All of you who CHOOSE not to vaccinate your children

[UniqueAndAmazing]

Do you realise that's the reason why there's now an epidemic of measles in Wales?

You know children with auto-immune problems, children with cancers, children with allergies that mean they can't be medicated, children who react badly to drugs?
You know them? They're suffering because of you not wanting to vaccinate your child.

You have no medical reason for not vaccinating, but plenty of reasons TO vaccinate.

You are causing a whole generation of children to be endangered from a preventable disease.

Measles can be fatal
(that means it can kill )

there is a difference between "...likely..." and "prevent"

it's entirely believable that children with poor nutrition will suffer more frequently and more severely. It is not at all believable that good nutrition will prevent complications, whether severe or minor.

The best way to not suffer complications is to not get the disease. The best way to not get the disease is to be vaccinated.

Folks, it's like I've said - there are risk factors on both sides because there are gaps in knowledge on both sides, so it's up to parents to make informed decisions for themselves. And yes, Ragusa, I have done my research. That's my point: we can assume that some parents on both sides have done so. Therefore we should pause before we stigmatise either group. What my research tells me is this:

1. There are plenty of important gaps in our knowledge about the risks associated with vaccines (eg associated with cancer, the brain and other organs), and plenty of known risks which are not widely advertised but which you can research by following the links I've previously provided.
2. There is reasonable doubt associated with their efficacy - and not only because manufacturers have been caught directly falsifying evidence regarding immunity levels immediately after vaccination. Also because of the way 'immunity' is evaluated (which is not, incidentally, by exposing a vaccinated child to the disease) and because the duration even of the stated levels of immunity is not guaranteed and not known for each individual. (Note, it was not so long ago that vaccines were advertised as providing 100% immunity and for life. Both of those claims have now been recognised as incorrect). There are cases of outbreaks in recently vaccinated communities which you can research. In these cases, when asked why their product did not work, manufacturers have said that the victims must have got a 'lighter' version of the disease than they would otherwise have got (completely unscientific and unprovable claim), or, perhaps even more cheekily, it must be because not enough people have bought their product. In any other context, people would not accept these claims regarding a product which has just proved to be defective for them, and which they had trusted their child's life with. In this context, however, some trust that the scientists have the full weight of an objective 'peer review system' and an objective 'medical establishment' behind them, 100% validating their claims beyond any doubt. This is an understandable but mistaken position, as I have demonstrated very clearly above. NB I have not demonstrated that all peer review research or medical conclusions are wrong. I have demonstrated that there is reasonable doubt regarding the objectivity of research results - and regarding what is researched and published, and what is not.
3. If you want it, research regarding the links between malnutrition and severe complications from measles is abundant - Google it. It is clear that malnourished children are much more likely to suffer severe complications. The WHO website claims that severe complications can be avoided through good nutrition. Ragusa, I think there are good people in the WHO. But of course the WHO, similarly to the medical establishment in general and the peer review system in particular, can be manipulated by anyone with an incentive to do so. (In the case of the WHO, I invite you, for example, to research the names of the people on the WHO committee which recently advised governments to waste millions and millions of dollars on Tamiflu - and their direct links to the companies profiting from the sales). But in any case, I only provided the WHO statement because I thought you would find comfort in it.
4. It is clear that even well-nourished, breast feeding babies whose mothers have not had measles are at risk of severe complications.
5. It is clear that adults, including pregnant women, are at risk of severe complications whether well-nourished or not. It is also clear that if they have got their 'immunity' from a vaccination rather than through having the disease as a child, they can still catch the disease as an adult and are therefore still at risk.
6. I said there are unknowns on both sides. In my research, I have found that it is difficult to find the numbers of well nourished, otherwise healthy young children (ie not babies) who suffer severe complications from the disease. For example, some websites and research make statistical claims about healthy people in developed countries being at risk of severe complications, seemingly providing a clear case for increasing vaccination rates. But then they do not differentiate in their stats between babies, adults and young children - which is unhelpful. As I've said, well-nourished breast feeding babies whose mothers have not had the disease, and adults who have not had the disease in childhood, are still at risk.

