Topic awaiting preservation: Is this judge taking away Human Rights? (Page 1 of 2)

I have been asked to help on a case that was reported last year in the papers- News Article.

The draft judgement has come down that the mother has 3 months to get the child vaccinated. The child in question is 5 years old.


POINTS TO CONSIDER

1) The father is not british

2) The mother has sole custody of the child

3) The mother resides in the uk where compulsory vaccinations ended in 1946

4) This is a midwife, who is medically trained. But she has decided to go the holistic approach which means (in my book) she has made an informed choice. She knows both sides of the arguement.


Also the case was pooled, invloving a 12 year old girl who recieved the same verdict.

The Judge based his decision on human rights.


I have all night trawled through Human rights acts and one i came up with that the judge might have used for his decision:

Article 9 of the European Convention - freedom of thought, conscience and religion - in relation to the circumcision of a five-year-old child. The judge concluded that where both parents have equal rights under Article 9, limitations on one parent's rights can be imposed if these conflict with the rights of the other parent and the child and are not in the best interests of the child.

In this case, the mother has sole custody of the child.
Does this mean she has more parental Rights(PR) than the father?
Has the judge ignored this?

The case is in appeal now.

Does the child have human rights?
especially the 12 year old?


One other thing: The judge will not except any expert witness out side the UK!
(I wonder why? is it because they all reside in the u.s?)

So based on what i just posted, do you think the judge is right in his decision ,bearing in mind the UK has not got a compulsory vaccination program or do you think the mother has grounds for a human rights appeal?

In a blant violation of someone's right not to have their posts moved without at least 30 Mad Scientists agreeing to the move,
I'm moving this to the 'other silliness' section of the ozone.

I just had a child, and we are not going to vaccinate him. Here is a link describing why...
http://thinktwice.com/dpt.htm



Ozone Quotes

I find this trend of denying immunizations to children *extremely* distressing to say the very least. I fear we are sliding back into some sort of backlash against medical science and science in general.

That being said, I am not sure about this case, pink. I find myself conflicted and I don't have an answer. On the one hand I sympathize with the mother and her right to take care (in this case not take care of) her child as she sees fit. You are probably aware that in the US we have certain religious groups who deny medical treatment to their children and they are protected by the law based on freedom of religion concerns.

This case goes beyond that aspect, however, because you have the father and mother at odds. I just don't know which way to go on this but I am leaning towards not letting the judge make this decision but leaving it up to the parents even though they are opposed.

I'll be very interested to see how this turns out.

. . : slicePuzzle

I think it's a judgement based on the 'best for the child' issue. Regardless of what is presented at table towards which parent has 'more' PR than the other, the judge finds it in the child's best interest to be vaccinated. She could appeal but without concrete evidence to prove that the vaccinations are harmful I don't think she has much of a case. Either that or she needs to bring accepted medical doctors to the table that can vouch for the holistic alternatives that are equally effective in comparison to the vaccinations. As far as I know, holistic medicine while recognized as having some potential heath benefits, isn't accepted by mainstream medical sciences and seemingly, isn't very admissable in court.

Out of curiousity, do UK schools require vaccinations for student enrollment? Or for that matter is compulsory Vaccination required in the US? I know I was innoculated because of the school requirements but is that federally mandated or just the schools decision?



GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

First I'm going to post this as a flip side of this argument (mother who's baby almost died from malnourishment because the mom tried to feed her only vegan food)


Second the US does generally allow adults to refuse treatment on religious grounds however denying treatment for a child can result in charges brought against the parent, religious freedoms do not extend automatically to a child. (this is tricky and can vary from state to state)

The issue becomes her who's human rights are you refferring to? The mother's right to raise a child as she wishes or the child's right not to get measles? Now the courts in the US will virtually always side with the child. Especially regarding a very standard practice such as this one.

Personally I agree with them. The child's rights far outweigh the parents and if the court decides (and the father, custody aside) that the mother is putting the child at risk then it should be allowed to supersede the parent in order to protect the child.





.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Vaccinations of infants appear not to be mandatory in the US clicky

I seem to remember my sister having some doubts as to whether or not she would vaccinate her children, and I want to say she decided against it, in their infancy. Her kids haven't been any more ill than any other children I know. Though, in the public school systems, I believe you still must receive certain vaccinations in order to attend, and certainly, if you're enrolling in a US university you must have all vaccinations current (had to get a tetanus booster myself last semester! *ouch*). So I imagine they've all had immunization shots by now, since they're all in school...

also try these:
http://www.medical-library.net/sites/framer.html?/sites/_vaccinations.html
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/300vacc.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/od/nvpo/law.htm

Bodhi - Cell 617

Very interesting

To GrythusDraconis: There are alot of sites which prove vaccines are harmful. The U.K. does not require vaccinations to attend school. I was under the impression that vaccinations are compulsory in the U.S. with only an opt out clause of medical and religous grounds.

To BitDamaged: You say "The childs right not to get measles" What if i told you, that the World Health Organisation admitts that VACCINATED people are 14 times more LIKELY to contract MEASLES, than those who HAVEN'T been VACCINATED.

Would your opinion change?
would you still see it as the mother putting her child at risk.?
www.vran.org www.vaccine-info.com/mmr/van_factsheet.htm www.whale.to www.909shot.com

All these sites have a different take on vaccines.
Do you think that after reading these sites, as well as the government sites, you chose not to vaccinate, it would be because you made an informed choice?
Http://www.mercola.com/2002/dec/21/vaccines.htm
Is this what informed parents are up against?

I skimmed over those sites (ignoring propaganda speak) and while there are some interesting points being made, there are really only 'May be', 'Could be', and 'It's possible' statements in there. What I'm talking about is irrefutable proof in full study with control groups and the whole lot. The same thing that's required to get the vaccinations going in the first place. Without something of that caliber there isn't going to be any other outcome other than the kid gets the vaccine and she loses the case.

I got all of my immunization shots. I never even felt sick or got tired because of them. I've never heard of anyone in any of my schools ever getting sick from one of these shots and I've been in 6-7 different schools. That is a pool of 6-7 DIFFERENT groups of children numbering in the hundreds in each case. A small sampling to be sure, but a point none the less. In a sampling of 700-1000 kids throughout the immunization cycle I didn't experience a single illness caused by immunization or anyone suffering from any of these diseases after the cycle was completed (except for one kid... who, interestingly enough, didn't get the vaccines). I wonder what the rate of reaction or illness after immunization is? Lets get some perspective. Are we talking about 1/10% or 55% of the immunized population here?

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-04-2003).]

I think it's fine for adults, for for newborn's it puts a lot of stress on their tiny bodies..

I would say show me the link where the WHO said that.

Jesus one of the url's you posted linked to this story (SECRET PLAN TO SPY ON ALL BRITISH PHONE CALLS & E-MAILS) not very credible.


And here's a great article about the guy who made the claims linking autism to MMR vaccinations. hell here's the CDC's verison on autism and relating to Inflamitory bowel disease

Heck here's the UK's Department of Health's findings

I would say no my mind is not changed yet



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

[This message has been edited by bitdamaged (edited 04-05-2003).]

Bitdamaged !! Pink has worked closely with Dr Andrew Wakefield and is well aware of the stories, but i will leave that for Pink to explain.

When i first met Pink, i did not know anything about the MMR triple vaccine, i was naive, but after reading Pinks research notes and going through the other literature, i soon became aware of the dangers. If people took the time to sit down and actually read the facts for both the triple and single vaccines, i am sure that you would be suprised at the findings, just as much as i was.

Pink is just a concened mother who has fought for the right to CHOOSE, and as a result of her research and dedication to the cause, has been interviewed numerous times for both local and national press.

She is respected by journalists all over the country on the subject and has co-founded a clinic that allows parents to make an informed choice.

I ask you good folk again to also take the time to read the facts for both triple and single vaccinations and then you maybe aware of the dangers and understand why parents opt for single jabs.

The more you read, the more you will see that it all boils down to money, not health. The government here in the UK would rather save money over safety.

This judge has made a ruling that seems to me to be based on HIS own beleifs and not that of the mothers (the sole custodian).

Wheres the justice in that ?



[This message has been edited by axleclarkeuk (edited 04-05-2003).]

I tend to avoid commentary on legal cases as I seldom know all the facts leading to the decision. However, given what I have read here, I would definitely lean toward the opinion that the judge over-reached himself. This is an issue that should be decided by the two parents alone.

Axle its ok sssssshhh.

To Bitdamaged: www.vacine-info.com/mmr/van_factsheet.htm scoll down to where you get to the heading SIDE EFFECTS. Just above the heading is the sentence i quoted. Yes before you start, this sight has been checked for content and is in the processes of retrieving the original report.

