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?

Again, I'd like to appeal to you, specifically elaine, to stop being insulting, rude and aggressive. Will you commit to giving up the childish name-calling and the sneering on such a difficult and sensitive subject?

And an appeal to Math. Will you commit to not accusing people who report vaccine damage of "pulling stories out of their butts"?

'Obviously vaccines aren't given intravenously but they still bypass the GI tract so what percentage is retained? Anyone?'

Why do you keep on emphasising this point? It doesn't matter that vaccines 'bypass the GI tract'. All blood passes through the kidneys and liver. All substances introduced into the bloodstream either directly (via IV), through the tissues or through the lungs or gi tract (orally or anally) are eventually passed through the kidneys and the liver.

Metabolism of drugs - www.editorsweb.org/medications/drugs-work.htm

I think you are wrong to suppose that the gi tract limits the absorption of aluminium btw. Food and water are the major sources of aluminium in humans.
From www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/754.pdf
'Although the water solubility of aluminium compounds appears to be one of the major factors affecting their bioavailability, it is not possible to extrapolate from solubility in water to bioavailability. Additionally, due to available dietary ligands that may either increase (e.g. citrate, lactate, and other organic carboxylic acid complexing agents, fluoride), or decrease the absorption (such as phosphate, silicon, polyphenols) the bioavailability of any particular aluminium compound can be markedly different depending on the presence or absence of particular food and beverages in the intestines.

Available studies indicate that the oral bioavailability of aluminium in humans and experimental animals from drinking water is in the range of 0.3%, whereas the bioavailability of aluminium from food and beverages generally is considered to be lower, about 0.1%. However, considering the available human and animal data, it is likely that the oral absorption of aluminium from food can vary at least 10-fold depending on the chemical forms present in the intestinal tract.'

'an appeal to Math. Will you commit to not accusing people who report vaccine damage of "pulling stories out of their butts"'

No I won't MrsG.
You could be anyone.
Nobody here has any assurance that other posters are not pulling stories out of their butts.

'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. '
Actual quote btw.

MrsG: 'Again, I say - I don't think you're really interested, it's just some kind of campaign to squish all questioning of vaccines. '
That is pure paranoia.

Oh, I'm sure you're not "working together" just as I'm sure the poster earlier who referred to "conspirators" doesn't think that either. But there is no way that people who consistently call names, sneer, insult, patronise, dismiss, fail to read links and so on can possibly be genuinely interested in debate. Those people who are, can conduct themselves with more respect.

Will you commit to not accusing people who report vaccine damage of "pulling stories out of their butts"'No I won't MrsG. You could be anyone.

Do you mean you just disbelieve reports of vaccine damage from people you don't know? Do you mean you automaticallt assume they are pulling such reports out of their butts? You automatically assume they're lying?

So for example there's been one particular report on recent threads, not from me. Do you assume they're lying? Do you accuse them of lying?

I think the "pull out of butts" comment was a mistake. And I don't want to be associated with it.

However.

There is no actual scientifically proven link between vaccines and autism. There have been no links to any research on here that supports the suggestion. And yes, I have read all the ones that I can access. I am always being told that "if only I read the links" I would see the evidence. I do read the links,(the ones I can access) don't see the evidence, ask again and am told I haven't read it.

No, I don't think that people who say that their children have been damaged by vaccines are lying. But that doesn't mean that they are necessarily right. You can be 100% honestly convinced of something and still be wrong.

Math, it is mentioned in the 'Aluminium Toxicity' article that I linked and quoted from:

"In healthy subjects, only 0.3% of orally administered aluminum is absorbed via the GI tract and the kidneys effectively eliminate aluminum from the human body. It is only when the GI barrier is bypassed, such as intravenous infusion or in the presence of advanced renal dysfunction, that aluminum has the potential to accumulate. As an example, with intravenously infused aluminum, 40% is retained in adults and up to 75% is retained in neonates.[4]"

Studies have also investigated Aluminium toxicity after inhalation (again, bypassing the GI tract) I'm not sure why you think that it isn't important.

The article you linked to also says this:

"After absorption, aluminium distributes to all tissues in animals and humans and accumulates in some, in particular bone. The main carrier of the aluminium ion in plasma is the iron binding protein, transferrin. Aluminium can enter the brain and reach the placenta and fetus.
Aluminium may persist for a very long time in various organs and tissues before it is excreted in the urine. "

More evidence that some Al is retained in the body. Obviously this would be quite small from ingested Aluminium but how much is retained when larger doses are absorbed from other parts of the body e.g intramuscularly?

I agree with quite a lot of your post seeker -- apart from this "There have been no links to any research on here that supports the suggestion" - which you probably won't be suprised to hear.

"I don't think that people who say that their children have been damaged by vaccines are lying. But that doesn't mean that they are necessarily right."

It doesn't, at all, I agree. However, when you have many reports the same, going into the thousands, that does consitute cause for concern. It also means that if you categorically believe there is no link between say MMR and autistic disorders, you HAVE to believe they're lying. So if you think they might be right - you agree with an awful lot of people who are concerned about vaccines.

However I would just say you have used there a much more helpful tone and I'd thank you for that. Which I think I must do, having been so critical of "unhelpful tones" even though you might not welcome my thanks!

No they aren't lying. They are mistaken. Can't you see the difference?

And I am sooo baffled by you saying you don't agree that there has been no evidence to support the MMR/-autism link.

I am beginning to wonder if I don't actually get all posts. Because I have definitely not seen a link to any credible evidence. People reporting their experiences as they perceive them is not evidence.

