BS: Arresting parents over vaccines

Subject: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 06:43 PM

A couple years ago I told you about my son in kindergarden being expelled numurous times over missing vaccine records that took over 2 weeks to recover from the doctors broken hard drive.

My State has now decreed that parents are now subject to arrest for similar infractions. I thought I had it tough.

The govenor said let it be written let it be done. There are demonstrations in Prince George's cointy and the govenor's wife is trying to smooth the waters but the 2,300 parents who face jail over immunization are kinda steamed.


To my knowledge no one has been arrested yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: MaineDog
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:04 PM

I don't think they have any right to do this, unless, of course, they want to give us free health coverage, and then take care of any problems that result from the vaccinations!
MD

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:15 PM

Will there still be grounds for religous exemptions? Like the JW's and Scientologists?

I'm curious as to how this will all pan out.

As Maine Dog says, if the Feds 'require' health care, then the Feds should be mandated to provide it.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: bobad
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:16 PM

I imagine that the rationale behind this is that unvaccinated children are putting others at risk and the responsibility for making sure one's kid is vaccinated lies with the parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:26 PM

The parents should go to jail and the kids put in state custody, if they refuse. The unvaccinated will be a reservoir for the disease unless vacination is universal.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:27 PM

Well said Bobad.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:33 PM

"if the Feds 'require' health care, then the Feds should be mandated to provide it." Maybe, but states don't seem to be so required. Look at auto insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:40 PM

This is crap. It depends entirely on the vaccine. Many people, on a case by case basis, will do better training their immune systems without vaccine and be the stronger for it.

Medical dogmatism is no more nourishing of individual well-being than religious dogmatism is. They're both thinly disguised authoritarian control mechanisms.

And they both suck.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: bobad
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:49 PM

Other than the provision of clean water, food and sanitation, no other deliberate human intervention has prolonged the human life span as much as the provision of vaccines and the control of infectious diseases.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: MaineDog
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:57 PM

As I understand it, you don't have to vaccinate everyone in a population to prevent an epidemic. The unvaccinated ones will not form a pool of disease unless they all live together! If a few unvaccinated ones are spread out among the population, they won't get the disease, because they won't be exposed to it.
So, let all the high minded liberal do-gooders please themselves by going and getting vaccinated, and tell everyone how conscientions they are, and let a few poor uneducated religious types forgo that option so that they can tell their mates how good they are.
Peace.
MD

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:27 PM

OK - I get it. The parents of school children get to decide if their kids get vaccinated for common childhood diseases, like for example diphtheria. A significant number of children...estimated to be over a thousand in Prince Georges County, MD...have never had shots for common childhood diseases, like for example diphtheria. There are a few dozen countries where diphtheria is endemic. There are a lot of embassy kids in Prince Georges County. Maybe one has diphtheria. Not to worry - stand on your rights - the fatality rate for diphtheria is only 5-10%.

I'm glad I don't have kids living in a place where vaccinations are a civil rights issue rather than a health care issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Bee
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:30 PM

I don't think arresting people is a good solution, for sure - as usual, when parents are nitwits, the children suffer the consequences.

But with the continuing rise of woo - anti-vaccine zealots, homeopathic 'medicine' and other bits of quackery, something should be done to try to protect these children and their peers.

The question is, how many unvaccinated kids are there, and how many does it take before they are seriously at risk of having their own little epidemic?

I was hired a while back to proof, edit and update a collection of genealogies from one area, going back more than 200 years. When diptheria raged through the community in the early 1900s, the results were obvious and heartbreaking. Families lost one, two, three, sometimes all of their children in less than a month. Each epidemic of scarlet fever, whooping cough, measles, diptheria, left its mark in the records, a sad list of dead children.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:32 PM

If you can get away with unvaccinated kids, then I can get away with bringing peanut butter to school!

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:36 PM

"One of the main problems with vaccination, as with most medical treatment, is the possibility of side effects. The benefits of vaccination to individuals and the public as a whole need to be weighed against the side effects sometimes experienced by certain individuals. Such weighing of risks and benefits is proving exceptionally difficult for many parents following the controversial link between the triple jab for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and autism. One report (Wakefield et al., 1998) published in a medical journal (The Lancet) led to a nationwide debate on whether the benefit of the triple jab is sufficient to outweigh the possible risks of a child developing autism after having the jab. Although only a small sample of children was used for the research and no other research has backed up the claim, it immediately resulted in a reduced number of children being immunised. While the worry was over mixing the vaccines and combining the various antigens in one jab to reduce the number of injections given, this led to a common misconception that vaccines in general are potentially unsafe and resulted in a sharp fall in the number of children being vaccinated against MMR. Since then, The Lancet has itself criticised the paper's claims, following revelation of 'a conflict of interest' on the part of the author. Despite this, public confidence has yet to be regained, as many still question the benefits of MMR. In a similar case in 1974, the whooping cough vaccine was linked to brain damage and convulsions (Matthews, 1998). Vaccination rates fell to 31% as parents sacrificed public health and welfare for the personal well being of their child."