The reason why Grythus, you have found lots of 'Mays' and 'Coulds' is because there have been no long term studies on vaccinces. ( www.whale.to/vaccines/studies.html ) which is why if we were talking on FACT and not BELIEF, this conversation would be long over.

These are two statements that are worrying. 'The study concluded that genuine protection against measles may not be achievable with the vaccination.'

(I guess they say MAY because of this statement)

"Many measles vaccine efficacy studies relate to their ability to stimulate an antibody response, (sero-conversion or sero-response). An antibody response does not necessarily equate to immunity......... the level of antibody needed for effective immunity is different in each individual.....immunity can be demonstrated in individuals with a low or no detectable levels of antibody. Similarly in other individuals with higher levels of antibody there may be no immunity. We therefore need to stay clear on the issue: How do we know if the vaccine is effective for a particular individual when we do not know what level of antibody production equals immunity?"--Trevor Gunn BS

Could it be the same for all vaccines?

It is clear that there are alot of questions about vaccines and that even doctors are not sure because they are NO long term studies.

Why is this?

Is it because, if they did find vaccines of no benefit, HUGE amounts of money would be lost, and medical profession would lose respect? Noooooo surely your children come first?

By 1995 the federal vaccince injury compensation program has compensated nearly 1000 families at a cost of $600 million.

www.whale.to/vaccine/adjuvants.html

A quick run down:

DTP given at 8/12/16 weeks old:
Ingredients: Aluminum phosphate, Formaldehyde, Ammonium sulfate, Washed sheep red blood cells, Glycerol, Sodium chloride ,Thimersol medium(Mercury) Porcine (pig) pancreatic hyrolysate of casein.

DEFINITIONS OF THE WORST INGREDIENTS:

ALUMINUM: EDF suspected: Cardiovascular or blood toxicant, neurotoxicant, respiratory toxicant. More hazardous than most chemicals in 2 out of 6 ranking systems on at least 2 federal regulatory lists.

FORMALDEHYDE: EDF Recognized- carcinogen
Suspected: Gastrointestinal or liver toxicant, immunotoxicant, neurotoxicant, reproductive toxicant, respiratory toxicant skin or sense organ toxicant. More hazardous than most chemicals in 5 out of 12 ranking systems on at least 8 federal regulatory lists ranked as one of the MOST HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS (WORST 10%) TO ECOSYSTEMS AND HUMAN HEALTH.

AMMONIUM SULFATE: EDF suspected gastrointestinal or liver toxiant, neurotoxiacant, respiratory toxicant

THIMEROSAL: EDF Recognized - development toxicant suspected - skin or sense organ toxicant.


MMR given at 1 years 4 years and maybe at 16 years.

INGREDIENTS:
Sorbitol, neomycin (Anti-biotic), Hydrolyzed gelatin mediums, M&M -chick embryo Rubella- Human diploid cells( originating from human aborted fetal tissue)

POLIO VACCINE (INACTIVE) given at 8/12/16 weeks
INGREDIENTS: formaldehyde, phenoxyethanol(antifreeze), neomycin, streptomycin,polymyxin B medium,VERO cells,a continuous line of monkey kidney cells

Do you think that these ingredients are acceptable if people are now questioning the effectiveness of vaccines?
I know that in the UK ( not sure about the U.S. ) that mercury was banned from animal vaccinations 10 years ago. But our children are still receiving it.

Your idea, Grythus, that because you were fine and that you never heard of your friends becoming sick, is very naive. You wouldn't have known about it anyway, because the parents, back then, and even now would have been told it was nothing to do with the vaccine. I guess you are in the belief system.

Should it really be down to the individual?
Should the judge sign a waiver form to the words of ' That if this child reacts to the vaccines in the set schedule i will be responsible for 100% of the costs and care involved of this child' ?

Because at the end of the day who is going to look after that child 24/7, if it does go pear shaped?
Who is going to claim responsiblity? The judge for ordering it?, the father for bringing the action to make the mother vaccinate, or the mother doing what she was ordered to do?

Trading Shots Over Vaccinations...

quote:

---

"The bottom line is that the vaccines prevent diseases that are very real, that can harm people and kill them," she says. "If we don't maintain immunization levels, the diseases will come back. We have to weigh that against the theoretical concern for which there is no proof."

Dr. Anne Moscona, a pediatrics professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, adds: "Parents are concerned about autism, about neurological damage and the worry that their children will get more allergies if they are vaccinated. So we try to explain to them that the benefits of vaccinations far, far outweigh theoretical risks of harm from the vaccines."

---

I am concerned that this movement is dismissing the risks that are known in order to focus on risks that have yet to be proven.

So have we moved from the legal question as to whether parents have the right to withhold vaccinations from their kids to whether or not these vaccination programs are harmful?

quote:

---

So have we moved from the legal question as to whether parents have the right to withhold vaccinations from their kids to whether or not these vaccination programs are harmful?

---

parents make choices for their children based on whether or not the thing (tv program, vaccination, movie etc.) is harmful to their children. in each case the parents must weigh the facts available or use their judgement to make the decision.

After reading this I can only say in the US you are required to have the shots for school.

Maybe it would be best if the judge did a order for a Guardian of Litem for the child. Then that attorney would only have the childs best interest to deal with. He/she would then talk to both parents and find out why they believe as they do and also do other researches, then report to the judge what they recommend. Then it's up to the judge. However, most of the time he goes on what the Guardian of Litem feels is the best interest of the child.

It might just be me but what are we arguing about (sorry if this has been gone over already)?

1. Whether a father has a right to have his child vacinated when the mother doesn't want it?

2. The MMR vaccination?

I've been following the MMR issue for a while now (thanks to Private Eye which has been following the debate long before the mainstream media) and as far as I an tell (without going through the reports myself) the studies for and against MMR are equally poor and we need much more research before we can draw a conclusion on this issue. So what do people do in this limbo? Stop your child from being vaccinated and reduce 'Herd Immunity' or have your child vaccinated and store up potential problems for the future (like autism)?

Its a tricky one and one I wouldn't be happy about facing. I may be wrong but the simplest solution for the time being is to allow parents to have the immunisation administered as single shots. As far as I'm aware there is little evidence that this has a similar effect (the triple shot possibly overwhelms the child's immune system while staggering the injections is less of an onslaught) and although health professionals may argue that this introduces the potential for vaccinations to be missed but if it is that or nothing.........

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Uh.... thanx for the slam, Pink. I'm not naive, nor is everybody lied to. If that was the case who would be complaining about it now? My point is that, based on what is currently known by the general populous (which I assume the judge is a part of) vaccines keep people from contracting diseases. As soon as that is refuted, it becomes a different issue. There isn't any foudned information that vaccine are harmful to the 'general' public. In the case of the polio vaccine for instance. It seems to have worked rather significantly. The results (people being protected from diseases) are outweighing the possibility that they might be dangerous. My suggetion would be... don't make a clinic (or not only a clinic) that allows parents to stop having their chldren get vaccinated and start a clinic that does the 'long term testing' everyone seems to think is necessary. The choice itself could very well be harmful. In avoiding, autism seems to be the syndrome being tossed around, autism you may well be dooming the next generation to Measles, mumps, and/or rheubella. Maybe, maybe not.

Another issue is that these vaccines may well only need to make the human body stronger in their younger years. Immunity might be the wrong term to be using in the case of vaccines. Not all vaccines provide immunity, some just bolster the existing immune system for a period of time. Like say.. tetinus(sp?) shots. The point is there isn't enough evidence either way. The judge made a choice based on the knowledge that was available. without concrete, undeniable evidence that he is flat out wrong and these vaccines are absolutely going to harm the child I can't see it being overturned. A belief in holistic medicine without substatiating proof that it really does work as well isn't going to convince anyone that it's a good thing. It's the proof of health and treatment of illnesses by holistic medicine that are going to provide that impetus to see if it really is a good thing. It needs to be subject to all of the tests and reviews that all other sciences are.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

Alright let's go back to the original question regarding whether someone's human rights are being violated. (the MMR debate is another question)

I do believe that the courts have a right to step in in cases regarding the well being of the child. I don't believe that it is an innate human right to raise a child as you see fit when there is potential to harm the child. Unfortunately there are too many bad parents out there. Case in point I linked to earlier where the mother was starving her child by raising her vegan. Does this mother have a right to kill her child because she wants her raised in a particular way? I don't think so. Nor do I think the judge in this case made an uninformed decision, especially considering when the UK department of health considers the vaccination practice safe (again link above)



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

[This message has been edited by bitdamaged (edited 04-06-2003).]

Hmmm...looks like a conundrum, but it isn't...don't lose sight of the big picture...remember, Measles, Polio, Smallpox, and other very dangerous diseases have been largely stamped out...by what? What process accomplished that? Vaccines.

