Pro Immunisation Website

[GeorginaA]

I don't really want to go into much of a discussion about the pros/cons of vaccination as it's already been really done to death and I'm certainly not qualified enough! However, I've just found this really interesting site written by a pathologist who debunks several anti-immunisation sites and passionately believes the sites in question are using very poor science.

I know immunisation is something we all fret about when it comes around, and any more information we can find can be useful, so I thought I'd post the link for those interested.

To be more balanced I'm sure others can come up with some better researched anti-immunisation sites to add to this thread (which I'm interested in reading too).

The Anti-Immunisation Activists: A Pattern of Deception

OK hjad a brief look and some of the points he raises are absolutely fair enough.

Two things have struck though:

1. he talks about the effectiveness of pertussis vaccination. The New Scientist last year reported that cases of whooping cough had risen dramatically. They said this was because the bacteria had mutated due to vaccination and the vaccine no longer protects against the new strain. The New Scientist is hardly anti-vaccination.
2. He says that things like the increase in diabetes (and autism I guess and all the other autoimmune conditions) can't be linked to vaccination as the numbers would have increased dramatically in the 19509's when immunisation was introduced. Absolute bollards. Children in the 50's were given a few vaccination. even in the 80's childen received far fewer vaccinations and they were more spread out (for example it too them the best part of a year to give the DTP and polio jabs).
3. Nothing about the risk groups for Hib. Even being pretty anit-mass vaccination I would have considered giving hib to ds2 if I had out him in nursery from 6 months.

The other interesting thing is that all the por-vacc sites always say that peope born when these diseases were rife etc all welcome immunistaion etc. However all the older people I have spoken to have been absolutely horrifed when I tell them the vaccination schedule. The ones I knew before having children were generally anti lots of vaccinations/antibiotics etc (more the salt water and gargel brigade iykwim) so I know they're not just reacting to ds1's problems.

The main problem really is finding anything sensible out about vaccinations. The only way to do it is read the original research papers. I think the upshot is no-one really knows how effective they are. Probably fair to say they're fairly effective. There is always a risk from any vaccination, although certianly the risk of major damage is small. No-one knows what happens if you give loads of vaccinations at once (although you have to ask yourself why gulf war vets with gulf war syndrome have the same urinary profiles as auti kids, and why the MOD has tried to avoid quite so many mass vaccinations this time).

The middle ground doesn't seem to exist in this discussion. Just wish the people who make the policies would spend some time with vacine damaged children. They might be more interested in finding th safest way to give vaccinations (or be more interested in finding ways to identify children who shouldn't receive them, or receive only certain ones.

Just one other thing. The thing that really annoys me is the double standards in govt. I recently received a copy of the All PArty Parliamentary Group on Autism manifesto. In it it states

"The physisological symptoms associated with autism, for example sleep disorders, sensory dysfunction or GASTROINTESITNAL DOSORDERS, will be widely recognised and people with autism wil receive medical care and interventions appropriate to their needs from porfessionals trained in an understanding of autism"

That wouldn't be the GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS described by Andy Wakefield would it? Oh no silly me how could it be after all MMR damage doesn't exist.

BTW for anyone intersted in Andy Wakefield's current work (he's still well respected in the States) a charity ha sbeen established run by him which carries out work in the UK. Europe, Japan and the USA. Their website is : www.visceral.org.uk

Read to the bottom including this

"Read carefully. Despite some reasonable concerns, much of the rhetoric from anti-immunization parents boils down to, "I don't care if MY kid infects the others." It's a harsh thing to say -- but it's the truth."

Now I want to punch the guy. Ds2 isn't vaccinated because I think one 4 year old pooing, and weeing everywhere, and unable to talk, but quite capable of headbanging the floor, walls and windows wth no sense of danger in the family is enough. I feel like the govt and drugs companies don't care that MY kid may never be able to leave home, work, have relationships. Oh and I'm fed up of being stared at every time we go out.

Stupid git.

Other sites. Not a site- but the best article I've read on the role of vaccinations (not just MMR) in the development of autism (and other autoimmune conditions) is in the magazine - and was written by Natash Campbell-McBride- a qualified Dr, with postgrad degrees in neuroscience and nutrition. It's not at all rabid, all very sensible really.

Whoops forgot the site

www.autismfile.com/jonreports/issue9.htm

After thinking no I won't post on this - I have of course totally taken over the thread. That's it I'm done. Can't help myself sorry.

LOL That's alright Jimjams - I was relying on you to put your oar in to redress the balance actually

I found the site interesting (although with obvious US and passion-blinding biases) and certainly agreed with him that we have a tendency to forget just how serious some of the illnesses we vaccinate against were. Yes, I felt like slapping him about the "I don't care" bit too!

I haven't actually found any overtly pro vaccination sites before (only pro ones which pretend to be balanced, but aren't really), which is why I found it interesting - particularly as it was written by someone in the medical profession who could interpret and include citations to back up his points. I do get a bit fed up with sites who state things as if they were gospel without providing citations that you can research yourself if you feel like it.

"Read carefully. Despite some reasonable concerns, much of the rhetoric from anti-immunization parents boils down to, "I don't care if MY kid infects the others." It's a harsh thing to say -- but it's the truth."

But surely if the other children are immunised, and if immunisation IS as effective as they are arguing, then an unimmunised child won't be infecting anybody?

Exactly Oakmaiden! The majority of people I know who have chosen not to immunise have done so becuase of a bad experience with one of thier children.