"This led to the worst outbreak of the disease for 20 years, before further investigation failed to reveal any relationship between the two. While both incidents highlight public scepticism towards the risks of vaccination, they also show the devastating effects of a decrease in vaccination rates (let alone no vaccination at all)."

from National Institute for Medical Research

- The disasterous experience of a fall in vaccinations in the UK

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 09:26 PM

All children are subject to infection by diseases such as diptheria. The incidence of peanut allergy in the United States is approx. *0.5%, including mild to severe reaction. Equating this allergy with, say, diptheria, is apples and oranges nonsense.
*1.5 million of 310 million, approx. figures. Figure from Mayo Clinic.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Greg B
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 09:38 PM

Hey, what the hell.

Let's bring back small-pox.

And how about polio? May as well have some REAL fun.

I have my annual flu-shot not just to protect me, but the people
I might infect and/or take care of when they're sick.

These spoiled brats who've benefited their entire life from
immunizations and never known what it was to not be able to swim
in a public pool want to whine and complain about being compelled
to immunize their children. They have no frigging CLUE about what
the alternatives were, because they weren't there.

Maybe they should talk with their grandparents.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Beer
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:15 PM

I'm with you Greg. This is about saving lives. Be it your own or your best friend. Maybe the arresting of parents is not the correct way but if there is no other alternative, than so be it. I think the Polio example is a very good one and fits right into this "So called problem". Hell I can't drive anymore unless I have my seat belt on. I can't smoke at work, In night clubs,restaurant, and now in Kentiville Nova Scotia in my car it there is an infant in it. I understand in some new vehicles there will be installed some sort of devise that will not enable you to turn on your car if you have been drinking. If I drive over 100 kl (Say 55miles per hour)and get stopped and given a ticket or my licenses taken away because I've lost all my demerit points than I deserve it. The law is to protect all of us. We may not like it, but it is for us. I hated the seat belt issue as I felt it was taking away my right to strap on or off.
Enough said.
God night
Beer (adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:16 PM

There's a world of difference between a heavy slugger like polio, and a seasonal flue. I'd be happy to get a cholera shot (again) in the face of an epidemic, or even to prevent one. But I have never had a flu shot I can recall, and have never had a serious bout of flue. I trust my immune system for the general run of things (so too speak) more than I trust large pharmaceutical companies, as a general rule.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: bobad
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:23 PM

The purpose of the flu vaccine is to protect vulnerable people, the elderly, infirm, immunocompromised etc. The more people who are immunized, the less of a chance there is for the flu (influenza virus) to be spread to this population.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:24 PM

The unfortunate thing is that polio is still around, because immunizations didn't cover everybody. Seemingly the immunization is not life-long, so re-immunization in those areas where it is appearing may again necessary-
Nigeria, India and Afganistan are the worst areas at present but 2007 figures are down from 2006.
Case Count

Smallpox is 'eradicated' except for laboratory samples.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Beer
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:56 PM

Understand your point Amois. But in the last 4 years that I have started to take the flue vaccinne because I go to Senior homes and play music. I take it for their protection as well as my own. In 4 years I have not had the flu or a cold. I can't say that it is because of the flue vaccine but I can tell you that before I got a cold at least twice a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Rowan
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:06 PM

Bee asked
The question is, how many unvaccinated kids are there, and how many does it take before they are seriously at risk of having their own little epidemic?

The answers depend on the particular disease as population desities, inubation times and transmissability (infectiosness) all vary. For most of the diseases above I believe the threshold of "vaccinated" is ~85% for prevention of transmission through a population. If fewer than 85% are effectively immune then most of the diseases above will remain endemic in the population.

The debate about "individuals' rights/responsibilities" vs "communal rights/responsibilities" occurs in many guises and contexts and will probably continue for as long as there are more than two people left on the planet.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:42 PM

Vaccinate the kids and outlaw home schooling.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:45 PM

I don't think the parents should be put in jail, but there needs to be some way to ensure the safety of our children

Amos, normally I would agree with you, but after this bout with pneumonia, you can bet I will be getting the shot for same and, since my grandson is in preschool, I am seriously considering getting my first flu shot, ever. I haven't liked the idea of it, but I don't want to spend another month in bed, wheezing, etc, ever...well, at least until maybe it's my time to cross over, but even then I hope it is quick.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 01:55 AM

HEll, coming back from pneumonie, I wouldn't take a chance either. I am speaking from the narrow viewpoint of someone who has relatively few health issues, and therefore someone who is on good terms with his immune system. I know full well this does not apply to everyone, and not even to me at all times.

