Are they really going to make vaccinations compulsory? I mean,
Almost every young child will recover from childhood illnesses by
simply staying in bed for a few days and keeping warm and hydrated.
OTOH, *no* young child will recover from autism. It's just not worth
the risk IMV.
"When constituencies are small their elected representatives must concern themselves with
the local interests of their constituents. When political representatives are distant and
I see. So Polio is recoverable from vcompletely woth a few days in bed.
And german measles doesnt cause deformed foetuses.
And whooping cough and croup dont permanently damage lungs,
And TB is not a killer.
But autism is a career path for Greens. And has no connection with
immunisation apart from the fact that it tends to be recognised as an
issue at the same age the child is given innoculations.
Coincidence is not correlation and correlation is not causation
Every person who drinks milk dies.
Do you think we should ban it?
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"
If you go on like this you will probably be seen as slightly odd yourself!
I've had Whooping cough, and it has predisposed me to chest issues ever
since, however you cannot prove that I'd not have had these if I'd not had
Whooping Cough, only that its likely to have been less severe. One has to be
very careful with medical correlations. That is how we got to the point
where some medication won't work in Women as trials were carried out mostly
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
You've just lost any semblance of an argument.
Rather than forcing children to be immunised I would have no problem in
withholding say Child Benefit. Immunisation is just as important for
others as it is for the individual.
If you're willing to pay, say 5p on your income tax, for the maintenance
of blind children and throughout their adulthood as a consequence of
Measles, then I would have less issue.
On 26/12/2019 14:38:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I believe threats have been made. However its very difficult to enforce
as there are no national records of immunisation.
I've known mothers to say their child's immunisation "is up to date",
where their child has never been so immunised.
The problem is that while immunisations are safer than getting the
diseases, parents have heard scare stories and don't want to have been
responsible for the damage that happens to a tiny fraction of those
vaccinated, when their child may never have contracted the illness anyway.
Government has also removed options, such as single vaccines, due mainly
to the additional cost over multi-vaccine injections.
Our children were due their vaccinations at the height of the MMR scare
and, on top of that, my wife had worked with two women (all three
experienced nurses, so good medical knowledge) whose children were
developing normally (or even ahead); both had the MMR; both developed a
fever and went floppy the same evening; both took a week to get over the
illness; both had regressed significantly; and both were later diagnosed
We decided that we would not take the risk and would go for single
vaccines, with the MMR as a booster when they were older and their
immune systems more developed. At three vaccinations per child and £135
per vaccination, others may not have been able to afford that option.
Even we found it difficult, with months of delay, because the government
had restriced the quantities of the single vaccines that could be
imported (even for private care), causing an artificial shortage.
It is hardly surprising that parents with lesser resources simply decide
not to vaccinate.
On top of the fears, parents also have worry that where children may be
damaged by vaccinations (there is no doubt that a small number are), the
NHS/government will deny it (look at HPV and narcolepsy) and families
will be left responsible for the continued care of their damaged child,
having to quit work to provide that care, etc. without the compensation
that would help families pay their bills and retain at least a somewhat
normal life for the rest of the family.
"On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 22:10:36 +0000, Steve Walker
Compare the tiny vaccine risk with the risk from both the chance of
getting the disease and the consequences and vaccination has a clear
benefit. If people steadfastly refuse to see this how can they be
The dedicated and gullible followers of Wakefield swallowed his single
vaccines over MMR stance without noticing the "study" it was
supposedly based on didn't mention vaccination at all. That was only
in a remark at a press conference (how many minor studies get a press
conference?). He also failed to tell anyone he had applied for a
patent for a single measles vaccine or that he was in the pay of a
solicitor and had already made nearly half a million pounds from that.
A problem with the MMR scare was that information which would have
shown the work at Unigenetics claiming to have shown measles virus was
in Wakefields samples was wrong was suppressed (sealed) by the lawyers
for Wakefield for several years by claiming they were needed in the
UK claims against SKB. It wasn't until the Cedillo vaccine damage
case in the USA that Prof Bustin's evidence of the shoddy work in
Unigenetics became public knowledge.
The Cedillo case is worth reading, the claimants had the opportunity
to justify their claims and time and the money to use the best experts
there were. The best they could come up with was a collection of
professional expert witnesses and unqualified anti vaccers. Wakefield
for whatever reason did not attend to defend his theories. Not
surprisingly they lost.
It was mainly because organising three or more trips to a doctor to
have several vaccinations led to many parents failing to attend,
combined vaccinations had a much higher take up rate.
