. The subject is so vast and complex that it deserves a book of its own. Consequently, I must be content here with summarizing my objections to the fanatic zeal with which pediatricians blindly shoot foreign proteins into the body of your child without knowing what eventual damage they may cause.

Here is the core of my concern:

I. There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease. While it is true that some once common childhood diseases have diminished or disappeared since inoculations were introduced, no one really knows why, although improved living conditions may be the reason. If immunizations were responsible for the diminishing or disappearance of these diseases in the United States, one must ask why they disappeared simultaneously in Europe, where mass immunizations did not take place.

1. It is commonly believed that the Salk vaccine was responsible for halting the polio epidemics that plagued American children in the 19405 and 1950s. If so, why did the epidemics also end in Europe, where polio vaccine was not so extensively used? Of greater current relevance, why is the Sabin virus vaccine still being administered to children when Dr. Jonas Salk, who pioneered the first vaccine, points out that Sabin vaccine is now causing most of the polio cases that appear. Continuing to force this vaccine on children is irrational medical behaviour that simply confirms my contention that doctors consistently repeat their mistakes. With the polio vaccine we are witnessing a rerun of the medical reluctance to abandon the smallpox vaccination, which remained as the only source of smallpox-related deaths for three decades after the disease had disappeared.

Think of it! For thirty years kids died from smallpox vaccinations even though no longer threatened by the disease.

1. There are significant risks associated with every immunization and numerous contraindications that may make it dangerous for the Shots to be given to your child. Yet doctors administer them routinely, usually without warning parents of the hazards and without determining whether the immunization is contraindicated for the child. No child should be immunized without making that determination, yet small armies of children are routinely lined up in clinics to receive a shot in the arm with no questions asked by their parents!

4 While the myriad short-term hazards of most immunizations are known (but rarely explained), no one knows the long term consequences of injecting foreign proteins into the body of your child. Even more shocking is the fact that no one is making any structured effort to find out.

1. There is growing suspicion that immunization against relatively harm-less childhood diseases may be responsible for the dramatic increase in auto-immune diseases since mass inoculations were introduced. These are fearful diseases such as cancer, leukemia. rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, lupus erythematosus, and the Guillain-Barre syndrome. An autoimmune disease can be explained simply as one in which the body's defense mechanisms cannot distinguish between foreign invaders and ordinary body tissues, with the consequence that the body begins to destroy itself. Have we traded mumps and measles for cancer and leukemia?

I have emphasized these concerns because it is probable that your paediatrician will not advise you about them. At the 1982 Forum of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a resolution was proposed that would have helped insure that parents would be informed about the risks and benefits of immunizations. The resolution urged that the "ALA? make available in clear, concise language information which a reasonable parent would want to know about the benefits and risks of routine immunizations, the risks of vaccine preventable diseases and the management of common adverse reactions to immunizations." Apparently the doctors assembled did not believe that "reasonable parents" were entitled to this kind of in-formation because they rejected the resolution!

The bitter controversy over immunizations that is now raging within the medical profession has not escaped the attention of the media. Increasing numbers of parents are rejecting immunizations for their children and facing the legal consequences of doing so. Parents whose children have been permanently damaged by vaccines are no longer accepting this as fate but are filing malpractice suits against the manufacturers and the doctors who administered the vaccine. Some manufacturers have actually stopped making vaccines, and the lists of contraindications to their use are being expanded by the remaining manufacturers, year by year. Meanwhile, because routine immunizations that bring patients back for repeated office calls, are the bread and butter of their specialty, paediatricians continue to defend them to the death.

The question parents should be asking is: Whose death?

As a parent, only you can decide whether to reject immunizations or risk accepting them for your child. Let me urge you, though-before your child is immunized-to arm yourself with the facts about the potential risks and benefits and demand that your paediatrician defend the immunizations that he recommends.

Cutting and pasting content from anti-vaccine sites doesn't make it any more true, btw.

And Robert Mendelsohn is famously an anti-vaccine quack: www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mendelson.html

Do immunisations reduce the risk for SIDS? A meta-analysis
M.M.T. Vennemann, M. Höffgen, T. Bajanowski, H.-W. Hense, E.A. Mitchell

Conclusions

Immunisations are associated with a halving of the risk of SIDS. Immunisations should be part of the SIDS prevention campaigns.

I can copy and paste too. This is from a facebook post by a colleague of a friend I grew up with. It went viral and for good reason. This woman had already lost one child to disease. You can see her original post here
"This is my son Griffin, and he may have measles.

On February 9th, I received a phone call from York Region Public Health, informing me that Griffin, alongside my mother and I, was potentially exposed to the measles virus while attending a newborn weigh-in appointment at my doctor’s office in Markham on January 27th.

Griffin was 15 days old at the time.

