Vaccinations and nursery schools

[Louise1010]

This is my first post so forgive me if I do anything wrong!

I am just beginning to look at nursery schools for my 15 month old son, and I am a bit surprised that they don't seem to care whether or not he has been vaccinated. I expected it to be a requirement.

It seems incredible to me that I have to provide evidence of my cat's jabs to the cattery but when it comes to children anything goes.

Has anyone come across a nursery school in the UK that does require it?

If you have a concern with vaccination and aluminium, please say what it is.

I am not going to trawl the internet and try to guess your opinion.

Only you know your concern.

Tabitha, in your enthusiasm to ask questions about aluminium and autism, you seem to have overlooked my question.

Jo Yes I would hope that the number is small compared to the number vaccinated. I'm not sure that any organisation would have the numbers. I don't see how they could. Neither are there accurate figures for children damaged by vaccines generally as not all problems are reported.

PigletJohn From my links (they are short enough paragraphs if you fancy a read):

^Aluminum (Al), the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant, is a demonstrated neurotoxin and a strong immune stimulator. Hence, adjuvant Al has the potential to induce neuroimmune disorders. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, two key points ought to be considered: (i) children should not be viewed as "small adults" as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; and (ii) if exposure to Al from only few vaccines can lead to cognitive impairment and autoimmunity in adults, is it unreasonable to question whether the current pediatric schedules, often containing 18 Al adjuvanted vaccines, are safe for children? By applying Hill's criteria for establishing causality between exposure and outcome we investigated whether exposure to Al from vaccines could be contributing to the rise in ASD prevalence in the Western world. Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades (Pearson r=0.92, p

Thanks.

Are you making the point that in your opinion Aluminium in vaccines causes autism? Do you have any figures in mind? 1%? 5%? 10%?

Unless I have missed someting your quotations seem to mean "it might be worth looking into." Is there any evidence that there is in fact a problem to support your belief?

I am particularly asking because there doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism, so it woul be very difficult to narrow it down to aluminium within vaccines being a cause.

^.....correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal. Because children represent a fraction of the population most at risk for complications following exposure to Al, a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted.

Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated..^

Of course I don't have any figures, but, then, neither are the experts in those links claiming numbers.
Clearly there is a problem that needs investigating, or do you not think that there is? If you don't think that there in, then please feel free to dismiss the links. That's your choice. I can't force you to sit up and take notice, or do you just not understand what these people are trying to say? Or is it that you wish to simply dismiss the writers for some reason that I cannot fathom? They've obviously written extensively on the vaccine issue, you have only to click on the names, but I think you know that already.

If nobody has any evidence to suggest that a problem exists, them no, I am not aware of a problem that needs investigating. If you have not seen any evidence of a problem, then you aren't either.

I dare say some people would dismiss the concern that turnips cause lung cancer, just because there is no evidence that they do.

Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community

Have you evidence that aluminium in vaccines is safe? The writers would love to see it, I am sure. Perhaps you'd care to explain why you think that the research suggested does not need doing. The writers would also, no doubt, be interested in that as well.
I propose to quote no more from those links, all it's doing is taking up time and space.

The links you have posted do not say there is a problem. They do not have any figures. They do not have a causal link. They do not even have a tested correlation. They just think it might be worth looking at.

potential...may...opinion...

Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants... no link has been detected

Do you have any evidence that turnips are safe? Can you give me any evidence that proves they do not cause lung cancer?

www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/the-nutrition-of-a-turnip.html

Now you answer the questions that I put to you.
What evidence do you have that aluminium in vaccinations is safe?

And rebut this
... the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal

Do you have any evidence that turnips are safe? Can you give me any evidence that proves they do not cause lung cancer? Why are you so keen to avoid these questions? Am I not entitled to demand a 100% guarantee of turnip safety?

And rebut this
the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal

Easy. There is no proven correlation.

And as the author of your quote could equally have written
might or might not be causal, nobody knows
But as there is no evidence of correlation, causality doesn't come into it.

If you really believe that, then I suggest you write and tell them as you obviously know more than they do. Aren't they lucky that I've tried to persuade you to contact them? I hope that you do so, for their sakes. Then they can go off and have a nice holiday somewhere relaxing, with all their troubles at an end.

Remember, in case you could possibly have forgotten already, they are suggesting that research be done. You are suggesting that research isn't needed, but you are unable to say why.

