Daffodils - with respect I think we are going to be at odds on this one - we will eachtime raise too many questions to be debated here - I am in danger of getting nothing else done...!

Your comment re the anti-freeze - water is not a chemical - as you will probably know we are 80% or so water; I have never been able to defrost a car like anti-freeze does as I don't ocntain the right chemicals and don't want to.


This comes from the books I have mentioned and their own research which is documented - this is not just a case of well if the book says it it must be true. I have formed my own conclusions from reading the material I have sourced, from speaking with a number of different people who have had experience of treating vaccine damaged children including a paediatrician (now retired) who worked at Great Ormond Street. I don't rate my Gp's opinion enough to trust him to give me a balanced viewpoint - it is as simple as that for me. The Health visitors, nurses and doctors fob you off if you question vaccines with the standard answers - 'they wouldn;t be given if they weren;t safe and all that' - that doesn't satisfy me but they have no other answer. I think they just don't have the time to investigate further and rely on what they are told by the people who sell them the vaccines. But, I am able to make up my own mind too believe it or not and these people I asked only re-enforced my own conclusions. The more I looked out information the more I found on it - it is horrible to see what is covered up and witheld from us all - the too trusting public.

The SV40 incident occured in 1959 - now you are going to tell me that things have improved since then - I don't know whether they have or haven;t - SV40 was believed to have caused a lot of cancers including leukaemias and some lung cancers (again in the books and other reference material). I am not aware of the what screening methods they use or don't - can't answer that one, but save to say I am not happy to be injected with monkey cells - some people may be - I am not.

We are electro-magnetic in nature - our brains emit electro-magnetic waves. We are not chemical bodies - my point here is that we try and solve everything by inputting chemicals into the body to eradicate things. More people are killed every day by drugs and their side effects than anything else. IN fact, i believe the numbers are something like the equivalent of 9 jumbo jets crashing every day. If that happened all flights would be stopped. But drugs keep being pumped into us day after day.

I am sorry if I sound passionate about this - I am. I have used complentary therapies for 15 years to solve a host of different things. I have never had cause to take my children to the doctors - they haven't been ill - ever. If they did come down with something I would use my complementary resources first. I believe medicine has its place, but we have become too medicalised.

This forum gives me a limited space to talk about only a very small fraction of what I could!! (poor you!!) I am sure you feel the same way too. All I can say is the books I have mentioned have been the best of all that I have read, because for me they gave referenced proof of their arguments and the studies they refer to.

I am not some new age crackpot doctor bashing hippie - however I never believe anything I am told without questionning it and getting things clear in my own mind first. Big Pharma rely on us just believing things for them to make money, but we should question things as otherwise we could be susceptible to all sorts of scams.

For me, vaccinations were not the way to go - for others they may be. No-one should make a decision based on a forum like this - I sincerely hope no-one does! READ EVERYTHING YOU CAN FIRST - there is a lot of information out there and with the internet it is gradually coming to light.

Daffodils, - I appreciate you challenging my points - I probably can;t answer everything here as well as i would like to.

If I don;t answer for a while it is because I have a stack of work to do!

Good for you glitteremma, You have to do whats best for your baby, its not nice and a bit scary when they have their jabs they may be grumpy afterwards and get a bit hot, all of mine have had their jabs and they are fine. I had to postpone the MMR for a couple of months as she just had measles but she was fine she's had 2 lots of MMR since having measles . You have to do whats right your baby .

I appreciate the arguments made here, but I’m still don’t have enough confidence in the safety or efficacy of a vaccine to give one to my child.

It’s frustrating that the burden of proof to establishing the safety of vaccines is falling on grassroots organisations made up of ordinary mothers and fathers. This is the vaccine manufacturers job. Why are there NO well-designed, long-term studies in the developed world?

Instead figures from the third world are frequently banded around in the media and by Government – this IS scaremongering.

It’s impossible to compare disease in impoverished, malnourished children in undeveloped countries with illness in healthy children in the west. The situations and the ways the illness presents itself are completely different.

