Some reasons why vaccination should be questioned.

[Spidermama]

This isn't meant to cause a flare up but rather to put wome points across which rarely get aired in the usual run of things....

1. Micro-organisms (bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites) do NOT cause diseases. They aid the cleaning-up process of healing.

1. Most micro-organisms associated with seriuos illnesses live within healthy people without causing any symptoms at all.

1. All so-called infectious diseases are the result of a toxic condition within the organ of the whole body (i.e. dis-ease.) The symptoms relate to the elimination effort by the body to return back to health.

1. Susceptibility to disease depends solely on the state of health of the body, NOT on the exposure to micro-organisms.

1. Natural immunity is not disease-specific; one does not need to have come in touch with all diseases in order to gain immunity against them.

1. The presence of antibodies is NOT an indication of immunity. They are only a small part of the blood immune response.

1. No vaccine containing 'pure' micro-organisms elicits an immune response. Only when a toxin is added to the vaccine does the body respond to it.

1. An unvaccinated child is NOT an unprotected child; it still has its natural immunity. Besides, trying to protect from soemthing that is not the cause is inappropriate.

1. The Lancet (12 Jan 1980) reported that the BCG vaccine, against TB, showed no evidence of protection but rtahter an increase in cases of TB.

10. Government statistics shwo that death rates of ALL infectious diseases have drastically fallen BEFORE the introduction of specific vaccinations. (Smallpox deaths rose by approx 275% immediately after the smallpox vaccination was enforced.)

HOWEVER... if you believe that vaccination gives you protection against infectious diseases, then it should not matter to you whether somebody else has been vaccinated or not.

(Compiled by Patrick Quanten, MD. Independent Health Advisor.)

I though we were having this discussion because someone found the ravings of a lunatic on the internet and posted them as fact.
Put like that, it's all a bit pointless really.

i think the people having this debate are not the ones that see it as a holy cow....IMO

and it is rash , dangerous and counterproductive to not question traditional or holistic / alternative medicine and their respective proponents and figureheads.....

i trust my doctor enough to have my children vaccinated....and to see her when we are ill........doesn;t mean everyone should....but nor does it make me naive or blind to the alternatives.....i don;t see an alternative to vaccination at the moment.. so i have made my choice and taken my chances in the face of nothing satisfactory being available....IMO

Yes, there have indeed been posts on MN in the past which treat vaccination as sacred and unquestionable - some of them saying quite nasty things about people who won't vaccinate, regardless of the fact that vac refusers often have quite understandable and well-thought-through reasons.... However I think most people on this thread have agreed that it's vital that we keep an open mind to any serious issues about vaccination - I have certainly said so and I know I'm not the only one.
As to whether the doctor cited by the OP raises any serious issues, though....

(X-posted, Lulumama and Bibliophile!)

i'd rather my kids had low level damage from being vaccinated than the alternative of being desperately ill and affected possibly for life....

and i know the arguments vaccinations can cause terrible problems that are life long for some children...for me, i felt it was a chance worth taking....IMO

Message withdrawn

One rather unfortunate consequence of the perceived success of mass vaccination is that the medical profession now appear to be unduly complacent about acute infection. Despite a massive vaccination campaign, we STILL have a huge problem with infection - MRSA is rife.

This is entirely due to sloppy infection control, failure to prescribe antibiotics appropriately, bad nursing and medical practice in my opinion. I believe it is almost entirley avoidable.

There appears to be a universal belief that serious childhood infections are now a thing of the past. This is not true, babies and children (both vaccinated and unvaccinated) can and do suffer from serious infections (meningitis is a case in point but there are obviously many others). If these are not treated properly the children can be left with serious injuries and/or can die. This is unusual, but it can and does still happen. One of my children was left with crippling, acutely painful complications following an improperly-treated infection. This was entirely due to complacency on the part of the treating medics. To add insult to injury, there was then a cover-up to try to stop my daughter receiving any compensation. This is not an uncommon occurence when medical mistakes happen and I believe this is what has happened with some of the vaccine damaged children. I would be highly sceptical about some of the claims made for vaccination. Don't forget - the pharmaceutical industry are in business to make a profit for their shareholders. They push their products via the medical profession with whom they have very strong links. The pharmaceutical industry also have very powerful links with Goverment. The poster who claimed that the WHO don't have a political act to grind needs to do a bit more reading!! They are a hugely political organisation much loved by the pharmaceutical industry.