John, you say:
The best way to not suffer complications is to not get the disease. The best way to not get the disease is to be vaccinated

I think it's a coherent opinion. I say:

When you vaccinate, you take known and recognised unknown risks (some short term, some possibly long term. Many not yet disproved, as recognised by all parties). In return, you get levels of immunity which are not 100% proven for everyone, for a period of time which is not 100% proven for everyone. As recognised by all parties, you are still at risk of the disease. Perhaps it is a small risk - but you've also taken the risks associated with vaccination. So, some risks are involved

*If instead you are well nourished and your parents make you get the disease as a young child, you can avoid severe complications of measles. There might also be small risks involved with this path. Perhaps you will have some problem with your immune system that your parents didn't know about, so will have a very small risk of severe complications even if well-nourished. This is always possible I suppose. But this you must weigh up against the risks associated with vaccines, see above. Plus, if you did have this previously unknown problem and you got vaccinated, I assume from research I've read that you would also be in great danger of severe complications. Now, assuming you do not suffer severe complications, which is far, far more likely, you will have guaranteed immunity for life. You have zero risk of severe complications associated with getting measles as an adult. Zero risks of any known or recognised unknown effects associated with vaccine ingredients. Zero risk of losing a baby due to measles in pregnancy. And, if you breastfeed your child, your baby will not be at risk of severe complications during this time.

So, as I've said: unknown risks on both sides. Judgement calls required. No need to stigmatise on either side...and big hugs all round.

That is a very long post that could be summarised as:

All the available, worthwhile evidence is that vaccinations are massively more safe than catching the diseases that they prevent. The risks from MMR are very, very remote indeed. The risks from, say, measles are in contrast relatively high. The sensible course of action is therefore to vaccinate when possible.

If you want to "disprove" unknown risks before you ingest or use a thing, you will have to avoid all medicine, all food, all fluids and all activity with a potentially unwelcome physiological effect, however far-fetched. Including using computers and other electronic devices, just for example.

And banging on about food is, frankly, bizarre. The data on the damage and death caused by measles in a modern, wealthy, well-fed society like Switzerland proves your 'argument' to be nonsense.

bobbyperu

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

You have fundamentally changed your argument from "good nutrition prevents measles complications, severe or otherwise" to "good nutrition does not always provide protection from measles complications, severe or otherwise".

And, for what it's worth, the supposedly googleable articles demonstrating that good nutrition prevents measles do not in fact exist, So your argument is largely baseless.

I think Wearsmink's post is entirely correct.

No need to stigmatise, but every need to pick up inconsistencies in arguments, and challenge conclusions which fly in the face of all available evidence.

In countries with terrible access to healthcare and commuinties frequently devestated by measles/ other childhood diseases, there are queues of people hundreds of metres long offering up their children for vaccination. Stewing about the potential side-effects of jabs is a first-world luxury that people in the developing world can't afford.

"prevents measles complications"... not "prevents measles" - typo, sorry.

"If instead you are well nourished and your parents make you get the disease as a young child, you can avoid severe complications of measles. There might also be small risks involved with this path. Perhaps you will have some problem with your immune system that your parents didn't know about, so will have a very small risk of severe complications even if well-nourished. This is always possible I suppose."

Where is the evidence that says that all people who suffer complications from childhood diseases have some hitherto unknown immunodeficiency? That is complete speculation.

WearsMink
That is a very long post that could be summarised as:

All the available, worthwhile evidence is that vaccinations are massively more safe than catching the diseases that they prevent. The risks from MMR are very, very remote indeed. The risks from, say, measles are in contrast relatively high. The sensible course of action is therefore to vaccinate when possible.

Treating this quote as a reflection of your views, rather than bobbyperu's (since your summary doesn't bear any resemblence to the essence of bobby's post), you say that:

vaccinations are massively more safe than catching the diseases they prevent
the risks from MMR are very, very remote indeed
the risks from measles being relatively high

What's the basis for these highlighted descriptions? What figures do they relate to, and what's their source?

