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

Pink- Your arguement that these illnesses can be survived and aren't harmful except in rare cases punches holes in itself because of the basic fact that vaccines exist for these diseases.

Vaccines aren't created 'just because', they are created to alleviate a serious health threat (read as "Serious Health Threat"). There was a very specific problem that was happening with these, to my understanding, highly communicable diseases. So yeah... maybe only 1 in 100,000 kids is made deaf by the mumps or dies from the measles, but when an un-immunized population gets ill with these diseases we're looking at millions of children that can get sick from it. That's a whole hell of a lot of kids. The communicability is a big part of the issue that hasn't been addressed yet. The faster and easier it is to spread the more common the 'rare' cases become.

It costs a lot of money to make, test, and distribute vaccines. There had to be a reason for it to be done.

So I pose a question to you. Why were these vaccines made in the first place if these diseases aren't serious(fatal)?

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 04-12-2003).]

My dad lost his hearing in his right ear due to a mumps infection when he was 10. That would have been... 1943. I haven't heard of anyone recently who's suffered from this. Must be due to the vaccinations they had to have...
(sorry if this is twisting the knife on this topic...)

Bodhi - Cell 617

Not at all bodhi23, mumps vaccine didn't come out until 1972, The older the child the more serious the disease. In answer to your post
GrythusDraconis its quite simply money. Whenyou have countries as your clients and governements marketing your products its very very lucrative.
While looking through my emails i came across this thought it would be interesting:

My apologies to everyone, i couldnt get the link to work so posted the full interview.

*******************************************************************

By Geoff Metcalf
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Michael Belkin was a financial forecaster and statistician
uninvolved in medical policy -- that is, until his infant daughter died
after receiving a hepatitis B vaccine. Since then, Belkin has
devoted himself to battling mandated immunizations and the
powerful forces involved. Belkin has testified before Congress in
opposition to forced hepatitis B vaccinations. WorldNetDaily writer
and talk show host Geoff Metcalf recently interviewed Belkin about
his work in combating government-mandated vaccines.
Metcalf's daily streaming radio show can be heard on TalkNetDaily
weekdays from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time.

*****************************************************


QUESTION:: How did you first get involved in the issue of mandated
hepatitis B vaccines?

ANSWER: I learned about it the hard way. My daughter died about 15
hours after getting the second hepatitis B shot at the age of five
weeks. I did an investigation and the first thing I found out was that
hepatitis B is a disease of basically intravenous drug users and
promiscuous homosexuals and heterosexuals. It is a blood-
transmitted, sexually-transmitted disease. And they are giving it to
babies.

Q: Children are not at risk but they are required to get this shot?

A: Yes. And therein lies a huge story. The way that vaccines are
licensed and regulated and marketed in this country is a major
scandal. Under the Freedom of Information Act, I got the adverse
reaction report from the FDA. It turned out that as of two years ago,
there were 25,000 adverse reactions reported to the FDA, including
440 deaths. The median onset was one day. I'm trained in
statistics. I'm a graduate of U.C. Berkeley and am a former
strategist at Solomon Brothers. I work with data -- I work with
statistics. I provide econometric and financial market forecasts for
some of the largest financial institutions in the world.

When I saw this data and started going through this, over and over I
found the same thing that happened to my daughter. In the middle
of the night, she became extremely agitated -- having tremors and
making funny sounds -- and then she just went out like a light. That
was it. She couldn't be resuscitated.

They found a swollen brain in the autopsy report. My wife's brother
is a doctor in the UK studying neurology and we talked to him right
away. He said, "Swollen brain -- that's a vaccine!"


Q: How often is this happening?

A: This obscure panel under the Centers for Disease Control
decided in 1991 that they were going to give the hepatitis B vaccine
to everybody.

If you get an acute case of hepatitis B, you may end up in the
hospital, but you will survive. In 90-95 percent of the cases, you get
permanent immunity just like you would with the flu or anything
else. In 5 percent of the cases, you will wind up with liver problems,
probably decades later.

Q: So what are they trying to do with this vaccine?


A: They are trying to eliminate some rare form of liver problems that
comes from risky behavior by giving this vaccine to everyone.

Q: Perhaps it's the cynic in me, but this sounds like a classic case
of the drug companies pimping a product for profit.

A: Absolutely. In the United States, you have to get a product
licensed by the FDA. You do a phase-one, phase-two and phase-
three trial. Then, if they like the results, you get it licensed. The
next step is to go to the Centers for Disease Control. In the case of
vaccines, they have this particular panel called the ACIP [Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices]. I've sat through their
meetings and know pretty much what goes on there. Basically,
they rubber-stamp whatever the drug companies put in front of
them.

But this committee comes up with language saying, such and
such a person should get this vaccine at such and such a date.
Then the drug company lobbyists take that recommendation from
the ACIP and they go around to all the state legislatures and state
health departments saying, "Did you see what the CDC says to
do?" And the American Academy of Pediatrics, of course, jumps
in. There are huge donations flowing back and forth between all
these people. It's a huge conflict of interest.

Q: How many states mandate this? In California, at least for now,
you still have the opportunity to say, "No, I don't want that
vaccine."

A: It's a state-by-state situation. There are philosophical
exemptions, medical exemptions and religious exemptions,
depending on the state you live in.

Q: We just told our doctor no, and he shrugged it off as no big
deal.