The problem with all immunisation sites is that they tend to take very extreme stances. The arguments are so much more complicated. Basically its a risk assessment which depends on how likely you are to get the diseases they are meant to protect against, how nasty they would be if you got them, whether the added ingredients (eg thimerosil) are likely to have any effect, whether the vaccine works, and how long for (measles for example is so infectious until vaccination it was virtually unknown in adults), whether the age group you're vaccinating against is likely to catch the disease, whether you have a family history of autoimmune diseases and so the list goes on. It's not black and white at all.

I wish the govt would set up some sort of immune panel for every child so the best course sould be chosen for them. If this had been in place I'm fairly certain that ds1 would had received at least some vaccinations, but more spread out and thimerosil free. Given ds1's problems now I'm fairly sure that an immune panel would only recommend ds2 receiving immunisation against diseases he is a) likely to get and b) likely to be serious. They could have spent 3 million pounds on that rather than an MMR ad campaign - and helped children's health at the same time.

For a good anti-vaccination book I would recommened the vaccination bible by what dr's don't tell you. Again it is heavily referenced. The thing is even if you read the original research it doesn't necessarily clarify the position. For example the Brent Taylor paper (1999 I think) is often used as "proof" of MMR's safety - but the data he provides in the paper could be interpreted in any number of ways and he wouldn't let anyone else see the original.

the only problem with the vaccination bible, is that I feel that they still don't give you enough information. maybe it's just me, but they seem very selective in their information giving - I would love to see charts with, this was the vaccination schedule in year xxxx, these are the reported cases and outcomes for before and after, the schedules were then changed at this time, and these are the figures for what was going on, etc. But as it is EVERYONE only gives you a little part ofthe story.

It even seems hard to find basic information on the illnesses - I still don't know, for example, precisely HOW one goes about catching polio, whether catching it is likely in our society (even without ANY vaccination for anyone) and precisely what the symptoms of polio are. Surely we need this sort of information for all illnesses in order to make an informed choice about vaccinations? And isn't diptheria something to do with dirty water?

I'm sure the information must be out there somewhere, but it is knowing where to look.

only cases of polio caught in the UK have been vaccine induced (or vaccine transmitted). In young children polio is usually mild (gastroenteritis). Parilytic polio forms a small percentage of cases. Diptheria is making a comeback in the war torn states of Eastern Europe. Incredibly rare here.

The other data doesn't exist. Partly because adverse reactions are rarely recorded, and also sometimes diseases are unrecognised. Eg child turns up at drs with rubella type rash, but doc decided it can't be rubella as child has been vaccinated.

I do know what you mean about selective info, but at least if things are referenced you can check out the original papers.

The only reaosn I know the vaccination schedule form the 1980's is becuase I have a famly health book from the 1980's. Also rather interestingly it described measles as a "usually mild illness". Slightly different from the "your child will die" message bandied about today

Message withdrawn

And I bet it wasn't recorded as an adverse reaction sb34. Hence MMR remains officially safe.

What a horrible experience for you. I feel the same about ds2 really. I would like him have the tetanus jab at some stage (I think) but then the thought of actually going through with it sends shivers down my spine.

And I bet it wasn't recorded as an adverse reaction sb34. Hence MMR remains officially safe.

What a horrible experience for you. I feel the same about ds2 really. I would like him have the tetanus jab at some stage (I think) but then the thought of actually going through with it sends shivers down my spine.

Message withdrawn

God knows sb34. Seizure as they insert the needle? They reckon only about 10% of adverse reactions are recorded, which makes a mockery of all their one in a million stats (and changes the risk benefit ratio when deciding whether the diseas or jab is more risky- considering they may never catch the disease anyway).

Hope your GP's been supportive.

Jimjams, agree with what you said about both the ineffectiveness of the whooping cough vaccine and the reluctance of GPs to diagnose a disease that has been vaccinated against. I've seen a couple of cases of whooping cough in vaccinated children and in both cases the GP was refusing to diagnose, despite the children both having the distinctive 'whooping' cough and both coughing until they vomited - together with temperatures and general poorliness.

I had a similar experience for the opposite reason, sb34. My two year old was rushed to hospital with suspected meningitis. Lying on a huge white bed unable to lift his head etc. because I DIDN'T get the MMR and he got a severe case of measles.

Message withdrawn

I didn't get my dd her Hib booster as both my baby nephews were very poorly after it and also my dd had chicken pox at the time....it's still praying on my mind,but i really dont think i'll get it

sb34 did you see the thread below about the new book. The article talks about the problems of getting drs to recognise reactions.

Not another one Angeliz- what on earth have they put in this hib booster? This is getting ridiculous even for an old cynic like myself! I've heard about 100x more adverse reactions than I would have expected.

They both had fevers, conjuctivitis, one had massive swelling at the sight, was put on antibiotics and his foot swelled!????When he was a baby(he's 2 now), he was in hospital with a rash all over and they put a drip in his foot and said it was some kind of infection. Then he has this jab and that swells up!!It all seems a bit too coincidental for me......

Jimjams, did you see Kate Figes article in the Guardian about the under-reporting of adverse reactions this Wed...or did I read it because you recommended it on another thread... Anyway, I thought it was good.
Didn't take ds for the Hib booster in the end. He's not in daycare.

Jimjams, just asking this here where you might see it - is there a thread about the pre-school booster for diptheria etc? And Men C? Is there thimerosil (sp?) in it? What do you think about them both, have you said somewhere? Just wondering since I've had a call for these 2 and want to look into it first. Ds hasn't had MMR and won't be. Don't want to debate this with anyone thanks!

I also had dd have single jabs and she is still waiting for mumps as the company Direct Health 2000 cant get them!!! We were warned months ago by them to expect to see a mumps outbreak reported on the news and sure enough it was in my local paper a few days ago!