Ragusa
Stewing about the potential side-effects of jabs is a first-world luxury that people in the developing world can't afford.

It's true that the balance of risks/benefits is entirely different, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to those making a decision on vaccination outside of the developing world. If somebody is given the option to have a medical procedure, part of the decision making process is to weigh up the risks and benefits, some of which will be highly individual. Would you make a decision using criteria that's relevant to somebody else but not to you, on the basis that you/they are lucky to be offered the operation?

Ragusa On the one hand you're looking for evidence/consistency from those whose views you do not agree with, on the other you're effectively dismissing the importance of potential side effects!

Should have said 'the consideration of potential side effects'.

Okey dokey. Substitute: "That is a very long post the answer to which could be summarised as:"

As for your questions, are you seriously asking for evidence that the MMR is less risky than having measles?

If I quote anything - like, say, WHO figures, or DoH stats - are you going to accept them as reliable?

WearsMink, a response to bobby's post, based on your views, is entirely different to a summary of bobby's post! But thanks for clarifying.

As for the evidence issue, that's not quite how I'd frame my question - I just want to know the basis/source for your claims that I highlighted. (I can't promise beforehand to accept your information as reliable and I wouldn't expect you to accept anything in advance either!)

Fascicle, what is problematic about asking those with whom I don't agree to back up their assertions with evidence? Surely that is the basic model for reasoned debate?

I am in no way dismissing evidence on side-effects of vaccines. Where did I do that?

Sorry, don't follow you at all.

Ragusa, my comment was prompted by your quote:

In countries with terrible access to healthcare and commuinties frequently devestated by measles/ other childhood diseases, there are queues of people hundreds of metres long offering up their children for vaccination. Stewing about the potential side-effects of jabs is a first-world luxury that people in the developing world can't afford.

No issue with asking for evidence to back up claims, I've done the same. It was the contrast between you doing that (looking for hard evidence) and painting the above description, which comes across as emotive and dismissive of (using the term 'stewing about') time spent giving full consideration to possible side effects.

You have fundamentally changed your argument from "good nutrition prevents measles complications, severe or otherwise" to "good nutrition does not always provide protection from measles complications, severe or otherwise

Ragusa, you're being a little disingenuous here. If you read through my posts, you will notice time and time again that I have quoted, in bold, the very same sentence:

Severe complications from measles can be avoided though supportive care that ensures good nutrition, adequate fluid intake and treatment of dehydration with WHO-recommended oral rehydration solution (WHO)

Go back and see for yourself. And you're being a little disingenuous here too:

the supposedly googleable articles demonstrating that good nutrition prevents measles do not in fact exist, So your argument is largely baseless

For indeed, this argument would be baseless, and I have never claimed that good nutrition prevents measles. Please see the quote above, in bold, for a reminder of what I have actually claimed. We are in danger of stigmatising people when we falsify their claims to make them look ridiculous - mad even.

Actually, if you read through all the posts, as I have, you will find that it was PigletJohn who suddenly changed the topic of debate from severe complications to 'complications' and I then asked him to define what he meant by 'complications'. I then offered my own definition in order to be as clear as possible.

What strikes me throughout this discussion is that my position - which is that we must not stigmatise either side, and we must allow parents to choose, is rather liberal.

Wearsmink, I hear your opinion:

All the available, worthwhile evidence is that vaccinations are massively more safe than catching the diseases that they prevent. The risks from MMR are very, very remote indeed. The risks from, say, measles are in contrast relatively high. The sensible course of action is therefore to vaccinate when possible

I disagree with it, however.

If you can't be bothered to read through the entire thread (or, even, seemingly, the single post of mine you claim to be summarising), here are my views again:

1. Risks. These are not fully known. Neither the manufacturers nor our best scientists nor our governments claim to know all the effects that vaccine ingredients have on the brain, cancer, etc. This is because we know very little about the brain or about cancer, and we have not been injecting the various ingredients of vaccines into our bloodstreams for long. Much research into this area has simply not been done, and some we do not have the capacity to do due to our relative lack of knowledge. The logged risks and injuries on the HRSA website represent only those people who are in the States, who have reported the injuries, and who have been able to demonstrate immediate and direct vaccine damage despite the best efforts of the manufacturers to deny it. Even then, the stats are concerning for some jabs. I urge you to look down the list and find MMR. Then research some more on the site, and find the number of claims neither proven nor disproved, for justification of my views re the gaps in our knowledge. I am not being radical here - it's there for all to see.