A: You can still get investigated by state social services
departments. For instance, if you don't vaccinate your child, they
will exclude him from school. You really have to know what you're
doing. You have to know the law, and you have to come back at
them and use the law in your favor. You might have to get a lawyer
if you want to send your kid to public school these days.

What you're up against is basically the drug companies and the
Centers for Disease Control. It's for the profit of Smith-Cline -- that's
who makes this vaccine. They are using the government as their
marketing department.


Q: You can call them a marketing department. Some would call
them a pimp.

A: Yes. They're saying you have to take this vaccine, inject it into
your body and pay us for it. And if you die or develop adverse
reactions that are reported to the FDA, tough luck.

Q: What recourse do you have to negative or the most negative
consequences of taking this drug?

A: They have ring-shielded themselves with a government
compensation program. By the way, after I started doing my
research, I started being contacted by all kinds of people. I am
constantly being contacted by parents whose children had
convulsions, became autistic, had brain damage or died, as well as
adults who developed progressive neurological disease. You start
out with joint pains and it eventually develops into demyelination of
the brain -- things resembling multiple sclerosis. But if this
happens to you, first of all, they tell you it's a coincidence -- you're
just dreaming. It's like eating Cheerios and getting in a car accident
and blaming it on the cheerios.


Q: This sounds like what they told the guys with Agent Orange, the
Gulf War Syndrome victims and guys who had problems with the
anthrax vaccine. There is a common thread here.

A: Right. It is really a militarization of the U.S. culture, because
those were all soldiers, and I have sympathy for them. But
generally, you are not considered to be in the Army and have to
take these toxic substances with no choice in the matter if you're a
civilian. It turns out the Centers for Disease Control is basically a
military organization. If you look at them, they wear uniforms. They
dress up in uniforms and march around their compound one day a
week. They take great pride in being a paramilitary organization.

Q: I didn't know that.

A: It is very strange. They look like Col. Klink of "Hogan's Heroes"
to me. It would be funny if that were all they were. But what they
are doing is more like a vaccine Gestapo, and it's not funny. By the
time you get around to going to your pediatrician or going to
school, they tell you that you have to have this toxic substance for
a sexually transmitted disease -- either as one of the first things in
life or as the cost of admission to school. It's ridiculous. They have
completely usurped liberty in this country.

Q: There is a gaggle of websites with information. Where should we
direct readers?

A: There are many groups springing up across the country. It's
almost like citizens' resistance to the Vietnam war. In many
states, there are local organizations that are trying to get the word
out about vaccine choice and the risks of taking vaccines, because
the doctors are not telling you about it at all. They tend to say, oh,
it's perfectly safe -- a magic bullet. Then they disown you if you get
an adverse reaction or your kid dies or something. I can't even get
our medical records out of the pediatrician.

Q: Why? Your daughter died.

A: I requested it by registered mail. The doctor is just refusing. I'm
not unique. This is pretty standard when it happens to parents. The
doctors are brainwashed by the drug companies. The drug
companies buy them lunch all day long.

Q: Are the doctors afraid of malpractice suits?

A: They are in denial. It's almost like a huge psychological
brainwashing. They think that they are preventing disease, that
they are like God's angels banishing disease and that they can't do
any wrong. Then they refuse to admit it. This is very standard.

Q: I found one website that I want to direct our readers to. You
participated in those congressional hearings back in May of 1999.

A: Yes.

Q: Whatever became of them?

A: It seemed nothing at the time. I was the first witness on the first
victims' panel in the first hearing into hepatitis B vaccine. Hearings
were conducted by Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana, who is
chairman of the Government Reform Committee. Basically, it was a
very strange experience. I went down there and I was attacked by
the Democrats. They attacked the victim. [Rep. Henry] Waxman
and his ilk tried to denigrate me. They said, "You don't know what
you're talking about. It's all just an accident." In other words, the
Democrats are talking the mainstream health department-drug
company policy line. The Republicans are the ones who are
digging to get at the truth. It was completely turned upside down
from the way I thought it would be.

A: They are in denial. It's almost like a huge psychological
brainwashing. They think that they are preventing disease, that
they are like God's angels banishing disease and that they can't do
any wrong. Then they refuse to admit it. This is very standard.

Q: I found one website that I want to direct our readers to. You
participated in those congressional hearings back in May of 1999.

A: Yes.

Q: Whatever became of them?

A: It seemed nothing at the time. I was the first witness on the first
victims' panel in the first hearing into hepatitis B vaccine. Hearings
were conducted by Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana, who is
chairman of the Government Reform Committee. Basically, it was a
very strange experience. I went down there and I was attacked by
the Democrats. They attacked the victim. [Rep. Henry] Waxman
and his ilk tried to denigrate me. They said, "You don't know what
you're talking about. It's all just an accident." In other words, the
Democrats are talking the mainstream health department-drug
company policy line. The Republicans are the ones who are
digging to get at the truth. It was completely turned upside down
from the way I thought it would be.

In answer to your question, it seemed like it was an exercise in
futility. But two months after those hearings, there was a flurry of
action. Thymerasol, which is a mercury-containing preservative in
all vaccines -- mercury is the second most toxic metal there is -- is
being removed from all vaccines because they realize they are
giving so many vaccines that it is way over the permissible level.

Q: And this stuff is cumulative too, right?

A: Yes. And mercury is one of the things that crosses the blood-
brain barrier, so it might be responsible for some of these adverse
reactions. It's probably not the only thing.

Q: So what are they doing?