I’m not sure that anybody here is saying that vaccination in the third world is a bad thing, I have only looked into the risk/benefits of vaccinating MY particular healthy, fully breastfed child in the UK in 2007. My personal conclusion is that the risks of vaccination may be greater than the risks of diseases like measles.

To respond to points raised on this forum:

This is why I have no confidence in claims made for the safety of vaccines:

The New 5 in 1 was introduced because it is safer. The old vaccines were linked with causing polio and brain damage. This one is also mercury free.

My problem is that the DoH DENIED safety issues with the old vaccine but now have issued a new vaccine, we were told the old vaccine was safe at the time, but this one is ‘safer’, neither of these things give me confidence.

They have never listed vaccine ingredients on their info, it would only be individuals like olivegreen who would be aware that the old vaccine contained mercury. That is not informed consent.

The World Health Organisation have said “until the unlikely moment we have developed perfect vaccines administered by perfect vaccinators, there will remain problems from time to time”. This does not give me confidence either and I would rather run the risk of childhood diseases I do not believe are serious and I can immunise against with an optimally healthy lifestyle.

Smallpox:

I read that there were many unvaccinated people who didn’t get smallpox, there were epidemics in areas that had been vaccinated and smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.

Mercury:

Thank goodness the new vaccine is mercury free but it is still used in the manufacturing process and traces of it have been found in ‘mercury-free’ vaccines. Daffodils – I appreciate your point about dose but you wouldn’t drink a vaccine so why inject it? There is NO safe level for mercury.

MMR:

Why immunise against mumps?

It is benign disease with virtually no complications.

Why immunise against rubella?

It’s harmless except for in pregnant mothers, in which there were 30 cases a year of rubella affecting an unborn child. That is not enough of a risk for me to put my baby son at risk of a vaccine reaction.

Why immunise against measles?

Measles is not dangerous, many doctors considered it trivial until the vaccine was introduced. Since then our perceptions have radically changed. For most children, including myself, it was a 7 day illness without complications. Children who might die are usually chronically ill, and may have been too ill to be vaccinated anyway.

Measles is actually interesting, it may actually improve and strengthen your immune system and in third world – those who catch and survive it do better than those who never got it. This may also be the case for the other diseases of childhood – they could be good things!

MMR and Autism:

Autism rates have sharply and unaccountably increased, why? I’ve read that Autism at 18 months is a recent phenomena that coincided with the introduction of the vaccine. The jury is out and we need more long term studies. We also need to take mothers’ claims more seriously.

Breastfeeding:

Breastfeeding does not immunise against all diseases - neither does a vaccine!

At this moment in time I would rather not travel to a particular country if it meant I had to vaccinate myself first.

We need more research and Doctors need to be fully informed. In answer to your question on that – yes I discussed the 5 in 1 with her. My GP’s best argument was that I’d regret not getting tetanus when my child was crawling round in the summer. In fact tetanus is very hard to catch, it takes a deep puncture wound that is poorly treated. Also neither the disease itself nor the vaccine can give you immunity, most people in this country are behind on their tetanus shots but there’s no raging epidemic is there? A very poor argument indeed that has not made me feel at all confident in her judgement on vaccines despite the fact I respect and like her very much!

Hi rareanna - your post sounds more like you are trying to convince yourself.

I was walking in the garden once and walked onto a vertical standing heavily rusted nail. I had very heavy shoes on, so it just pricked one toe, I also have had my tetanus shots to go abroad so had no worries. If it had been my 3 year old son I would not have been very happy, esp. if he had not has his jabs done. Thankfully he has had his jabs.

He also once fell onto a large screw on the cupboard which resulted in a very deep cut in his forehead and lots of bleeding. The mark is still on his forehead. Again I was pleased he had had his tetanus jabs. See this re. the possibility that even a small thorn prick can cause enough risk, it does not have to be a deep wound caused by a rusty object :
http://www.cks.library.nhs.uk/patient_information_leaflet/tetanus

I don't find your counter arguments convincing on many different levels, but just don't have time to refute each one. I think it is very important for parents to be cautious and to make up their own minds on this. You may be happy to not vaccinate as you do not consider the diseases you list as "unsafe". If a disease were harmless it would not be called a "disease".

