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?

"Since you've joined under your new name just to stir up trouble, and since you are abusive and untruthful,"

Please stop telling lies.

The stirring up trouble and the abuse lies mainly with the very heavy pro-vaccination camp. This is clear to anyone who reads the threads. You using this language now is simply an effort to move on, evade, change the subject.

You have STILL not responded in any coherent way to reports of vaccine damage experienced by people on these threads.

MrsG I'm sorry you feel the way you do about vitriol etc, but you do realise that anyone could produce any sort of anecdote straight out of their butt and claim it is clear evidence of pretty much anything they wished to claim.

Mathanxiety: that's a very passive aggressive apology. It's not "the way I feel" - it's "the way it is". Perhaps you haven't read the threads, but maybe you should, to get an idea of it.

"anyone could produce any sort of anecdote straight out of their butt and claim it is clear evidence of pretty much anything they wished to claim"

I think this is evidence that you probably haven't read any reports of vaccine damage, and also evidence that you don't take this subject very seriously at all. I don't know why someone who doesn't take this subject seriously would have such strong views on it.

"Since you've joined under your new name just to stir up trouble, and since you are abusive and untruthful,"

These accusations are abusive and untrue.

(Now if you decide to report, because you can't stand the argument, and because the tone of the debate from the pro-vaccination campaign side is being challenged, there is nothing in this post to merit deletion.

I for one am not going to report: I'm challenging you right here on this thread about the pro-vaccination tone and hostility, and requesting that the pro-vaccinators leave off the abuse, ridicule, vitriol, hostility, dismissiveness and sneering. I believe that if you are genuinely interested, and genuinely concerned about child health, and genuinely confident in your argument, you won't find this a problem at all.)

The stirring up trouble and the abuse lies mainly with the very heavy pro-vaccination camp. This is clear to anyone who reads the threads. You using this language now is simply an effort to move on, evade, change the subject.

You have STILL not responded in any coherent way to reports of vaccine damage experienced by people on these threads.

Passive aggression trumps paranoia and mind reading any day imo.

The way you feel is not really 'the way it is. It is simply the way you feel, or the way you look at things. You are making a bit of a leap when you feel people are part of a campaign or are engaging in vitriol and believe that is actually what is happening. Feelings are feelings.

I don't have particularly strong views on vaccines but I do have strong views on responsible conduct on the part of people who derive every benefit from living in the prosperous, developed, free society we live in. You are entitled to do whatever you want where your own children are concerned, but I hope your children won't infect someone who is immuno-compromised with an illness that they wouldn't have if they had been vaccinated. Some illnesses that are relatively benign in children can kill adults, leaving families bereft. Immigrants from less developed areas of the world live a precarious enough life without being put at risk of death from someone who has made a decision not to vaccinate their child based on an inaccurate assessment of vaccine risk.

What makes me bang my head against my desk is people who refuse to understand the difference between anecdote and evidence, science and crankery, accusations that doctors are killing baby girls in the 'Third World' and whispering campaigns against ingredients of vaccines that have been around since the 1920s. I have read many reports of vaccine damage -- it's a cottage industry on the net. I don't consider most of it worthy of serious comment.

"Passive aggression trumps paranoia and mind reading any day imo. "

I don't know what you are talking about. It is certanly true that the words used to describe people who have concerns about vaccines on these threads include bonkers, cranks, bizarrosphere, tosh, and so on. I have seen looney and worse, you yourself have described vaccine damage reports as "pulling any old anecdote out of your butt". Just in the last few posts Pigletjohn tried to be sneering and patronising. It is not paranoid to report these things - it is true that these things have been said. I don't know what you mean about mind-reading - I can't imagine that you believe such a thing exists so I don't know why you've brought it up.

Thus - you may say "it's not really the way it is" but, unfortunately, it doesn't take much reading of these threads to realise that it is.

If you dno't have strong views on vaccines I think it's incredibly irresponsible to try to end debate by simply sneering. For example your use of "paranoia" - clearly I'm not making things up - you can read back on the thread. so why make that claim? Simply to smear?

People do indeed understand the difference between anecdote and evidence, and people who attend to vaccine damage repors and are able to assess their importance or otherwise are not stupid, or silly, or childish, or unscientific. Every medical discovery, every GP appointment, every hospital assessment, starts with anecdote. Only in the world of vaccinations are they to be ignored and dismisse, it seems. You may bang your head as much as you wish - you've demonstrated your lack of interest and undertanding right there.

nd, by the way - you don't know anything about my children, and I'm not about to tel lyou their vaccination status. May I assume yours have been vaccinated? If so, I hope they don't pass any disease on to an immuno-compromised child. You are, after all, much more likely than the parents of a non-vaccinated child to assume they cannot put anyone else at risk.