But in general, the more you strengthen the individual system, the less need it will have for extreme interventions. I just think you need to take these vaccines on a case by case basis.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 04:12 AM

Prior to the introduction of vaccination, people's immune systems had every opportunity to "strengthen". The chance of a newborn child surviving to adulthood was frequently less than 50%, and sometimes a lot less. People adopt the woo position out of sheer ignorance of history, combined with the mythology of a lost simple life, and they put at risk not only their own children (arguably child abuse?) but other people's too.

Be grateful for developments in public health- treated sewage, vaccination, pasteurisation and other hygiene measures, clean air, contraception, anaesthesis, good surgical practice, antibiotics and so on. The widespread and wilful ignorance of the benefits wrought by science, medicine and engineering is a feature of our selfish age, in which everyone is encouraged to think of themselves as an isolated, self- sufficient consumer.

No doubt someone will mention the atom bomb, as if it trumps everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Emma B
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 06:20 AM

Germany's Low Vaccination Rates Lead to Measles Epidemic

"In the 1960s, vaccinations against polio and smallpox were compulsory in Germany, but responsibility for immunizing children then shifted from public health physicians to pediatricians in private practice"

"Most favor vaccinations, but about 3-5 percent are hardliners opposed to them, while another 15 percent could be swayed either way. The point is we have tremendously good vaccines today, which could easily eradicate measles. To vaccinate or not cannot be a matter left up to individual choice,"

"We can still reach the 95 percent threshold to eradicate measles without the hardliners, if we could convince skeptics of the benefits of vaccination. Then maybe Germany can meet the target set by the World Health Organization to eradicate measles by 2010," concluded Monks, spokesman for the Berufsverband der Kinderärzte, a national pediatric association.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Bee
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 08:36 AM

Thanks for the info above, Rowan, and Emma B.

As for polio, I grew up just after that cusp where immunizations started - my first polio dose was administered on a sugar cube in school. I knew children who'd had polio and were damaged by it.

One of my professors at the school I attended in Holland had polio as a child, and was beginning to experience, in middle age, secondary health problems related to that childhood illness.

Oh, and Beer, the bylaw in Wolfville, NS, now is that you may be subject to a $200 fine if you are found smoking in your vehicle with a child under eighteen, and that's been clarified to say, yes, if you are under eighteen and are the driver and are smoking, you are subject to the fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: GUEST,No needles
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 08:55 AM

All states have vaccination exclusions. The news media is lying to you when it says the vaccines are mandatory. The news media is the fourth arm of government.

The media stories always mention the exclusions at the tail end of their stories, but they say exclusion for religious or medical reasons. The truth is you can opt out for matters of "conscience." Such as you don't want your kids poisoned with the following:

http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html

Don't poison your kids. The schools will act in the place of the parent and poison your kid by default unless you sign a waiver. Mr. Ivey (the attorney who was behind this push in Prince George's county), said his kids aren't vaccinated. He waived the shots for his kids, then he set out to get the $500 per head federal bounty on hundreds of other kids. Thoroughly disgusting.

All school systems have waivers. Parents who say unvaccinated kids threaten their kids haven't thought things through. If YOUR kid is vaccinated, how can an UNVACCINATED kid threaten yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Mo the caller
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 09:17 AM

Yes indeed, an unvacinated child is no threat to a vacinated child.
But after the scare about Whooping Cough vacine, 30 years ago the age for vacinating babies was lowered. If every child is vacinated you can afford to wait till the babies are older, and less at rik of side effects.
But it should be a parents choice. By cousin lost a baby after measles vacine, just before my youngest was due to be vacinated so...

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Grab
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 09:30 AM

Thanks for the link, Emma. One quote from there which they have expressed better though:-

parents sacrificed public health and welfare for the personal well being of their child

In fact, they sacrificed public health and welfare AND the personal well-being of their child. If on the birth of their child, 69% of parents took out a 45, put one bullet in one chamber, spun the cylinder, put the barrel to their kid's temple and pulled the trigger, they'd be arrested for attempted murder faster than you could blink. But play precisely the same game with viruses, and you don't expect consequences? As Greg and PMB say, the only reason not to vaccinate against major killing diseases with a well-established vaccine is pure ignorance. So sorry Donuel, I'm all for that law.