Tabitha, you claimed that there were 'so many' people who have reported autism following MMR. When I ask you why you hold this view, you say you have no idea how many, and nor can or could anyone else.

If you don't have any idea how many reports of autism following MMR have been made 'some' is a more honest quanitifier than 'so many'. Problem is that no-one's going to be convinced by

'I believe MMR causes autism because some people have reported autism following MMR'

The question is, are you sure enough you are right to be comfortable with trying to convince people with deceitful rhetoric?

I try to convince no one. Who have I tried to convince not to vaccinate?

I have not suggested that no research is needed into anything. If there are promising lines of research into vaccination (see this thread title) that would make vaccines more effective, cheaper, safer, then I'm all for it.

I do however suggest that research should be directed at problems that seem to exist, rather than at imaginary problems, or at ideas that have been repeatedly researched but no evidence found. To my mind that seems sensible. Sometimes you just have to say "OK, I accept that the world is round"

a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted.

The authors would agree with you, then. Excellent.

I didn't say anything about 'not to vaccinate'.

If you're not trying to convince people that autism is a plausible risk associated with MMR, what other motive did you have for saying 'so many' instead of 'some' reported cases? It's rhetoric, and the only pupose I know of for rhetoric is to convince people of something.

I know it's a small point in and of itself, but there's endless rhetoric like this against vaccination. Problem is, that when you remove it, not much is left.

As the authors say, Tabitha, someone might think about having a look at it one day.

If they had any evidence of a problem they would say so. They didn't. They haven't. Neither have you.

I don't need to write and tell them because they already know there is no evidence. You've had plenty of people show you research seeking unsuccessfully to find a link between vaccination and autism. You won't accept them. What's the point in spending money on more trials into the same thing, which you also won't accept? What would it take to make you accept that the world is round?

You've got the idea into your head that there is a link that is so big that you can see it through your computer; yet simultaneously so small that it can't be detected in scientific trials.

p.s. your link about turnips does not reference any peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals proving, by large-scale trials, that there is no link between turnips and lung cancer, so it is worthless.

^Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades (Pearson r=0.92, p

Ok, you win. I'll never smoke a turnip again.

You've got the idea into your head that there is a link that is so big that you can see it through your computer; yet simultaneously so small that it can't be detected in scientific trials. Why is this?

Here is an example of a very weak and unconvincing statement

children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines

You will also find that the countries with the most motor-cars, or the most paediatricians, or the most foreign holidays, or the highest literacy rates also have the highest ASD prevalance.

However this does not tell us that any of those characteristrics have any causal correlation with each other. We do not even know if the rates of diagnosis is caused by more people looking for it, although we do know that it is very common, so that countries with better healthcare are likely to have more diagnoses.

Can you please explain your understanding of what "causative correlation" means?

If you're not trying to convince people that autism is a plausible risk associated with MMR, what other motive did you have for saying 'so many' instead of 'some' reported cases? It's rhetoric, and the only pupose I know of for rhetoric is to convince people of something.

Tabitha,
Had a look at the entire study. It's a load of garbage. Sorry, but the authors are clearly not epidemiologists or statisticians. No wonder they published in an obscure chemistry journal rather than one where epidemiologists would have reviewed what they did!

There are endless confounding variables. The authors don't even mention testing for any of them. Just plugged in the numbers of a correlation - but you can correlate ASD with any number of other variables as piglet explained to you.

They also fail to mention that aluminium replaced thimerosol as the adjuvant because of people claiming (with no scientific evidence) that thimerosol caused ASD. So obviously Al in vaccines was increasing, as was ASD but the increase in ASD was the reason for removing thimerosol!! Talk about changing the goalposts.

Also I'm sure you've heard of the ecological fallacy?

Finally, don't put too much emphasis on the authors bigging up the findings of their study. Of course they'll do that, they want to get published! I've been guilty of it myself, making my findings sound more significant for the future of humankind than they really are! As they themselves admit, however, 'Clearly, we cannot draw definite conclusions regarding the link between Al adjuvants and autism based on an ecological study such as the present one and hence the validity of our results remains to be confirmed.' Yeah, I should say so!

Thanks for the links Tabitha. I'm interested in the Al thing too. Thankfully other people are too and do actually think there is a point to investigating it rather than just saying 'don't be silly, of course it is safe' and leaving it at that.