Infant Homeopathic immunisations

[reggie]

Antigen

I do think the link to whale.to really did not help your case.

As others have noticed, the website lists on its opening page the subject..'Auschwitz Hoax'

I couldnt believe it when I saw it and guess that you are equally shocked and embarrassed.

[Sanne Panne]

I personally don't believe in homeopathy and am a firm defender of herd immunity and the associated parental responsibility BUT people should be allowed to do their research, hopefully being honest with themselves in the process and not getting blinded by highly subjective publications... (I know the last bit is often the core of the problem)

Anyway, if you are concerned about side effects and do believe in homeopathy there is supposed to be something called a homeopathic vaccine "neutraliser" which is given the day before and the day after the vaccination, allegedly neutralising the negative effects of the jab. Not my cup of tea but if it makes more people comfortable getting the jabs I think it's worth it.

[reggie]

this sounds a really good compromise

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Sanne Panne, I think that is what Skip was actually referring to, I did point this out in my post. I don't think she is replacing the vaccines with homeopathic ones, I think she was asking about the neutraliser, as I know lots of people who do that, peace of mind I guess, it makes them feel better.

I also do think some of the posts in regards to AntiJen are quite harsh, she is entitled to her own views as I am entitled to mine and likewise you are entitled to yours but some of the replies are just plain rude, this thread was not started by Skip so that people can come on here and tell her and Antijen how much they disagree with them it was started to ask about people's experiences with regards to homeopathic immunisations, if you don't like it, don't read it.

You could also start a debate in the lounge entitled 'For and Against Immunisations' instead of hijacking this one, no wonder Skip has not replied if this is the response her question has generated!

[reggie]

Heidi

It is true that people have been rude which does not help debate but immunisation is a public health matter which can be considered to take precedence over personal health decisions.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

In that case then it should be down to the Government to chase up people who have not had their children vaccinated, as their GPs would be aware that they have not taken their children to have their jabs. I don't think it is up to us to make it our mission to be rude to people and tell them how foolish and silly they are. If it is a public health matter, then I am sure the Government would make it law that every single child has no choice but to get it done especially if it is going to cause these diseases to spread like wildfire judging by the way some people are reacting.

reggie Wrote:

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

> Heidi

> It is true that people have been rude which does

> not help debate but immunisation is a public

> health matter which can be considered to take

> precedence over personal health decisions.

[skip]

Yes, I've gone quiet. The vitriole that this thread has generated has disappointed and shocked me.

I was seeking the experiences of others to assist in enabling me to make an informed decision about the care of my child. What parent wouldn't want to be well informed about the pros and cons of injecting foreign matter into their newborn? I would have thought that being a conscientious and concerned parent was a good thing!

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

It is a good thing Skip, because I have done exactly the same, questioned injecting my precious son with viruses and bacteria at such an early age. I think people are rude to think we are being stupid and foolish just because we won't just willy nilly accept that we should just have our babies injected with foreign matter and not to question if we can make it easier for them, instead they are choosingto judge us and tell us how foolish we are. You and even myself have not stated we are against it, or we disagree with it, we are just asking for alternatives, if there is one, and myself I am questioning if it is possible to space them out, instead of being told I have a cheek basically because it is free and so what if it is lots of viruses/bacteria injected into our babies one go. I am glad they have all had positive experiences with their kids not having any adverse reactions to their jabs, but not all kids are as lucky, therefore there is no harm in asking if we can do anything to make it easier. I believe in choice. ( I don't mean choosing to either have my son vaccinated or not, I mean, having a choice of how many he has and at what age he has them).

He is due for his second jabs next week.

[reggie]

Heidi

I do think that it is reasonable to want to space out vaccinations.I am not aware of the benefits or otherwise of having a multiple jab but I am sure someone could tell us!

The reason that this debate gets so heated is that many have used their right to choose not to vaccinate which is a public not a private health matter. So 'choice' gets to be an emotive word with this issue.

Informed choice if you really want it has to made on strict scientific grounds and this is where debate ends and science takes over.

Best of luck with your child's jabs next week.

[taper]

I can see why the idea of spacing out vaccinations might make sense to the layperson. But I don't think there's any scientific rationale behind it (certainly none I can find). It tends to be a front argument for the anti-vaccination lobby, who are extensively linked to in this thread. See here for a digest of why it makes no sense from a medical viewpoint http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/too_many.html.

On the homepathy issue, I return to my first response on this thread: homeopathy is worthless. It has no basis in the most basic of science. There is no evidence it works beyond the usual placebo affect. It is harmless in some instances I suppose, including to ameliorate the impact of a vaccination (it won't work, but it is harmless other than on your pocket). But as an alternative to vaccination, it is dangerous because it does not work.

[reggie]

Here is a quote from the link in the previous post

'The capacity of the immune system to respond to antigens is vast and far greater than most people realize. Experts estimate that humans can generate about 10 billion different antibodies and that, due to exposures to germs and other foreign material, people make between 1 million and 100 million different antibodies during our lifetime. The vaccine schedule produces a total of about 30 antibodies. It is also estimated that if the immune system were exposed to 10,000 vaccines at one time, it would process these vaccines using only about 0.1% of its capacity'.

This puts the deliberate vaccination in perspective.

[Belle]

Sorry, slightly tangential but not sure about homeopathy being 'worthless'. I was always cynical myself, but had a good experience of some homeopathic treatment in Scotland for asthma. As with anything - including conventional medicine - it's always hard to tell how much a part a particular treatment has had to play in helping with an ailment, but I was certainly impressed. More interestingly for the purposes of this discussion, my homeopath was also my GP at the time...she had trained in homeopathy years after qualifying as a doctor, and practised both disclipines concurrently, didn't see them as mutually exclusive - in fact the practise allowed her to run homeopathic clinics with the surgery. Just thought that this brings a different perspective to the debate about homeopathy - not everyone sees it as worthless 'quackery', even scientists!