Note that this doesn't excuse administrative clusterfucks like Donuel's earlier experience, or under-tested vaccines which may make things worse (eg. anthrax).

Graham.

PS. Yes, I'm aware of religious reasons not to vaccinate. To my mind, any religious reason which favours the death of children over simple medical procedures is ignorant beyond any hope of redemption, and deserving of a special place of suffering in the Hell they believe in. For me, it's simply beyond justification.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 09:37 AM

Mo, the number of children killed or damaged by vaccination is minuscule compared to the number damaged by not- vaccination. I know each individual case is devastating for the parents concerned, but so is death or damage caused by disease. As Emma pointed out, infection rates have shot up since the MMR scare, puffed by the newspapers, caused many parents to opt out of vaccination. Infection rates have only been low because most children are vaccinated- in a way, the parents who refuse to vaccinate are parasitic on the majority. Don't forget that many children at risk are below the age for vaccination.

As for our friend no needles, that kind of let's-scare-everyone woo (oo-er chemicals, ba-a-a-a-d) just ignores the simple fact that since mass vaccination, it has been a fair bet that your children will survive.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: bankley
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 09:45 AM

More interesting info along the 'no needles' line.... including short documentaries... can be found at
Prison Planet.Com Research Archive... under "Vaccines: The Deadly Cure"

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Greg B
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 11:13 AM

>No doubt someone will mention the atom bomb, as if it trumps
>everything.

After the bomb, we'll still have Hitler.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 02:00 PM

We still have people in our supposedly educated populace who are as ignorant as the Congo militiaman who believes that his ju-ju mumbo jumbo will protect him from bullets, and who are as dangerous as the loony with a gun who invades a school and starts shooting.

Only education and strict legislation can keep our children safe from the ilk of 'no needles.'

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Rowan
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 05:36 PM

katlaughing, as a recent recoverer from pneumonia, you're probably more sensitised than most of us to the implications of such discussions; more power to your elbow!

My understanding about connections between flu, pneumonia and flu vaccinations may be a bit rusty but I'm sure others here will correct any errors I make.

Flu viruses (like cold viruses) mutate all the time, and the versions getting around any population of hosts (us) are always slightly ahead of and different from the versions to which vaccines have been developed in quantities sufficient for effective release into our population. This means some of us (the early adopters, to purloin a phrase) will get the new flu while others will get the vaccine in enough time to protect them from what us early adopters suffered.

One effect of flu is to debilitate us so seriously that we become vulnerable to other infections that, otherwise, we'd have resisted; one of these 'opportunists' is pneumonia, a bacterial infection. In the old and vulnerable pneumonia is frequently, ultimately, triumphant over our medical treatments and can take its victims quickly and relatively peacefully; often this happens in their sleep. For this reason, one of the old and traditional nicknames for pneumonia is "the old man's friend." Well, it's one "friend" I'll avoid for as long as possible. And I hope you do too.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: PoppaGator
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 05:45 PM

When our firstborn child began having epileptic seizures, we learned that one of the then-standard series of routine infant immunizations was suspected of having a negative effect on those with a genetic disposition to seizure disorders. I forget the name of the shot; it was commonly known by three initials, for the three different diseases it was designed to prevent.

Our subsequent children skipped this particular vaccine, with our pediatrician's approval, because of their presumed genetic similarity to their older sister. They've never had seizures, and never caught the illnesses they were not innoculated for, either. And of course, since most other kids in the community got the full set of shots, there hasn't been any kind of epidemic caused by our family's nonconformity.

I think some of you all have been a little to quick to jump on the compulsory-immunization bandwagon. There isn't anything you can put into your body that might not have some unintended side effect. Of course, it is critical to weigh the pros vs the cons of any decision, and automatic rejection of current conventional medical practice is rarely necessary and appropriate ~ but in some cases, it is the right decision for a particular person at a particular time.

I certainly think that the huge and sudden recent increase in reported cases of autism is cause for alarm. Some of this increase may well be due to better diagnostics and/or "over-reporting," but that can't explain away all of the monumental growth of this condition. The cause has to be some aspect of everyday life, something in our shared environment, that has developed very recently, very quickly, and quite universally. Some aspect of industrial pollution might be a reasonable explanation, but I think that it is also very reasonable to suspect any newly-developed vaccine that has been mandated for universal administration within the last decade or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 06:10 PM

My first son had all his vaccinations but at the age of two he had a febrile convulsion where he stopped breathing. He also developed asthma. Asthma has been linked to the MMR jab although there really does not seem to be enough evidence to support a connection.

