Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Vaccination - do you or don't you?

185 replies

lisalisa · 09/11/2004 13:10

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Jimjams · 09/11/2004 22:18

spod the neudstaedter book gives the figures that are available- but there are no reliable statistics.

As an example children given the MMR started to develop SSPE (very very very small numbers). It was decided that it was impossible to get SSPE from the MMR- so these children "must" have had measles at some stage and just not noticed (err right- measles that killer disease). Eventually admitted that oh whoops maybe you could get SSPE from MMR. Trouble is any undesirable effect is assumed to be due to something else- leads to dreadful under-reporting.

spod · 09/11/2004 22:18

okay, i see what you're saying about statistics but it is difficult for someone like me to make a decision on anecdotal evidence (and I'm not discounting your evidence either)... there must be some fugures on all of this, otherwise it is impossible for people to weigh up actual risk. And what constitutes being in an 'at risk' category?

Jimjams · 09/11/2004 22:23

This week's private eye has an interesting piece in it- can't find it now- but basically the children who were suing the manufacturers of the MMR - but who did not develop autism- were damaged in other ways- have been given legal aid again to persue their case. Some of the evidence that has allowed this is because vacine strain measles has been found in their guts. Legal aid is still withdrawn from the children who became autistic following MMR- even though they alos have vaccine strain measles virus in their guts (and spinal fluid).

Actually that is one fairly accurate figure I can give you. About 7% of cases of autism are believed to be due to the MMR. Small numbers- too small to be picked up in the epidemiological studies- but fairly big news to any affected child/family.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Heathcliffscathy · 09/11/2004 22:25

classic vacs debate...lulupop, sorry you feel you were shouted down, but maybe more judicious use of the phrase 'i'm alright jack'.

as mothers we are always made to feel guilty. i think that the mothers of unvaccinated children (mine among them, one year old no vacs) come in for a lot of fury (i'm using that word because that's how it comes across) from mothers that have vaccinated because 'if you haven't vaccinated yours, you're saying i've done a wrong thing'...no, not really, just that in that agonisingly tortuous, no-win decision, we've gone different ways...you love your child just as much as i do and vice versa...i am very very suspicious of vaccinations having started on a bit of reading when i was pregnant and ended up at theinformedparent et al...

it's just one of those things...in many ways i wish i had just gone ahead and vaccinated...but now i feel that i've read too much...

Jimjams · 09/11/2004 22:30

problem is spod the research hasn't been done. For example I knew 3 years ago that there was believed to be a link between thimerosil and autism which is why we didn't vaccinate ds2. However it was only this June that avery good paper was actually published on this. (the bit about glutamate receptors was an added bonus- didn't expect that and almost fell off my chair when I read it). There is a lot of unpublished data on thimerosil as well- look up Walsh on google for example.

Likewise there's not much published on this - but if you type in "Th 2 cells" "autism" and "vaccination" into google- you'll get alot of hits- and this is where the problems with autoimmunity come through. There may or may not be a problem with giving multiple vaccinations. Certainly the MOD now advise that "where possible" mutliple vaccinations are not given to troops. It was discovered that anthrax vaccination is definitely best given alone. Whilst you're in google its worth looking at "IAG autism and Gulf War Syndrome". Biochemically autism and GWS have similarities. IN this way you can begin to build up a picture. I'd really recommend the Neudstaedter book though- he takes each vax individually- and does weigh up the pros and cons.

MistressMary · 09/11/2004 22:32

Sophable thats it.
We are all meant to be good parents and have the vax, no questions!
However once reading on it, you cannot turn a blind eye to it.
Too much knowledge maybe is dangerous.
Not enough though can just be as dangerous.

hunkermunker · 09/11/2004 22:48

Interested in the autoimmune stuff - I have endometriosis, which I believe is an immune system failing (also had post-viral arthritis, which can also be an after-effect of things like rubella, though not many people know this). It's one reason I'm breastfeeding now - want his immune system to be boosted as much as possible.

Is DS at more risk of problems after vaccinations because I'm so lame, immune-system-wise? He's seven months now and had the DTP at 8 weeks, 16 weeks and 20 weeks. Want single vaccines for MMR, if at all - what chance in this country?

Jimjams · 09/11/2004 22:54

difficult to say humkermunker. How was he after his DTP's? DS1 devloped eczema right after his, but that's another story ! !