A: Do you think they are withdrawing all the vaccines that are out
there on the market? No way! That would cost money.

Q: So are they using them up?

A: Yes. So when you go into a doctor and he gives you a vaccine,
it probably still has thymerasol in it because they are working
through the inventory. It is not cost-effective to remove a harmful
product from the market.

Q: Even if it's killing people?

A: Yeah. Now Dan Burton has just issued a request to Health and
Human Services, Donna Shalala, who is the one who is on top of
CDC and everything, requesting that they immediately remove all
thymerasol-containing vaccines in the United States. But she is
not even answering his letters.
Q: Barbara Fisher, the co-founder and president of the National
Vaccine Information Center, filed a couple of requests under the
Freedom Of Information Act. Has she ever had any response to
those?

A: No. I work with the National Vaccine Information Center, that's
the website you referenced. I'm a volunteer on the hepatitis B
program with them. I went down there and testified at the ACIP and
we submitted a FOIA [Freedom Of Information Act] request a year
or two ago.

Q: Basically asking federal health agencies to release public
copies of peer-reviewed scientific studies?

A: Right. The data they used to show that the hepatitis B vaccine
was safe to give to newborn infants and to everyone else. Science
is supposed to work like this: You're supposed to do a study, it's
supposed to be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal,
and then it's legitimate science.

Q: Public record -- anybody should be able to get it.

A: Yes. The CDC hardly ever does that. But I managed to ambush
the chairman of the ACIP -- he was chairman in 1991 -- I ambushed
him a short time ago in New York at the New York Cornell Medical
School when he was giving a lecture on vaccines in the new
millennium. I asked him -- and I have a tape of it -- "What published
peer-reviewed study did you use in 1991, when you were chairman,
to give this vaccine, the hepatitis B vaccine, to newborn infants?"
There was never any vaccine given to newborn infants before this
one.

Q: And what was his answer?

A: His answer was: "You are quite right. There was no published
peer-reviewed study."

I just gave a talk on this issue and the title of the talk was "Shoot
first and ask questions later." That's what they are doing. They are
giving these vaccines without knowing if they are safe. And then
when the adverse reactions come in, they just go into a drawer at
the FDA and nothing is done.

Q: This lack of informed consent -- it has sparked fear and distrust
of all vaccines. Haven't they reached the point of diminishing return
where it would be in their best interest, if they still want to peddle
this stuff, to release the peer-reviewed data so people can see it is
safe?

A: The study wasn't done! That's the problem. They have nothing to
release. That is what I got him to admit.

Q: Well then, it should be a no-brainer. You simply withdraw the
drug.

A: This is total scientific fraud. And you get these leaders of the
CDC and people going up there saying, "Well, parents don't know
what they are talking about. They are making unscientific
judgments." To these guys, it is only true science if the
government says it's true. And they don't have to have any
evidence. They don't have to publish anything. They just say, "If we
say it's true, it's true, and if we say it's not true, it's not true."

Q: Like global warming?

A: Yeah, but this is really despotic, intrusive. It reaches way down
into your veins. This is not just some rule you have to follow -- this
is going into your body.

Q: I found somewhere a piece that revealed the hepatitis B vaccine
reaction reports actually outnumber the disease reports.

A: Yes, in newborns. This is a rare disease. You're not liable to
contract it. There are 10,000 cases reported to CDC a year -- about
50 in the 0 to 1 age group. Now I went through the data, and there
are 20 times more adverse reactions reports to the FDA after
vaccination -- convulsions, liver damage, brain damage.

Q: They should withdraw the drug and do the studies they didn't do
in the first place.


A: Listen, I'm in business. I have nothing against the free market. I
mean this is what I do. I predict and give financial market forecasts.
I came from the Austrian school before this -- where the free
market always gets everything right. But this is a case when you
have these monopolistic pharmaceutical manufacturers ramming
unsafe products down -- without even testing them -- and then
using the government to mandate that you have to take them.
There is something seriously wrong with the way that vaccines are
regulated.

Q: Hepatitis B is not widely contagious. That makes it different
from some of these other diseases they push vaccines for, doesn't
it?

A: It is contagious with blood or anal sex. That is how most of the
people getting this disease contract it. It's not something you are
going to get by breathing in the air. You really have to share bodily
fluids.

Q: Statistically, the prospect of an infant getting it is pretty remote.

A: There are four million babies born every year in the U.S., but
only 50-something cases of hepatitis B. That's a .001 percent
incidence. And the babies that got it probably got it because their
mother had the virus. That's the bottom line. In newborns, it's
basically a crime against humanity to give them this vaccine.

Q: How does the CDC defend the indefensible in this regard?

A: They lie. I'm very sensitive to this because, on Wall Street
where I work, you can't just make up numbers.

Q: If you do, you go to jail.

A: I mean you can do it, but eventually you'll get caught.

The Centers for Disease Control -- their own statistics show
approximately 10,000 cases of hepatitis B a year in the U.S.

Q: So what do they say is their reason for having to take the
hepatitis B vaccine?

A: They say there are 350,000 cases a year. So you go to them
and ask, "How did you get that number of cases when in your own
table it says 10,000? You claim there are 250 to 350,000." They
waffle and say, "We did an unpublished study that 'suggested' that
that was the figure."

When you start investigating the CDC and what they are saying
about vaccines, nothing checks out.

Q: Who is responsible for the oversight of the CDC? Is it
Congress?

A: Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala.

Q: Donna Shalala. So ultimately, culpability in this mess has to fall
on her desk?