And I can't talk about risks without commenting on this statement:

In countries with terrible access to healthcare and commuinties frequently devestated by measles/ other childhood diseases, there are queues of people hundreds of metres long offering up their children for vaccination. Stewing about the potential side-effects of jabs is a first-world luxury that people in the developing world can't afford

Now here I conclude that you certainly have not read my posts. So again you are arguing against a caricature and not against me - which is a much easier way to be right. I have said above that if you do not have good nutrition or you are an adult who hasn't had measles, you may decide that the risk/benefit equation works for you and therefore decide to get vaccinated. But this does not in any way affect my argument that we should be focusing on providing good nutrition. And, where we already have it, it is a perfectly rational position to have your child get the disease when they are young.

By the way, did you know that 65+ healthy Nigerian children have been paralysed by the Polio vaccine since 2005, and that polio workers are being attacked as a result? Also, have you seen the graphs showing the decline in severe cases of measles or polio in developed countries as a result of improved nutrition and sanitation before vaccines came out - and the paltry effect that vaccination had on these trends? I invite you to research this topic.

Also, look at the cases of AFP, a paralysing 'disease' which has surged in India since we have apparently been eradicating polio there with vaccines. What has happened to these kids who have been made to queue hundreds of metres for vaccines? They have likely been paralysed, just like the ones in Nigeria (and in the States in the 50's, look it up).
Correlation is not causation. Sure. But here's a quote from The Hindu, which quotes interesting peer-reviewed research:

^India?s polio surveillance shows that the country is polio-free. But it also indicates that the country now has the world?s highest rate of non-polio AFP cases. .......Moreover, most of the country?s non-polio AFP cases occur in just two States ? Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. They accounted for about 61 per cent of the 53,000-odd non-polio AFP cases identified in the country in 2012, according to data from WHO?s National Polio Surveillance Project. As a result, the two States have far higher annualised non-polio AFP rates than other States ? around 34 for Bihar and about 23 for Uttar Pradesh. The rate for the country as a whole is slightly over 12........( a statement from WHO follows in which it is claimed this is simply due to improved reporting of the disease)
....a paper published early last year in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, Neetu Vashisht and Jacob Puliyel of the St. Stephens Hospital, Delhi, gave another perspective on the issue. Children in Bihar and U.P. have received more doses of oral polio vaccine than elsewhere in the country. The oral vaccine, it was found, became less efficacious in the face of gut infections and diarrhoea that were widely prevalent in those States....

...In their paper, Dr. Vashisht and Dr. Puliyel analysed the non-polio AFP rates across all States over 10 years up to 2010, and found that the rate ?increased in proportion to the number of polio vaccine doses received in each area.? In 2012, the number of doses of oral vaccine given to children in Bihar and U.P. had come down and, for the first time, there was a decrease in the non-polio AFP cases in those States, Dr. Puliyel told this correspondent^

www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/polio-free-does-not-mean-paralysis-free/article4266043.ece

At the very least, this should give you pause for thought.

Finally on the subject of your comment above - you think that because children in developing countries may find that the risk benefit equation works for their terrible situation, this means we should all get vaccinated over here as well? OK - it's your opinion. But it isn't demonstrable fact, by any means.

