Infant Homeopathic immunisations

[????]

It's not really a debate though is it? It's substantial evidence backed by the vast majority of global and national health bodies and the majority of the health profession against the subjective 'opinion' of a few backed up by flat earth conspiracy theory websites. Subjective opinion doen't really stand up against rigourous scientific evidence except in the minds of those that feel their feelings are somehow as valid as facts....and on that basis the 'debate' could go on and on.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

I am for what Josiebee said:

Another thing I would like to point out is that while on the whole most people can deal with immunisations there are people whose systems do respond very badly and there are people who have died directly as a result of immunisations - sadly many of them. Perhaps you regard this as a necessary price to pay to have an immunised society. However there are with some vaccines tests which can be done to see if children can handle a particular vaccination or not. I think it would be good if there could be a slightly more individualised approach to vaccination and some recognition that some children's systems will be less able to handle them.

My son did have his first set of jabs and he will be having the rest but as I said, we should have more choices in how we wish to administer them, If we as parents want to pay that little bit extra for peace of mind, then we should have the choice, it is our money, so the NHS is hardly going to lose out if we have to pay extra ( through choice)and not all babies are able to tolerate the jabs. The ones in which I know of, their mothers had faulty immunity ( like myself) and their kids have ended up with health problems, whether it is connected to the jabs, who knows? but it would be nice to be able just to limit that risk and if they still get conditions and illnesses, we at least tried. I don't believe one size fits all.

[helena handbasket]

In the "spirit of openmindedness" I had a look at the Informed Parent website. They certainly do give a lot of information... words like "grossly overestimated" are tossed around, a few graphs, nothing with any references to back it up. Magda Taylor has lots of opinions dressed up as information, again with no references. So I had a look at the "about us" section hoping that maybe I would see that she actually had ANYTHING one might recognize as credentials....... nope. Who are these people? Anybody can read the questionable info available on the internet and form conclusions. It doesn't make it real. And look at the power they have........ THIS is what causes confusion and fear......THIS is why young moms are scared to death to make a false move........ THIS is why diseases that were almost completely gone have made a comeback

[randomv]

josiebee Wrote:

>

> I think all I would ask for is a slightly more

> open minded approach toward the question of

> immunisation so that medical progress and advances

> can continue. Putting people who dare question the

> orthodoxy on immunisation into the same bracket as

> holocaust deniers sort of sums things up.

Josiebee - I am putting the analytical skills of those who deny the efficacy or safety of immunisation in the same bracket as holocaust deniers.

Per Helena Handbasket, I can see nothing on the Informed Parents website to make me believe they are SELLING anything other than emotional and anecdotal mumbo-jumbo. I noted with interest though a linked page from their site entitled "What Has The HPV Cancer Vaccine Done To Our Girls?" which makes repeated references to the tragic case of a girl who died recently due to a previously undetected heart tumour. This is the kind of irresponsible reporting that leads to so many fears for parents who, at the end of the day, all want to do the best for their children.

[huncamunca]

skip Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Has anyone had this done locally, know anything

> about it, whether it works etc? Worried about the

> standard jabs, and wondering whether the

> homeopathic route is the answer? Confused.

Skip

Homeopathy is utter rubbish, but its big business, playing on peoples fears and trepidation

please read through the various responses to your question, I think there is a decent enough cross section of sensible and farcical posts to help your choice. Some of the opinions expressed here are ignorant, foolhardy, dangerous and irresponsible.

someones positive anecdote on homeopathy is not a substitute for rigourous clinical testing

all I can say is please dont put your own kids or indeed anyone elses kids at risk

[Polmoche]

josiebee Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Putting people who dare question the

> orthodoxy on immunisation into the same bracket as

> holocaust deniers sort of sums things up.

Josiebee--those "who dare question the orthodoxy on immunisation" have put *themselves* in the same brackets as holocaust deniers, no one else. If you actually root about the web site that antijen holds up as evidence as to why jabs are dangerous, you find that its authors are also putting forth the theory that the holocaust did not exist.

[huncamunca]

have a good look through the website quoted

other rib ticklers include the Auschwitz hoax, Pharma companies set out to addict children, governments disperse chemicals via unmarked jets and peak oil is a lie. oh yes, they support Wilhelm Reichs Orgone theory as well.

[helena handbasket]

My favourite section is when "Dr. Shelton" states that angry mothers kill their babies with their breast milk. He didn't say stress hormones in breast milk might have negative consequences.......... he said ANGRY MOTHERS KILL THEIR BABIES WITH THEIR BREASTMILK.