The fact is that non-vaccinated people/children benefit from herd immunity. You benefit from the fact that the rest of us ARE vaccinated.

I think you miss the point entirely re. developing countries. I was not suggesting that you can compare the level of disease or risk of it in Western Europe NOW with say most parts of Africa. The point is that some developing countries have the same sort of risk of the diseases you list that we WOULD have if vaccinations were not easy to access and free in the UK. Look at the historical facts re. disease in England say 100 or 200 years ago.

If you stopped ALL baby/toddler vaccinations tomorrow you would have epidemics here in the UK. This has occurred in several schools in parts of London and East of England due to vaccination levels for MMR falling below 80%

You do NOT have to travel to be at risk. How do you think for example TB spreads to other countries ? Some people travel and bring these back with them or people from other countries visit the UK and they carry a disease or virus with them which can then spread to UK residents. We do not have closed borders and people do not get checked for what viruses or bacteria they carry with them when they enter the UK. It is naive to think that just because you don't travel you are therefore protected from everything.

Most of us here are protected from the diseases you list because we are vaccinated, not depsite it.

Glitteramma - not sure we were actually that helpful, but glad you have made a decision!

Lou A - I feel the need to correct your obvious error claiming that water is not a chemical. A dictionary definition of the word chemical can be given as the following:
A substance with a distinct molecular composition that is produced by or used in a chemical process.
Therefore water is quite clearly a chemical as it has a molecular composition (2 hydrogens and one oxygen) and is both produced and used in chemical processes.

An electromagnetic field is created when a charged particle is moving. As we have a fair few charged particles in us, I imagine we do have some em stuff going on, but that doesn't mean we are 'electromagnetic, not chemical'. If there were no chemicals present there would be no charged particles to move and there would be no electromagnetic field.

The food you ate today, your entire body and everything in the world around us is made of chemicals. I am in danger of going on a rant about 'chemical-free' cosmetics, but I have already done that on the 'How toxic are you?' thread. (It suffices to say it is impossible to have a chemical-free cosmetic as any substance is composed of chemicals. The only thing chemical free would be a vacuum, and it would be rather hard to apply to your skin!)

My point about antifreeze is simply that I find it annoying when I hear people (Sarah Beeny rather enjoyed doing it on her ridiculous programme) saying this chemical is in both antifreeze and shampoo, and you wouldn't wash your hair with antifreeze, so why are you wasing your hair with this shampoo? As this makes absolutely no sense. Saying it is in both gives no indication of the properties of the chemical, what is is useful for or why it is in both of these products.

I am all up for questioning things (after all it is the basis of good science) and following the good, properly researched results.

Rareanna - It's up to you whether you chose to vaccinate your children, and I respect your decision, but I just wanted to respond to the mercury thing.

I don't know for sure, but I think it highly likely we are injected with vaccines because that is the most effective, efficient way of getting it into our blood stream. If we were instead to drink them I think they would probably have a harder time getting into our blood stream and therefore be less effective. I don't really see what that has to do with mercury levels.

I don't especially wish to refer to Sarah Beeny's rather awful programme, but she did do some tests on fish and found they had mercury in them. Does this mean we should all stop eating fish from the Atlantic straight away? I hope you'll agree the answer to that is no, because it is all about the amount we are eating.

Thanks for your post, just quickly:

Tetanus is not a good reason to get the 5 in 1 jab because It IS rare, illustrated by the fact most people are behind on their shots and there are few cases of it.

Herd immunity is a questionable concept. Just google ‘herd immunity myth’, the first article that comes up (on a site called WDDTY) addresses the recent measles outbreak.

Unfortunately HI used to bully parents into vaccinating. But, as I’ve explained I’m not convinced I am benefiting from it at all.