A: Are you kidding? Just pass the buck. If you think that Ford-
Firestone is a big scandal -- and I don't want to belittle it, my
sympathies go to those victims of that mess -- but there were 100
deaths linked to the tires. There are something like 500 deaths
reported to the FDA from hep B vaccines. The former FDA
Commissioner Kessler has said vaccine adverse reactions are
underreported by a factor of 10. We're talking hundreds of
thousands of adverse reactions.

Q: Hepatitis B apparently is not the killer many of us thought it was
-- or were led to believe it was. It's a bad thing to get but, frankly, it
is not as lethal as suggested.

A: Exactly. Ninety-some percent of the cases will pass.

Q: Also, the U.S. and Western Europe traditionally have always
had the lowest rates of hepatitis B in the world.

A: Right. It's more endemic in Asia and Africa. By the way, the
reason hepatitis B is endemic in those areas is because of another
vaccination program gone bad -- the polio vaccine.

These polio viruses are cultured in monkey kidneys, and they didn't
realize there was this cancer-causing virus in it -- which we're all
carrying around -- and they are finding in cancers now. But that's
another story.

When they did these polio vaccine programs in the past in places
like Taiwan and China, guess what? It's not cost-effective for
everyone to have his or her own needle. But everyone has to take
the vaccine and you only have one needle. Guess how a rare blood
disease like hepatitis B got spread around? The World Health
Organization admits this. They have data that show that places
where hepatitis B is endemic are areas where previous vaccine
programs shared needles and transmitted a rare blood disease.

Q: So who is responsible for spreading the disease?

A: It's medicine. The whole idea of universal immunization, to me,
is a crock. They take credit for eliminating all these diseases. In
fact, the incidence of these diseases declined before the
introduction of most vaccines due to the improvements in sanitation
and nutrition.

Q: Where is all this heading?

A: This is heading to a universal AIDS vaccine. It's going to be
universally mandated. That's what they are working towards.

Q: How do the recommendations of some government bureaucrat
turn into state law that mandates immunization?

A: The drug companies have co-opted the system -- the regulatory
and the legal system. There's a doctor in upstate New York who
thinks he's saving humanity by not letting kids go to school unless
they get this vaccine.

Q: He refuses to give up the federal money he will get for
complying with the mandate.

A: Partly, he is being bribed. But you know who's behind that?
Hillary C*****n. Vaccines for children. This is the one part of their
health program that actually went into business. They got a bunch
of government money devoted to mass immunization programs and
they have instituted these intrusive mandates at the state level. But
it is really the drug company lobbyists who are doing it. They are
very skilled. They set up these bogus organizations where it looks
like there are parents lobbying for the vaccine. And usually the
effort is funded and set up by the drug company.

Q: Business and government together in partnership sounds not
unlike fascism to some folks.

A: I'm afraid so. You know, the Nazis were big on forced
vaccinations too.

Q: I also discovered that federal health officials actually give state
health officials money to force these hepatitis B vaccinations. What
is that all about?

A: Yes, there are billions of dollars in this. This gets so intrusive.
There is really a "Mark of the Beast" angle to this whole thing.
Revelation talks about how you can't do anything without the mark.
I'm not saying the vaccine is the whole story, but it is one area
where there is this sinister force injecting noxious poisons into your
veins -- into your children's veins.

There are ways to escape. I'm not saying we are in a total police
state yet. It depends on which state you live in. You need to know
how the laws work and you need to take the exemptions. And if
you have a doctor who doesn't know the kind of things I'm talking
about, or they say vaccines are perfectly safe and there is no such
thing as a vaccine adverse reaction, or that the adverse reactions
are very rare events and much less common than the disease, in
the case of hepatitis B they are wrong, and you should get another
doctor. If you're a doctor reading this and you believe that, you had
better educate yourself.


(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_metcalf_news/20001203_xngme_vaccines_t.shtml)

*Sigh* My head hurts, from that stone wall...ouch!

Well, I'm officially done with this thread...don't even want to go into Hepititus...which my Uncle recently passed away from...and not to mention the fact on how contagious it is...or the various strains...

Nope. I'm done here...

Sorry to here that WebShaman

pink: I'm sorry but anyone engaged in a discussion which includes this:

quote:

---

Q: Business and government together in partnership sounds not
unlike fascism to some folks.

A: I'm afraid so. You know, the Nazis were big on forced
vaccinations too.

---

can kiss goodbye to any kind of credibility they had (which wasn't very much at all - some radio talk show host and an angry and upset father - what was your point?).

Also your copy and paste has gone wrong as there are bits missing and bit repeated making it tricky to follow.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Finally found the link that works:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19666

I only repeated one paragraph, and there is nothing missing. Maybe you just didnt like what you were reading emperor.

And doesn't always take someone who has a personal interest, to start finding out the truth? Finding out why his daughter died, led on to finding things out about what goes on behind the scenes.

As for discrediting someone because you may not like what they have to say, i expected that from governments .......not individuals.

pink: Stuff missing? Like here:

quote:

---

Q: Whatever became of them?

A: It seemed nothing at the time. I was the first witness on the first
victims' panel in the first hearing into hepatitis B vaccine. Hearings
were conducted by Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana, who is
chairman of the Government Reform Committee. Basically, it was a
very strange experience. I went down there and I was attacked by
the Democrats. They attacked the victim. [Rep. Henry] Waxman
and his ilk tried to denigrate me. They said, "You don't know what
you're talking about. It's all just an accident." In other words, the
Democrats are talking the mainstream health department-drug
company policy line. The Republicans are the ones who are
digging to get at the truth. It was completely turned upside down
from the way I thought it would be.