The paranoia is suspecting people who disagree with you of being part of a conspiracy to silence you.

The mind reading and divination of feelings is the bit where you said people are feeling disappointed or exhibiting 'hostility, dismissiveness, aggression, point-scoring, name-calling, and total lack of genuine interest in the issues'.

It is strange to see the accusation of lack of genuine interest in the issues. Plenty of people here have posted articles about various points that have come up on this thread. I think you should go back and reread posts. Could it be that you are surprised that other people have a different opinion from yours based on intimate familiarity with the crankery and pseudoscience?

'"anyone could produce any sort of anecdote straight out of their butt and claim it is clear evidence of pretty much anything they wished to claim"
I think this is evidence that you probably haven't read any reports of vaccine damage, and also evidence that you don't take this subject very seriously at all. I don't know why someone who doesn't take this subject seriously would have such strong views on it.'

• If this is what you call 'evidence' or any indication of the calibre of your conclusion-drawing ability then I can sort of understand where your misguided opinions on vaccines are coming from.

'You are, after all, much more likely than the parents of a non-vaccinated child to assume they cannot put anyone else at risk. '

Well yes, that is partly the point of vaccinating children -- the not unfounded hope that they will avoid infecting someone with a childhood disease that can kill adults. They have been vaccinated and have had boosters as indicated. So have I. I think I can safely assume they are not going to inadvertently kill someone's parent or someone's child. The oldest three have their driver's licences however, and are therefore statistically more at risk of killing someone until they reach the age of 25.

' Every medical discovery, every GP appointment, every hospital assessment, starts with anecdote. Only in the world of vaccinations are they to be ignored and dismisse, it seems.'

It may well start with anecdote, but it ends with science, and that is what happens with anecdotes about vaccine damage.

I'm afriad you will have to admit Math that there is plentiful evidence of that. The name-calling, abuse, vitoriol, hostility - that awful "lame excuses for not vaccinating" thread, for instance. The dismissal of vaccine damage reports as "pulling stories out of your butt" -what purpose do these serve except to smear and dismiss?

You cacnnot possibly imagine that they contribute to the discussion in any positive way, do you? They are simply there to put down, to belittle, to dismiss, to avoid and evade questions and argument - yes, absolutely to ensure that rational discussion can't take place. You have your own part in this, so it's not suprising you want to pretend it's not there, and that to point it out is somehow "paranoid".

"It may well start with anecdote, but it ends with science."

That would be great in the case of MMR; unfortunately the story there has been that it starts with anecdote, and ends with sneering and dismissal.

*'You are, after all, much more likely than the parents of a non-vaccinated child to assume they cannot put anyone else at risk. '

Well yes, that is partly the point of vaccinating children "*

Have you not read the cases on here of children infected by vaccinated children who had been exposed to the virus but allowed to circulate because the parents had no idea they could be contagious? Do you think perhaps they were just "pulled out of someone's butt?"

"I think I can safely assume they are not going to inadvertently kill someone's parent or someone's child."

See above. No you can't, and it's possibly irresponsible not to educate yourself about this possibility.

"If this is what you call 'evidence' or any indication of the calibre of your conclusion-drawing ability then I can sort of understand where your misguided opinions on vaccines are coming from"

ore abuse. You always have to resort to abuse don't you?

If you call vaccine damage reports "pulling cases out of your butt" then I again suggest most strongly that you do not take this issue seriously and have little knowledge of vaccine damage reports.

Of course, if you want to say that vaccine damage reports do not consist of "pulling something out of your butt" that would be great.
.

"The mind reading and divination of feelings is the bit where you said people are feeling disappointed or exhibiting 'hostility, dismissiveness, aggression, point-scoring, name-calling, and total lack of genuine interest in the issues'."

Seriously Math. Read the top few threads on vaccinations. Have a look at the evidence - which of course you're so fond of.

That's a good post math - well done you for having the patience!

It wasn't a good post at all; it was abusive and self-contradictory.

Also just to let you know there are points on polio which you might care to respond to on another thread.

Sorry about the delayed response. I was out all day. I'm playing catch-up now and I've only got as far as Jo's post from Sunday at 12.41. I will post this response and then read on.

Jo, I'm not sure why you think I would have a problem with an animal study (aside from animal welfare issues) given that I was talking about a rabbit study and other animal studies mentioned in the ATSDR report in an earlier post. Your other comments about dismissing studies based on race, age or eye colour are ridiculous and completely unfounded.