Now...that different forms of vaccines exist, is to be expected...and of the side effects...well, there is that, true. And I do understand that maybe finding a better vaccine (without the side effects, if any) would be better, I don't think anyone is arguing against that. But what are the consequences without any vaccines? Yep. The diseases come back...we see examples of this, in history. We also see examples of new strains, etc.

Personally, I'm willing to run the risk of 'immunization'. And I insisted on it with my daughter. The reason? Because of the flip-side of the coin...what are the risks without it? One may say, 'Well, that disease has be eraticated. So one doesn't need the vaccine anymore.' Really? Strange, but supposedly stamped-out diseases have a way of 'coming back'...Nature has her ways, apparently. I would say, that any parent that is willing to risk this, is being irresponsible. I understand concerns over some vaccine methods and systems, but I really think that considering the big picture, the risks for far outweigh the risk against.

Another thing, both my sisters work in the medical profession - my younger sister is a certified Nurse, with over 15 years experience, and my older sister is a Doctor, with over 20 years experience. Now, there is a lot of information that doesn't really make it to the public...on that I agree. However, on the issue of immunization and children, both are for it. I trust their judgement in this issue...and yes, they are both aware of this thread (well, they are now)...

To the rights issue...that is a tough call. I don't think that it can be left to the parents, in this case, to work out...because obviously, they haven't and can't do it, otherwise it wouldn't have gone to court. In this case, the Judge must decide, one way or the other...and I would hope that in any decision like this, the well-being of the child has the utmost precidence! This, combined with the above, would then speak in favor of the immunization, IMHO.

So, in answer to the topics question, no, I don't think so. In fact, I believe that the rights of the child are being uphold. In any case like this, that has to supercede the rights of the parents. I should know, I've been the father in a case like this.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-07-2003).]

Actually diseases were declining BEFORE vaccines became wide spread, through better sanitation and health and less poverty. http://www.unc.edu/~aphillip/www/vaccine/dvm1.htm#intro

quote:

---

With pertussis, the number of vaccine-related deaths dwarfs the number of disease deaths, which have been about 10 annually for recent years according to the CDC, and only 8 in 1993, the last peak-incidence year (pertussis runs in 3-4 year cycles, though vaccination certainly doesn't). Simply put, the vaccine is 100 times more deadly than the disease.

---

( Same url as above)

quote:

---

Most parents feel compelled to take some disease-preventing action for their children. While there is no 100% guarantee anywhere, there are viable alternatives. Historically, homeopathy has been more effective than "mainstream" allopathic medicine in treating and preventing disease. In a U.S. cholera outbreak in 1849, allopathic medicine saw a 48-60% death rate, while homeopathic hospitals had a documented death rate of only 3%.[40] Roughly similar statistics still hold true for cholera today.[41] Recent epidemiological studies show homeopathic remedies as equaling or surpassing standard vaccinations in preventing disease. There are reports in which populations that were treated homeopathically after exposure had a 100% success rate--none of the treated caught the disease.[42]

---

http://www.unc.edu/~aphillip/www/vaccine/dvm2.htm#myth8

quote:

---

The documented long term adverse effects of vaccines include chronic immunological and neurological disorders such as autism, hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders, dyslexia, allergies, cancer, and other conditions, many of which barely existed 30 years ago before mass vaccination programs. Vaccine components include known carcinogens such as thimersol, aluminum phosphate, and formaldehyde (the Poisons Information Centre in Australia claims there is no acceptable safe amount of formaldehyde which can be injected into a living human body).

Medical historian, researcher and author Harris Coulter, Ph.D. explained that his extensive research revealed childhood immunization to be "...causing a low-grade encephalitis in infants on a much wider scale than public health authorities were willing to admit, about 15-20% of all children." He points out that the sequelae [conditions known to result from a disease] of encephalitis [inflammation of the brain, a known side-effect of vaccination]: autism, learning disabilities, minimal and not-so-minimal brain damage, seizures, epilepsy, sleeping and eating disorders, sexual disorders, asthma, crib death, diabetes, obesity, and impulsive violence are precisely the disorders which afflict contemporary society. Many of these conditions were formerly relatively rare, but they have become more common as childhood vaccination programs have expanded. Coulter also points out that "...pertussis toxoid is used to create encephalitis in lab animals."

---

(Same url as above but myth 7)

ummm GrythusDraconis you call that those 2 paragrapghs above, strengthing the immune system?

As for your answer on the polio vaccine.....sighs
http://members.tripod.com/DrSugi/polio.html

These are just some of the problems that have been documented.

A recent study in the British Medical Journal concluded that MMR vaccine is assoicated with an increased risk of arthritis. C.M. Benjamin, et al; "Jont and Limb Symptoms in Children after immunization with Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine," British Medical Journal (04/25/92), pp. 1075 - 1078.

The United Kingdom quietly withdrew 2 brands of MMR vaccine following several confirmed cases of mumps-meningitis after administration of the vaccines. Alaric Colville and Simon Pugh, "Mumps Meningitis and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine," Lancet, (09/26/92), p. 786

A study in the Lancet found a significant link between the measles vaccine and bowel disease. Those who received the vaccine were 3 times more likely to develop Crohn's disease and more than twice as likely to develop ulcerative colitis. N.P. Thompson, et al; "Is Measles Vaccination a Risk Factor for Inflammatory Bowel Disease?", Lancet, (04/29/95), pp. 1071-1074.

A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases concluded that every case of polio in the USA since 1980 was caused by the polio vaccine. Peter M. Strebel, et al.; " Epidemiology of Poliomyelitis in the USA one decade after the last reported case of Indigenous Wild-Associated Disease," Clicical Infectious Diseases, (02/92), pp. 568 - 579.

http://childvaccinesinjury.homestead.com/Studies.html you canread the rest here

No one has answered this question yet so i'll ask it again:
Because at the end of the day who is going to look after that child 24/7, if it does go pear shaped?
Who is going to claim responsiblity? The judge for ordering it?, the father for bringing the action to make the mother vaccinate, or the mother doing what she was ordered to do?

Again i'll ask this question: Has the mother having waded through both sides of the arguement made an informed choice? If she has made an informed choice who has the right to say she can't excercise that choice, especially when you consider that the country she LIVES in does not have vaccines as compulsory?




[This message has been edited by pink (edited 04-07-2003).]

*sigh*

Apparently, you haven't really listened to what is being said. Maybe you have already made up your mind, I'm not sure. So I'll explain it again.

Let's suppose, for a minute, that you are right, and let's get rid of all immunisations, shall we? Now, one of two things is going to happen - either you really are correct, and nothing happens (with the exception of the side effects disappearing, of course) or the diseases have a field day amongst the human populances. Now, I take it you were not around when most of these diseases were taking it's rather massive toll of lives, right? Well, me neither. The fact that we are here probably speaks in favor of immunisation. However, we are the ones currently 'suffering' from HIV (in that I mean our generation)...and it's not curable, at least, not yet. Now, if and when they find a cure, what if it is a vaccine? Yes, it may have side effects, but isn't that preferable to death? And that is the point here, I think. We tend to forget just how nasty some of those diseases were...and are, if left unchecked. Believe me, the people of those times must have been really happy to see a cure, or method of prevention found, especially after experiencing the lack of one first-hand.

And my suggestion would be, to try and find vaccines that have little, if no, side effects. Also, these immunisation side effects don't seem to be affecting a significant amount of the populance...though that might explain Mr. Bush...(tongue in cheek there). Otherwise, we'd have a generation of autistics. Maybe it has more to do with genetic make-up, than anything else...small percentages of a populance has a different gene make-up...protects from new, virulent strains of disease.

So let's go back to what you said at the end of your post - the worst case scenario. Well, both parents have the responsiblility to care for the child, that much must be obvious. It doesn't really matter what state the child is in, this stands without question. Where the legal system in that all plays, is really beyond me. You are then trying to hold it accountable, for making a decision that normally the parents should decide between themselves, but for some reason (probably because they are much too interested in their own pride) could not...no, that is clearly wrong. You can't blame the court here...you must blame the parents, because it takes two to fight. If they both were to sit down, and work this problem out (probably why they got seperated in the first place - no communication, it seems), then this whole thing wouldn't have been necessary. But no, it has to be dragged into court...and a decision must be made. So don't blame the Judge for following and implimenting the law. Blame the parents for insisting on it.

Vaccines are good for society, but bad for the individual.

{edit - And thanks pink for all the info.}

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 04-07-2003).]

VERY well said WebShaman !

pink you keep pointing to the same misleading literature.

quote:

---

The documented long term adverse effects of vaccines include chronic immunological and neurological disorders such as autism, hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders, dyslexia, allergies, cancer, and other conditions, many of which barely existed 30 years ago before

---

This has not been proven and has in fact been disproven by both the US CDC and the UK DOH (links above)

2. I notice that graph posted where you are trying to prove doesn't show a decrease in infection rate of MMR before in introduction of the vaccinations however it does show a decrease in the death rate. And wow the death rate drops dramatically from the late 1920s and early 1930s. The same year penicillin was invented. Gee go figure



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

[This message has been edited by bitdamaged (edited 04-07-2003).]