<-----------------------------------

A: They are in denial. It's almost like a huge psychological
brainwashing. They think that they are preventing disease, that
they are like God's angels banishing disease and that they can't do
any wrong. Then they refuse to admit it. This is very standard.

---

And you asked if I liked what I read? I was pretty indifferent - its opinion not evidence and I an get that down the pub if I wanted it.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Ok emperor i have had a look and the paragraph you are referring to is where i repeated by mistake and abit further down its all there no missing parts.

So do you mean opinions based on his research? Which would mean, nooooo you would not get that down the pub. I thought he was a financial forecaster and statistician uninvolved in medical policy? They usually go for evidence don't they?

Ok my mistake (lol) everyone who isnt working for the goverment have opinions.


[This message has been edited by pink (edited 04-12-2003).]

Hi

I am from the UK and have just spent the last 30-40 minutes reading all these mails. I have to say that I am very much in support of Pink of this matter.

I am also concerned about the bit on a vegan mum deliberately malnourishing her child, this seems to present the case that all vegan parents are neglectful if they raise their children vegan too. It is proven fact that a proper and considered vegan diet can be very healthy for a child, it is only when not monitored or properly thoughr through that problems occur. I know many vegan familes where the babies and children are in superb health.

This leads to the next point - that it is diet that is the overriding factor in determining how healthy someone is, yes there are others such as genetics, stress levels to name but two, but diet it key.

In both the US and UK obesity has become a big problem for children and adult. Recent reports have also cited the junk food culture that is so pervasive in Western societies as being very deterimental to children's health. It seems we are so will to take the quick and easy option with everything. Buying ready meals and microwave food one example, drinking fizzy drinks such as Coke and other drinks made mostly from chemicals and artifical ingredients another, popping pills and drugs down your child's throat another, vaccination another, the list could go on.

Those that blindly follow the vaccination theory do so because they believe what the doctor tells them, their friends reinforce this, the courts reinforce it. Those that dare to stand up and really and properly look into vaccines and decide they are not for their children do so because they have become informed and educated. Simply going to multiple Government and health services sources for info can not possibly make you informed or educated, they all say the same thing.

Vaccination "science" is fatally flawed. It is widely known that pharma companies pay "professionals" to write a favourable report. Studies in medical journals are written based on info that the drug companies have given them and then presented as independent and factual. The safety reports are done by the companies who stand to make billions for the global sale of the vaccine - are they really going to give true accounts of side effects?

I could go on.

These mothers and many other parents in their shoes are REALLY informed, they have discovered these facts for themselves and many more. They are not making their decision purely on an irrational fear of vaccine side effects but genuine concerns about the above aspects. On the other hand, most people who do vaccinate do it mainly out of fear that their child will be struck down with one or more of these supposedly terrible illnesses if they do not. I would rather be in the educated camp, at least from there you can make a balanced decision.

Once you have made a reasoned decision it is not up to anyone else to challenge that, after all it is very unusual for a non-vaccinating to challenge a vaccinating family on their decision but very common the other way round.

In the UK we pride ourselves on having the world's oldest democracy and real freedoms in speech, movement, healthcare, education and much more. It is absolutely and totally wrong that an educated and reasoned decision of the child's primary carer can be overturned by an ill-informed and poorly educated judge who will never have any further dealings with the children or families involved.

If we have voluntary vaccinations then that should mean just that. A judge should not then turn round overrule that law. Where will this stop? Will your so-called friends or social workers have unvaccinated children brought before courts all over the land, saying they have the child's best interests at heart?

Aycle
father of 4 unvaccinated and healthy children
Co-founder and director
Vaccine Information Service http://www.vaccine-info.com
enquiries@vaccine-info.com

Very nice to meet you Aycle....I had no idea you knew about this board.... Still trying to help the two mothers as they lost their court case. If you have any ideas email me, but i fear that this all has to do with ex partners getting there own back and less to do with what is in the childs best interest.

Measles on the Rise in Britain (Third Headline down)

Applicable and noteworthy. Though the number of cases in proportion to the population is really not that high, the correlation between the drop in immunizations and the increase in measles cases can't be ignored.

And with regards to the human rights violation question posed, I would have to say no, human rights were not infringed upon by the judge's decision. Regardless of the fact that the UK has not had compulsory vaccinations since 1946, the judge seemed to be making the decision with the welfare of the child and the general populous in mind. My two-cents.

Also, here is an article regarding the opinion of the World Health Organization regarding the safety of the MMR vaccine.

{edit- location of article &input of WHO article}




[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 08-09-2003).]

In the article it never stated that out of the 308 cases whether they were all vaccinated with the MMR or unvaccinated or even vaccinated with the single measles vaccination. I guess we will never know because of the embrassment if it turned out that all were vaccinated with the meales whether by single or MMR.


This statement is very true:
The theory is that if they're not vaccinated, they're putting other
children at risk. Of course it's illogical, because if vaccines work &
the other children are vaccinated, they're protected. It's only if
vaccines are ineffective that an unvaccinated child puts vaccinated
children at risk - and if they're ineffective, why would you give them?!