Despite this I wanted my second son to have all his vaccinations. The doctors flatly refused because of his brother's history of a convulsion.

My second son was unable to have all of the vaccinations he should have had. At the age of two he suffered several febrile convulsions and was in and out of hospital and was given brain scans for epilepsy. I often wondered if there would have been an adverse effect if he had had all vaccinations.

I'll never know the answer to that and of course the decision was not mine anyway - nobody would do it! Not all parents get a choice! I think my doctors probably did make the right decision in hindsight.

I have the flu jab and will definitely have the pneumonia jab when I qualify! A friend of mine (only in his thirties) was
in intensive care for weeks with pneumonia earlier this year and everybody was worried to death about him. He had to be paralysed and put on a ventilator - it didn't half focus my mind!

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Rowan
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 07:34 PM

PoppaGator, MMR (mentioned by eanjay) may have been the triple antigen you described and is intended to immunise against measles, mumps and rubella. It hadn't been invented when I was a lad and I was one of thousands who got measles, but I avoided both the others. Like most who got the measles I survived with no after-effects except a liking for icecream (perhaps I might otherwise have been brilliant but it's too late to worry now) and, these days, I'm beyond worrying about adult infection from mumps or rubella. But I'd strongly recommend any girl getting the full immunisation against rubella before menarche and any boy getting immunised against mumps if either has desires of contributing to the gene pool of the next generation.

My family GP started practice with a strong desire to restrict himself to evidence-based medecine and hadn't been convinced of the desirability of immunisation against diptheria and whooping cough before he visited in-laws in Germany and observed, first hand, the experiences of infants who got those infections. He was excoriated and, ever since, has always recommended such immunisation unless there are serious contraindications.

As someone earlier mentioned, we are lucky in the times we live. A century or so ago the death rates of infants and children suffering such infections were so high that, while our gene pool was undoubtedly 'cleaned up', the process was heartbreaking and it would be inhuman to recommend bringing it back.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Emma B
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 07:55 PM

Rowan, I wasn't one of the kids who survived measles with no after effects. This was before vaccinations and the whole school I attended had to be closed down with a major epidemic.
For weeks I hovered beteen life and death with pneumonia, too ill to be removed to a hospital (early days of anti-biotics) and when I surfaced found out that my best friend had died.

My mother (who still bore the consequences of childhood polio) was a wise woman who made certain that my sister and myself were exposed to every family and neighbourhood case of rubella during childhood.

I'm not sure about the original idea of arresting parents who, for whatever deeply held belief, refuse immunisation (although my sympathies are for Grab's feelings) but it is essential that real informed decisions are made and not based on any current media scare story.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Bee
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 09:16 PM

I can anecdotally tell you that rising diagnoses of autism spectrum disorders has a lot to do with naming them. I've worked with upwards of three thousand children (likely more), aged three to twelve, from the early seventies to a couple years ago.

In 1972, we had one child tentatively diagnosed as autistic. We had several other children diagnosed with the ubiquitous FLK disorder (for those not in the know - FLK = Funny Looking Kid, psychiatric meaning, we know something's wrong, but have no idea what), who I'd bet would be called autistic today. Some of the children diagnosed as 'hyperactive' and dosed to the eyeballs with Ritalin in the eighties would be called autistic today. I am sure of that. In the nineties, more children were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders, and certainly some of them would have had a different label applied in the previous decade.

The last two 'diagnosed as' children I worked with were both diagnosed with Asberger's Syndrome, but two more different from each other children could not be found. I found it difficult to reconcile the symptoms of one with those of the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 10:29 PM

Emma B, your experience is a major reason why I don't understand those who use ideological reasons for avoiding immunisation, especially when it's for infants under their care; I regard emotional proselytisation of anti-immunisation policies offensive but can accept reasonable caution when dealing with reasonable people argue either side of a particular case. I value the ability to exercise personal responsibility and have little sympathy with unalloyed legislative compulsion. I prefer to rely on the responsible and proper use of evidence, logic and argument, but that's merely a statement of where I fit into the individual vs community schemas.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Rowan
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 11:18 PM

Emma B, your experience is a major reason why I don't understand those who use ideological reasons for avoiding immunisation, especially when it's for infants under their care; I regard emotional proselytisation of anti-immunisation policies offensive but can accept reasonable caution when dealing with reasonable people argue either side of a particular case. I value the ability to exercise personal responsibility and have little sympathy with unalloyed legislative compulsion. I prefer to rely on the responsible and proper use of evidence, logic and argument, but that's merely a statement of where I fit into the individual vs community schemas.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 11:48 PM

Rowan, thanks for your kind comments. I do intend to stay healthy, NOW, and not take any more chances, esp. as I had a new aortic valve put in a couple of years ago!*smile*

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Grab
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 08:29 AM

Wow Emma! :-(

PoppaGator, the problem with the side-effects argument is simple. You can have your child injected with something that has odds somewhere below one-in-a-thousand of some side-effects, and side-effects that are non-fatal at that. Or you can leave your child without it, in which case your child has a better than one-in-ten chance of dying. (Quick Google shows worst-case childhood mortality in the UK was 149.5 deaths per thousand in the 1750s.)