I was informed that someone who later developed measles sat in the doctor’s waiting room between 1 hour before and 30 minutes before we arrived. I was also informed that measles is regarded as “airborne” and can stay in the air and on surfaces up to 2 hours after the infected person has left.

I was then asked if I had had the measles vaccine. I had.

Griffin. Griffin had not. Can not.

I was advised to not be around small children. If I worked in such an environment I would be written off work. I do work in such an environment; my home. Where I now sit with Griffin and my 3 year old, Aurelia, who has only been able to get one MMR vaccine so far. She is now, technically, exposed too. We are to sit tight and watch for symptoms: fever, cough, runny nose. If we develop any of these we are to call my doctor and arrange to come in under official medical precautions. We are to wait at home, in isolation, until February 17th, after which the 21 days of possible incubation will have passed and we are clear.

So, Griffin is now Schrödinger’s baby. Simultaneously with measles, and without it. Until he develops symptoms, or until a further 7 days pass. One or other.

And I’m angry. Angry as hell.

I won’t get angry at or blame the person in the waiting room. I would have likely done the same thing...you get sick, you go to the doctor. I have no idea what their story is and I will never know. But I do know one thing:

If you have chosen to not vaccinate yourself or your child, I blame you.

I blame you.

You have stood on the shoulders of our collective protection for too long. From that high height, we have given you the PRIVILEGE of our protection, for free. And in return, you gave me this week. A week from hell. Wherein I don’t know if my BABY will develop something that has DEATH as a potential outcome.

DEATH.

Now, let’s unpack this shall we. All out on the table.

You have NO IDEA what this “potential outcome” means. NO IDEA. I do. Unfortunately, I do.

You think you are protecting your children from thimerosal? You aren’t. It’s not in their vaccine.

You think you are protecting them from autism? You aren’t. There is no, none, nada, nothing in science that proves this. If you want to use google instead of science to “prove me wrong” then I am happy to call you an imbecile as well as misinformed.

You think you are protecting them through extracts and homeopathy and positive thoughts and Laws of Attraction and dancing by candlelight on a full moon? You aren’t. I PROTECT YOUR CHILD. We protect your child. By being concerned world citizens who care about ourselves, our fellow man, and our most vulnerable. So we vaccinate ourselves and our children.

You think you are protecting them by letting them eat their shovel full of dirt and reducing antibiotics and eating organic? You aren’t. As an unvaccinated person you are only protected by our good graces. WE LET YOU BE SO PRIVILEGED thanks to our willingness to vaccinate ourselves and our children.

You know what vaccines protect your children from? Pain. Suffering. Irreparable harm. Death.

And you would be the first to line up if you had an inkling of what the death of a child feels like. You would be crawling through the streets on your hands and knees, begging, BEGGING to get that vaccine into your precious babies because that is what I would have done, if I could, to save my daughter.

The fact is, there was no vaccine for her. Not for her illness. And she died. She died at age five and a half, and she is gone.

And I watch these arguments trotted out on Facebook and twitter citing false science and long discredited“studies” that just won’t stop and Jenny McCarthy quotes and “it’s MY choice” to not vaccinate...and I think...what would you have done if your child lay dying? Would you give them a scientifically proven, safe and effective vaccine and risk the minuscule likelihood of a side effect? Or would you let them go, knowing that at least they won’t develop autism (which they wouldn’t even develop anyway because SCIENCE)?

And don’t you DARE tell me that you wouldn’t vaccinate them then. Don’t you dare. You have no idea what it feels like to go through what we went through.

So, look at Griffin. Tell me why he gets to bear the brunt of your stupidity and reckless abuse of our protection? Tell me.

Seven more days until I know that my baby is safe. Seven more days.

How is your week going, anti-vaxxers?"

Didn't say it made it 'any more true'. So a doctor who questions vaccines is a quack? Why? Because you don't agree?

katharina Sadly I know someone whose baby died of SIDS...conveniently 3 days after vaccinations..:( Sorry, for me, that link is far too strong. Japan stopped vaccinating under 2's...and their SID rate dropped to zero. Yes. Zero. No doubt another coincidence though eh?

But in the interest of being fair, I shall look into that study and see what it has to say.

Any information that shows a different viewpoint is a good thing. Certainly, if it stops parents just rushing to inject, and actually gets them to pause and ask questions first...another good thing.

Right. in the interest of repeating again. Being vaccinated DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL NOT GET THAT DISEASE

My son is/was vaccinated against whooping cough. He caught it. He was very very poorly with it.

I don't understand why so many pro vaxxers (hate this term) out there think that it's a magic injection which means you have zero chance of getting that disease?????? Wake up!!!

"I don't understand why so many pro vaxxers (hate this term) out there think that it's a magic injection which means you have zero chance of getting that disease?????? Wake up!!!"

But nobody does think that. Nobody. Oh, and nobody thinks that vaccination is always 100% effective and never has any side effects either. So don't worry. We're awake.