1. Effectiveness. When vaccines were first discovered it was claimed that they provided guaranteed immunity for life. Now it is recognised that they do not provide guaranteed immunity straight away, neither do they provide it for any specific period of time. Note here please that the efficacy of a vaccine is not measured by recording the number of vaccinated people who subsequently catch a disease. It is measured by taking a small selection of blood samples before and after vaccination and measuring antibody levels. Not only can this process be fabricated (please see my reference to the ex-Merck scientists and the US government suing Merck on this, above) it is also far from foolproof. It has not been validated through robust studies of the effects of outbreaks on vaccinated people. Please do research cases of fully vaccinated communities being subject to outbreaks (but of course, those individuals must have caught a lighter version than the one the same individuals would otherwise have caught? Unscientific claim - impossible to prove.) See also the research which at least provides reasonable doubt relating to claims that vaccination eradicated certain diseases in developed countries in the post war period.

1. Dangers of disease. I have stated before that I am scared of disease and it is a horrible thing. But you should look again at the risks associated with well-nourished, healthy and looked after children in developed countries (not babies, not adults) i.) getting childhood diseases like measles, mumps and chicken pox ii.) Suffering severe complications as a result (ie not just unpleasant symptoms). Then you should look again at the benefits - not just immunity for life, not just the antibodies they pass to breastfeeding children, but also increased immunity to other threats (see research on house mite infections or asthma rates for those who've had measles, for example - I assure you it does exist ). After you've done this, you should look at the risks of vaccinated children who haven't had the diseases still getting them in adulthood, when they are much more dangerous. And this is in addition to the known and unknown risks of vaccination stated above.

What you will find if you look at what I have said about risks of vaccination, effectiveness of vaccination and risks of disease is that there are grounds for reasonable, rational doubt as regards:

1. Risks of vaccines
2. Effectiveness of vaccines
3. Risks of childhood diseases for healthy children in developed countries
4. Reliability of manufacturers and peer review system to give us 100% objective and foolproof 'facts' about safety and efficacy.

There is therefore a very strong case to allow parents to choose for themselves on a case by case basis, which is all I am saying.

No, that's not all you're saying.

Most of what you're saying is anti-vaccine fog calculated to raise fear and suspicion and to increase the rate of disease by reducing take-up, which would have the effect of increasing the consequences of the disease, whether these are just unpleasant sores on the skin, sometimes including the scalp, eyelids. and genitals, which you consider acceptable, or maybe damage to sight, hearing, which you brush over, and sometimes pneumonia or brain damage, which you have convinced yourself are not much of a worry in countries where most of the population has good nutrition.

People who catch the disease are exposed to its effects and its complications. This applies whether minor or severe, there is no reason to talk as if severe and minor complications are avoided differently.

The best way to not suffer the effects and complications of the disease is to not catch it.

The best way to not catch it is to be vaccinated.

No argument.

Morning Piglet. I think you are taking a very inflexible stance. You are saying there is no argument. According to you, you are right for all people in all situations, and that is it. I am saying there is plenty of doubt and misinformation and therefore parents must be allowed to decide on a case by case basis, according to their own research, family history, etc.

In your thinking, I encourage you not to mix different arguments as if they were one, and to be precise about what you mean:

The best way to not suffer the effects and complications of the disease is to not catch it

We need to be very clear on this sentence.

1.The best way to avoid all symptoms associated with measles is never to catch it. Of course. This is clear to everyone. You are not proving me wrong by making an obvious statement which I and everyone else agrees with.

1. However, the best way to avoid severe complications (ie beyond unpleasant symptoms) is not necessarily to be vaccinated. For you see, if vaccinated you can still catch the disease. Either soon afterwards (because the initial level of immunity is not guaranteed) or later (because whatever immunity you may have initially received is not guaranteed to last). If you are a well-nourished, healthy young person in a developed country you can avoid severe complications of measles through good nutrition and care (please see the WHO statement. I don't think I need to quote it again). The problem for us here in the UK though is that if you are an adult, or a baby who is not breastfeeding, or who is breastfeeding but whose mother hasn't had measles, you can still suffer severe complications even if well nourished (and even if vaccinated, see above). So actually John, the ONLY way to guarantee you won't suffer these severe complications as an adult, when they are far more likely, is to have the disease as a young child (or, if you are a baby, to be fortunate enough that the mother you are feeding from has had it as a child).

