Can I ask the people who are anti-vac, how do you feel about the smallpox vaccine, do you think that was right? Would you have had it?

[Kendodd]

I suppose the same (ish) question could apply to the polio vaccine, I believe there is an eradication programme for that. Hopefully it'll be successful.

I know most people who are anti-vac aren't anti all vaccines (I think) but how do you decide which are ok? I do know one person who is anti polio vaccine but I haven't really asked her what she thinks of the eradication program.

(Speaking as someone very pro-vax in general)

Smallpox was the poster child for disease eradication. The thing about smallpox is that once you have it, it's really obvious. Loads of pustules etc. So you can ring-vaccinate around these really really obvious cases to get the last few cases out of the population.

Polio? Different. You can get lots of sub-clinical cases knocking around the population. So it's very hard to know if you've really managed to knock it out entirely. See here for an impeccable pro-science view: www.scientificamerican.com/article/polios-last-act/

I think if someone reckons smallpox elimination was bad then they are probably bonkers.

But there is genuine debate to be had around the polio question.

I am a bit anti-vaccine now, but a lot of that has to do with having lost faith in the pharmaceutical industry.

I do think there was a time when the pharmaceutical industry was either more ethical or more under control.

And I agree with arkestra, there does seem to be some reason to question the efficacy of the polio erradication programme, as they seem to have re-named the disease.

MexicanSpringtime,
What exactly do you mean by "they seem to have re-named the disease"?
Cheers,
Rosewind

non-polio acute flaccid paralysis Rosewind

MexicanSpringtime,
Wouldn't the crucial bit of that be the "non-polio" bit?
Cheers,
Rosewind

Actually, Rosewind, I would say that the paralysis would be the crucial bit in real life. But apart from being a smart-arse and I apologise for that, I am referring to allegations made that India reclassified polio under this name, in order to be able to claim that it is polio-free. That is why I said they "seem" to have re-named the disease.

But more than anything I have still a lot to learn and my ideas are not set in stone.

Non polio acute flaccid paralysis is just polio by another name, it's just not called polio, now why would that be, oh yes, because polio has been all but eradicated. Wouldn't want people to think there was still polio would we!

The year India was declared polio free, there were 50,000 cases of non polio acute flaccid paralysis, quite a lot of people affected by a disease which has been eradicated.

Oh, and guess where a lot of these cases are coming from? That's right, from the vaccine used to eradicate polio, promoted by and paid for by the Bill Gates foundation.

Fronteorstep- could we have a me links to references for all that, please?

You too. Mexicqnspringtime- non polio acute flaccid paralysis is not a new disease- where did you get the information that it was polio renamed?

"I think if someone reckons smallpox elimination was bad then they are probably bonkers."

This ^

evil evil Bill Gates, wanting to eradicate polio, evil man (sarcasm off). Rosewind had it: the clue is in the "non polio" - there are a lot of reasons for AFP. Polio is just one of them. India had under 10 vaccine-induced polio case in the last 18 months report (www.who.int/wer/2014/wer8912.pdf?ua=1) which sounds horrible, but that is against the background of nearly 40 million births in the same period.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to provide links, I'm afraid, so you'll have to search yourself. The BBC website did provide a report about npafp a while back.

So if you're not knowledgable enough to provide links, frontdoorstep- where did you get your facts from?

not from the WHO, that's for sure...

I can't understand the mentality here

"Hey, everybody! Bill Gated is giving people polio and covering it up!"

"Wow- where did you hear that?"

"I'm not knowledgable enough to find a link- you'll have to look it up for yourself"

welcome to anti-vaccine logic...

Tetanus is nasty. Add that to the list. Poster child for vaxing, too. I think there are a few otherwise rabid anti-vaxers on MN who still would like tetanus (but complain they can't get singles).

My Mum had polio. A year off school. She still has a limp and she spent some months in hospital with her parents assuming she would die.

Vaccines save huge numbers of lives and IMO should be compulsory, unless there is a medical reasons not to vaccinate. Many of those who choose not to vaccinate their children are putting other children who cannot vaccinate at risk.

The question is not a question of conspiracy theories as far as I am concerned, more that we are living in an extremely capitalist system where the first responsability of a company is to deliver good dividends to its shareholders and there is not enough oversight. Time and again pharmaceutical companies have been taken to court for suppressing negative trials on their drugs and in Mexico at least, they are also in charge of the ongoing education of doctors who have to attend their conferences (advertising campaigns) to keep their licenses up to date.

There is also the fact that there seems to be a lot of underreporting of the possible adverse effects of vaccines as when there is a doubt, the vaccines possible contribution to said effects is discarded out of hand.

And then it is a question of statistics, the benefits of vaccines never seem to be properly weighed against the dangers of vaccines.

Then there is the fact that scientists nowadays seem to discard anything that does fit in with their theories out of hand, instead of examining a phenomena, acknowledging that it exists and then trying to think of a workable theory that would explain it. For example, homeopathy. In Mexico homeopathy is a respectable medical practice to the point that at least a quarter of the population of Mexico City go to homeopaths as their first choice and there are two public homeopathic medical schools. So I know lots of people who have been cured by homeopathy, including myself, but scientists, instead of observing this phenomenon and trying to understand it, cry placebo effect and impossible.

MexicanSpringtime,
Are you genuine? Homeopathy has been subject to far more scientific scrutiny than it actually warrants. Each time it comes out as nothing more than placebo. Which isn't surprising when you consider the "theory" which underlies it.
It has been tested, and it doesn't do anything.
Most recently, as reported upon here:
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/08/homeopathy-is-bunk-study-says
The actual work in question is here:
consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/public_consultations/homeopathy_health
Cheers,
Rosewind

Roseformeplease, you state that vaccines should be compulsory to protect children who can't be vaccinated.

For my child to protect another child, I have to take my child to the dr surgery, sign a consent form, allow someone to stick a needle into my child, accept he/she may not feel well for a while afterwards and this procedure carries a risk for my child, it might be a very small risk, but nevertheless, it is a risk, this risk is NOT acceptable to me.

It is a moral and ethical dilemma and if you want to question my morals that's fine, I'm sure some will but really, when push comes to shove, who would risk their child for someone else.

This link is quite useful on the subject of how they test whether or not paralysis is caused by polio, or not:
www.polioeradication.org/Dataandmonitoring/Surveillance/GlobalPolioLaboratoryNetwork.aspx
Cheers,
Rosewind

Frontdoorstep,
Are you not concerned about the far greater risks to your child of the diseases that the vaccines prevent?
Cheers,
Rosewind

Regarding unvaccinated children infecting others; I find the Vatican's stance on the subject of rubella vaccination quite interesting. One might suppose that they would be firmly ideologically opposed to the use of a vaccine developed using aborted foetal cell. They do indeed recommend alternative vaccines, where possible. There isn't an alternative in the case of rubella vaccination and the conclusion of the Vatican is to accept vaccination. They, however, go further than this: "This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles, because of the danger of Congenital Rubella Syndrome. This could occur, causing grave congenital malformations in the foetus, when a pregnant woman enters into contact, even if it is brief, with children who have not been immunized and are carriers of the virus. In this case, the parents who did not accept the vaccination of their own children become responsible for the malformations in question, and for the subsequent abortion of foetuses, when they have been discovered to be malformed."
Link here: www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2410&page=5

Cheers,
Rosewind