Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill?

Didn't you check out any of the links I provided? That's where many of my assertions came from. As for what goes into the vaccines, these are facts. I thought you would probably be aware?What exactly is ligit for you apart from PubMed?

The article goes on to say: Presumably there was some immune reaction to the toxin from the bacteria in these cases, otherwise immunity would not have been acquired. Yes? Maybe my original example wasn't as appropriate as this one.Surely the best way to tackle diptheria is good hygiene? And an iron supplement, or injections, to help the body fight it when it does occur? This article also criticises the routine use of antitoxins and antibiotics, which prevent the body from developing immunity.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

I've given links as sources for my info. You say they are less than reliable.Are you only wanting what is on PubMed? With vaccines being the sacred cow that they are, how likely is it that I'll be able to quote a batch of studies at you? It's generally accepted by mainstream medicine that vaccines are a "good thing." However there's a lack of evidence for their safety. Instead it is taken for granted. No one has to do studies on the consequences of injecting antifreeze, aluminum or mercury into my little girl for me to feel concerned about it. This article discusses autoimmune problems resulting from vaccines in more detail. There is a list of sources at the end, which I believe includes publications in journals you would find acceptable. The author, Viera Scheibner, concludes: Scheibner was pro-vaccination for almost 30 years. In 1986 she began to study Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and developed Cotwatch, a breathing monitor for babies. The results of the Cotwatch studies prompted her to start researching all aspects of vaccinations. She studied more than 30,000 pages of data published in medical journals about crib deaths after vaccinations. Based on her extensive literature search, Dr. Scheibner in 1993 published a 296-page book entitled Vaccination: 100 years of scientific research shows that vaccines represent a medical assault on the immune system.

I don't have my original source for this info to hand; I was working from notes I wrote to myself in order to discuss the issue with my husband. However, a quick Google brings up this site, which is sourced from the 1997 Physicians' Desk Reference. You will find all the ingredients I listed there. Some of them are also listed as ingredients in the vaccines that the NHS wanted to give my daughter last year (I obtained the package inserts).

Which link are you referring to please? If you find the source unacceptable then I will find another source.

This is the sort of scare-mongering statement that is often to be found in the media when something like this is reported. Fact: 40 people have contracted measles. Fact: none of them have died. Fact: measles was a childhood disease which was harmless in the vast majority of cases. If those people are well nourished, they should recover, and their immune systems will have been strengthened.In your second quote you mention the death of a 13-year-old. This is one case. What was his health like before contracting measles? What was his diet like? The reason why there are so many deaths due to disease in places like Africa is because there is poverty which results in poor living conditions and malnutrition. These weaken the body and make it prone to severe effects of disease. If someone chooses not to vaccinate, they need to make sure they take steps to live healthily. As I have said, the risk is not zero, but it is not zero for vaccination either. No one knows what injecting antifreeze or aluminum into the bloodtream is going to do, especially to a baby; and no studies have been conducted with vaccinated and nonvaccinated populations.I'll address the points above about the links at a later time, but I will do so. There is a creationist writing long waffling posts to me, and I'm on a course.

Strange. When I asked you about the thousands of people who die every year from adverse reactions to drugs, and others who are crippled, you said that these were small percentages.In 1994 overall 2,216,000 hospitalized patients had serious adverse drug reactions and 106,000 had fatal ADRs, making these reactions the fifth leading cause of death. (JAMA. 1998;279:1200 and 1216)You told me yourself that people die from penicillin. I'd like to know why 100 deaths suddenly bother you so much when these other deaths figure only as percentages. Secret report reveals 18 child deaths following vaccinationsMeasles fatalities had declined significantly before the introduction of the vaccine.I believe if parents in developed countries choose not to vaccinate their children, they need to make sure that the children are well nourished, and this includes vitamin C megadosing.

What's wrong with "chelation treatments" now? I use DMSA, alpha-lipoic acid, and a seaweed extract. I have to use the DMSA because it works, whereas other things I tried did not.I had four amalgam fillings put in my mouth after previously having none. Two months later I developed clinical depression. I had the amalgams removed a few months ago and have gradually been feeling better with chelation. Some symptoms have disappeared completely. It's impossible for me to say for sure whether mercury has been a factor in the depression, but I thought that having my amalgams removed would do no harm, and possibly help.You seem quick to dismiss the possible toxic effects of injecting mercury into the blood, and putting it into the teeth. It is a poison. The amounts considered "safe" in the body have declined over the years as scientists changed their minds.From The Poison in Your Mouth, a BBC Panorama program:

In Message 246 I said What's more, I am not calling for an end to vaccination, or even for people not to vaccinate their own children. I am explaining why I made my personal choice and why I believe that choice ought to exist.Were you aware that a strain of whooping cough caused by bordetella parapertussis causes the disease in 40% of laboratory-confirmed cases, and that there is no vaccine for this strain? You can read about it in this article from Medscape Today. And this article explains that there is no easy way to confirm the diagnosis of whooping cough, whether the cause be pertussis or parapertussis.What leads you to believe that 30% of the population of a town would be devastated by measles at one time? This disease was present in generation after generation of humans prior to vaccination. Where is the evidence that it devastated healthy populations?

