To think this takes not vaccinating to a whole new level

[Swanlaked]

DD has a child at school who has cancer. The school sent a letter home asking all parents to please think about giving their child the MMR if they haven't had it and also to inform them immediately if any child was in contact with chicken pox.

One of the mums at the school is still refusing to have her 3DC vaccinated. No health issues it's big pharma/poison/conspiracy theory crap

AIBU at this point to think the school should seek removal of the children and tell the bloody thicko to find another school for them?

"some of the things he said don't tie in with other papers or the GMC transcripts."

It would be good to hear which ones. I'm sure there's a "how to argue with pro vaxxers" website you could consult..........

"It seems fortunate we know that although the cause is not known for the stupendous rise in atopic disorders...we can be assures it's not the greatest single impact/trauma to the infant/child developing immune system, vaccination. Such a relief".

Hopefully medical papers such as those will afford you even more relief.

This is entitled "Atopic dermatitis and the hygiene hypothesis revisited" and is a follow up from a previous paper published in 2005. The authors reviewed a total of 113 papers between 1966-2010, the first 96 were published in 2005 and the systematic review was repeated in 2010 to include 49 further papers.

Amongst the results : "There is evidence to support an inverse relationship between atopic dermatitis (AD) and endotoxin, early day care, farm animal and dog exposure in early life. Cat exposure in the presence of skin barrier impairment is positively associated with AD. Helminth infection at least partially protects against AD. This is not the case for viral and bacterial infections, but consumption of unpasteurised farm milk seems protective. Routine childhood vaccinations have no effect on AD risk. The positive association between viral infections and AD found in some studies appears confounded by antibiotic prescription, which has been consistently associated with an increase in AD risk.

Conclusions: There is convincing evidence for an inverse relationship between helminth infections and AD but no other pathogens. The protective effect seen with early day care, endotoxin, unpasteurised farm milk and animal exposure is likely to be due to an increase in exposure to non-pathogenic microbes. This would also explain the risk increase associated with the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Future studies should assess skin barrier gene mutation carriage and phenotypic skin barrier impairment, as gene-environment interactions are likely to impact on AD risk.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21576944

I can't link to the full article, sorry. The dog vs cat risk with atopy is now pretty much established. Dogs are protective, cats are a risk factor.

I suspect I'm derailing though, and I'll stop although the environmental influences on AD are fairly interesting.

That should be "the first 64 were published in 2005", cos 64 + 96 = 113.

School holidays here!

64 + 49 = 113.

Oh quite. Nothing to see here. It's quite the medical miracle.

What's the 'medical miracle', Winchester?

And on what do you base the idea that vaccination is greatest single impact/trauma to the infant/child developing immune system?

"Oh quite. Nothing to see here. It's quite the medical miracle".

Oh, I agree! In fact, there're recent studies that show that vaccination might even be protective against allergy/atopy! Miraculous indeed.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25845848

The absolute certainty that the allergy and asthma epidemics have nothing to do with vaccination. And I'm not sure what would compare with around 20 mainly injected vax doses and adjuvants before the age of four?

that must be why the allergy and asthma epidemics came before the significant upload on the vaccine schedule - thank God vaccines came along to sort it all out
Oh - wait..

"This absolute certainty that the allergy and asthma epidemics have nothing to do with vaccination".

Well, they're no studies that support this. and it's been researched pretty extensively. let me guess : Big Pharma?

"And I'm not sure what would compare with around mainly 20 mainly injected vax doses and adjuvants and before the age of four?"

Crawling around and putting stuff in your mouth?

Which babies and toddlers didn't do until around 20 years so. Yes it all fits

I thought you were referring to the antigenic load from vaccines.

You are well aware I'm referring to the dramatic - almost astonishing - increase in allergies and asthma with the expanding vaccine schedule.

Correlation does not imply causation

I'm not actually - you were asking what compared to 20 vaccinations and I assumed you meant antigenic exposure so I said crawling.

Why don't you believe the medical studies that have asked the same question as you and found no association? There's an enormous interest in allergy/immunology at the moment and in the explosion of allergies and atopy. There's no Big Pharma conspiracy - there's just no convincing evidence that it's vaccination related so scientists/clinicians have moved on to other factors.

Actually it doesn't prove correlation. It certainly suggests it.

You suggested crawling around and putting stuff in mouths (exposure to antigens) might be a contributor to the atopic epidemic about ten minutes after suggesting the hygiene hypothesis (non exposure) as a contributor to to the atopic epidemic.

Actually it doesn't prove causation, it certainly suggests it.

So it's like this :
Question : has vaccination contributed to the increase in allergy/atopy?
Lots of medical research : no, probably not
Conclusion : Big Pharma and medical conspiracy and lack of interest in all of the other research in this area.

No it's like this..

Q. What has caused the astonishing increase in allergic disorders?
Ans: Not vaccination
Q. Ok what else could it be? Too much cleaning?
A. Yeah, ok let's see how that one flies. Research grant anyone?

Trebles all round.

Let's face it, nobody knows what the cause is, they research other stuff, but they're absolutely 100 per cent sure it's not vaccination and they have been right from the off. How? It is a continual averting of eyes from the giant elephant in the corner.

But the research world hasn't stood still with : "not vaccination". It's a massive area of research at the moment and it's pretty ignorant to deny this. Du Toit of the LEAP study (peanut anaphylaxis) is kind of a research god at the moment. You may have stood still with "not vaccination" but the immunologists/allergists are moving forward as we speak. Or are you only interested in research that fits your agenda?