I also find it hard to believe that vaccinating two children is really going to help the populous when about 15% to 20% (If the figures are to be believed) are not vaccinating for whatever reason. Most parents very rarely decide to unvaccinate there children. Most have opted for the single measles as they feel comfortable with that
compromise . But of course there are no figures of how many parents are going for the single option. So is that why we havent seen an epidemic like they have been saying for 6 years now? If the figure For MMR is 80% maybe the figure for the single option is 15%?

As far as i'm concerned, its the papers way of drumming up support for the MMR by scaring parents, just my two cents worth

quote:

---

The theory is that if they're not vaccinated, they're putting other children at risk. Of course it's illogical, because if vaccines work & the other children are vaccinated, they're protected. It's only if vaccines are ineffective that an unvaccinated child puts vaccinated children at risk - and if they're ineffective, why would you give them?!

---

First off, where does this statement come from? (Source?) And here is the issue I have with that statement: That theory is only illogical if the unvaccinated child is never in contact with another unvaccinated child. The problem isn't the one or two children putting the vaccinated public at risk, but the portion that is not vaccinated.
The population of the UK is somewhere around 60 million people. If 20% of the population is not vaccinated (about 12 million people) it is simply unreasonable to assume that the unvaccinated will be isolated from each other. If a major outbreak were to occur amongst those 12 million, the general populous does suffer because who carries the burden on the health care system?
(disclaimer: I know these numbers are based on whole population and not just on children)
Here is an example of just that type of situation occuring.

quote:

---

Katz said some religious groups in the United States are given exemptions from childhood vaccinations and that where children from such families group together, there have been outbreaks of disease.
For instance, he said a single elementary school in Colorado recently had eight cases of whooping cough, one of the diseases included in the MMR shot, after a cluster of unprotected children were enrolled there.

---

Whole Article


You wanted some figures about the single measles vaccine, here they are:

quote:

---

The Department of Health has confirmed 13,000 children in the UK received the single measles vaccine last year.

---

Here is the article that the information came from.

And just out of curiousity... From what I have read, the MMR vaccine came out in 1988. Have there been any studies that show a rise in autism between children born before 1988 and children born after? It would seem to me that if MMR were a risk factor for autism, there would be a significant jump in those numbers. I've not seen anything to support this.

The last thing i do, is believe newspaper reports. I KNOW for a fact that the government in the uk have not collected statistics on children going for the single vaccine because in the beginning they thought it was a fad and ignored it. They might have started collecting about a year go when they realized that parents ment business, but again its not a true figure is it, as parents started obtaining the single vaccine 6 years ago when the scare broke.

If you had been doing research like me for the last 6 and half odd years and read all the medical evidence and worked for Dr Andrew Wakefield Plus had prominent american scientists come out in support of your work, then maybe you would have seen the reports. But we won't find out the real truth for many years yet, and it seems america is leading the the way in that department. But like i said, if so many parents haven't vaccinated there children where is the epidemic they say is going to happen for the last 6 years? Some where i think figures have been grossly changed as a scare mongering tactic to scare parents to vaccinate there child. Thats why i never believe papers, i get my info from the horses mouth. I'll say again, most parents very rarely not nothing about vaccination.

One thing though. The 11 year old that was involved in the court case, said to the judge she didn't want the MMR but she wanted the men C. When someone says no, and then that person is forced to do it, i would think that forced medication would be a breech of her Human Rights.

Ummm...can I point this out pink?

quote:

---

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.

---

This quote comes straight out of your own material on Measles...why is it you are trying to convince us that immunisations are bad things, whilst quoting material on the various diseases that actually tells people to get the vaccinations for their children. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a bit of a contradiction there?

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, the original thread was on human rights. If some people in the process become educated then great. As to medical material they all have two sides to it. You can always find arguements or facts that have two sides, thats why this debate about MMR has been going on for 6 years now. If every single doctor and scientist came out in support of MMR, we wouldn't have a problem now would we. But the fact remains there are scientists and doctors who believe that The DTP and MMR is not all it seems. The most important thing here to remember is that parents should have the choice. Saying veccines are 'Bad' maybe not be the right word to use. But vaccines DO have side effects and alot of the side effects parents are only now becoming educated about usually after something tragic happening. And as a consequence they choose either nothing or the single vaccine option.

That quote was posted to explain symptoms and was part of the literiture plus as i have said before its peoples choice. Yes i'm personally against vaccines, but if a friend came up to me and said what should i do , i would advise her to do with what she is comfortable with and do research.

Okay, pink. I'm going to give one last try at having a rational discussion here. After the previous insult to my intelligence however, I am not sure why.

First, I asked you a very honest question. I wanted to see evidence that there had been an increase in autism cases after the introduction of the MMR vaccine in 1988. Thank you for your dripping condescension about my lack of research. I have since read from the UK DOH website that there were no increases in the autism rates after the MMR introduction. So, I won't ask you again. And, I also expect a scathing comment about how you don't trust the DOH. (Sorry, bitdamaged, I know you linked to this info before...)

Secondly, none of the information I linked to came from newspapers. All of my links came from credible news services and the World Health Organization. If they aren't credible, I don't know who is.

Thirdly, I have been doing some more research on the causes of autism, and this source explains it the most succinctly.

quote:

---

Most research suggests that people with autism have irregular brain structures. More study is needed to determine the cause of these irregularities, but current research indicates they are inherited. Parents who have had one child with autism are more likely than other couples to have a second child with autism.

---

I invite you to read the entire article. But again, this is a widely publicized source, and likely to garner your distrust. So please feel free to ask any of these fine people about their credibility and objectivity.