Single measles and rubella is easy to arrange providing you can afford to pay. Single mumps is currently being restricrted by good old Tony (but only because its "safe" to do so iyswim says the cynic). Book it early though and you can get it- just takes a while.

Portree · 10/11/2004 01:38

I'm not vaccinating either, my ds is one. It's not a decision I have taken lightly and every now and then I do get a bit panicky that maybe I ought to vaccinate, then I go and do more reading and think thank god I'm not vaccinating.

My sister was left severely brain damaged after her whooping cough vaccine and there is just no way I can have my ds vaccinated. From a very young age I was told that if I had children that they shouldn't be vaccinated though that advice has now changed. In some ways not vaccinating is easy in that once my mind was made up that was it. Thankfully my family GP has been wonderfully supportive and has put me under no pressure to vaccinate (same can't be said for all GPs I've come across though). I've been offered single vaccines on the NHS for the first lot which surprised me as I didn't even realise there was such a thing. GP said they could be ordered ...amazing ... and have them in hospital.

My sister would probably be dead if it wasn't for our family doctor who had read mutterings in the medical press about the whooping cough vaccine in the early 70s. My mother was labelled mad and neurotic in some quarters when she kept saying that there was something wrong with my sister. IIRC, it wasn't until the 1980s that the truth came out about batches of wc vaccine that had failed toxicity tests but were still released. I think it was a Guardian journalist and a Prof from Glasgow that pursued the story. All very sad really.

I would suggest that any mother vaccinating their child to make sure that the batch number of the vaccine is clearly recorded on the child's medical records and that the mother makes a note of it too. Oh, and read the patient information leaflet that comes with the vaccine, though my understanding is that this is not routinely offered to parents.

Someone asked about the %s for vaccine damage, like Jimjams (you are so eloquent and erudite)said it's terribly under-reported but I have come across information sourced as being from the US FDA re the DTP and it is here if you scroll down .

Jimjams, you are so right wrt the compensation offered to parents in this country, truly insulting. Are most people aware that we have a Vaccine Damages Payment Act ... so vaccine damage doesn't occur, huh? (this is rhetorical as I'm having a bout of insomnia and nothing like a vaccination thread to keep me awake even further).

Oh well, we all have to live with our decisions and the consequences of them and do what we feel is right for our children at the time. Sophable, I found your point really interesting as I often wonder why some vaccinators get so angry with non-vaccinators given that it's the non-vaccinated kids at risk (supposedly). Shall ponder that for a while.

jabberwocky · 10/11/2004 07:16

JimJams can you post a link for the new study that you mentioned? As I said, we are still concerned about the MMR and, as of now, had agreed to do it after age 2. It seems as if I might be able to do singles at one clinic but it will be a minimum one year wait for each.

WigWamBam · 10/11/2004 08:10

My dd is vaccinated, and apart from being concerned about the safety of the MMR (it was having one of its periodic flare-ups in the press at the time) there was never any doubt that she would have them.

I am partially deaf as a result of Measles, and have a mother who is lucky to be alive having caught diphtheria as a child. An ex-boyfriend of mine was partially sighted and had a physical handicap because his mother caught Rubella during pregnancy. I know some people don't think it's their problem or their responsibility to think about herd immunity, but for me it was.

I have had Rubella three times and still have no immunity, on the second occasion I had it, it caused thrombocytopenia (lack of platelets) and had to be hospitalised for three months. I know there are concerns that the Rubella jab can cause thrombocytopenia but the chances of having it with wild Rubella are several times higher. This is also the case with many of the other problems which vaccines can cause.

In the end it is down to individual parents to decide which of the risks they want to take - those that come with the vaccines or those which come with the wild illness, which can be equally devastating. It's a bit like being caught between a rock and a hard place.

miam · 10/11/2004 08:32

I was vaccinated when I was young, but caught mumps which developed into encephilitis (sp??) as apparently the vaccination did not work. I have been left with epilepsy and tinnitus. So, because I suffered due to contracting mumps, I made the decision to vaccinate all my children, thankfully with no adverse reactions, and just HOPE that the vaccinations work! There are no guarantees I think, but hope I have given them as much protection as I can, as would not want them to go through what I have. On the other hand, I certainly would not condemn anyone who chooses not to, as I did seriously consider it, and I think the choice for individual vaccinations should be available to all.

meysey · 10/11/2004 09:50

lisalisa if you want to get a variety of opinions on the vaccination debate, there are also lectures you can attend. I went to a very good one recently by Trevor Gunn in London, and Vera Schreibner is doing a UK tour next week. She was developing an alarm system against cot death attacks and then says she perceived a link with vaccinations and has written extensively about this. The Informed Parent website should have details of her tour.