I didn't read all of what's been posted since I last replied to this thread, but I thought I'd throw this in. (my apologies if I step on anyone's toes or say something that's already been said...) I spent some time with my sister's kids this weekend, and apparently, children are not required to be vaccinated in North Carolina until they are ready to go into the 6th grade. None of her kids have had their "shots", but my oldest niece, who is going to be 6th grader next year, has to get them this summer in order to continue in public school.

I believe what's happened is the federal gov't has left the decision to have vaccinations up to the individual states. I haven't got a link to back that up, but it wouldn't be surprising if that was the case...

Just my $0.02

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 04-07-2003).]

I believe the courts did the right thing by putting the welfare of the child first. I assume this is still the topic? I usually come late to these topics - when they're already talked out

I certainly sympathize with the mother but based on the info I've read (including the links provided by Pink), the risk of disease is greater without the vaccine than with it. I don't doubt that there have been some horrible side effects with vaccinations but I think to not vaccinate is a greater disservice to the child. Like Bugs, I too feel as if there's a backlash against medical science and I find that scary.

The best possible thing any parent can do is to read both sides of the argument and, most importantly, make sure the source info is credible.

How do you treat Measles?

There is no specific treatment. A Doctor should be seen if complications are developing. Acetaminophen (eg. Tempra, Tylenol) can be used to treat the fever.

How should you treat mumps?

Mumps goes away by itself in about a week, but extra fluids and a mild
pain reliever like acetaminophen can keep your child comfortable. (Avoid
aspirin; it should never be given to children or teenagers who have a
virus because it can lead to Reye's syndrome, a rare but potentially
life-threatening disease.) Don't give him tart drinks like orange juice
and lemonade because they stimulate the salivary glands, causing pain. In
older boys, the testicles sometimes swell and hurt, so an athletic
supporter is helpful.

How should you treat rubella?

Because rubella is usually a very mild illness, you won't need to do
much. If your pediatrician okays it, you can give your child
acetaminophen to ease any discomfort caused by a fever. Antibiotics won't
work against rubella because it's caused by a virus, not bacteria

UMMMM.... where does penicillin come into it? these are viruses not bacteria.

WebShaman

quote:

---

). Otherwise, we'd have a generation of autistics.

---

Austism is growing at an alarming rate i believe its something like 1 in 250 at the moment and rising. Very nearly a generation of austistics.
I see what your saying, but it boils down to risk/benefit arguement doesn't it.
Some parents are going to think the risks outweigh the benefits. And then there are others who think the benefits outweight the risks. Which is why it should be an individual decision.
The judge was not implementing law. It is NOT LAW IN THE UK

Gilbert Nolander your welcome

The most important thing, that the parents (plural!) can do, is to drown their pride, and anger at one another, and start concentrating on the best possible upbringing for their child!

After 5 years now, of continual battle in court, before various government departments, etc, it is my experience, that the only thing that can be 'won', is nothing (well, a bit of paper, maybe...or a lot, depending...in my case, a ton of otherwise healthy trees, damn). And the big loser, irregardless of how one looks at it, is in the end, the child.

I learned from this...and have corrected my behavior accordingly. And that, is indeed, the point. The child is, and has to be, the most important factor here. All my other emotions to the contrary, don't mean spit when it comes down to this. My daughter, on the other hand, does. And since I cannot force a change onto my ex-wife, I have to find ways to deal with the situation the best I can, for my child. And I have had to swallow (and I am still doing so) a hell of a lot of pride, and anger, believe me. Do I lay blame at the feet of the German legal system? NO. No legal system can solve this problem, so that both parties and the child come out winners...it's just not possible. One cannot divide a child...that is, by definition, unhealthy (both physically, and mentally). It is up to the parents, to find a way to serve these ends...for, in the end, they are the ones responsible to do this. The child must come first. A hard lesson learned...and I hope not too late.

Repeatedly answering your 'posts' is becoming an irritating regularity.

Ok, Measles - All about Measles esp. this should capture your attention

quote:

---

Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths werereported annually with epidemic cycles every 2-3 years. However,the actual number of cases was estimated at 3-4 million annually.More than 50% of persons had measles by age 6 and more than90% had measles by age 15. The highest incidence was in 5-9 year-olds, who generally accounted for more than 50% of reported cases.Following licensure of vaccine in 1963, the incidence of measlesdecreased by more than 98%, and 2-3 year epidemic cycles nolonger occurred. Because of this success, a 1978 MeaslesElimination Program set a goal to eliminate indigenous measles by100Measles9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
MeaslesOctober 1, 1982 (26,871 cases were reported in 1978). The 1982elimination goal was not met, but in 1983, only 1,497 cases werereported (0.6 cases per 100,000 population), the lowest annual totalever reported up to that time.During 1980-1988, a median of 57% of reported cases were amongschool-aged persons (5-19 years of age), and a median of 29% wereamong children <5 years of age. A median of 8% of cases wereamong infants <1 year of age.From 1985 through 1988, 42% of cases occurred in persons whowere vaccinated on or after their first birthdays. During these years,68% of cases in school-aged children (5-19 years) had been appro-priately vaccinated. The occurence of measles among previouslyvaccinated children led to the recommendation for a second dose inthis age group.MEASLES RESURGENCE IN 1989-1991In 1989 through 1991, a dramatic increase in cases occurred.During these 3 years a total of 55,622 cases were reported (18,193in 1989; 27,786 in 1990; 9,643 in 1991). In addition to theincreased number of cases, a change in age distribution of casesoccurred. Prior to the resurgence, school-aged children hadaccounted for the largest proportion of reported cases. During theresurgence, 45% of all reported cases were in children <5 years ofage. In 1990, 48% of patients were in this age group, the first timethat the proportion of cases in children <5 years of age exceeded theproportion of cases in 5-19-year-olds. Thirty-five percent of caseswere among school-aged persons (5-19 years old).Overall incidence rates were highest for Hispanics and blacks andlowest for non-Hispanic whites. Among children <5 years of age theincidence of measles among blacks and Hispanics was four to seventimes higher than among non-Hispanic whites.A total of 123 measles-associated deaths were reported (death-to-case ratio = 2.2 per 1,000 cases). Forty-nine percent of deaths wereamong children <5 years of age. Ninety percent of fatal cases had nohistory of vaccination. Sixty-four deaths were reported in 1990, thelargest annual number of deaths from measles since 1971.The most important cause of the measles resurgence of 1989-1991was low vaccination coverage. Measles vaccine coverage was low inmany cities, including some that experienced large outbreaks amongpreschool-aged children throughout the early to mid-1980s. Surveysin areas experiencing outbreaks among preschool-aged childrenindicated that as few as 50% of children had been vaccinated againstmeasles by their second birthdays, and that black and Hispanic chil-dren were less likely to be age-appropriately vaccinated than whitechildren.Measles susceptibility of infants less than one year of age may have increased. During the 1989-1991 measles resurgence, incidence1019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
rates for infants were more than twice as high as those in any otherage group. The mothers of many infants who developed measleswere young, and their measles immunity was most often due to vac-cination rather than infection with wild virus. As a result, a smalleramount of antibody was transferred across the placenta to the fetus,compared with antibody transfer from mothers who had higher anti-body titers resulting from wild virus infection. The lower quantityof antibody resulted in immunity that waned more rapidly, makinginfants susceptible at a younger age than in the past.The increase in measles in 1989-1991 was not limited to the UnitedStates. Large outbreaks of measles were reported by many othercountries of North and Central America, including Canada, ElSalvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, and Nicaragua.MEASLES SINCE 1993Reported cases of measles declined rapidly after the 1989-1991resurgence. This decline was due primarily to intensive efforts tovaccinate preschool-aged children. Measles vaccination levelsamong 2 year-old children increased from 70% in 1990 to 91% in1997.Since 1993, fewer than 500 cases have been reported annually, andfewer than 200 cases per year have been reported since 1997. Arecord low annual total of 86 cases was reported in 2000. Availableepidemiologic and virologic data strongly suggest that measles trans-mission in the United States has been interrupted. The majority ofcases are now imported from other countries, or linked to importedcases. Most imported cases originate in Asia and Europe, and occurboth among U.S. citizens traveling abroad and persons visiting theU.S. from other countries. Due to an aggressive measles vaccinationprogram by the Pan American Health Organization, measles inci-dence is now very low in Latin America and the Caribbean.Measles elimination from the Americas appears to be an achievablegoal.

---

I think this says it all -

quote:

---

Ninety percent of fatal cases had no history of vaccination.

---

So much for Measles.

