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?

Lee

I'd repeat Elaine's question. You came on the thread to ask about the pros and cons of single vaccines, and to ask about the relative morbidity risks of measels and MMR. I'm at a loss to see how you could have decided you were against MMR without knowing such information. Why are you against MMR?

Leonie you're back.

You mentioned that 'VAERS only has 1 - 10% of reactions reported to it.'

Where did you find these figures?
Which types of reactions do they relate to?

I merely noted you hadn't answered. I think we all agree that vaccine reactions are not fully reported.

Your first link is to a site dedicated to preventing vaccine damage, and doesn't reference the figure of 10%. John Hopkins give 4% for a less serious reaction and 68% for a severe reaction. The VAERS site doesn't give any figure at all.

I don't see why it is for everyone else to check your figures, especially as it is much simpler for you to cite your source. I don't even really see how you can check someone else's figures with google. You may be able to confirm them, but if you don't find them, that doesn't mean they don't exist. It is unethical to attempt to influence the vaccine debate with unsubstantiated figures and inflammatory statements such as vaccine damage is 'hugely hugely' under-reported.

Nobody said you should spend time and energy searching the web. In fact that's the last thing I want. I just ask that when you make a claim, that you quote your source, if you have one.

I don't understand why you expect anyone to take note of your posts if you don't feel you have a responsibility to support your claims.

How silly. Of course I don't believe children will die in their droves from measles without a vaccine. But will there be deaths? Absolutely. Will there be disability (brain damage, deafness, blindness)? Absolutely. Will there be hospitalizations and severe secondary infections? Absolutely. All avoidable and preventable with a safe and effective vaccine.

Very odd how you play up vaccine damage against all the evidence and downplay disease damage despite all the evidence.

I've said this before, but am happy to say it again. If measles is the killer the gov't and health agencies wish us to believe it is, then all they need to is to provide a single vaccine. Simple. Job done.

'Cos, what, you're some kind of authority i have to report to'

Not at all, but if you refuse to reveal your sources, neither I nor anyone else has any reason to believe a word you say.

Jo Are you just applying that to Leonie, or does it apply to all posters?

I'm frightened to post something along the lines of, "I read x somewhere," in case I can't find the source and, if I do remember the source, ensure that it won't be dismissed as "crankosphere".
This is how debate is completely stifled.

I agree with you Tabitha. In those cases I usually prefix my statement with 'in my opinion'. Even then, people in certain quarters will shout me down and tell me I am wrong. Even if it was my experience, how they can tell me I didn't experience something when they weren't there beats me!

We get offered opinions about being selfish and anti-social if we dare to ask questions about vaccination.

I too wonder about this 'crankosphere'. I suspect it's peopled by a considerable number of people who were ahead of their time e.g. Galileo, (well it's obvious isn't it that he was talking rubbish - we can see with our own eyes that the Sun goes round the Earth). But of course, that is my opinion, do feel free to tell me that I am talking rubbish.

I think 'in my opinion...' is fine, but if someone, Leonie or anyone else, quotes figures and then refuses to divulge their source, I assume it's hearsay.

La Volcan or Tabitha, If I were to say something controversial, like measles kills 10000 people for every one person killed by MMR, wouldn't you want me to back it up? And if I said it's just my opinion, you'd probably give me one of those Leonie is fond of.

Ah, but our opinions are simply wrong to some. Just plain old wrong.
If we don't agree with their opinions, we have to provide peer reviewed references.

Jo I personally wouldn't give you one of those , I would just say that I disagreed.

But for example, I wanted to know on what basis the assumption that Vaccinated people are also less contagious and if you do catch a disease off a vaccinated person, you will be less likely to have it severely. rests.

I got dismissed with a statement that 'google it, it's not controversial', which was a bit of a cop out at best and I still question whether that is a personal opinion or a fact which can be substantiated.

Does this matter - yes, if you go round telling people that their behaviour is selfish or antisocial, when they don't vaccinate, then I think you should back up the arguments.

I happen to think that sound nutrition is one of the fundamentals of good health. I am not going round saying, 'don't vaccinate - eat properly' but if I did I would try to have some convincing evidence that it was so. It would be extremely presumptious of me to say that was my belief, but I can't be bother to back it up, find out the information yourself. You would be quite in order to tell me to get lost.

I gave up on this thread so haven't kept up but was told off for linking to peer reviewed articles (people are too thick to understand them apparently), which was why on my new thread I linked to a non-crankosphere lay article of a peer reviewed article (which I have also read). I think I'm allowed to link to that?

Saintly I wanted to ask you if your link would be considered "crankosphere" but didn't want to appear rude.
I'm not sure how we tell if a link we provide is "crankosphere" or not.

Well it's written by 'an award winning British science writer' so I think we're okay. It's a good review of the paper in questions as well. And it links to a TEDMED video, people who object to the crankosphere usually love TED. The video is well worth watching btw (I'll probably get told off for saying that) - it was like an updated version of the John Maynard Smith talk I mentioned somewhere this week.

It also passes the 'about humans' test - as I've been told off for linking to articles about vaccination in animals in the past.

Personally I'm interested in reading most things. But I think I followed the rules.....

Just a little balance here on the question of children in Third World countries dying

Approx 500,000 deaths from measles in 2003. 'Measles weakens the immune system and renders children very susceptible to fatal complications from diarrhoea, pneumonia and malnutrition. Those that survive may suffer blindness, deafness or brain damage.'

Approx 200,000 newborns and 30,000 mothers killed by tetanus in 2001.

Pertussis - 300,000 child deaths per year in developing countries.

Haemophilus Influenzaa B - 500,000 children 'In developing countries about 40% of Hib meningitis cases are fatal, and 15-35% of children who survive are left with permanent disabilities.'