If there are some *very* specific medical circumstances which significantly raise the risk of side-effects, then you have a decent reason. But even then, you were still taking a gamble with those kids, balancing the higher risk of non-fatal side-effects against the lower risk of fatal infection. You played the odds right - but the dice don't always fall as per the odds. :-(

The problem is that vaccination is like taxes. If everyone pays, the odd one or two can get away with freeloading and things still go OK. But if most of the place says "hey, I can freeload too" then your roads, power stations and water supplies fall apart, and everyone loses.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Mo the caller
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 09:08 AM

You really can not quote death rates from 1750 and expect me to respect your objectivity.
Too many other things have changed. Nutrition. State support so that poverty is relative rather than absolute. Housing standards. Healthcare.
I am not against vaccination. I am against compulsion.
People who distrust anything a politcian says have a lot of reasons to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Amos
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 09:42 AM

I should make the point extremely clearly that it is not the principle of vaccination to which I object, but the principle of placing an individual in a dependent position if it can be avoided.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 09:58 AM

My grandson had a severe allergy to eggs when he was a baby so could not have one in particular vaccine. That since has sorted out...outgrew the allergy.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 10:21 AM

As I said earlier, I'm glad I don't have kids living in a place where vaccinations are a civil rights issue rather than a health care issue. Grab has it exactly right...if there are some *very* specific medical circumstances which significantly raise the risk of side-effects, then you have a decent reason to not have your children (and yourselves) vaccinated. If you do not, for philosophical or religious or any other reason, than you are in exactly the same position as the drunk driving down the wrong side of the road, saying "it's everyone else's responsibility to watch out for me". Sorry, but as a person who worked in health care for nearly thirty years, that's my professional opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Catherine Jayne
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 10:24 AM

I agree that children should be vaccinated but I don't think that parents should be arrested for not having their children vaccinated. I think that parents should be educated about diseases and the vaccinations available and the consequences should their children contract one of the diseases if they aren't vaccinated.

I'm a relatively new mum, Harry is 6 months old and has had all of the vaccinations available to him for his age, I feel it is my duty as his mother to protect him to the best of my ability. I am concerned about the MMR vaccine as I know someone who's child has been diagnosed with autism and the parents are convinced that it was due to the MMR. We will be doing our research and Harry will be vaccinated whether it be with the triple vaccine or with separates spread out over a few months. I have to say that we haven't been given much information on childhood diseases and vaccinations we have had to research it ourselves. What I suppose I am saying is educate the parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Catherine Jayne
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 10:27 AM

I qualify for free flu and pneumonia vaccinations due to severe asthma, and I've had them both and will continue to have the flu vaccine (pneumonia jab lasts about 6 or so years. I'm not taking any chances!

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Bert
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 02:24 PM

Then there's the mercury problem. Everyone tells you that vaccines nowadays don't contain mercury.

But when you got to the doctor and ask for vaccines without mercury they can't get them.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: bobad
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 04:08 PM

I believe that the flu vaccine is the only one that contains mercury in the form of Thimerosal (merthiolate). Most of us probably received way more mercury from Mercurochrome, which contains 26% mercury, applied to scrapes and scratches in our youth. Thimerosal is 49.6% mercury and there is at most 2 to 3 micrograms of thimerosal per milliliter of vaccine).

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Bert
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 04:13 PM

They tell you that vaccines don't contain mercury but when you ask for them they can't supply them. Rachael has been asking for a couple of years but they can't find ANY that don't contain mercury.

As for quantities, how small a quantity of poison are you willing to give your kids?

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: bobad
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 06:20 PM

"As for quantities, how small a quantity of poison are you willing to give your kids?"

No medical intervention is without risk, in the case of vaccination the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 10:06 PM

It would appear that, whoever "they" are, they are in error, or using information from the 1990s. Only the flu vaccine now contains thimerosal, which is about half organic mercury (what is found in fish and other animals exposed to toxic waste is inorganic mercury). There have been a number of scientific studies conducted, summarized here , which conclude that vaccines with thimerosal pose no significant danger to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Greg B
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 10:19 PM

Does that mean I should be singing 'Drops of white mercury'
when I get my flu-shot from now on?