Mumps -

All about MumpsNow, here comes some interesting information

quote:

---

In the prevaccine era, mumps virus was one of the mostcommon causes of aseptic meningitis.Orchitis (testicular inflammation)is the most common compli-cation in postpubertal males. It occurs in up to 50% of postpubertalmales, usually after parotitis, but may precede it, begin simultane-ously, or occur alone. It is bilateral in up to 30% of affected males.There is usually abrupt onset of testicular swelling, tenderness, nau-sea, vomiting, and fever. Pain and swelling may subside in 1 week,but tenderness may last for weeks. Approximately 50% of patientswith orchitis have some degree of testicular atrophy, but sterility israre.Oophoritis (ovarian inflammation)occurs in 5% of postpuber-tal females. It may mimic appendicitis. There is no relationship toimpaired fertility.Pancreatitis is infrequent, but occasionally occurs without paroti-tis; the hyperglycemiais transient and is reversible. While somesingle instances of diabetes mellitus have been reported, a causalrelationship has yet to be conclusively demonstrated; many cases oftemporal association have been described both in siblings and indi-viduals, and outbreaks of diabetes have been reported a few monthsor years after outbreaks of mumps.Deafness caused by mumps was a leading cause of acquired sen-sorineural deafness in childhood in the prevaccine era. The estimat-ed incidence is approximately 1 per 20,000 reported cases ofmumps. Hearing loss is unilateral in approximately 80% of casesand may be associated with vestibular reactions. Onset is usuallysudden and results in permanent hearing impairment.Electrocardiogram (EKG) changes compatible with myocarditisare seen in 3%-15% of patients with mumps, but symptomaticinvolvement is rare. Complete recovery is the rule, but deaths havebeen reported.Other less common complications of mumps include arthralgia,arthritis, and nephritis. An average of 1 death from mumps per yearwas reported in 1980-1999.116Mumps10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 4
SECULAR TRENDS IN THE UNITED STATESMumps became a nationally reportable disease in the United Statesin 1968. However, an estimated 212,000 cases occurred in theUnited States in 1964. Following vaccine licensure, reportedmumps decreased rapidly. Approximately 3,000 cases were reportedannually in 1983-1985 (1.3-1.55 cases per 100,000 population).In 1986 and 1987 there was a relative resurgence of mumps. Thepeak was in 1987, when 12,848 cases were reported. The highestincidence of mumps during the resurgence was among older school-age and college-age youth (10-19 years of age) who were bornbefore recommendations for routine mumps vaccination. Mumpsincidence in this period correlated with absence of comprehensivestate requirements for mumps immunization. Several mumps out-breaks among highly vaccinated school populations were reported,indicating that high coverage with a single dose of mumps vaccinedid not always prevent disease transmission, probably because ofvaccine failure.Since 1989, there has been a steady decline in reported mumpscases, from 5,712 cases to a provisional total of 231 cases in 2001,the lowest annual total ever reported. The decrease in mumps inrecent years is most likely the result of implementation of the sec-ond dose recommendation for measles vaccine (as MMR).Prior to vaccine licensure in 1967, and during the early years of vac-cine use, most reported cases occurred in the 5-9 year age group;90% of cases occurred among children under 15 years of age. Inthe late 1980s there was a shift towards older children. Since 1990,persons age 15 years and older have accounted for 30% - 40% ofcases per year. Males and females are affected equally.Eighty percent or more of adults in urban and suburban areas withor without a history of mumps have serologic evidence of immunity.CASE DEFINITIONThe clinical case definition of mumps is an acute onset of unilateralor bilateral tender swelling of the parotid or salivary gland lasting >2days without other apparent cause.MUMPS VACCINECHARACTERISTICSMumps virus was isolated in 1945 and an inactivated vaccine wasdeveloped in 1948. This vaccine produced only short-lasting immu-nity, and its use was discontinued in the mid-1970s. The currentlyused Jeryl Lynn strain of live attenuated mumps virus vaccine waslicensed in December 1967.Mumps vaccine is available as a single antigen preparation, com-bined with rubella vaccine, or combined with measles and rubella118Mumps10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
Mumpsvaccines. The ACIP recommends that combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) be used when any of the individual compo-nents is indicated.Mumps vaccine is prepared in chick embryo fibroblast tissue cul-ture. MMR is supplied as a lyophilized (freeze-dried) powder and isreconstituted with sterile, preservative-free water. The vaccine con-tains small amounts of human albumin, neomycin, sorbitol, and gel-atin.IMMUNOGENICITY AND VACCINE EFFICACYMumps vaccine produces an inapparent, or mild, noncommunicableinfection. Over 97% of recipients of a single dose develop measura-ble antibody. Clinical efficacy has been estimated to be 95% (range,90%-97%). The duration of vaccine-induced immunity is believedto be greater than 25 years, and is probably life-long in most vaccinerecipients.VACCINATION SCHEDULE AND USETwo doses of mumps vaccine, as combination MMR vaccine, sepa-rated by at least 4 weeks, are routinely recommended for all chil-dren. All persons born in or after 1957 should have documentationof at least one dose of MMR. The first dose of MMR should begiven on or after the first birthday. Mumps-containing vaccine givenbefore 12 months of age should not be counted as part of the series.Children vaccinated with mumps-containing vaccine before 12months of age should be revaccinated with two doses of MMR vac-cine, the first of which should be administered when the child is atleast 12 months of age.A second dose of MMR is recommended to produce immunity inthose who failed to respond to the first dose. Data indicate thatalmost all of the persons who do not respond to the measles compo-nent of the first dose will respond to a second dose of MMR. Fewdata on the immune response to the rubella and mumps compo-nents of a second dose of MMR are available. However, most per-sons who do not respond to the rubella or mumps component of thefirst MMR dose would be expected to respond to the second doseof MMR.The second dose of MMR is not generally considered a boosterdose because a primary immune response to the first dose provideslong-term protection. Although a second dose of vaccine mayincrease antibody titers in some persons who responded to the firstdose, available data indicate that these increased antibody titers arenot sustained.The combined MMR vaccine is recommended forboth doses to assure immunity to all three viruses.The second dose of MMR vaccine should routinely be given at age4-6 years, before a child enters kindergarten or first grade. The ado-lescent health visit at age 11-12 years can serve as a catch-up oppor-tunity to verify vaccination status and administer MMR vaccine to11910
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
those children who have not yet received two doses of MMR. Thesecond dose of MMR may be administered as soon as 4 weeks (i.e.,28 days) after the first dose.Adults born in 1957 or laterwho do not have a medical con-traindication should receive at least one dose of MMR vaccineunless they have documentation of vaccination with at least onedose of measles-, rubella-, and mumps-containing vaccine or otheracceptable evidence of immunity to these three diseases. Someadults at high risk of measles exposure may require a second dose ofmeasles vaccine. This second dose should be administered as com-bined MMR vaccine (see Measles chapter for details).MUMPS IMMUNITYPersons generally can be considered immune to mumps if theywere born before 1957, have serologic evidence of mumps immuni-ty, have documentation of physician-diagnosed mumps, or havedocumentation of vaccination with live mumps virus vaccine on orafter their first birthday. The demonstration of mumps IgG anti-body by any commonly-used serologic assay is acceptable evidenceof mumps immunity. Persons who have an "equivocal" serologictest result should be considered susceptible to mumps unless theyhave other evidence of mumps immunity.Live mumps vaccine was not used routinely before 1977 and thepeak incidence was in 5- to 9-year-olds before the vaccine was intro-duced. Most persons born before 1957 are likely to have beeninfected naturally between 1957 and 1977. As a result, personsborn before 1957 generally may be considered to be immune, evenif they did not have clinically recognizable mumps disease.However, as with measles and rubella, this 1957 cutoff date for sus-ceptibility is arbitrary and vaccination with MMR should be consid-ered during mumps outbreaks for persons born before 1957 whomay be exposed to mumps and may be nonimmune. Laboratorytesting for mumps susceptibility before vaccination is not necessary.POST-EXPOSURE PROPHYLAXISNeither mumps immune globulin nor immune globulin (IG) iseffective postexposure prophylaxis. Vaccination after exposure is notharmful and may possibly avert later disease.ADVERSE REACTIONS FOLLOWING VACCINATIONMumps is a very safe vaccine. Most adverse events reported follow-ing MMR vaccine (such as fever, rash, and joint symptoms) areattributable to the measles or rubella components. No adverse reac-tions were reported in large-scale field trials. Subsequently,paroti-tis and fever have been reported rarely. A few cases of orchitis (allsuspect) also have been reported.Rare cases of CNS dysfunction, including cases of deafness, within2 months of mumps vaccination have been reported. The calculated120Mumps10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
Mumpsincidence of CNS reactions is approximately one per million dosesof antigen, a rate lower than the reported background encephalitisrate of 2-6/10,000. The Institute of Medicine (1993) concluded thatevidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationshipbetween the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps vaccine and aseptic menin-gitis, encephalitis, sensorineural deafness, or orchitis.Allergic reactions, including rash, pruritus, and purpura have beentemporally associated with vaccination, but are transient and gener-ally mild.CONTRAINDICATIONS AND PRECAUTIONS TOVACCINATION Persons who have experienced a severe allergic reaction (i.e., hives,swelling of the mouth or throat, difficulty breathing, hypotension,shock) following a prior dose of mumps vaccine or to a vaccinecomponent (e.g., gelatin, neomycin), should generally not be vacci-nated with MMR.In the past, persons with a history of anaphylactic reactions follow-ing egg ingestion were considered to be at increased risk of seriousreactions after receipt of measles- or mumps-containing vaccines,which are produced in chick embryo fibroblasts. However, recentdata suggest that most anaphylactic reactions to measles- andmumps-containing vaccines are not associated with hypersensitivityto egg antigens, but to other components of the vaccines (such asgelatin). The risk for serious allergic reactions such as anaphylaxisfollowing receipt of these vaccines by egg-allergic persons isextremely low and skin-testing with vaccine is not predictive of aller-gic reaction to vaccination. As a result, MMR may be administeredto egg-allergic children without prior routine skin-testing or the useof special protocols.MMR vaccine does not contain penicillin. A history of penicillinallergy is not a contraindication to MMR vaccination.Pregnant womenshould not receive mumps vaccine for theoreticreasons. There is no evidence that mumps vaccine virus causes fetaldamage. Pregnancy should be avoided for 4 weeks after vaccinationwith MMR vaccine.Persons with immunodeficiency or immunosuppressionresult-ing from leukemia, lymphoma, generalized malignancy, immunedeficiency disease, or immunosuppressive therapy should not bevaccinated. However, treatment with low dose (<2 mg/kg/day),alternate day, topical, or aerosolized steroid preparations is not acontraindication to mumps vaccination. Persons whose immuno-suppressive therapy with steroids has been stopped for 1 month maybe vaccinated.Persons with moderate or severe acute illnessshould not be vac-cinated until the illness has resolved. Minor illness (e.g., otitismedia, mild upper respiratory infections), concurrent antibiotic therapy,12110
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
and exposure or recovery from other illnesses, are not contraindication-sto mumps vaccination.Receipt of antibody-containing blood products(e.g., immuneglobulin, whole blood or packed red blood cells, intravenousimmune globulin) may interfere with seroconversion followingmumps vaccination.Vaccine should be given 2 weeks before, ordeferred for at least 3 months following, administration of an anti-body-containing blood product (see chapter on GeneralRecommendations on Immunization, p. 7, for details).