I am not a conspiracy theorist - one of my parents' is a doctor for heaven's sake - but modern medicine is not a universal panacea. It has its place, but in general it pushes drugs to treat symptoms rather than promoting good health.

I am very sceptical about vaccinations now and none of my children will be receiving any boosters. There is not, and never will be, a "pill for every ill." I am sure that some vaccines do more harm than good, and the risk/benefit ratio is absurdly skewed, but as there is an absence of good quality INDEPENDENT research, we will just never really know. I think the latest proposal to vaccinate children against cervical disease is truly the most absurd proposal yet. If anyone really believes this to be a sensible idea - look into the statistics involved in this disease and ask some serious questions. Is this a case of pharma just going one step too far? I think so, surely the public will not fall for this one for their healthy children?

"Despite a massive vaccination campaign, we STILL have a huge problem with infection - MRSA is rife.

This assertion is incorrect. Vaccination campaigns and MRSA are two completely separate issues; one is not causing the other to arise.

"This is entirely due to sloppy infection control, failure to prescribe antibiotics appropriately, bad nursing and medical practice in my opinion. I believe it is almost entirley avoidable".

Poor standards of cleaning in hospitals and visitors actually bringing in the infection with them on their skin are other factors you could also have mentioned. These two are are just as important if not more so than the ones you mentioned.

MRSA has been around for many years and there is such a thing as community acquired MRSA. This is therefore not just confined to hospitals alone. MRSA is carried on the skin harmlessly on many people, it is not entirely avoidable at all.

I accept that my comment that "despite a massive vaccination campaign, we STILL have a huge problem with infection - MRSA is rife," was a non-sequitor.

My point was that the public (possibly misguidedly) believe that they are doing their bit for "infection control" by giving their children ever increasing numbers of vaccines in the hope that this will prevent and control the spread of infectious diseases. I think most people would agree that this is why we are giving our children all these vaccines, yes?

Parents who elect not to give their children all vaccines are strongly criticised by health workers as being "irresponsible" by putting their own and other people's lives at risk of serious infection.

So we have a situation where parents and the public generally are "doing their bit" for infection control (often with scant information on risk/benefit to support their decisions.)

Now my point is, are we seeing the same level of critical judgement, scrutiny and care being applied to infection control by health workers in hospital and primary care settings? I believe the short answer to this is: no.

In the UK we have a far bigger problem with hospital-acquired infection than most other European countries, which suggests to me at least that we are getting things wrong. Furthermore, some hospitals have managed to almost eliminate the problem of MRSA infection, which suggests that it CAN be kept under control, if proper measures are taken.

MRSA being carried on the skin harmlessly is not a problem. However, sloppy infection control, failure to prescribe antibiotics appropriately, bad nursing and medical practice and, as you say, poor standards of cleaning in hospitals have contributed to the situation we now have where hospital-aquired infection is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality.

Visitors cannot be blamed for causing the problem if the hospital is not actually taking the necessary steps to educate people and inforce proper infection control measures.

The problem is not confined to hospitals obviously, but I find it scandalous that some of our hospitals have been so sloppy about reducing the risks of infection.

I can tell you that I saw the writing on the wall when my daughter was treated for a serious infection at a general hospital in 1999. I can only describe the infection control as sh**.

It is therefore no surprise to me whatsoever to find that this hospital now has one of the highest rates of MRSA in the country.

Perhaps I am making something of a leap, but what on earth is the point of vaccinating ourselves and our children for every infectious disease under the sun, only to find that, in the event of an infection (whether acquired inside or outside the hospital) the medics and hospitals themselves cannot be bothered to follow basic infection control measures? Am I alone in finding a certain irony in this situation?

Just to add. DS3 was hsopitalised 2 weeks ago (had a seizure and v high temp). He is completely unvaccinated so was an object of interest (I explained why and had no hassle from any of the doctors- all were sympathetic in fact- to my surprise). Something that I did find interesting was that the scariest consultant brought 2 students over to see ds3. The lack of vaccination was discovered "what none? why?" and he said to his students something very like:

"well of course because he isn't vaccinated we now have to consider diseases that perhaps we wouldn't normally think about such as hib, however one should always remember that the main advantage of vaccination is to the herd and not the individual".

hahahahaha.

sorry i know it's not funny, but the IRONY!!!!!!