Dare i raise the question....

[CharlotteACavatica]

who has let their kids have the MMR? how do you feel about it? Ihave a 6yo a 3.5yo and a 1yo and my 1yo dd is due to have hers next week, i havent let the other two have theirs and neither shall i be letting dd, but as so many people know its 'supposed' problems im still interogated and asked why why why? i have heard that the more patients your gp gets to have the MMR the more he/she gets paid, if they get 100% they get a shed load of money but if the percentage drops below 90 they start getting charged!!!????

but boys can get rubella can't they? but it just isn't dangerous to them?

rubella IS german measles isn't it?

and the problem with this debate is the defensiveness on both sides.

no one wants to have done the wrong thing by their child.

i am humble enough to admit that i may live to regret my decision, equally, i hope that there have been enough instances of 'science' being wrong, for people to acknowledge that vaccinations may not be the panacea that they are purported to be.

and the problem with this debate is the defensiveness on both sides.

no one wants to have done the wrong thing by their child.

i am humble enough to admit that i may live to regret my decision, equally, i hope that there have been enough instances of 'science' being wrong, for people to acknowledge that vaccinations may not be the panacea that they are purported to be.

rubella is onl;y a serious probelm if a pg woman gets it .....the danger is to the unborn child. vaccination against rebella protects against this.

Rubella itself isn;t such a big deal (and I am v pro vaccination )

Measels is a more serious condition than german measels

I have looked at a lot of mmr researh/links etc...worst one is informed parent...they are complete against and will even use criminals as guestalkers for their point, which I don't condone!
My, all in all, if pro favourite is this who link
misconception link which will also go into Spidermamas point about the falling numbers!

Also like this link
risklonglink

"vaccination does more harm then good in a first world country with good nutrition, hygiene etc."

Based on? Your own "feeling" aside? Based on what?

" but i do believe that many of the fundamental tenets of western medicine are iatrogenic. "

Phew! Many? fundamental? tenets? iatrogenic? What are you on about exaclty?

"ds is so healthy "

So are thousands. It proves very little for this debate.

(BTW- Georgie, Corinna and I are trying to meet up next Tuesday if you can make it, 9.30 in Debenhams cafe.)

measles for example is a much much more serious disease in the third world due to poor nutrition and hygiene.

western medicine is intrusive, does not work naturally with the body, does not (until very recently) pay any attention to the importance of boosting health.

it is brutal and too late intervention in the main. that is what i mean by iatrogenic: the treatment is harmful. the medical approach to (non high risk) birth is a case in point.

Soapbox
this
"There will always be naturally occuring measles outbreaks - the vaccinations (single and MMR) are not 100% efective, and there are measles cases in children below the age where vaccinations are rooutinely given."
is common knowledge, but the higheer the immunisation rate is teh less lielyhood poccurance of this disease...this is not being pro or contra this is a matter of maths!

Message withdrawn

But WHY do you trust those particular links 3andnomore? My gut instinct says that the WHO probably know what they are talking about and would be fairly impartial, but I could be wrong... how political is their agenda? And the second from somebody at Glasgow Uni - does he have an agenda?

I'm not questioning your judgement - well, OK, actually that's exactly what I am doing, but I don't mean to offend... I'm just curious as to how you know you can trust this info against any other? I'm also intrigued as to how you know that Informed Parent use criminals? I could easily have stumbled across their website and been none the wiser, which is a bit worrying.

Message withdrawn

sophable the reason why 3 world country, even though the vaccine rates are improvong now are at risk is mainly because non vaccined westerneers like to traveland therefore the chance of them bringing in wild strain measels, preferable a non known type as yet, is pretty great, combined with their undernourishement etc....not a good combo

Message withdrawn

Sorry, I'm in danger of hijacking this thread towards a "How can we trust information on the internet?" slant...

i think this is an interesting link

Message withdrawn

I trust who because thei "agenda" is WORLD WIDE HEALTH they know what the deal is from every agle and they wouldn't win by misleading us...and no, I don't believe in the big consperacy of vaccination....I actually in this point believe the governments, because, hey when ever do germany and england ever agree, lol ;)
And I "trust" the other link because it doesn't show just the good points and that vacciantion ins ecessary with everything, but does explain a bit about why it is ssensible when, iykwim!
Socci, what do you mean....sorry the thread is so long, etc....just need clarification, iykwim!

Sophable - doesn't it bother you that the link you provided end with a "buy this book" request?

measles for example is a much much more serious disease in the third world due to poor nutrition and hygiene.

Yes. True, no-one said differently. But you said "vaccination does more harm then good in a first world country with good nutrition, hygiene etc." How does it do more harm than good?

western medicine is intrusive, does not work naturally with the body, does not (until very recently) pay any attention to the importance of boosting health.

Very woolly. You may have to be intrusive to be effective. Would you treat cancer with?homeopathy? (First that sprang to mind.)

Socci, I don't think nformed parent are...especially considering that single vaccines, in this country at this time can't be considered a safe option as they have not been tried and tested and their original country may not follow the same safety regualtions, etc.....!
Like I said, they wanted to use a convicted man as their guesspeaker, he killed his son by shaking him to death and then blamed this on the mmr, Alan Yurko is his name! ANd, surely that shows how mislead they CAN be...not saying they always are...of course they have a point there are chemicals in immunisations as they are in any other drug and bascially in anyhting we eat and breathe nowadays!

no i would try to prevent the cancer epidemic (it is an epidemic isn't it?) by looking at nutrition, the chemicals we are exposed to everyday, reduction of stress levels induced by the society we live in.

cancer rates are so different in different societies. it is insane to focus all attention to cutting it out, nuking it rather than looking at what we are eating and doing that makes cancer the killer it is in our society.

Message withdrawn

Sophable. the brain damage, that can slowly occur was not known about until recent years and may more people then originally thought, did suffer measles consequences later....!
Also, a pont.,...Dr...darling...wakemen said it was measels virus in the triple vaxx that cause autismn ( and I know it's not all about this here right now), but then, if that si the case any child that was effeected by that certain virus would have been effected anyway if caught this virus....so, why not avoid all Kids catching any of the measles virus by irradicating them! o the chance of that!

and i'd counter your worry about the buy the book with the incredibly larger financial interests implicated in vaccinations. we are talking billions of pounds here.

there are serious and sinister interests involved in making damn sure that the vaccination roll out (it's chicken pox next isn't it?) keeps going.

i know you'll think i'm a conspiracy theorist for that, but i'm not. i just understand the implications of sums as huge as those involved in modern pharmaceuticals: corruption and coverup goes with the territory.

Message withdrawn