Now, I am not trying to belittle your research. I find it commendable that you have spent six years doing research on the topic. Given the links you've provided (several of which no longer work), a few of them being reports coming from those who are not medical doctors or in pharmacology, doing some additional reading from sources supporting the MMR/autism link that you have not provided, and the fact that there is overwhelming support to the contrary, I have a difficult time supporting this purposed link.

And I wanted to address this...

quote:

---

The 11 year old that was involved in the court case, said to the judge she didn't want the MMR but she wanted the men C. When someone says no, and then that person is forced to do it, i would think that forced medication would be a breech of her Human Rights.

---

Are you saying that if a child says no to an injection (of any kind), continuing to do so is a violation of their rights? The majority of children I hear going into doctor's offices are screaming "no!" when it comes time for their shot, including plenty of 11 year olds. That's a lot of human rights violations.

And here is a final hypothetical analogy:
It is recommended to many senior citizens to take aspirin daily to reduce their chances for stroke and heart attack. A certain percentage of senior citizens get Alzheimer's disease. Some of them develop Alzheimer's symptoms not long after they start taking aspirin regularly. There could be a possible connection here... The vast majority of seniors benefit from this therapy, it increases longevity and quality of life. But there is this small risk involved. The question: Does one forego treatment that is documented to be proven to increase longevity and health safely in light of a weak connection between the treatment and another illness?


{edit=fixing link}



[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 08-12-2003).]

I have five minutes between sorting school uniforms out and sleeping. I personally thought it was a rational discussion. As you know what i'm going to say about the DOH site I won't say it. Needless to say they will be slightly bias?

What Austism research have you been doing? I ask this because this is where most people get confused. There is "Austism" and there is "Regressive Austism"

MMR/AUSTISM This link is the solictors of the families who are suing the vaccine manufacturers. The MMR related austism is the regressive.

Normal Austism is evident from birth but symptoms are usually denied or dismissed as something else, then it takes several years to properly make sure diagnosis is correct. i.e. waiting for milestones in the childs development. Regressive Austism is when a child has met all their milestones for a 13 month old (approx) i.e. walking and speaking words. Then after having the vaccinations, they regress. They stop talking, walking, and eventually go to there own world, and this has been captured on video.

I also came across this site http://www.safeminds.org
Go to the heading vaccines then the heading 'vaccines expert warnsstudies are useless'
I do agree with this article.

Your answer on 11 year olds i find a little bit insulting. I would understand it if we were talking about 6 years old, as my son did exactly that, but this child apparently made a personal choice on which vaccinations she wanted. Personally i know alot of mature 11 year olds. We should give children a lot more credit than we do.

As for your hypothetical analogy, it just supports my belief that there should be choice.. It should be up to the individual to decide what treatment they want, its their body - their choice.



[This message has been edited by pink (edited 08-31-2003).]

quote:

---

We have a responsibility to these children - they are our future. It is no use having a situation where someone suggests a possible harm and everyone runs around frantically trying to find bits of evidence. What is required is good-quality information that has been systematically collated and assessed. Dr. Jefferson from safeminds link

---

I think Dr. Jefferson summed it up quite well actually. We need concrete studies based on sound clinical data to determine the side effects of vaccines. So far, this has not been accomplished to support the MMR/Autism link.

I spent a good deal of time on the Autism Society of America (ASA) site reading about autism and it's causes. This has been my primary reference. The reference to "Normal" and "Regressive" autism is the first I have heard the disorder categorized as such. I have seen references to "regression" after apparant normal development. Here is what they say about the different diagnoses under the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). I think this is one of the most important bits of information from that page...

quote:

---

The characteristic behaviors of autism spectrum disorders may or may not be apparent in infancy (18 to 24 months), but usually become obvious during early childhood (24 months to 6 years).

---

These are the theories as to the causes of Autism. They acknowledge that the possibility MMR could contribute to Autism in a small number of children. However, they go on to say that more research is needed.

The National Institute for Child Health and Development (NICHD) had this to say about the MMR/Autism link studies. I found this very interesting and ties back into the necessity for sound clinical data. From the NICHD and the ASA both stated that autism has been on the rise globally.

quote:

---

The authors showed that the number of ASD cases has been increasing since 1979, with no jump after the introduction of the MMR vaccine in 1988. - Taylor et al 1999, DeStefano and Chen 1999...
Autism is four times more prevalent in boys than girls and knows no racial, ethnic, or social boundaries. Family income, lifestyle, and educational levels do not affect the chance of autism's occurrence. - From ASA

---

The 11 year old example insulting? I apologize. I agree there are mature 11 year olds out there and that we often don't give children the credit they deserve in making decisions regarding their health. However, the point I was trying to make is that there are plenty of children out there ranging from babies to teenagers that despise getting injections. Who can blame them, they hurt! I have had personal experience with otherwise "mature" pre-teens that have said "no" at the time of an injection. They got the shots anyway because it was for their own good. Without knowing the entire background into this girl's decision regarding the MMR, I can only say this. I probably would have said no to MMR to at that age after being exposed to multiple media telling me that if I got this shot it would increase my chances at becoming stupid. Is that an accurate assessment? No - but well within the mindset of children.