Thank you for posting this website, it is providing me with hours of entertainment. Now I have to get back to my new favourite source for parenting tips......

[DaveR]

It's worth posting the link again, as it is the best site I have ever some across for the sheer breadth and (misplaced) confidence of contemporary crackpot nonsense residing there.

"They" are definitely trying to kill you - yes, you!

[josiebee]

>

> Really? Thanks to a sustained anti-MMR campaign

> led by the likes of the Daily Mail, based on no

> scientific evidence incidentally, MMR take-up has

> dropped to a low enough level that measles has

> sprung up again in this area. Measles is not the

> cuddly child-friendly illness that the same media

> organisations may lead you to believe - it can

> kill or lead to permanant brain damage in very

> young children. That could be any one of our

> pre-MMR age children exposed to this disease. Of

> course it is a public issue!

Random V - get your facts right - The Daily Mail is on YOUR side - it is pro not anti MMR - please see article "The anti-MMR mothers who are putting us all in danger" by novelist Jonathan Myerson in the Daily Mail 11th August 2008 www.dailymail.co.uk

[josiebee]

skip Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Has anyone had this done locally, know anything

> about it, whether it works etc? Worried about the

> standard jabs, and wondering whether the

> homeopathic route is the answer? Confused

The antagonism and anger directed towards people who don't go along entirely with the mainstream view about immunisation is a real eye opener for me. What I see here is a far cry from the description given by the moderator of this site:

"My perception is that the family room is a fairly laid-back and welcoming place, where advice sought and given is supportive and constructive."

Supportive and constructive as long as you go along with what the majority believe!

Here is a limited collection of some of the remarks directed toward those who don't:

"sheer breadth and (misplaced) confidence of contemporary crackpot nonsense residing there."

"those "who dare question the orthodoxy on immunisation" have put *themselves* in the same brackets as

holocaust deniers, no one else"

"Some of the opinions expressed here are ignorant, foolhardy, dangerous and irresponsible."

"I am putting the analytical skills of those who deny the efficacy or safety of immunisation in the same

bracket as holocaust deniers."

"against the subjective 'opinion' of a few backed up by flat earth conspiracy theory websites. Subjective

opinion doen't really stand up against rigourous scientific evidence except in the minds of those that

feel their feelings are somehow as valid as facts...."

"What a ridiculous, typical, middle class dilemma: we are so spoilt and whiny that we actually have the

luxury of "deciding against" medical advances"

"I am really trying not to post further on this thread since it is getting ridiculous but seriously some of

these posts are highly irresponsible."

Very often the people who question immunisation orthodoxy are people who have had vaccine damaged children and have spent years, not a few evenings, sifting through good and bad material on websites, libraries, medical journals etc in order to find out more about immunisation. Their views are usually based on a lot of research and analysis and they don't deserve to be discredited in the way they are here by a few people who have "opinions", but apparently not a great deal of knowledge on the subject.

Personally I am not completely sure where I stand on immunisations and that uncertainty seems to be regarded almost as a crime in itself. However I would for example, really like to see more longitudinal research done comparing the health of equivalent immunised and non-immunised individuals. But in a climate where any questionning of the value of immunisations is so incredibly unpopular it must be very difficult to get the necessary open ended, objective research done.

[BellendenBear]

I read some of these posts in utter disbelief. I can not believe that people seriously believe what they read on scare mongering websites and in doing so put their and our children at risk. Despite what some have said, this IS a public health issue. Infectious diseases (including measles) remain a major cause of death in children and are responsible for around 14 million deaths in under 5s each year worldwide. We are lucky to have access to effective vaccinations.

If you look at the statistics for any of the infections (diptheria, pertussis, HIb, Polio, Measles) there is a dramatic decline in the number of cases following the introduction of vaccinations. Similarly at times when there is a decline in the uptake of vaccinations, the incidence of infection quickly goes up again. A similar thing to the current measles outbreak happened in the 1970s when there were scares about the pertussis jab. Several whooping cough epidemics followed with associated neurological complications. While in developing countries such infections remain endemic because they do not have access to vaccinations.

The eradication of these infections may also be in part due to improvements in hygiene, diet etc, but the statistics for how measles has returned since the MMR scare speak for themselves. Southwark and Lewisham are prime examples of this. And measles, mumps and rubella are all airborne, so apart from a reduction in overcrowded living conditions, I don't really see how diet and water quality can have made such a difference.