It is good that thiomersal has been removed from vaccines, but I have been told that formaldehyde is the new preservative!

I am happy to talk to you more via CAT.

lulupop · 10/11/2004 09:50

Miam, depending on how old you are, you probably were not vaccinated against mumps as part of the general vax programme, as mumps vaccine was introduced in this country more recently than when most of us were young!

Sophable, your point about people who have vaccinated feeling that those who haven't are saying they've done the wrong thing cuts both ways. That's how these debates get so heated in the first place! It's human nature to want to justify and bolster one's own position. I personally have nothing against anyone who doesn't vaccinate (and indeed several of my my friends in RL haven't vaccinated their kids), but I think that as a widespread move in society, non-vaccination is a dangerous thing. I bet no one here would like to see their children with smallpox, and that was wiped out thanks to vaccination.

As MistressMary says, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

velcrobott · 10/11/2004 10:32

Lulupop... not eevryone agrees that smallpox was erradicated thanks to vaccination :

The True History Of Smallpox
By Ian Sinclair

In England, compulsory vaccination against smallpox was first introduced in 1852, yet in the period 1857 to 1859, a smallpox epidemic killed 14,244 people. In 1863 to 1865, a second epidemic claimed 20,059 lives. In 1867, a more stringent compulsory vaccination law was passed and those who evaded vaccination were prosecuted. After an intensive four-year effort to vaccinate the entire population between the ages of 2 and 50, the Chief Medical Officer of England announced in May 1871 that 97.5 percent had been vaccinated. In the following year, 1872, England experienced its worst-ever smallpox epidemic, which claimed 44,840 lives. Between 1871 and 1880, during the period of compulsory vaccination, the death rate from smallpox leapt from 28 to 46 per 100,000 population.

Writing in the British Medical Journal (Jan. 21, 1928 p.116), Dr. L. Parry questioned the vaccination statistics, which revealed a higher death rate amongst the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, and asked the questions:

"How is it that smallpox is five times as likely to be fatal in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated? "How is it that in some of our most highly vaccinated towns for example, Bombay and Calcutta smallpox is rife, whilst in some of our most poorly vaccinated towns, such as Leicester, it is almost unknown? How is it that something like 80 percent of the cases admitted into the Metropolitan Asylums Board smallpox hospitals have been vaccinated, whilst only 20 percent have not been vaccinated?"

"How is it that in Germany the best-vaccinated country in the world there are more deaths in proportion to the population than in England? For example, in 1919, there were 28 deaths in England, 707 In Germany; in 1920, 30 deaths in England, 354 In Germany. In Germany in 1919, there were 5,012 cases of smallpox with 707 deaths; in England in 1925, there were 5,363 cases of smallpox, with 6 deaths. What is the explanation?"

In Scotland, between 1855-1875, over 9,000 children under 5 died of smallpox despite Scotland being, at that time, one of the most vaccinated countries in the world. In 1907 to 1919, with only a third of the children vaccinated, only 7 smallpox deaths were recorded for children under 5 years of age.

In Germany, in the years 1870-1871, over 1,000,000 people had smallpox, of which 120,000 died. 96 percent of these had been vaccinated. An address sent to the governments of the various German states from Bismarck, the Chancellor of Germany, contained the following comment: "the hopes placed in the efficacy of the cowpox virus as preventative of smallpox have proved entirely deceptive."

In the Philippines, prior to U.S. takeover in 1905, case mortality from smallpox was about 10%. In 1905, following the commencement of systematic vaccination enforced by the U.S. government, an epidemic occurred where the case mortality ranged from 25% to 50% in different parts of the islands. In 1918-1919 with over 95 percent of the population vaccinated, the worst epidemic in the Philippines? history occurred resulting in a case mortality of 65 percent. The highest percentage occurred in the capital, Manila, the most thoroughly vaccinated place. The lowest percentage occurred in Mindanao, the least vaccinated place, owing to religious prejudices. Dr. V. de Jesus, Director of Health, stated that the 1918-1919 smallpox epidemic resulted in 60,855 deaths. The 1920 Report of the Philippines Health Service contains the following indictment of the vaccination campaign:

"From the time in which smallpox was practically eradicated in the city of Manila, to the year 1918 (about 9 years) in which the epidemic appears certainly in one of its severest forms hundreds after hundreds of thousands of people were yearly vaccinated, with the most unfortunate result that the 1918 epidemic looks, prima facie, as a flagrant failure of the classic immunization towards future epidemics."