That'll get the senior citizens in line with me going, now
won't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 12:25 AM

There are legitimate medical questions about the toxic effects of additives in vaccines. In Maryland, at present, there are 12 different vaccinations required by the state--and parents wh are not wackos of any sort have legitimate concerns about the exposure that their children have.

People like Bee and Emma use alarmist rhetoric, and name calling, to discredit these very honest and reasonable concerns. I have to question the motivation of anyone who attempts to suppress discussion, investigation, and examination of any thing that poses a health threat to our children.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Bert
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 02:42 AM

There are things that are summarized on websites, but when you ask the quack for a guarantee that the vaccines don't contain mercury, he can't supply them.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Emma B
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 04:11 AM

M Ted, all I have contributed to this thread, apart from my own pre-vaccine very personal childhood experience of a measles epidemic, have been links to two non - sensational articles on the reasons for and effects of falling vaccination figures one of which considers the opposing views discussed here and gives some actual statistical figures on the percentage of vaccinated children required to prevent epidemics in the community.

I have stated clearly that I have reservations about arresting parents who are opposed to vaccination from deeply held beliefs but that my personal feelings are that informed decisions should be promoted in the population as a whole.

Please tell me where the "alarmist rhetoric" and "name calling" is
that you have singled me out for.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Rasener
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 04:27 AM

Just to add my ten penneth.
My daughter who is autistic, had the first MMR jab. She has not had the second.
I had to fight like hell for that.
We decided that we couldn't risk making her possibly worse.
We had lots of meetings with the health authorities who were so up their own arses and full of utter shit.
Our doctor, finally said that it wasn't necessary as the second jab was really to cover those who didn't take from the first jab.
She said that there was a greater % chance of our daughter being immune than not.
She advised to not have the second.
The only thing she mentioned, was that at a certain age, it would be prudent to have the rubella inoculation.
So for me its arseholes to such prats who suggest such stupid things.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: GUEST,Crystal
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 07:52 AM

I can see good points at both sides of the arguement here!

Personally I feel that the risk of a child dying, or being crippled by a disease is greater than the risk of side effects from the vaccine used to prevent the disease. On the other hand I believe we also need a lot more research done into these side effects, proper research, not like the now discredited studies done on links between MMR and Autism!
At the end of the day it should be up to the parents to decide, but it should be up to the government to provide the FACTS.

I was lucky, my mother got me vaccinated against whooping cough, but a few friends were not and were off school for a couple on months each recovering from it. Not a disease I'd ever want I have to admit!

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Rasener
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 08:47 AM

>>not like the now discredited studies done on links between MMR and Autism<<

I have met one of the people who is at Sunderland University Mr.Paul Shattock http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/autism/aru.htm who still does these studies. I have also listend to his seminar. They are actually trying to do something.
However the health chiefs are constantly trying to undermine all that good work, becuase they are shit scared to admit to the problems.
I have met a lot of smug bastards who have tried to undermine the above work.
Most of the people who constantly say the the MMR jab is safe are just puppets spouting what they are told and do not have enough knowledge about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 09:26 AM

Perhaps a few more references to the MMR case would be helpful -

http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-greenhalgh.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article391141.ece
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3611/

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Mo the caller
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 09:32 AM

I get the impression that MMR vacine probably is safe.
I also get the impression that government spokespeople say what they want people to hear, not what they believe to be scientifically proven.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Rasener
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 09:37 AM

For a lot of people its safe, but for some, it isn't.

government spokespeople are told what they have to say. Its like listening to a parrot repeating itself, when you hear these people.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: bobad
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 12:55 PM

If anyone is seeking 100% guarantees of the safety or efficacy of any medical intervention they will never find it, it is simply not realistic. There is always that 1 in 10,000,000 chance that someone will have an adverse reaction where 9,999,999 did not. I know of someone who needed a liver transplant after having a reaction to Tylenol (acetaminophen) yet 100's of millions of people take it without any problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 02:44 PM

I got the story all wrong it was notthe govenor but a country manager who made the decree. It seems enough lawyers have gotten to him that the arrest threat no longer seems real but is not officially recinded.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 02:48 PM

My wife argues vehemently that MMR does not cause autism. I am on the other side.

Dick Army confessed that he secretly inserted a provision in a bill at 2 AM that would limit liability of vaccine manufacturers. It limits liability to $25,000.

He is no longer in office.