I can see the difference - however I'm a bit baffled that you know something about thousands of children you've never met and have no knowledge of their medical records or in most cases the reports of their regression. How on earth do you know more than their parents, and in some cases their doctors and immunologists?

I don't want to be sarcastic. Can you tell me how you know these things?

The evidence builds up incrementally. It's like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. For example, it used to be denied that there was such a thing as autistic entercolitis at all, but over the years increasing evidence has grown into a general acceptance that it does exist.

If the level of evidence for a connection between MMR and autitic disorders existed for example, between a vaccine and some kind of unexpected beneficial reaction, I feel sure that this would be marketed and accepted by the pro-vaccine campaigners.

I don't know anything about those children. But I do know that there has been acres of research- and none of it points to a link between MMR and autism. And every time somebody asks for any research that does point in that direction i get told "i've told you that already- i'm not going to do it again" And just because people think there is a link that doesn't make it so.

But you do claim to know things about the children. You know the parents (and often doctors and immunologists) are wrong when they say that their decline into autistic regression was probably - or even may have been - caused by a vaccine. How do you know this?

The evidence builds up incrementally. It's like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-376203/Former-science-chief-MMR-fears-coming-true.html

This man would agree with you. He must be wrong though, because he is mentioned on www.whale.to (which I for one had never heard of, until the 'pro-vaccine' camp pointed me in its direction). His medical experience must count for nothing. He's retired, he's out of date, that must be why.

I think one of the mistakes you are making Seeker is waiting for a "magic bullet" piece of research. It's unlikely to come while there is such a prejudice against carrying out research in this field. However evidence does come, in dribs and drabs - there are conferences, and publications, which are of interest.

If your prejudice falls absolutely on one side of the debate then you won't be interested in those pieces of jigsaw, and because none of them provides - for you - a Eureka moment, you can say "I've seen no credible evidence".

I like your link LaVolcan. Another problem here is that someone like that is immediately undermined or dismissed for some specious reason.

The argument becomes very circular.

"Oh that Fletcher guy, what he says about MMR isn't true, you can't believe what he says"
"Why not?"
"Well he's become a maverick"
"Why is he a maverick?"
"Because what he says about MMR isn't true"
"But.. you just used that as a premise .. you can't have it as a conclusion as well......"

Hello LaVolcan

It's interesting to see a Daily Mail piece from 22 March 2006 brought back to life.

Does the Daily Mail still hold that opinion, or did they change it after Dr Wakefield was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council (GMC) at a hearing in central London in 2010?

It's not the DM's opinion - is it? It's reporting the concerns of a former medical officer. What would you say about what Peter Fletcher has to say? Would it have concerned you at the time?

Why do you point out that it's the Daily Mail? It hasn't anything to do with what he says. Is that an attempt at smear? Please don't, I don't think it's necessary if you're confident of your case, but you again seem to be resorting to sarcasm, sneering, smearing.

Hi Piglet. No idea, why not write to the Daily Mail and ask them?

What interested me about Dr Fletcher was that he wanted to see more research done. I don't have a problem with that myself.

I must go. I hope the more normal tone used by Seeker will prevail across the board for the extreme pro-vaccine enthusiasts. It is sad to see this debate reduced to the sort of sneering and abuse which really should not have a place here at all.

We mustn't forget that there are parents on this board who have children who've suffered vaccine damage. Accusing them, for example, of "pulling stories out of their butts", of being cranks, of belonging to the "bizarrosphere", is awful, as is dismissing parents who have concerns about vaccines as full of "tosh".

While people may want to score points and sneer, please remember you're adults debating a serious subject.

Lavolcan
It's not that hard to find a dissenting doctor here or there. Look at Wakefield (well, at least this one isn't struck off for unethical behavior!), But for each one who thinks there may be a problem, there are thousands who don't, including virologists, imminologists etc.

And, yes, I do have a problem with 'more research' in a world where research funds are limited. Look at the autism research foundation - they want to fund research which might actually help autistic children, adults and their families or prevent autism.

Sorry, I just don't base my decisions on the daily mail. It's your right to do so if you wish if course.

I probably won't. There's quite a lot of stuff in the Daily Mail about Autism, isn't there?

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1052509/No-link-MMR-autism-say-doctors-recreating-controversial-study.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-317313/No-autism-link-MMR-jab.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1143731/New-blow-MMR-vaccine-campaigners-U-S-court-rules-NOT-linked-autism.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-512348/The-research-disproves-MMR-jab-link-autism.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039690/Atheism-autism-Controversial-new-study-points-link-two.html

I find the Atheism link especially interesting. More research is needed in this area.

Elaine, remember this is not "basing decisions on the Daily Mail" - it's reporting what a former medical officer has concerns about. He is basing his own concerns, of course, on the evidence of damaged children and epidemiological evidence about a real rise in childhood disorders. So I think that's a smear to call it "basing decisions on the DM". I don't know if you meant to do it but I feel I must point it out.

Talking about limits to research funds; it might be a good moment to point out that more is spent by pharmaceutical companies on marketing and advertising than on R and D.

Now I really must go

Again the patronising and sneering tone from PigletJohn.

Piglet, please remember this is an adult board discussing a sensitive subject where we should be able to conduct ourselves, if we've confidence in our arguments, without sneering and patronising.

Im not trying to patronise you, I'm appealing to you. You keep using this tone when there's no need for it.

What PigletJohn and elaine have both done there is focus in on the Daily Mail. That's just shooting the messenger, and it's a way of avoiding having to deal with the concerns of the former medical officer. It's changing the subject and engaging in a smear.

We're in big trouble now piglet. Better get down to my local place of worship (do you think it matters which one?) sharpish. I want to see more research into this atheism/autism connection!