In Japan in 1885, 13 years after compulsory vaccination commenced there in 1872, a law was passed requiring re-vaccination every seven years. From 1886 to 1892, 25,474,370 revaccinations were recorded in Japan. Yet during this same period, Japan had 156,175 cases of smallpox with 38,979 deaths, representing a case mortality of nearly 25 percent. In 1896, the Japanese Parliament passed another act requiring every Japanese resident to be vaccinated and re-vaccinated every 5 years. Between 1889 and 1908, there were 171,611 smallpox cases with 47,919 deaths a case mortality of 30 percent. This case mortality exceeds the smallpox death rate of the pre-vaccination period when nobody was vaccinated. It is noteworthy that Australia at this time one of the least-vaccinated countries in the world for smallpox -- had only three smallpox cases in 15 years, in comparison with Japan's record of 165,775 cases and 28,979 deaths, in merely a 6-year period of compulsory vaccination and re-vaccination.

In an article, "Vaccination In Italy", which appeared in the New York Medical Journal, July 1899, Charles Rauta, Professor of Hygiene and Material Medical in the University of Perguia, Italy, wrote:

"Italy is one of the best-vaccinated countries in the world, if not the best of all. For twenty years before 1885, our nation was vaccinated in the proportion of 98.5 percent. Notwithstanding, the epidemics of smallpox that we have had have been something so frightful that nothing before the invention of vaccination could equal them. During 1887, we had 16,249 deaths from smallpox; in 1888, we had 18,110, and in 1889, 131,413."

"Vaccination is a monstrosity; a misbegotten offspring of error and ignorance. It should have no place in either hygiene or medicine. Believe not in vaccination; it is a world-wide delusion, an unscientific practice, a fatal superstition with consequences measured today by tears and sorrow without end."

From his book, The Vaccination Superstition, J.W. Hodge, M.D., ex-Public Vaccinator of Lockport, New York wrote:
"After a careful consideration of the history of vaccination gleaned from an impartial and comprehensive study of vital statistics, and pertinent data from every reliable source, and after an experience derived from having vaccinated 31,000 subjects, I am firmly convinced that vaccination cannot be shown to have any logical relation to the diminution of cases of smallpox."

"Vaccination does not protect; it actually renders its subjects more susceptible by depressing vital power and diminishing natural resistance, and millions of people have died of smallpox which they contracted after being vaccinated."

In the USA, June 25th, 1937, Dr. William Howard Hay addressed the Medical Freedom Society regarding the Lemke Bill to abolish compulsory vaccination. He stated:
"I have thought many times of all the insane things we have advocated in medicine, that one of the most insane was to insist on the vaccination of children, or anybody else, for the prevention of smallpox when, as a matter of fact, we are never able to prove that vaccination saved one man from smallpox.

"I know of one epidemic of smallpox comprising nine hundred and some cases, in which 95 percent of the infected had been vaccinated, and most of them recently.

"It is now thirty years since I have been confining myself to the treatment of chronic disease. I have run across so many histories of children who had never seen a sick day until they were vaccinated, and who have never seen a well day since.

"In England, where statistics are kept a little more frankly and accurately and above-board than in this country (USA), the actual official records show three times as many deaths directly from vaccinations, as there were from smallpox for the past twenty-one years. I will guarantee that there are three times as many deaths that were not recorded, that are directly traceable to vaccinations. That doesn't take into account the many many cases of encephalitis or sleeping sickness, and of this or that form of degeneration, that occurs as the result of vaccination.

"It is nonsense to think that you can inject pus and it is usually from the pustule end of the dead smallpox victim it is unthinkable that you can inject that into a little child and in any way improve its health. What is true of vaccination is exactly as true of all forms of serum immunization, so called, if we could by any means build up a natural resistance to disease through these artificial means, I would applaud it to the echo, but we can't do it.

"The body has its own methods of defense. These depend on the vitality of the body at the time. If it is vital enough, it will resist all infections; if it isn't vital enough, it won't. And you can't change the vitality of the body for the better by introducing poison of any kind into it."