My wife claims that Hatch was behind the drug company limits being secretly inserted into a bill to be voted on 6 hours later at 9 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 03:12 PM

Sorry, EmmaB, I misread your post and thought you said something that someone else said. I won't name anymore names.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 04:04 PM

I haven't seen mercurochrome in a long time.

bobad was methyiolate different from mercurochome? They looked the same to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: bobad
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 05:06 PM

They are similar and were both used as topical antiseptics but they are not chemically identical.

From Wikipedia:

Merthiolate

Mercurochrome

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 07:42 PM

Our vet clued us into using a dilution of "Betadine" (an iodine solution) on small cuts on our pets, rather than an antibiotic ointment which he said suffocates wounds making them take longer to heal. We use it on ourselves, a generic brand (is that an oxymoron?) and it's better than I ever remember merthiolate or mercurochrome being! They stung!


It's a good thing flu vaccines are not mandated for children. THIS would give me pause if they were. From BUSINESSWEEK:

By MATTHEW PERRONE

WASHINGTON

Government health regulators recommended adding label precautions about neurological problems seen in children who have taken flu drugs made by Roche and GlaxoSmithKline.

The Food and Drug Administration on Friday released its safety review of Roche's Tamiflu and Glaxo's Relenza. FDA's panel of outside experts will consider the government's proposed labeling at its meeting Tuesday. FDA is not required to follow the advice of its outside experts, though it usually does.

FDA began reviewing Tamiflu's safety in 2005 after receiving reports of children experiencing neurological problems, including hallucinations and convulsions.

Twenty-five patients under age 21 have died while taking the drug, most of them in Japan. Five deaths resulted from children "falling from windows or balconies or running into traffic."

Over 48 million patients, including 21 million children, have taken Tamiflu since it was approved in 1999. The drug, which comes in capsule and liquid form, had sales of $2.4 billion last year.

There have been no child deaths connected with Relenza, but regulators said children taking the drug have shown similar neurological problems.

The label for British drug maker Glaxo's Relenza does not list any neurological problems. A company spokesman said Friday no signficant behavioral issues have been recorded in clinical studies or patient safety reports. Sales of the drug last year were roughly $187 million.

While FDA said the reports of dangerous side effects could result from an unusual strain of flu or a rare genetic reaction to the drugs, the agency wants language about the possible side effects added to labeling for physicians who prescribe Tamiflu and Relenza.

Tamiflu's current label lists the potential for self-injury and delirium, but does not mention that these behaviors could result in death. The FDA's proposed label would include that information.

In a statement Friday, Roche suggested it would consider changing the label.

"If the FDA concludes that it is valuable to place additional details on the label with regard to specific adverse event reports, then Roche is open to that consideration," the statement from Roche, which is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, said.

However, the company also stressed there is no concrete evidence connecting its drug to the reported problems. It also pointed out that many children with flu experience neurological problems, even when they aren't taking medication.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 07:57 PM

That explains it bobad. I had enough merthilate to float a boat as a kid.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: PoppaGator
Date: 24 Nov 07 - 02:26 PM

We always seemd to have both Merthilolate and Mercurochrome around the house when I was a kid. They both left very bright neon-red marks, but in two slightly different shades. I had not been aware that both contained mercury; "mercuro-chrome," obviously enough, would be the name of something made from mercury, but not so obviousoly the other...

I came to prefer Mercurochrome as I grew up, because it hardens the wound to which it is applied, in addition to its antiseptic effect, and to me seemed to be unique in its ability to make pain/tenderness/immobility go away fast. For this reason, I've always tried to keep a bottle of this old-time remendy on hand. (I always found it especially helpful for blisters on the feet, upon which which one can hardly avoid putting one's weight.)

It's only in the last year or so that my last bottle finally ran out. Of course, I haven't been able to find more. Only after reading this thread, and the linked-to Wiki articles, have I learned that it's off the market and that I might as well abandon my quest for a mercurochrome refill.

Of, and one more thing: when it comes to stinging, neither Merthiolate nor Mercurochrome ever stung half as much as the only alternative we had back in the bad old days, which was iodine.

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Nov 07 - 03:19 PM

See, that's what I don't get, Poppagator. The generic "betadine" we use IS iodine and it doesn't sting. I dilute it to use on pets but not on ourselves. I remember the others stinging really badly when I'd scraped up a knee and mom drenched it in the *red* stuff. It almost match my hair colour back then!:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Arresting parents over vaccines
From: Rowan
Date: 24 Nov 07 - 09:40 PM

Most of the sting may well have been the methylated spirits (ethanol with a bit of naptha to make it undrinkable) used in the tincture. Meths also hardens the open part of the wound by drying out the superficial tissues, and is used by some guitarists for a similar purpose in the belief it accelarates callus formation.

Cheers, Rowan