Nor am I asking anyone to vaccinate their child so I can keep mine unvaccinated.

And - if you believe the theory then my unvaxed child cannot cause your vaxed one any harm.

In this case it is every parent’s job to decide what is best for their child, not only do we have the choice whether to vaccinate or not but we should be free to do so without pressure.

Historical studies actually show rates of dangerous diseases falling dramatically before vaccines were ever introduced due to improvements in nutrition and public health, I even covered this as part of my A-Level Sociology many years ago. It is a lack of nutrition and poor public health that make diseases so dangerous in the developing world today.

No, we don’t have to travel to be at risk, and since we don’t vaccinate for everything then aren’t we all at risk anyway? And let’s not forget that the vaccines we do have don’t immunise anyway.

The best and only immunity is health.

Rareanna says: "And let’s not forget that the vaccines we do have don’t immunise anyway."

I am sorry, but you do put across statements like these as though it is a proven fact, when it is just an assertion on your part and unscientific.

Vaccines DO provide immunity against diseases ok, not 100% immunity in all cases, but a higher level of immunity than non-vaccination.

Do you know of anything that is 100% guaranteed when it comes matters of health or disease ? I don't and have never claimed it either.

Again, I have to say that your knowledge of childhood disease in the developing world is extremely poor. If you are going to mention your A-Levels I may as well mention that I have studied economic development in the developing world at postgraduate level, so I do feel "qualified" in commenting on the reasons for disease in under-developed and developing countries (the term Third World is rarely used in unveristies these days, by the way).

i think only you can make that decision
i had the immunisations for my son and im glad i did as now its all over its one less worry for me
but only do whats comfertable for you! if you dont want to get them done then dont.

quote:

don't know for sure, but I think it highly likely we are injected with vaccines because that is the most effective, efficient way of getting it into our blood stream. If we were instead to drink them I think they would probably have a harder time getting into our blood stream and therefore be less effective. I don't really see what that has to do with mercury levels.

[pedant mode]The Polio vaccine is administered orally. It tastes pretty revolting from what I remember. Its most effective that way, as its the way that the polio virus gets into the body in nature[\pedant mode]

i had his 1st lot of immunisations done i almost backed out in the room!
he cryed tonns and when i got him home3 a few hours later he had a awful temperature was crying bizzarly and i just felt so scared.
i understand that some jabs do work and possibly that a high temp was due to it working but if this is wat happens is it really safe?
he has his next lot next week and im dreading it
he was out of sorts for a few days last time and i remember feelings of guilt
cant wait till hes had them all and got through it.
one very unhappy mummy

They are awful - more for mums!! I experienced this too. However, the next time I took my daughter I gave her a little bit calpol before we got there and this seemed to help. She slept for a good three hours afterwards and awoke as if nothing had happened. I should maybe have take some calpol myself!

I have never read up on vaccines, the up's and down's etc.
I know that the ppl offering the vaccines know a whole heap about it than what I do nad I trust them.
I know that not having them vaccinated could have resulted in illness. And I would not like to think that just beacause I didn't think it was right, that they may have been very poorly.
Maybe I have been lucky, but my two never seem to have had any reactions/effects from the injections. But I know that even the high temp, nasty tum, or rash, is a damn sight better that what may have been down the line.
At the end of the day, children are healthier nowadays for a reason.

I'm very surprised at some of the comments on this thread

Vaccines VERY RARELY have serious side effects. The most common side effects might be feeling a little unwell for a couple of days, a sore arm or a rash

Vaccinations have led to the eradication or near-eradication of many very serious diseases, for instance small-pox and TB. This is fact: there are no two ways about it. When the small-pox vaccine was introduced it led to the eradication of the disease. In other words, it was highly effective and saved many lives

Not vaccinating is by far more dangerous than vaccinating.

Measles can cause serious complications including pneumonia, inflammation of the brain, and in some cases death. One million children die of measles every year; nearly all are in countries where they have no vaccinations programme or an ineffective one.