Your first link is a study investigating the clearance of aluminium from the injection site and the features of the lesions that were found around the injection site. It does not, as you've said, mention Al being excreted nor does say that it 'remains bound up near the injection site'. It states that lesions were observed and that there were higher concentrations of Al, particularly in the area of the lesions that persisted for up to 12 months (the longest time before the monkeys were sacrificed). They were localised at the injection site rather than in surrounding muscle tissue. The study only examined quadriceps muscle sections. It does not examine other areas of the body to determine whether any aluminium was retained from the vaccines elsewhere.

Your second link states this wrt safety of Al in vaccines:

"A recent review of the evidence of adverse events after exposure to aluminium-containing vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP), found no evidence that aluminum salts cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events.7"

It is based on this study
which focuses on observable effects such as induration, swelling, fever and says that it found no evidence for serious or long lasting adverse effects (with them). It also follows that statement with "Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken." which doesn't exactly inspire confidence!

I am not looking for a guarantee of safety. I know that isn't possible and tbh I would be very wary of someone telling me that it was 100% safe. I would, however, like to know how it has been deemed safe.

I do not think my questions are unreasonable. People on this thread have said a few times that 'the dose is the poison' but yet none of you seem to be able to say what that dose is for Al in vaccines. None of you seem to know what the excretory capacity for Al is in a healthy child (beyond which excess Al is deposited in tissues around the body) so therefore none of you seem to know whether a dose of Al in a vaccine exceeds either of those. I'm actually not sure why any of you think you are in a position to say that Al is 'safe' tbh.

Bruffin, I'm sure that you think the studies that you linked to 'show that Al levels in vaccines is safe' but as I explained above, they do not actually provide enough information for you to conclude that. One the them shows that the 'alpha hydroxy carboxylic acid from interstitial fluid is capable of dissolving aluminium containing adjuvants' but the experiments were not done at typical body concentrations or temperatures and no information is given about how much it is capable of dissolving( more/less than in a vaccine?) and how it may differ under typical body concentrations and/or temperatures.

The other refers to the flarend et al rabbit study and states that "in vivo mechanisms are available to eliminate aluminium-containing adjuvants after i.m. administration." although it omits other findings from the study such as:

""Following intramuscular administration of aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate vaccine adjuvants in rabbits, increased levels of 26Al were found in the kidney, spleen, liver, heart, lymph nodes, and brain (in decreasing order of aluminum concentration) (Flarend et al. 1997)."

and doesn't say how much is eliminated and how much is retained. I did give you a quote from the ATSDR report which looked at other studies which show that 27% of the dose is still retained after 5 days.

Math,

"'intravenous infusion or in the presence of advanced renal dysfunction'

Neither of which are the same as a vaccination jab or even a series of jabs.

You are looking at apples and calling them oranges."

If you look back at my point, I specifically said 'Obviously vaccines aren't given intravenously but they still bypass the GI tract so what percentage is retained? Anyone?'

I am not trying to directly compare the two. I want to know the difference in absorbtion rates between intramuscular and ingested Al which is also like comparing apples and oranges given that the intramuscular injection bypasses the GI tract which does actually play a very important role in limiting absorbtion of ingested Al.

Sorry MrsG. I don't respond to any of your posts. You're too aggressive and rude for me and I don't want to go down to your level.

Just looking back - the only person talking about "conspirators" on this thread is bruffin. (I'm sure that doesn't make her paranoid - it's just the dismissal, sneering thing again). But if you believe people who are seeing conspiracies are paranoid - there is someone on this thread doing just that.

I hope that the people who have been insulting, sneering, hostile and dismissive are able to tone down their posts across all vaccination threads. I think it will show a willingness, an interest and an intelligent understanding of this complex issue.

Elaine: you have been very aggressive and rude yourself, so you should be able to handle it. You are the one talking about tosh, and cranks, and bizarro, and so on.

I haven't actually been aggressive. What I've done, is call YOU on your aggression, dismissal, sneering. I must assume that's not particularly enjoyable for you.

In addition of course - the polio evidence is really very good so I can understand why you wonb't respond to that - if al lyou're interested in is point scoring.

It was a decision I took under your previous pseudonym . I'm not going to be dragged down. Sorry. Just not worth the effort and unpleasantness.

"It was a decision I took under your previous pseudonym "

Excuse me????? Would you like to explain that?

It's just too difficult for you. I am absolutely sure that if you could think of a clever put down you'd do it at once. And I think the polio paper on the other thread is too difficult for you.