Some have questioned whether they are being irresponsible by not vaccinating their children. Be in no doubt that you are being very irresponsible. Herd immunity occurs when a sufficient proportion of a population are vaccinated to provide protection for the unvaccinated individuals. The threshold at which this occurs varies for each infection but is generally around 85%. No vaccine offers total protection to the individual so it is crucial that herd immunity is achieved to offer overall protection for the population. Some people truly are at risk from vaccinations (eg post-transplant) so this makes it even more important for healthy kids to be vaccinated, and even more irresponsible of parents if they are not. Furthermore, there will always be some individuals, particularly in areas of social deprivation and with a transient population, who are disengaged with health services so will default from vaccination. This increases the potential impact of a decision not to vaccinate following an article in Crystal Therapy Weekly.

Fortunately, serious infections in the UK are rare so it is easy for us to forget the impact that preventable infections can have on childhood morbity and mortality. Let's not let this make us complacent. If you don't vaccinate your child, chances are they will be fine (same as we all know someone who smoked 40 a day and lived to be 80) be be under no illusion, this is because the majority of other children have been immunised.

[huncamunca]

josiebee Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> skip Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Has anyone had this done locally, know anything

> > about it, whether it works etc? Worried about

> the

> > standard jabs, and wondering whether the

> > homeopathic route is the answer? Confused

>

> The antagonism and anger directed towards people

> who don't go along entirely with the mainstream

> view about immunisation is a real eye opener for

> me. What I see here is a far cry from the

> description given by the moderator of this site:

> "My perception is that the family room is a fairly

> laid-back and welcoming place, where advice sought

> and given is supportive and constructive."

>

> Supportive and constructive as long as you go

> along with what the majority believe!

>

> Here is a limited collection of some of the

> remarks directed toward those who don't:

>

> "sheer breadth and (misplaced)

> confidence of contemporary crackpot nonsense

> residing there."

>

> "those "who dare question the

> orthodoxy on immunisation" have put *themselves*

> in the same brackets as

> holocaust deniers, no one else"

>

> "Some of the opinions expressed

> here are ignorant, foolhardy, dangerous and

> irresponsible."

>

> "I am putting the analytical

> skills of those who deny the efficacy or safety of

> immunisation in the same

> bracket as holocaust deniers."

>

> "against the subjective 'opinion'

> of a few backed up by flat earth conspiracy theory

> websites. Subjective

> opinion doen't really stand up

> against rigourous scientific evidence except in

> the minds of those that

> feel their feelings are somehow

> as valid as facts...."

>

> "What a ridiculous, typical,

> middle class dilemma: we are so spoilt and whiny

> that we actually have the

> luxury of "deciding against"

> medical advances"

>

>

> "I am really trying not to post

> further on this thread since it is getting

> ridiculous but seriously some of

> these posts are highly

> irresponsible."

>

> Very often the people who question immunisation

> orthodoxy are people who have had vaccine damaged

> children and have spent years, not a few evenings,

> sifting through good and bad material on websites,

> libraries, medical journals etc in order to find

> out more about immunisation. Their views are

> usually based on a lot of research and analysis

> and they don't deserve to be discredited in the

> way they are here by a few people who have

> "opinions", but apparently not a great deal of

> knowledge on the subject.

>

> Personally I am not completely sure where I stand

> on immunisations and that uncertainty seems to be

> regarded almost as a crime in itself. However I

> would for example, really like to see more

> longitudinal research done comparing the health of

> equivalent immunised and non-immunised

> individuals. But in a climate where any

> questionning of the value of immunisations is so

> incredibly unpopular it must be very difficult to

> get the necessary open ended, objective research

> done.

Questions about the efficiacy of immunisation is a legitimate issue and should be discussed

This does not however make the continued promotion of homeopathic mumbo jumbo any more legitimate

[antijen]

josieb, thanks for your support, you are absolutely right about peoples attitudes on this forum, it's not just in the family section. I don't let it bother me as when you look at how many people read it, I'm sure there are people who would not want to argue with attitudes, like you have quoted above. There are global protests against vaccinations, shame most posters on here would rather pick up on a website I googled, than look for information independantly. I have, like you researched info from both sides for many years, I can understand and respect others choices, but my biggest concern is the choice will be taken away. There are many people worried about this especially around the swine flu. This does involve the goverment, which has brought many people, (protest october, houses of parliament), don't have the time to research any websites I may put up.

[Jamma]

You've whoopsied there JosieBee. The quotes above tend to be attacks on the evidence, the views expressed, not the people making them. Which is both surprising and refreshing. The pro-science lobby is getting wise these days and not going in for ad hominem attacks but picking apart the so-called 'evidence' offered by anti-vaxxers.

