To think that anti-vaxers may actually being onto something?

[viiz]

I don't have children myself yet but I don't know what I would chose when the time comes. Most of pro vax/anti vax threads turns nasty with people not even willing to try and look at things with others side perspective. Not willing to even consider points of view different than their own and that's a very silly approach. People believed a lot of things that turned out to be false over the years and centuries. Why not to doubt a little?

I was born in early '80s and not in UK. Myself, my siblings and friends were all vaccinated at the time. I don't even remember what I was vaccinated against but had to be pretty basic. Just a few jabs throughout my whole childhood/teen years and nothing 3in1 or 10in1 or whatever they'll bring next.

Now to the point. Reading through hundreds of threads it jumps at me how many children have neurological, behavioural or emotional disorders. No one else sees it really?? I don't know even one person from my childhood including friends, extended family , neighbours etc who would have ADS or ADHD or any other issues like that. I see their children to have it though.

AIBU to consider there could be a link here??

Please be gentle. I hope to have a discussion here. I don't disrespect anyone's views and I only ask to try and ask yourself 'what if'.

So the parents here who would like to know more about their own child's health profile and whether there will be a negative impact of a particular vaccine are told "take it all or leave it all."

I find that hard to believe.

Informed consent involves knowing, among other things, the risks and benefits of a medicine, device or procedure. It is exactly the opposite of anti-vaxx smears and falsehoods.

Adverse vaccine events article from the BMJ... for those banging on about informed consent and who seem to think adverse events are vanishingly rare
www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2449/rr-0

I'm not sure, then. Are scientists hiding adverse effects or not?
Adverse effects do vary according to the vaccine and even the population.
And adverse effects vary from mild to more serious.
A friend got ill from the yellow fever vaccine. I still took it because I'd rather not have yellow fever. It's one vaccine that can be harsh.

Blood taking can cause fainting. Meh.

On the same BMJ: www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l634

That was a short comment about an issue.
Underreporting is a problem in all areas of public health, unfortunately.
It would be interesting to see some hard data on how the site has affected reporting.

More comprehensive article about adverse effects reporting.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632204/

As i said above. Dh works for a drug company. If someone tells him that they have a side effect from drug they make, by law he has to report it to work and the have 14 days to look into it. Anyone who works for drug company is in the same position, even if its just a chst in the pub.

I find that hard to believe.

Why?

As i said above. Dh works for a drug company. If someone tells him that they have a side effect from drug they make, by law he has to report it to work and the have 14 days to look into it. Anyone who works for drug company is in the same position, even if its just a chst in the pub.

This paints a rather different picture
www.globalresearch.ca/drug-induced-iatrogenic-disorders-the-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us-and-britain/5626283
And it seems the U.K. is following suit
www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2794

@Dutch1e

Perhaps we don't live in the same country. Apologies if that was unclear, I thought my username gave it away

I thought the line
on the local version of the NHS
was a bit of a giveaway you weren't talking about the UK but maybe I have superior critical thinking skills.

Cath
More rantings of a lunatic, where do you dig them up from.

from another of Kohls "papers"

"lileo and Semmelweis were treated the same way that Dr Andrew Wakefield was treated a generation ago when he proved that the same strain of live measles virus that was in GlaxoSmithKline’s MMR vaccine was found in the infected bowels of a series of severely regressed autism patients, all of whom had been suffering with severe abdominal pain and chronic diarrhea soon after they each one had been injected with GSK’s live virus MMR shot (findings which, by the way, have been replicated a number of times by other independent researchers)."
All of those "facts" have been proven faked and untrue and have never been replicated by reputable independent researchers.

You claim to have done "25 years" research yet you take these people seriously.

The bmj article agrees

dh works for a drug company well there’s a surprise

Antibodies were found in the gut ...not the actual virus... as no human virus has ever been isolated ...it’s always the supposed antibody reaction that’s observed

if anyone is interested in finding out more on virus theory, this is an excellent book
www.amazon.co.uk/Virus-Mania-Continually-Epidemics-Billion-Dollar/dp/1425114679/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=virus+mania&tag=mumsnetforum-21&ie=UTF8&qid=1549613671&sr=8-1

dh works for a drug company well there’s a surprise

No
I have been on these boards for 12+ years. Dh didnt move into pharmaceuticals until 6 years ago, before that he was in other industries.

Andrew Wakefield did not find antibodies in the gut.
"Results. Hybrid capture and RT-PCR could detect 104 molecules of a measles RNA transcript added to control tissue homogenates. The fidelity of NASBA, in terms of its nucleic acid error rates, was found to be comparable with that of RT-PCR. All samples were found to be positive for a housekeeping RNA species and internal modified positive control RNA. None of the samples tested positive for measles, mumps or rubella RNA, although viral RNA was successfully amplified in positive control samples.

Conclusion. The results do not support previous data implicating persistent measles virus infection with the aetiology of IBD or autistic enteropathy."
from Nicholas Chadwicks work on the original paper

Even natural remedies that actually work ie St Johns Wart have side effects. You have to balance the side effects with the symptoms of the actual disease.

Don’t bother her with facts Bruffin, she’s impervious to them.

Cath, do you believe in the efficacy of homeopathy, reiki or any practices like those?

Antibodies were found in the gut ...not the actual virus... as no human virus has ever been isolated ...it’s always the supposed antibody reaction that’s observed

What do you mean? Of course viruses that infect humans have been isolated.

no human virus has ever been isolated

Wrong again, Cath;

www.providencehealthcare.org/news/20140423/us-announces-aids-virus-has-been-isolated

if anyone is interested in finding out more on virus theory, this is an excellent book

It's another book by a crackpot who doesn't have anything to back up their hypothesis (not theory).

"Virus theory"?

So, you're also "against" HIV as cause of AIDS?

“Antibodies were found in the gut ...not the actual virus... as no human virus has ever been isolated ...it’s always the supposed antibody reaction that’s observed”

You’re just embarrassing yourself now.

‘The probable cause of aids has been found’ and this article is dated 2014!
Are you serious? So what were they claiming was causing it before then ... bangs head against brick wall..

If you do any research into how they are supposedly isolating any of these viruses, then you will realise that they aren’t actually isolating them at all.

Like I said, read that book. And you are correct Lweji (a first for everything) I don’t think HIV causes AIDS

But I realise this is ubchartered territory for you lot. There are plenty of doctors and scientists that don’t endorse that HIV/ AIDS theory either..
Even in that article you linked to which doesn’t actually give any info at all says ‘probable’ cause

Are you serious? So what were they claiming was causing it before then ... bangs head against brick wall..

No, they had a very solid amount of evidence that AIDS was caused by the HIV virus, this just acted as more evidence.

If you do any research into how they are supposedly isolating any of these viruses, then you will realise that they aren’t actually isolating them at all.

Do you have anything to support this? It seems you're just making wild claims again and then telling us to prove a point that you haven't bothered to, and you'll have to forgive us for being a little dubious of your 'research' given previous examples of it.

But I realise this is ubchartered territory for you lot. There are plenty of doctors and scientists that don’t endorse that HIV/ AIDS theory either..

Do you have examples of ones that aren't crackpots?

Even in that article you linked to which doesn’t actually give any info at all says ‘probable’ cause

Because in science it's rarely useful to give a 100% definitive answer, you just come to conclusion from a body of evidence, which is large for the HIV virus. There's evidence of isolation going back to the 80s;

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3053989

And for reference, the article is from 2014, but if you read it properly, you'll notice that it's talking about the isolation back in 1983, not 2014.