Now I have in no way glossed over the awful results of catching the disease as a baby who is not breastfeeding or who is breastfeeding and their mother hasn't had the disease (or has been vaccinated). I am not glossing over the terrible risks associated with any adult getting the disease, vaccinated or not. Rather like Ragusa, you are creating a ridiculous caricature by misrepresenting me, and then arguing against this fantasy character. That's an easy win, but it isn't the same as giving reasoned and convincing points to refute what I am really saying. What I am saying is that:

When you vaccinate, you take known and recognised unknown risks in return for an unguaranteed level of protection which lasts an unguaranteed period of time.

This may be an acceptable risk for some people, depending on their circumstances. I recognise this. However,

If you get a disease like measles as a well nourished young child in a developed country, you can avoid severe complications (WHO). You will then have immunity for life, plus additional benefits (see studies relating to asthma for example, and see benefits to your breastfeeding child).

John, I fear that no matter how much research supported evidence I provide to you of reasonable doubt relating to the risks and efficacy of vaccines, you will continue to claim unfairly that I am unscientific. Or perhaps you really believe my comments are calculated to raise fear and suspicion. (Think about it, why on Earth would I do that. On the other hand, why would vaccine manufacturers manipulate 'science' in order to raise fear and create a greater need for vaccines?)

I can afford to be flexible in my thinking - if I am convinced by you or others on any vaccine, I can still use it. If I am not, I will not. I'm not anti medicine per se- just aware that all medicines have pros and cons. I am not convinced beyond reasonable doubt on vaccines (at least for my situation). So far, you've made a lot of comments but you haven't removed any of the grounds for reasonable doubt I have given.

In this country we have a proud tradition of thinking for ourselves. Long may that continue. In the States they have an ever increasing number of mandatory vaccinations, whilst conflicts of interest between policy makers, researchers and manufacturers are rife. Most worryingly, in my view, even attempts at objective debate are being stifled and reasonable questioners labeled as unscientific 'conspiracy theorists'. I hope we never go down that road.

PigletJohn
The best way to not suffer the effects and complications of the disease is to not catch it.

The best way to not catch it is to be vaccinated.

No argument.

Why take part in a debate when you are unprepared to listen to other views, and believe that only your view is the right one?

Most of what you're saying is anti-vaccine fog calculated to raise fear and suspicion and to increase the rate of disease by reducing take-up, which would have the effect of increasing the consequences of the disease

Hyperbole such as this (which, in my opinion, grossly misrepresents bobby's position) does you a huge disservice. Bobby has said a few times that people should do their own research and make up their own minds - something I would wholly agree with.

PigletJohn, given your 'anti-vaccine fog' comment above, how would you like non vaccinators to put across their opinions?

I notice a couple of people don't like me saying:

The best way to not suffer the effects and complications of the disease is to not catch it.

The best way to not catch it is to be vaccinated.

But it's true. The fact that you don't like vaccination doesn't stop it being true.

It's a very simple position.

No fog or waffle required.

PigletJohn, it's not a question of objecting to you putting forward your opinions, more a question of whether you recognise them as opinions, and not fact, and that others might have a different perspective. My observations are that 1. You keep on repeating those opinions without substantiating them; 2. You seem to ignore questions asked of you; 3. Effectively, you are only considering one side of the debate.

Do you think there are any downsides to the vaccination process?

you think they are not facts?

let's see you try to disprove them.

^you think they are not facts?

let's see you try to disprove them^

Please read my recent post above John - I think it's a pretty effective assessment of why there are strong grounds for reasonable doubt regarding your points (though I say it myself!). I think reasonable doubt is all you should need in order to have the right to choose. I'm not convinced you do read my posts properly John. To be honest, at times you seem to have accidentally misrepresented them before repeating your 'simple' mantra. I'd genuinely like to be persuaded by you, John - I can still choose to vaccinate if I could just see what a marvellous product they are - and how I would love a simple, safe, effective solution to protect my gorgeous kids from disease! But unfortunately, I think 'simplistic' is a better word for your mantra, and that's why I'm not convinced. There's a lot of nuance you seem to be missing out on. When it comes to health, I suggest nuance is important - interventions should never be one size fits all.