---

I hope that clears things up about Mumps.

On to Rubella -
All about Rubella

quote:

---

CONGENITAL RUBELLA SYNDROME (CRS)Prevention of CRS is the main objective of rubella vaccination pro-grams in the United States.A rubella epidemic in the United States in 1964-1965 resulted in12.5 million cases of rubella infection and about 20,000 newbornswith CRS. The estimated cost of the epidemic was $840 million.This does not include the emotional toll on the families involved.The estimated lifetime cost of one case of CRS today is estimated tobe in excess of $200,000.Infection with rubella virus can be disastrous in early gestation. Thevirus may affect all organs and cause a variety of congenital defects.Infection may lead to fetal death, spontaneous abortion, or prema-ture delivery. The severity of the effects of rubella virus on the fetusdepends largely on the time of gestation at which infection occurs.Up to 85% of infants infected in the first trimester of pregnancy willbe found to be affected if followed after birth. While fetal infectionmay occur throughout pregnancy, defects are rare when infection12511
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
occurs after the 20th week of gestation. The overall risk of defectsduring the third trimester is probably no greater than that associatedwith uncomplicated pregnancies.Congenital infection with rubella virus can affect virtually all organsystems.Deafnessis the most common and often the sole manifes-tation of congenital rubella infection, especially after the 4th monthof gestation.Eye defects, including cataracts, glaucoma, retinopa-thy, and microphthalmia may occur.Cardiac defectssuch aspatent ductus arteriosus, ventricular septal defect, pulmonic steno-sis, and coarctation of the aorta are possible.Neurologic abnor-malities,including microcephaly and mental retardation, and otherabnormalities, including bone lesions, splenomegaly, hepatitis, andthrombocytopenia with purpura may occur.Manifestations of CRS may be delayed from 2 to 4 years. Diabetesmellitus appearing in later childhood occurs frequently in childrenwith CRS. In addition, progressive encephalopathy resembling sub-acute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) has been observed in someolder children with CRS.CRS infants may have low hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers,but may have high titers of neutralizing antibody that may persist foryears. Reinfection may occur. Impaired cell-mediated immunityhas been demonstrated in some children with CRS.LABORATORY DIAGNOSISMany rash illnesses may mimic rubella infection and up to 50% ofrubella infections may be subclinical. The only reliable evidence ofacute rubella infection is the presence of rubella-specific IgM anti-body, demonstration of a significant rise in IgG antibody frompaired acute and convalescent sera, or a positive viral culture forrubella.Rubella virus can be isolatedfrom nasal, blood, throat, urine andcerebrospinal fluid specimens from rubella and CRS cases. Virusmay be isolated from the pharynx 1 week before and until 2 weeksafter rash onset. Although isolation of the virus is diagnostic ofrubella infection, viral cultures are labor intensive and therefore, notdone in many laboratories; they are generally not used for routinediagnosis of rubella. Viral isolation is an extremely valuable epi-demiologic tool, and should be attempted for all suspected cases ofrubella or CRS. A state laboratory or CDC should be consulted fordetails of viral isolation.Serologyis the most common method of confirming the diagnosisof rubella. Acute rubella infection can be serologically confirmed bya significant rise in rubella antibody titer in acute and convalescentserum specimens or by the presence of serum rubella IgM. Serashould be collected as early as possible (within 7­10 days) afteronset of illness, and again 14-21 days (minimum of 7) days later.False-positive serum rubella IgM tests have occurred in persons126Rubella11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P
Page 6
Rubellaoutbreaks are almost always followed by an increase in CRS.Rubella outbreaks in California and Pennsylvania in 1990-1991resulted in 25 cases of CRS in 1990 and 33 cases in 1991. A provi-sional total of 2 CRS cases were reported in 2001. Since 1997, themothers of 83% of infants with CRS were Hispanic women, most ofwhom were born in Latin American or Carribean countries whererubella vaccine is not routinely used, or has only recently begun tobe used.CLASSIFICATION OF RUBELLA CASESCLINICAL CASE DEFINITION OF ACQUIRED RUBELLAA clinical case of rubella is defined as an illness with all of the fol-lowing characteristics: (1) acute onset of generalized maculopapularrash; (2) a temperature >37.2°C (>99°F), if measured; and (3)arthralgia, arthritis, lymphadenopathy, or conjunctivitis. Casesmeeting the measles case definition are excluded. Also excluded arecases with serology compatible with recent measles virus infection.CASE CLASSIFICATION OF ACQUIRED RUBELLAA suspected caseis any generalized rash illness of acute onset. Aprobable casemeets the clinical case definition, has noncontributo-ry or no serologic or virologic testing, and is not epidemiologicallylinked to a laboratory confirmed case. A confirmed caseis labora-tory confirmed or meets the clinical case definition and is epidemio-logically linked to a laboratory confirmed case.CLINICAL CASE DEFINITION OF CONGENITAL RUBELLASYNDROME (CRS)The clinical case definition of CRS is an illness, usually manifestingin infancy, resulting from rubella infection in uteroand characterizedby symptoms from the following categories A) Cataracts, congenital glaucoma, congenital heartdisease (most commonly patent ductus arteriosus orperipheral pulmonary artery stenosis), loss of hearing, pigmentaryretinopathyAssociated symptoms may be B) Purpura, splenomegaly, jaundice, microcephaly, mental retarda-tion, meningoencephalitis, radiolucent bone disease.CASE CLASSIFICATION OF CONGENITAL RUBELLASYNDROMEAn infection-only caseis one with laboratory evidence of infec-tion, but without any clinical symptoms or signs. A suspected casehas some compatible clinical findings, but does not meeting the cri-teria for a probable case. A probable caseis one that is not labo-12911
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
ratory confirmed, has any two complications listed in (A) above orone complication from (A) and one from (B), and lacks evidence ofany other etiology. A confirmed caseis a clinically compatiblecase and is laboratory confirmed. In probable cases, either or bothof the eye-related findings (cataracts and congenital glaucoma)count as a single complication. In cases classified as infection-only,if any compatible signs or symptoms (e.g., hearing loss) are identi-fied later, the case is reclassified as confirmed.