According to the official figures of the Register General of England, only 109 children (under 5) in England and Wales died of smallpox in the twenty-three years ending December 1933. But 270 died of vaccinations in the same period in these two countries. Between 1934 and 1961, not one smallpox death was recorded, and yet during this same period, 115 children under 5 years of age died as a result of the smallpox vaccination. This ultimately forced the government to repeal the Vaccination Act for smallpox.

The situation was just as bad in the USA. An article in the July 1969 issue of Prevention Magazine stated that 300 children in the USA died from the complications of smallpox vaccine since 1948. Yet during that same period there was not one reported case of smallpox in the country. In October 1971, Dr. Samuel Katz, Duke University Medical Centre, speaking at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said that an average of six to nine individuals die each year from smallpox vaccinations. Authorities eventually abandoned the vaccine, as Dr. Archie Kalokerinos of Australia points out:

"About 10 to 15 years ago, some of my colleagues in the United States gave me some very interesting information. They said that smallpox vaccination had been stopped, not because smallpox had been wiped out, but because they were having trouble with the vaccine. They would vaccinate an individual and that individual would give active smallpox to a contact. The whole thing was out of control and they weren't game to use it."

This is probably why Professor Ari Zuckerman, a member of the World Health Organization's advisory panel on viruses has stated, "Immunization against smallpox is more hazardous than the disease itself."

Even the British Medical Journal (1/5/1976) stated: "It is now accepted that the risks of routine smallpox vaccination outweigh those of natural infection in Britain."

"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship ... To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others, will constitute the Bastille of medical science."

-- Benjamin Rush, M.D.
Signatory to the Declaration of Independence
Physician to George Washington

"If humanity is to pass safely through its present crisis on earth, it will be because a majority of individuals are now doing their own thinking."

-- Buckminster Fuller

Reproduced with permission from Vaccination: The "Hidden" Facts by Ian Sinclair, 5 Ivy St, Ryde NSW 2112, Australia. Ph (015) 294 817.

miam · 10/11/2004 10:36

lulu - thanks for that. You could be right - (despite the fact I am not that old ofcourse!!). My doctor seemed to think that the 'batch' of vaccines that were given out did not work - but ofcourse he may have been mistaken for my youthful complexion and thought I was 16???? But the fact that I was trying to make is that these are dangerous diseases - I do feel that vaccination is necessary, unfortunately. They are not fool-proof, but the best protection we have at the moment.

velcrobott · 10/11/2004 10:48

Despite the immediate or medium term adverse effect that you can get from vaccination, do any of you worry about the impact on overall health of an adult when it was injected several substances (i think it is 32 now) in a small body? Do you feel it has no long term impact on your immune system ? Does it not affect your body in dealing with other health concerns if you have "fiddled" with your original immune system ?

The overall problem is that regardless of our views we will never truly know as we ca not do randomised controlled trials as we can't say : right you are getting immunised and you are not.... so we can't compare !
There have been attempts at comparing epidemiologically what happens... for example France and the UK have a different vaccination calendar and you do not get them in the same order... there has been questions with this... as France (I think) has a much lower incidence of asthma and some of the vaccines (the BCG one ???? ) is given before or after whooping cough and it could make sense that it does lead to a difference in health.

Jimjams · 10/11/2004 11:06

Re smallpox vaccination. If ANYONE in your household has eczema then NO-ONE in the household should receive a smallpox vaccinataion- as it can lead to severe complications:

From a (pro-vax) website:

"In people with eczema, exposure to vaccinia through the vaccine or by contact with someone who was recently vaccinated can cause a condition that can lead to scarring, blindness and even death. People with skin problems are at risk for a condition called eczema vaccinatum, which can cause high fever and severe sores, scabs and deep scars all over the body. The condition has a death rate of 1 percent to 6 percent.
The C.D.C. doesn't recommend that individuals with eczema or a history of the skin disorder, also known as atopic dermatitis, but vaccinated unless necessary. Given the rise in the number of people who suffer from eczema, up to one-half of the US population may be ineligible for routine smallpox vaccination. The Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health is negotiating with a private company to produce a smallpox vaccine using a weaker form of vaccinia that would be safer for people at risk from the current vaccine."

Jimjams · 10/11/2004 11:15

WigWamBam- my mum has been left deaf from measles in one ear. She satrted out pro-vax because of that (although when I had measles as a child once I'd got over the worst bit I was sent to play with my friend who was off school with whooping cough so she obviously wasn't all that concerned!). However having seen what happened to ds1 she is now rabidly anti mass - vaccination and is quicker to scream at the radio than me when the dept of health wheel out their propaganda robots.