I however am old school. If you think the Daily Mail is pro MMR then you are proving yourself to be a bit dim I'm afraid. Quoting one article when the Mail has published literally hundreds against MMR suggests your approach to weighing evidence is fatally flawed. Similarly Antijen's claim that she doesn't research websites she quotes from seems to hole her arguments below the waterline.

Got enough rope there ladies?

[taper]

See here for the sorry tale of the Daily Mail, MMR, and other vaccinations.

http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/daily-mail-on-vaccination-mmr-hpv-swine-flu/

[newgirl]

I've just started reading a book called 'The Truth about Vaccines' by the GP who campaigned for the removal of mercury from vaccines given to infants (Dr Richard Halvorsen). So far I've found it very informative. Incidentally, he is not anti-vaccine but suggests that parents like myself who have a number of autistic family members may want to consider delaying starting vaccinations until a baby is 3 months-old, and spreading them out over a longer period of a few months.

[Family Room Moderator]

I've been following the discussion with interest.

Please can I politely request that posters refrain from making personal attacks on one another.

[Jamma]

newgirl - I suggest you Google Dr Richard Halvorsen. He's not pushing 'the truth' about vaccines out of the goodness of his heart

[p_in_ed]

BellendenBear Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Fortunately, serious infections in the UK are rare

> so it is easy for us to forget the impact that

> preventable infections can have on childhood

> morbity and mortality.

Informed, rational, balanced, cogent. Refreshing to see such a coherent contribution to a clearly emotive discussion.

[Carrot]

By all means give your child homeopathic immunisations, I don't think it does any harm, apart from an unnecessarily sore arm. Please get your child immunised conventionally it is probabally the most effective intervention we have- just look at levels of childhood mortalitiy in other countries. As already pointed out in other threads that it is not only beneficial to your child but also decreasing the risk to other children who don't have competent immune systems and your are putting them at risk.

[antijen]

jamma

Antijen's claim that she doesn't research websites she quotes from seems to hole her arguments below the waterline.

Got enough rope there ladies?

I dont understand what your getting at, because I did not find my own words about a subject so vast to me, put up a website that I googled there and then (have already explained that), did not have the time there and then to research it = I might have possibly learned and came to my beliefs without internet, I recognised what I believed to be true, I dont have the time for the attitudes of many on this thread.

seems to hole her arguments below the waterline, nope cant get it.

FAMILY ROOM MODERATOR,

CAN YOU SAY WHO THE PEOPLE ARE WHO YOU BELIEVE TO BE MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS ON OTHERS,I THINK YOU SHOULD MAKE IT PLAIN WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE PERSONAL ATTACKS AND WHO, AS THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSING ABOUT WHAT SORT OF BEHAVIOUR IS ACCEPTABLE HAVE YOU GIVEN A WARNING TO ANYONE.

[antijen]

jamma

Antijen's claim that she doesn't research websites she quotes from seems to hole her arguments below the waterline.

Got enough rope there ladies?

I dont understand what your getting at, because I did not find my own words about a subject so vast to me, put up a website that I googled there and then (have already explained that), did not have the time there and then to research it = I might have possibly learned and came to my beliefs without internet, I recognised what I believed to be true, I dont have the time for the attitudes of many on this thread.

seems to hole her arguments below the waterline, nope cant get it.

FAMILY ROOM MODERATOR,

CAN YOU SAY WHO THE PEOPLE ARE WHO YOU BELIEVE TO BE MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS ON OTHERS,I THINK YOU SHOULD MAKE IT PLAIN WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE PERSONAL ATTACKS AND WHO, AS THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSING ABOUT WHAT SORT OF BEHAVIOUR IS ACCEPTABLE HAVE YOU GIVEN A WARNING TO ANYONE.

[Family Room Moderator]

Antijen, what I mean by personal attacks are comments on the person and not on the opinion. I haven't seen the need to give anyone warnings, as there haven't been any posts since my last that warranted a warning.

Incidentally, writing a post in capital letters is generally interpreted as shouting - I am sure you didn't intend yours that way but it can come across as rude.

[plimsoul]

antijen, can you not understand that possibly both sides have been heated and that in this case you have stoked those flames as much as the next person on this thread? shouting at the moderator when you can just p.m. adds to the anger and energy.

basically you don't agree with some people, they don't agree with you. this is a forum in a suburb of south east london, not the UN, some people read responsibility and immunisation differently but no one has frog marched anyone to the GP to get a jab done that they don't want.

however, if you are going to put a link up on a public site to support your argument it is no ones fault but you're own that you didn't research it.

i am sorry to post directly back to your last comments but that is all i'm doing: responding to that last post, this is in no way a personal attack on your beliefs and not meant to be.