Which would have happened anyway. MMR does not cause autism. They
had probably taken their children to McDonalds at some time as well
and a standard happymeal has exactly the same odds of causing Autism
as MMR vaccine.
Annoying when governments act on evidence and science rather than
unsubstantiated claims from "activists" whose mantra is "my mind is
made up - do not confuse me with facts".
Why should they be compensated specifically for something which didn't
cause the problem in the first place?
"In November 2015, the European Medicines Agency published the results
of a major review of the safety of HPV vaccines including Gardasil and
Cervarix, examining an alleged link to two conditions.
They were: complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), a chronic pain
syndrome which affects limbs; and POTS (postural orthostatic
tachycardia syndrome), which involves rapid heart rate increases on
sitting or standing up, along with fatigue, dizziness and other
The large scale EMA review concluded that there was no causal
relationship between the HPV vaccines and the two conditions, and
that, essentially, the prevalence of those two conditions was no
greater among those treated with the vaccines, than among the general
" a 2013 study of almost one million 10-17 year-old girls in Denmark
and Sweden found no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated
girls in the rate of what have been claimed to be serious adverse
effects various autoimmune and neurological conditions, as well as
venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis.
Another study from 2014 analysed 42 completed or ongoing clinical
trials of Cervarix and found that the rates of symptoms were almost
identical between vaccinated and control groups.
In fact, the rates of medically significant conditions and serious
adverse events were slightly lower among the vaccinated groups, not
that any particular conclusion should be drawn from that.
This summary of nine separate studies involves research into possible
associations between HPV vaccines and a wide range of conditions and
symptoms, including serious ones like stroke, appendicitis, and
Guillain-Barré syndrome, an immune disorder that causes weakness and
even paralysis, and has been claimed to be caused by HPV vaccination.
In almost all cases, the research found no difference between
vaccinated and control groups in the prevalence of the conditions,
with the exception of temporary problems like fainting and skin
In one case, a lower odds ratio (essentially a lower risk) of
multiple sclerosis was observed among the vaccinated group.
In the case of Guillain-Barré syndrome, the rate of reported cases was
0.2 per 100,000 doses of Gardasil. Thats one in half a million, or
0.0002%. And that rate was no higher than is typical of other
Yet another 2011 systematic review of existing research concluded that
the prevalence of serious adverse events was not different between
vaccinated and control groups."
IMO that's a very fair argument - but one in favour of a no-fault
compensation scheme (cf e.g. NZ's ACC) rather than against vaccination.
(It never ceases to amaze me that people think it fair in a socialised
medical system that that one child with disability X as a result of a
mistake gets £M million by way of compensation while another with X as a
result of bad luck gets a very small fraction of £M by way of benefits.)
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
The ACC scheme has little to offer parents who believe their children
have suffered vaccine damage but can't prove it. Vaccine injuries are
very rare and of those claims accepted by the ACC most are for fairly
trivial injuries. The claimant still has to prove a causal link
between the vaccination and injury and about half of the claims made
under the ACC are rejected.
In the UK the equivalent (for vaccination) to the ACC already exists
in the form of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. Out of 1,483
claims made between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2010 to the vaccine
damage payments unit, 26 resulted in an award
From the ACC
"The accepted claims related to vaccinations are associated with
different injury groups; the most common accepted injury group is
infections. The infection injury group accounts for 47% of the
accepted claims. It is also worth noting that serious or fatal
treatment injuries as a result of vaccinations are vanishingly rare;
accounting for fewer than 0.2% of claims made in the 10-year period
you mention" (2005 to 2019)
Many countries (including the UK) have vaccine injury compensation
schemes which do not require the claimant to prove negligence but do
require establishing (usually to a lower standard of proof than a
negligence claim) that there is a relationship between the injury and
the vaccination. Often this may be temporal. For example in the USA
if anaphylaxis occurs within 4 hours of hepatitis B vaccine
administration, it is presumed due to the vaccine. Occurring a day
later and it isn't.
Most schemes have a table of injuries, in the USA this is the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act: Vaccine Injury Table
The use of such tables makes the assessment of cause and effect much
more straightforward. It does not of course help those who, despite
a lack of evidence, insist that whatever problem their child has is
caused by vaccinations.
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 05:17:50 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
Just more propaganda from the usual suspects (the BBC).
Anyone contemplating getting their child vaccinated should check this
article out first:
There's also a very revealing expose on the veracity of the herd
" I was taught that vaccines were completely safe and completely
effective," says the Doctor in the article.
Well he must have gone to a really shite medical school then.
Effectiveness of vaccines and possible safety issues was taught in my
biology classes in 1973.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.