Topic awaiting preservation: Is this judge taking away Human Rights?

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

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.......................