At the end of the day it comes down to a personal decision, and will depend on individual circumstances. But anyone who has seen and has to live daily with the consequences of someone brain damaged by vaccination is never going to see them as being benign, and very unlikely to cause serious side effects. My son's SALT was saying the other day she really wants to know why he isn't learning any language (and I don't mean speech I mean language) as he is so with it in other ways. My view (which I don't express very often) is that quite simply the language part of his brain has gone and is completely damaged- its the only explanation I can come up with. And his damage isn't recorded as a reaction- no wonder they're seen as so safe.....

WigWamBam · 10/11/2004 11:28

I do understand what you're saying, jimjams, and I do see why you feel as you do. I agree that it's a personal decision that we all have to make, and we have to make our decision on flawed and incomplete information so do what we each feel best.

I'm not rabidly pro-vax and hope my post didn't come across that way, I was just trying to say that there is no "right" decision. I did think long and hard about MMR, I'm not saying that I rushed in without considering all aspcects, but vaccination felt right to us. There are problems with both the vaccines and the wild viruses and it's a shame that we as parents don't seem to be given all of the facts, and that the figures do seem to be massaged to exlude children like your ds.

Socci · 10/11/2004 11:32

Message withdrawn

Jimjams · 10/11/2004 12:20

Oh no you didn't come across like that at all wigwambam (I was thinking more of how I used to be to be honest- and my mum- and how our experiences had shaped both of those points of view iyswim).

I think a major problem is - as socci is saying- that no-one actually knows what the risks are. Adverse reactions are so under-recorded- and there is such a reluctance on the part of the medical profession to accept that a bad response following a vaccination is an adverse reaction. There is a very strong assumption that they can do no harm and as more and more are added to the routine schedule the chance for damage or for interactions becomes ever greater.

lulupop · 10/11/2004 13:50

Velcrobott, thanks for your Ian Sinclair post, which was informative. It's a shame it was so one-sided though, as although I read it with interest, I am left with the question: if the eradication of smallpox can't be attributed to vaccination, what did wipe it out?

Or could it have just disappeared on its own?

jnbsmum · 10/11/2004 14:33

I personal have had both my children fully vaccinated, both of them turned out fine and i do not regret my decision. However when i did have my ds 4yrs ago i was a young mum and when my hv asked me if i was having all of them i didn't feel i had a choice. She seemed to state that these where essential and he needed them or else he would be very ill when he got any of these illnesses. (to a young frightend new mumwhat else would i say).
So when it came around to dd i just automaticaly took her for all of them. It wasn't untill i took her for her mmr that i was asked if i definatly wanted it done. I felt confused as i didn't have any time to think so i went ahead and did it. (she's fine btw)
I think the point i'm trying to say is that if i wasn't pressured into my first decision i would have probably had second thoughts. There should be more info on this subject that is freely given to all parents to make their own informed decision. The nhs do tend to make you sway towards their side instead of telling you the truth behind the jabs ie the side effects and the ingredients.. There must be more to these jabs or else we would not be having debates like this.

As for someone mentioning whether your child can go to nursery if they are not fully vaccined, well i have worked in a few and know that some private nurserys will not accept children who have not been vacinated. I personally do not understand this because as a few of you have already said, Vaccinated children still get these illnesses.

Jimjams · 10/11/2004 14:34

That does happen lulupop- these things mutate all the time. For example scarlet fever was a killer in the first part of the 20th century- that evolved to become less virulent.

The view of Neudstaedter is that vaccination was involved in the elimination of smallpox form the planet- but that that was achieved at a high price. He talks about alternatves in the case of smallpox being used as a biological weapon, and questions the effectiveness of vaccination during epidemics. It's too long to repeat here- but it does make interesting reading.

Polio is a good example as well. Vaccination is often credited with remving polio from places like the UK. In the UK the death rate from polio was at its highest in 1950. By 1956 when the vaccine campaign began it had already declined by 82%. Nothing to do with vaccination.

Its interesting to look at these diseases - they often follow cycles, or change in virulence. Remember their evolution will be occuring at a rapid rate. For example the sleeping sickness recorded in awakenings came out of nowhere, took a lot of people with it and then just as suddenly disappeared. Some people equate the increase of meningitis cases with decline in cases of measles. Not sure that there's much evidence for that though.