[DagmarJ]

Sorry, guess this takes it totally off topic but just had to reply to Belle's post. I also got into trying homeopathy through a good friend who is an anaesthetist and later trained as a homeopath and acupuncturist. She has actually used both homeopathy and acupuncture whilst on duty at the hospital where she worked for years. She has now left conventional medicine and runs a private practice using homeopathy and acupuncture. There are definitely conventionally trained medics and scientists who, as Belle says, don't dismiss homeopathy outright as 'worthless quackery'.

As for homeopathic immunisation, as far as i'm aware there is no such thing. As others have pointed out, you can use homeopathic remedies to help you deal with vaccines if you choose to have them, or, use remedies to become and stay healthy.

[taper]

If you read into what underpins homeopathy, you'll see that it really is quackery. I'm not saying all or even most of those who practise it are quacks - I'm sure most genuinely believe it has a positive affect beyond the placebo. But there is nothing in science that shows there is anything in it. And the underpinning theory is crackpot.

Read the splendid Ben Goldacre for a full and entertaining treatment -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2

There's a natural/alternative medicine (sic) practice above Soup Dragon on LL. I remember reading an advert for homepathic treatment there once which read: "no-one knows how homeopathy works, it just does".

I know who I trust.

[Polmoche]

Heidihi, be careful what you wish for! There are several medical bodies that are pushing the govt to do just what you say--make them compulsory. Think the gov't was hoping that "educating the public" would work, rather than using the long arm of the law.

[huncamunca]

taper Wrote:

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

> If you read into what underpins homeopathy, you'll

> see that it really is quackery. I'm not saying

> all or even most of those who practise it are

> quacks - I'm sure most genuinely believe it has a

> positive affect beyond the placebo. But there is

> nothing in science that shows there is anything in

> it. And the underpinning theory is crackpot.

>

>

> Read the splendid Ben Goldacre for a full and

> entertaining treatment -

>

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/scie

> ncenews.g2

>

> There's a natural/alternative medicine (sic)

> practice above Soup Dragon on LL. I remember

> reading an advert for homepathic treatment there

> once which read: "no-one knows how homeopathy

> works, it just does".

>

> I know who I trust.

Physically in terms of its effects, its rubbish , but you cant discount the placebo effect - ditto healing crystals, Orgone therapy, hot stones and their quack bedfellows.

The benefits of immunisation are obvious and well documented - many millions or Billions of lives have benefited from the various programmes

If you choose not to participate, then the risks from disease are far greater than any potential side effect form the vaccination - you owe it to your children ( and everyone they come into contact with) to do the best you can for them - anything else is irresponsible and dangerous

[antijen]

the moderator, I'm sorry, you learn something new every day, I had no idea capital letters meant shouting, I merely done it to separate.

Reggie, No I am not embarrassed, as I have explained, I googled quickly and was put on to the page about vaccines and neither an I shocked, it is no surprise to me that these people would use a subject to manipulate people. This was not my intention.

I'm sure there are many people like myself and some of the posters who go through a dilemma over vaccines, I chose not to, at the same time knowing a little about herbs for both prevention and cure. As has been stated earlier if people believe there children are protected from these diseases when vaccinated why would unvaccinated children be a threat. The decision I made was not taken lightly and whatever peoples decision I respect, it is not easy to be responsible but we take it when we decide.

[taper]

"if people believe there children are protected from these diseases when vaccinated why would unvaccinated children be a threat"

Vaccines do not give 100% protection. So herd immunity is vital for the success of an immunisation programme. That's why with diseases such as measles it is important that a large majority of children are immunised, for the protection of all our children particularly in a crowded city. So your individual decision can have an impact on the safety of others.

See here for an illustration - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683687.ece

[catgirl]

There are also some children who cannot be vaccinated due to chronic medical conditions or babies pre-vaccination who rely on the herd immunity to keep them safe. By not vaccinating your children you are putting these at risk too.

[R&A]

I just read this thread and wanted to put my thoughts down regarding 'the greed of pharmaceutical companies' which was referred to earlier in this thread

I do not work for a pharmaceutical company but I do feel like they get unfair press. They have a worse reputation than tobacco firms which makes no sense to me....

Pharma companies invest approximately 40% of their sales into research and development. A lot of that money is lost through drug failures either because of safety and/or efficacy issues. A minority of drugs do however manage to get through the various stages of drug development and in return pharma companies receive exclusivity on sales of that drug for approximately 10-14 years, yes - at a profit. they then reinvest back into R&D and the cycle continues. New drugs enable the pharma company to make enough profit to keep a company thriving, innovating and paying their staff etc

I can't think of a better way of doing things (perhaps there is a better way?) and new drugs are being discovered yearly through this process e.g. Herceptin which can now cure some types of breast cancer thanks to Roche.

Unfortunately for poorer countries it means waiting for 10 years until they can benefit from said new drugs as they turn generic, BUT Herceptin wouldn't exist without the R&D by Roche in the first place? Sounds harsh but scientists just can't work for free. Unfortunately the cycle is a necessary evil?

What i personally struggle with is the hatred projected towards these pharma companies when tobacco companies are profiting from actually KILLING people. None of their profits go towards medical R&D - just directly into shareholder returns. Why is it that these companies have a better reputation than pharma companies???

Slightly off topic but kinda on topic too