I have given you 'science' -look at my very recent example of a peer reviewed study by two Indian scientists, for example, and see many other references throughout my posts. You don't mention these- you just repeat the notion that people who question vaccines indulge in fog and waffle, and are somehow unscientific. There's no fog or waffle about healthy children possibly being paralysed by a vaccine, John (very reasonable grounds, sadly!) - the examples are recent and real.

My whole point is that you should have a right to your view and to do what you think is best for your kids. I don't like the idea that this right might be taken away while so many reasonable questions remain. It looks likely to happen in Australia soon (see the scary 'no jab, no play' campaign). I hope it will never happen here.

A link to an authoratitive source that compares the risks from MMR and measles: HERE

The source is from that terribly war-ravaged and malnourished country, er, Australia. It shows the strong reasons for vaccinating with MMR, by reference to risk of damage.

So the nutrition argument boils down to this:

If a child catches measles in an impoverished country he or she will have a higher risk of bad outcome compared with a child in, say, the UK because of, among other things, malnutrition. But in both cases the risks of the disease very, very strongly outweigh the risks from MMR.

And of course vaccination can eradicate a disease altogether, so allowing greater effort and resource to do things like end famine and food shortage. Which would also be a good thing.

That's it really.

fascicle

you say you putting forward your opinions, more a question of whether you recognise them as opinions

do you seriously believe that is "opinion" that The best way to not suffer the effects and complications of the disease is to not catch it?

do you seriously believe that is "opinion" that The best way to not catch it is to be vaccinated?

It isn't opinion.

It's fact.

IT seems to me, bobbyperu, that this is the crux of your argument, and you yourself have said that it is on this (and your other) bolded statement(s) that you would like to focus debate:

If you get a disease like measles as a well nourished young child in a developed country, you can avoid severe complications (WHO). You will then have immunity for life, plus additional benefits (see studies relating to asthma for example, and see benefits to your breastfeeding child).

I will say what I believe - on the basis of available evidence - is this: The first part of your assertion above is untrue. Repeating the fact the statement comes from WHO does not make it true. Tens of thousands of normal, adequately -fed children suffered complications - severe and sometimes fatal ones - prior to measles vaccine being introduced in this country. If, when assessing the relative balance of risk between vaccination and natural disease acquisition, you believe normal, well-nourished children do not sustain life-changing complications from measles, you are not making a meaningful assessment.

There is (as far as I am aware) no research consensus that measles infection confers protection against asthma. See, for example, a recent study (2012) which suggests that childhood infection with measles is associated with increased incidence of new-onset asthma in later life.

There is evidence This study for example that breastfed babies of mothers who acquired measles naturally have higher antibody levels, for longer, than the babies of mothers who were vaccinated for measles. The same study also suggests, however, that "At 6 months of age, more than 99% of infants of vaccinated women and 95% of infants of naturally immune women had lost maternal antibodies according to the model". While it may be true that the babies of people acquiring the disease naturally have higher antibody levels for longer, there isn't much standing in the way of a 6 month + baby contracting measles if he or she is exposed to it. the majority of babies aged 6 months + are likely to be reliant on herd immunity and low community levels of circulating virus for protection until they receive routine vaccination for measles (in the UK) at 13 months.

The reasons I mentioned vaccines in the context of developing nations is because it is clear to me that vaccination is crucial to mass health improvement and tackling inequality in the developing world. Crucial. If you're deaf, blind or brain-damaged in Sudan as a result of measles, there ain't no DLA or comprehensive NHS to step up to the mark and support you.

What worries me about the anti-vax rhetoric here in the developed world is that it has the potential to undermine vaccination efforts in the developing world. It also gives a foothold of proponents of 'alternative' nutritionism- influenced 'treatments' and prophylactics for use in the developing world. For that reason I am keen to challenge what I see as largely unevidenced criticism of vaccines and their efficacy and usefulness.

Oh dear, name-change-back fail. I think you know who I was previously - clue, it's not PigletJohn.