I can't keep up with all the posts here. This is a list of what's in vaccines. It comes from the CDC's website.Edited by LindaLou, : Link didn't work

This sounds spurious to me but I have no way of knowing for sure without seeing the actual studies. I do not have a library to access like you do. There are plenty of other plausible causes for heart disease and cancer, many other variables to consider apart from which infections a person has had. (And which infections was this article specifically talking about?) This is all very vague. You'd hammer me if I posited this as evidence myself.

The question people should perhaps be asking here is why polio became such a virulent disease in 20th century America (and Canada).A look at the basics of polio on Wikipedia ironically shows that poorer sanitation in previous times resulted in constant exposure to the virus, which enhanced a natural immunity within the population. The risk of paralytic polio increased along with better sanitation and hygiene.Having said this, there is also evidence here that polio is not as dangerous as the media would like us to believe. Less than 1% of all polio infections result in paralysis -- 1 in 1000 in children -- and the vast majority of individuals who contract paralytic polio recover with complete, or near complete, return of muscle function. Factors which increase the risk of polio infection or affect its severity include immune deficiency, malnutrition, and tonsillectomy. Passive immunity to polio (as well as to measles, mumps and chicken pox) is conferred to a baby for its first few months of life.There are quite a few sources, if you Google, that explain that the polio epidemic in the 1950s was over-hyped. Even in one of the newspaper photos in your post, a "medical authority" is saying "no need for panic." Maybe this was meant as more than just a platitude.Like I said, I think vaccination should be a matter of personal choice. If I choose not to vaccinate my child, I accept the responsibility for keeping her healthy so that she is less prone to disease. I would rather take the risk of her catching the disease, than giving her a live virus (which is what the oral polio vaccine she received here in the UK contained), or injecting her with the sorts of concoctions you will find listed at the CDC site.To end, this quotation is from Dr. Bernard Greenberg, a biostatistics expert who was chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association during the 1950s. He testified at a panel discussion that was used as evidence for the congressional hearings on polio vaccine in 1962. During these hearings he elaborated on the problems associated with polio statistics and disputed claims for the vaccine's effectiveness. He attributed the dramatic decline in polio cases to a change in reporting practices by physicians. Less cases were identified as polio after the vaccination for very specific reasons.

I think this is the third time I've said this now: I think vaccination should be a personal choice. What I want to see is people who are healthy: not suffering from the worst ravages of diseases like polio or measles because they are undernourished -- and not suffering from vaccination damage, which could possibly include autism, ADHD and autoimmune diseases. (We don't know because there have been no studies done.) If people in developing countries are better off with vaccinations then I'm fine with that. But as I said, it's not such a clear-cut choice in wealthier developed countries.According to Connaught Laboratories, only one case of vaccine damage in 50 is reported ((James Froeschle, Connaught Laboratories. Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines. Evidence Bearing on causality. Institute of Medicine. May 11, 1992, Washington, DC, Appendix B). Yet the UK government still accepts that vaccine damage occurs, and make payments to families, as you can see here. The UK doesn't even vaccinate as heavily as the US does.If vaccines are safe, why are UK citizens allowed to claim for damage?

Strawmen arguments. None of these are accurate descriptions of what I've been saying. Nor do I agree with your moral judgement of my actions. We obviously have very different views on this subject.

So you are telling me that vaccinations should be forced upon the entire population whether they want it or not? Wow. Has no one been listening to what I've said about vaccines possibly being unsafe? How do we know? Where are the studies? If I choose to believe that the risk from injecting my daughter with mercury, aluminum, antifreeze, bovine and monkey tissue and other substances is greater than the risk of her being permanently damaged by a disease, you would still strip me of my right to say "no"? I'm glad the government doesn't share your views.You seem to be assuming that your child would be in immediate danger of contracting harmful diseases because I choose not to vaccinate my child. You are assuming that my child would be in close regular contact with your infant, yes? What if I agreed not to let her near your infant until your infant was immunised, just to be on the safe side?Two other factors here in this hypothetical situation. One, if you had had several of these diseases yourself, you would have conferred immunity to your child for its first several months of life. That's how things worked naturally before vaccinations. Two, you choose to believe that there is less risk from the ingredients in the vaccines than there is from the diseases. Are you unconcerned about injecting an infant with the sorts of substances I listed above? Some of these substances are known neurotoxins. Your baby is very small and has a developing brain. Why is anyone who thinks this might be a cause for concern labelled as a hippy or a sadist?