Perhaps my analogy regarding seniors, aspirin and Alzheimer's was a bit oblique. It was not a question of choice on treatment - Alzheimer's is not a communicable disease and therefore treatment and avoidance of risk factors is indeed a personal thing. The point being made in that analogy was this: A weak link is being made between a known preventative therapy for a common disease and a detrimental outcome in the form of a debilitating mental disorder. The link is substantiated only by anecdotal evidence and speculation based on timing of onset of the disorder in relation to the beginning of therapy. This link ignores all other research with regards to the causes of the disorder. That is how I see the MMR/Autism link.

I believe that treatment choice should be up to the patient - provided their choice does not put others at risk.

Interesting Newsweek Article on Autism.

{edit- cleaning up tags and adding a link}

[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 09-01-2003).]

*Yawn* .....someone wake me up when this is over,,,,

With all due respect Binary, if ya dont like it, no-ones got a gun to your head

quote:

---

The Scientific Case

The judge concluded that the medical evidence relied on by the two mothers to show that vaccination is dangerous and unnecessary was untenable. Dr Donegan's report was based on no independent research, and most of the published papers cited by her in support of her views turned out either to support the contrary position or at least to give no support to her own. Not to mince words, the court below was presented with junk science.

---

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/mmrappeal.html

Thought this rang a bell. Ran across this while cruising http://www.quackwatch.org which I found to be an interesting site... if you're interested in that/this sort of thing that is.

Thanks nojive i'll read that later.

I found this letter in the telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F06%2F18%2Fdt1805.xml

And this was the latest decision and a letter that was put in private eye about it:

PRIVATE EYE
19 September - 2 October 2003

NEWS

Last week''s decision to pull the plug on legal aid for more than 1,000
families who claim their children were damaged by the MMR vaccine appears
perverse and serves no public interest. Indeed, the court case everyone
hopes will settle the controversy is now only six months away; and crucial
tests and experiments on the children are continuing.

So far the case has cost taxpayers about £10m - about £10,000 for each
child - a pittance compared to the huge sums available to the three
defendant drug companies. Yet the MMR case is vital not only to the
families involved, some of whose children have died and others who are
severely disabled; but to all parents who are bewildered about whether the
vaccines they are giving their healthy children are safe. The case is also
vital because of the ongoing research into the causes of what is descibed
as an autism ''epidemic''.

Because of previous health scandals, people no longer trust the government
and its allies in the powerful drug companies who between them control
information and most research. With MMR, many people are angry that they
have been denied a choice of vaccine and have either sought costly single
jabs or left their children unvaccinated ( which helps no one). They too
need an independent judgement on the safety of the jab.

If the drug companies win in the courts next year, research could then
focus on other potential causes and treatments for the victims. The
government, moreover, would have independent backing for its claims that
MMR is the ''safest way to protect your child'' - and the parents involved
could stop blaming themselves for indirectly damaging their previously
healthy child.

Instead, the decision by the legal services commssion to dump families now
will only confirm their view that the combined Goliath powers of government
and drug companies are working against them.

Ever since they first voiced concerns that their children's often
catastrophic plight might have been the rare result of vaccination, these
parents have been shunned and accused of ''scaremongering'' and being
''anti-vaccine''. They have seen doctors and scientists who treat their
children and share their concerns, notably Dr Andrew Wakefield, being
accused of junk science and losing their research grants and jobs. These
''scaremongerers'' are coping often with little financial and physical help
with sick and often very challenging children - children who, when their
parents can no longer cope, are heading towards an isolated adulthood
dependent on the state.

These families want to know what, if not MMR, is a trigger. Lawyers acting
for them are to appeal the LSC's decision on 30 September. But to stop the
action now would serve no use - not even to the defendant drug companies.
The controversy will not go away, it will grow.

If the parents are to lose, they want to lose in court or in a Hutton-style
public inquiry with everything out in the open and not, as one parent said
to the Eye, ''by the powers that be taking away David's catapult.''

Sorry to drag this thread up from the depths again but I thought this was important news to share...

quote:

---

Doctor Seeks to Calm Vaccine Fears

The same doctor whose 1998 research is being cited by parents fearful of the combined vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella is now urging them not to turn their backs on childhood immunizations.

In a letter published in this week's The Lancet medical journal, Dr. Simon Murch discounts a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism. He points out that the MMR vaccination rate has fallen so low in Britain that the country risks a major measles epidemic this winter, the Associated Press reports.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the European nations of Ireland, Spain, Italy, Germany and Switzerland face widespread measles outbreaks for the same reason. No such drop in MMR vaccinations has occurred in the United States, the AP reports.

Fears about the MMR inoculation grew after Murch's 1998 study raised the possibility of developmental problems characteristic of autism in children who had recently been vaccinated.

WHO experts and government scientists in the United States and Britain have since discounted a possible link, the AP reports. Nonetheless, the fears remain, Murch laments.

"There is now unequivocal evidence that MMR is not a risk factor for autism," he writes.

---

The same information can be found here

Given the far and few between posts in this thread and all that...maybe it is time we should consider shutting it down

Hmmmmmm.........Think i'll pass on his judgement, Seeing as he has taken 6 years to come out with this, seeing as the guy has not had promotion in like 6 years, seeing as his funding is now being cut. But the biggest evidence of all is seeing that Dr andrew Wakefield has HIS biggest evidence to date which is that measles virus has been found in Spinal fluid, meaning it does go to the brain causing austism. It was to be used in the court case which WAS to be heard 6 months from now before they pulled the plug on legal aid for the families, after hearing the evidence that Dr andrew Wakefield had got. Very strange.......................