---

especially this part

quote:

---

CONGENITAL RUBELLA SYNDROME (CRS)Prevention of CRS is the main objective of rubella vaccination pro-grams in the United States.A rubella epidemic in the United States in 1964-1965 resulted in12.5 million cases of rubella infection and about 20,000 newbornswith CRS. The estimated cost of the epidemic was $840 million.This does not include the emotional toll on the families involved.The estimated lifetime cost of one case of CRS today is estimated tobe in excess of $200,000.Infection with rubella virus can be disastrous in early gestation. Thevirus may affect all organs and cause a variety of congenital defects.Infection may lead to fetal death, spontaneous abortion, or prema-ture delivery. The severity of the effects of rubella virus on the fetusdepends largely on the time of gestation at which infection occurs.Up to 85% of infants infected in the first trimester of pregnancy willbe found to be affected if followed after birth. While fetal infectionmay occur throughout pregnancy, defects are rare when infection12511
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
occurs after the 20th week of gestation. The overall risk of defectsduring the third trimester is probably no greater than that associatedwith uncomplicated pregnancies.Congenital infection with rubella virus can affect virtually all organsystems.Deafnessis the most common and often the sole manifes-tation of congenital rubella infection, especially after the 4th monthof gestation.Eye defects, including cataracts, glaucoma, retinopa-thy, and microphthalmia may occur.Cardiac defectssuch aspatent ductus arteriosus, ventricular septal defect, pulmonic steno-sis, and coarctation of the aorta are possible.Neurologic abnor-malities,including microcephaly and mental retardation, and otherabnormalities, including bone lesions, splenomegaly, hepatitis, andthrombocytopenia with purpura may occur.Manifestations of CRS may be delayed from 2 to 4 years. Diabetesmellitus appearing in later childhood occurs frequently in childrenwith CRS. In addition, progressive encephalopathy resembling sub-acute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) has been observed in someolder children with CRS.CRS infants may have low hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers,but may have high titers of neutralizing antibody that may persist foryears. Reinfection may occur. Impaired cell-mediated immunityhas been demonstrated in some children with CRS.LABORATORY DIAGNOSISMany rash illnesses may mimic rubella infection and up to 50% ofrubella infections may be subclinical.

---

Again, you are far from the truth - Rubella is not a 'mild' illness.

Ok, into statistics - you state this

quote:

---

Austism is growing at an alarming rate i believe its something like 1 in 250 at the moment and rising. Very nearly a generation of austistics.

---

Ahh...no. Not even near 'a generation'. 1 in 250? That is less than .5% Here is the biggest dangers to children in the UK -
Child Accidents Do you propose that we lockup all the children? Not very realistic.

Now, for the offensive, some facts on the other side of the fence, here -
FAQS about immunization and effectiveness of vaccines

I guess that about ties this one up. As for the risk/benefit arguement, it will only be raised by the uninformed and/or belief minded people (like you). I think the information that I have posted, factually lists the risks of non-immunization clearly. They are by far much more dangerous than that of immunization. As for whether or not it should be an individual decision, well, that would be true if there were no harmful consequences to others invovled! Since this is not the case with these types of diseases, I feel that the public does have a 'say' in protecting itself from contagion.

Last, but not least, is the legal side (again *sigh*). You mis-understand. Of course the Judge was implementing the law - he is a direct representative of the law. When a case is brought before a Judge, he/she decides on the case based on the Law, and how it may (or may not, as the case may be) apply to that case in question. Then he/she makes a ruling, based on that. In some cases, one may appeal this decision. That is also legal. But irregardless, it is a lawful ruling. That was (and is) my point.

Also, it really should have been kept out of the courts by the parents in the first place.

And one further note - if you are going to post statistics, then please list the source, where you got them.

I hope that this puts an end to that particular subject. Now, maybe discussing possibilities for safer vaccines might be interesting...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-08-2003).]

Okkkkk firstly, I was making a point about How to treat the diseases as they are VIRUSES and not BACTERIA. Yes i know the very rare side effects of the diseases.
NetDoctor

What is measles?

quote:

---

Measles is one of the most contagious viral diseases. It is caused by paramyxo virus and is the most unpleasant and the most dangerous of the children's diseases that result in a rash. This is due to the complications of the disease.

---

How is measles transmitted?

quote:

---

Droplets transfer the infections. Although the sick person may be in isolation, the disease may still spread from room to room.
Anybody who has not already had measles can be infected.
Infants up to four months of age will not be infected if their mother has had measles herself because they will be protected by her antibodies.

The incubation period - the time between infection and the outbreak of the condition - is usually one to two weeks.
Patients are infectious from four days before the onset of the rash until five days after it appears.

---

What are the symptoms of measles?

quote:

---

After about 14 days the following symptoms start showing:

A fever at about 39ºC.
A cold.
Coughing, possibly with a barking cough.
Sore throat - the lymph nodes in the throat may swell.
Reddish eyes.
Sensitivity to light.

Greyish spots, the size of grains of sand may appear in the mucous membrane of the mouth just around the molar teeth. These are called Koplik's spots and can be seen before the rash appears.
after three to four days the temperature may fall, although it can run high again when the rash appears.
the rash usually begins around the ears and spreads to the body and the legs within a day or two.
at first the spots are very small - a couple of millimetres - but they double in size quickly and begin to join together.
the spots are a clear red colour.
the temperature, which may run as high as 40ºC, may stay that high for a couple of days. Then it disappears together with the rash, which may leave some brown spots.
after a week the child will be fit again.


Children who have had measles cannot return to school or childcare before they recover and the temperature is gone.

The doctor should give children under the age of one who are exposed to the disease an immunity injection within five days.

In the UK all children between the age of 12 and 18 months are offered the MMR vaccination, which will protect them from measles, mumps and rubella.

---

How are measles treated ?

quote:

---

The treatment is to stay in bed in a cool room without any bright lights. Medicines for coughing and reducing the temperature should only be given after consulting a GP.

---

Future prospects

quote:

---

The doctor should be consulted immediately if the condition of the child gets worse or the temperature stays high.

The doctor must make sure there are no further complications such as:

pneumonia
inflammation of the middle ear (otitis media)
inflammation of the nervous system. Luckily, THIS SELDON HAPPENS AND IS THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE.

Once a person has had measles, they can never catch it again as the disease gives lifelong immunity.

---

MUMPS

NetDoctor
Reviewed by Dr John Pillinger, GP


What is mumps?

quote:

---

Mumps is caused by the paramyxovirus. Of the common childhood illnesses, it is the disease with the longest incubation period and can take as long as three weeks from infection to outbreak.
Nowadays, most children are vaccinated against mumps.
The virus is contagious for about a week before the disease breaks out, which can make it difficult to track down the source of infection.

---

How do you catch mumps?

quote:

---

Mumps is a viral infection spread by airborne droplets from the nose or throat. However, it is the least contagious of the five major children's diseases and requires close contact before infection can occur.

Though small children can get mumps, the disease is most common after the age of two.

Today, most children are vaccinated against mumps with the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccination.

The virus enters the body through the airways, then passes around the body in the bloodstream. It can end up almost everywhere - the kidneys, thyroid gland, pancreas, sexual glands and, not least, the salivary gland. The virus thrives in the parotid salivary glands, which lie in the cheeks just in front of the ears.

---

What are the symptoms of mumps?

quote:

---

Mumps usually begins with two days of discomfort and an increasing temperature. This is followed by an uncomfortable feeling in the jawbone and a swelling of the parotid glands. Often the swelling occurs unevenly, on one side of the face before the other. It is only possible to get mumps in one of the glands. The body temperature may rise to 40oC and the swelling can feel oppressive and sore. The earlobes stick out and the child's face eventually looks very swollen. The child experiences pain when opening their mouth. In mild cases the swelling may only last three to four days, but it can go on for a week or more.

---

How does the doctor make the diagnosis?

quote:

---

Usually the doctor makes the diagnosis based on the symptoms.

---

What complications may arise?

quote:

---

Although the swollen parotid glands and high temperature caused by mumps may be unpleasant, the most serious repercussions involve possible infection of other organs.

In 20 to 30 per cent of the cases of adult men with mumps, the disease infects the testicles (orchitis) causing swelling, pain, soreness and a higher temperature. This often occurs about a week after the disease has broken out, and is a serious infection that may cause sterility.

However, among the few sexually mature men who contract mumps, only HALF get orchitis. Of these patients, only 10 per cent are affected in both testicles, and EVEN THEN IS DOES NOT NECESSARILY CAUSE sterility. If sterility occurs, there is still a chance that fertility may return.

Boys who have not reached puberty and are not sexually mature RARELY get this kind of inflammation of the testicles.

The risk of women contracting oophoritis - inflammation of the ovaries - is even SMALLER than inflammation of the testicles in men. However, should this happen, it has no effect on fertility.

Inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis) is a recognised but UNCOMMON COMPLICATION.

A LESS RARE COMPLICATION of mumps is meningitis, which may appear 3 to 10 days after the onset of mumps. This is an inflammation of the membranes of the brain or spinal cord.

Meningitis is a serious disease, but in CONNECTION with mumps it is USUALLY MILD. However, it still requires close attention and special care of the patient. The symptoms of mumps-meningitis are:

Headache
Aversion to bright light
Possible vomiting
Typically a stiff neck, leaving patients unable to touch their chest with their chin and causing the head to bend slightly backwards.

---

German Measles
What is German Measles ?

quote:

---

German measles (rubella) is an illness caused by a virus. Epidemics tend to break out every three to four years, although the illness is less contagious than measles
and chickenpox.

While most children have measles in their early childhood, a lot do not get German measles until they are quite a bit older: 10 to 20 per cent of 20 to 25-year-olds have never had the disease. In fact, a lot of people have German measles in such a mild form that it is never diagnosed. Today, only very few children get German measles, as most of them are vaccinated

---

How do you get German measles?

quote:

---

German measles has a 'droplet spread'. That is, microscopic drops from the breath of an infected person are carried through the air to a healthy person. The droplets carrying the virus reach the mouth, throat and nose, from where they spread to the rest of the body.

---

What are the signs of German measles?

quote:

---

The patient develops a rash. This typically starts around the ears from where it spreads all over the body in tiny pink spots. The rash changes almost from hour to hour, and will disappear again after about two to three days, requiring no treatment.

Before the rash appears, the patient can suffer a light cold and/or swelling in the neck and base of the skull (due to the enlargement of the lymph nodes).

The period between the time of infection and the actual outbreak of German measles (the incubation period) is usually quite long - between two and three weeks.

---

How is German measles treated?

quote:

---

German measles does not require any special treatment - except perhaps for a few days' rest in bed. However, you will have to consider the fact that the disease is infectious, and can easily spread to other members of the household. The infection period usually lasts from a week before the rash starts to one week after it has disappeared, but is at its worst when the rash is at its peak. Because of the risks to pregnant women associated with the disease (see below), it is an advantage for girls to acquire immunity before puberty.

---

What risks are associated with German measles?

quote:

---

If a pregnant woman is infected with German measles there is a risk of damage to the unborn child. In some cases, the dangers are so high that an abortion is recommended. Fortunately, this is very rare today as most young women have been vaccinated against German measles.

---

------------------------
READ THIS FOR FURTHER INFO Medical Library the paragraph 'Childhood diseases may not be as dangerous as commonly thought'.
------------------------

A healthy, well nourished child with proper care will get through the childhood diseases. After having interviewed over a 1000 families in a six year period , it is always the Grand-parents and Great grand-parents who give the best nursing advice. These are diseases to be respected for sure.
Oh just out of interest, Does the CDC say what the health status of these 1 million children were when they caught measles? Were the majority from 3 rd world countries? interesting one that, just curious.

Also breast-feeding has a role to play also. It used to be that most women had measles, in their childhood and of course antibodies in their blood pass across to the placenta to the baby. Thus giving baby immunity to measles (and what other diseases the mother has had)

Now unfortunately breastfeeding has declined and this natural way of providing immunity has suffered. That is also why vaccination age has been brought down to 8 weeks(Instead of 6 months- weaning was established) I personally wish for my daughters to pass on immunity to my grandchildren.

As for Austism rising, Its staggering, And it soon will be a generation. Autism Society

I didn't agree about your interpretation on the risk/benefits argument. Anyone who has done there research will look at it differently, no two individuals are alike. There are people who want to take the natural route and people who want to rely on the medical route.

The fact that the UK has not made vaccinations compulsory, i.e. it is not the law to have them says it IS up to the individual. It very unfortunate that the father felt the need to bring it to court. The states has 3 ways to opt out of the vaccination program:

Religious reasaons
medical reasons
philosophical or personal reasons

If these childhood diseases were so terrifying, then there would be NO OPT OUT clauses and every country in the world would have it compulsory.

As for this case, the bases of this thread, still hitting the law books!



[This message has been edited by pink (edited 04-09-2003).]

And the winner for the longest post in the Asylum ever goes to......

Well I can't be bothered getting out my tape measure but you two have both pushed the envelope there.

Some thoughts:

1. There is no need to cop and paste whole web pages into the forum.

2. If you wish to draw our attention to specific sections then by all mean quote those sections and highlight relevant points.

3. Otherwise jsut link to the specific page - if we are interested enough we can go and have a look at the article.

4. Posting such large sections (most if not all) of a number of pages probably infringes the 'fair use' element of copyright.

5. Its just plain off putting for people to find such huge threads filled with second hand material.

So although this is fun spare some thought for us casual browsers

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

You are so right! I never wanted to put long posts so sorry emperor

Yes Emps...that is true. However, if you clicked on all those links that I posted, you will see that they are much, much longer than the relevant sections that I quoted. My quotes served their point - to demonstrate that much has been documented on these diseases, and that they are dangerous (very low chance of side-effects, indeed! Hoboy).

However, point well taken. I apologize.

IMHO, pink, you have not addressed my points - merely posted info that I already was aware of. And saying that the effects of the diseases are low-chance things, I find incredulous.

But the main point is, that the risks of non-immunization far outwiegh the risks of immunization. Now, you say that the risks are less of non-immunization, and suggest that the risks of immunization are greater...however, you have failed to prove this...now, I can suggest a lot of things, but this doesn't make it true. At the beginning of this thread, I kinda got the opinion that you are set in your opinion...and despite the facts that I posted, it becomes clear that you are. So no amount of information will change your mind, or bring about at least consideration of the fact that you are wrong. Therefore, I see no reason to continue this further.

Also, you seem to be giving the father here the fault (he took it to court). I already explained that it takes two to fight. I have already explained the legal aspects of the situation. And I have already explained where the responsibility of the parents lie. Because of this, I have already answered the question posed by this thread. No, the judge is not taking away Human Rights.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-10-2003).]

ok web we agree to disagree, you are obviously missing the point of the case here. In britain we do not have it compulsory to vaccinate. The fact the judge handed down that judgement has every british parent wondering what the hell? Not to mention the papers. I have it on good authority it will be over turned, as there was another similar case 1998 and they won. But thanks for your opinion WebShaman it was fun.

You still don't get it, do you? I understood very well about the non-compulsory thing in the UK...it was explained already. My points were never aimed at that, obviously.

If it gets overturned, then that is also a legal recourse. But then, I even said that earlier.

But you posted the question 'Is this judge taking away Human Rights?' - and the answer is a resounding No. Irregardless of how the call falls, no Human Rights are being taken away.

This is an E-MAIL i recieved this morning. I guess there are alot bodies? groups? i guess that think it has taken away human rights. Just thought i would share

WHAT DOCTORS DON?T TELL YOU - E-NEWS BROADCAST No.30 - 10 Apr 03

Please feel free to email this broadcast to any friends you feel would
appreciate receiving it.

VACCINATIONS: It?s human rights, stupid

Last week we reported on a case where a mother was being forced by a court
order to vaccinate her daughter. Needless to say, it attracted an enormous
response from you, but almost to a man (and woman) you wanted to know names
etc. in order to mount an effective protest.

Enews has this week discovered that she has an injunction against her that
prevents her from speaking to the press (it?s supposedly in place to protect
her daughter).
The judgement that forces her to vaccinate her child is currently in draft
form, and it will be finally made at Winchester High Court within the next
three weeks. Thereafter she will have two weeks to appeal against the
judgement.

The case has already cost the taxpayer £250,000 (both parties are on legal
aid) and this bill will continue to mount as the appeals process starts.

So what can you do? Write to your local MP as the judgement is a CLEAR BREACH OF HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION, and especially do so if you happen to
live in the Bournemouth area. That?s where the woman herself lives and it
would be great if your local MP could take up the case.

And if you do live in the region, please turn up on the day at Winchester
High Court when the judgement will be made. It will be a public hearing, so
some of you will be admitted to the public gallery. We reckon it?s going to
be heard between April 22 and 30, but she will only get two to three days
notice of the date. As soon as she knows, we?ll pass on the date.

And I repeat, as long as the legal avenues get followed, no human rights are being taken away. Otherwise, then yes, I would tend to agree. So, legal recourse...is a legitimate path.

It would be namely different, if the Judges ruling were to stand, without any chance of reddressing it legally. In fact, it would be different, if the Government just came out and said 'This is how it is. Period' That would namely not be democractic, now would it?

While doing my reasearch on Trevor Gunn, i came across this info. Found it interesting.
http://www.whale.to/m/gunn6.html
http://www.whale.to/v/rubella9.html