Mumps can cause deafness and meningitis; before the vaccine was introduced mumps was the biggest cause of viral meningitis, which can be fatal

Polio can lead to severe muscle weakness, osteoporosis and arthritis. Again, since the vaccine was introduced, very few cases of Polio have been reported

TB is a very nasty illness which can kill and requires a very long course of anti-biotics to clear up. Cases are rare since the introduction of the BCG vaccination

By not vaccinating your child you are taking a very silly risk: these illnesses are not petty colds or flus: they are very serious and possibly fatal. A child that hasn't been vaccinated is far more at risk than one who has: the risks of the vaccines are extremely small.

As well as putting your own child at risk, you are also putting other children at risk. If an insufficient number of children are vaccinated the programme falls apart. Vaccines are often not 100% effective meaning that if there is an outbreak of an illness (which is often the case when the number of children vaccinated drops below 80%) then those who have been vaccinated risk contracting the illness and suffering the complications

Massive applause to everything barbie86 just said. If you take notice of one post out of this thread, let it be her one.

I just took my baby for his 2nd lot of immunisations today and even though I wanted him to have them and feel that it is really important to have him vaccinated it is still really hard... I felt like such a traitor holding his little leg down and he smiled up at me before she injected him!!!! (and then he screamed his head off).

i will be using calpol to reduce the risk of a fever BUT although i am not happy with the lack of solid evidance that is given to parents by NON BIAS supplier i also cant take any chances with this issue, i know that IF its true that they do work then a fever is nothing compared to wat could happen but it could be one of those things they will one day prove to be a stupid craze.... almost unthinkable, like when we look back at what used to be considered nomal and correct in medicine.
truth is they still could be wrong and all us parents are left to squabble and feel worried.
in the future will they be saying oh gosh look at how they used to think they could cure deseases by injecting new babies with all that harmfull stuff. or will they be saying oh wow they really cracked it but now we have super viruses and need yet another strange way to cure it?

All I can say, is that there is better reasons to have your child immunised than there is to not get them immunised. As barbie86 points out all the things that a child may encounter if they were not vaccinated. At least by vaccinating them, you can feel that you had done the best you could, rather than nothing at all.

glitteremma: we already have a huge amount of evidence that vaccines work extremely effectively. Since the introduction of vaccines such as the small pox vaccine, the BCG and the MMR we have seen a massive decrease in these illnesses, in some cases an eradication of them. This is not coincidence: small pox didn't just completely disappear soon after the introduction of the small pox vaccination programme by chance. Millions of lives have been saved since these vaccines were introduced.

If people stop vaccinating their children these illnesses WILL come back: people, especially children, WILL be left disabled by them, people WILL die

We don't have vaccination programmes because mean doctors like to prick small children with needles and cause them discomfort; we have them because the alternative is thousands of children a year becoming seriously ill and even dying. That is the stark reality

It would never even cross my mind not to vaccinate my children. Yes, there are (very small) risks: but the risks if I didn't are potentially huge. Every medical procedure carries with it a risk; what you have to do is weigh up the risk of the procedure against the risk of not having it. In the case of vaccinations the pros far outweigh the cons

most people have said to me that people on these forums are mainly on here because they have had problems with jabs so i dont get to hear about the thousands that are fine.... im glad i started this disscussion its really helped me. i wont be taking my son for his next jabs ... my fiancee will as it upsets me seeing him cry . but hes booked the day off work just incase little one gets any side effects
the mmr jab really scares the hell outta me
im sure he will have it though.

i had my first child vaccinated, and my second too - then he turned out to have an autistic spectrum disorder (not from the mmr as my bloke said no and forbided him from having it) - so with my third child her having them is so scary so i have waited until she was two and she wont be having them unless she is 100% well.

yes them jabs are good in the long run but there are a very small amount of children that react badly and end up brain damaged because of them. its very scary decision. when i allow my daugter to have them it will be a single jab and she will be 100% fit and healthy before hand - as for the mmr i will wait till she is due to start nursery. so im not against injections just careful about the timing