Safety of vaccines

tallaght01

In the homeopathy thread, the discussion is heading towards whether or not people believe vaccines are safe.

As it was going a little off topic, I thought the best thing might be to start a new thread on the matter. I hope that's ok with the posters who brought up the subject. If it's not, then just let me know, and we can continue it within the homeopathy thread.

Anyway, metrovelvet has asked what the long term effect of our childhood vaccines are, and who makes them, how pure they are and why they're so expensive.

Now, I'm not really in a position to comment on the price situation. The safety issue is one where there's lots of data. The problem is it's hard to provide evidence that "vaccines" are safe. It's like asking for evidence that "medicines" are safe.

Vaccine safety is monitored very closely. There are a number of ways in which this is done.

1) reporting of side effects: If a doc sees a kid (or an adult) who is ill a few days after a vaccine, or if he thinks somebody might have become ill after a vaccine, he can report this to the vaccine surveillance team. If the person is very ill, the case will be investigated straight away. If it's a minor thing (like a swollen arm) data will be kept, and investigated when there are sufficient reports to do so.

2) Linked case notes: In some large centres they have a complex computerised survelliance system which matches the patient's medical notes with their vaccination history. The system logs the illness they present with, and makes a note of how long it's been since the previous vaccines, and patterns are looked for.

3) the investigation of specific claims: For eg the MMR scare.When there's a specific claim, there will usually be an expert team brought in to look at the issue and a recommendation will be made.

4) theres the normal clinical trials before the vaccine goes on sale, although these don't really address the long term side effect (although it can take 10 years for a vaccine to get from the lab to the bedside).

The Health Protection Agency in the UK claim that, after clean drinking water, vaccination is the most effective public health intervention the world over in terms of saving lives and promotoing good health. They produce a very interesting (if a bit long) document on vaccines. Pages 23 and 24 deal with the safety issue.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/publications/2005/HPA_protect_health_children/full_report/protect_health_children_05may.pdf

This document also highlights some of the specific scares about vacine safety, and what the HPA's conclusions were.

I believe vacines to be generally safe. There are side effects. But i believe that these are miniscule when compared to the benefits of vaccination. But it would be interesting to hear what the panel thinks.

N8

tallaght01 wrote:

I believe vacines to be generally safe. There are side effects. But i believe that these are miniscule when compared to the benefits of vaccination. But it would be interesting to hear what the panel thinks.

miniscule when it isn'tyour child perhaps tallaght although I can understand that vaccination mimicking immunisation is a great idea I annot agree that it is safe and if I refuse to vaccinate my dogs based on this http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/great_dane_vaccinosis_summary_GDHF.pdf, why would a parent vaccinate their child?

http://www.vaccination.co.uk/

tallaght01

But what evidence are you relying on?

And do you think vaccines do more harm than good?

Jimoslimos

N8 wrote:

http://www.vaccination.co.uk/

What sort of reply is that? If anything that website is probably more unbalanced than any argument coming from the pro-immunisation camp. Pictures of small children is a blatant attempt to pull on concerned parents' heartstrings.

www.vaccination.co.uk wrote:

Chiropractors and GPs who ask questions about vaccinations Dr Jayne Donegan , Dr Peter Mansfield and Dr Andrew Wakefield risk being punished by their regulators

Since when were chiropractors dishing out vaccines? I don't think anyone writing for this site has the slighest clue about anything. A Phd in chemistry (quantum theory for all we know), chiropractor or an MSc in health promotion all ain't the same as having a medical degree (or at least a Phd in Immunology)

My viewpoint is that vaccines have unquestionably saved more lives than they have cost. Links between asthma/eczema/autism and vaccination are extremely tenuous and IMO can probably be attributed to a lower infant mortality rate (children with asthma may have been more prone to early deaths and hence undiagnosed) and in the case of autism this might be due to changes in the way it is diagnosed.

tallaght01

I've just read N8's paper about vaccines and his dogs. The authors found no link between vaccinating dogs and their ill health. I think this is one of those cases where somebody has posted a paper that they haven't fully understood.

Also, that website is mental. I love how they just brush aside the biggest endorsement of vaccination that could possibly be given by anyone who is educated in the subject

"According to the World Health Organisation the two public health interventions that have had the greatest impact on the world’s health are clean water and vaccination. Nevertheless since Edward Jenner published his theory in 1798 immunization has been extremely controversial".


hahaha you gotta love it. N8, may I ask what you do for a living/study at college or whatever? Just so we can see what angle you're coming from.

N8

Thanks Tallaght but I did understand it.

To paraphrase, it stated 'yes there is smoke but we did not see a fire; more investigation is needed.'

I lean toward caution. I have seen very healthy unvaccinated kids fly through (and receive the benefits of) ordinary diseases like measles (now increaingly described as 'deadly and debilitating..') and vaccinated kids get very ill from the very diseases they were vaccinated against, eg measles and the advent of atypical measles.

I believe there is massive under reporting on the issue and I am fearful it has become a taboo subject with very little to be gained for the fit and healthy children other than side effects but profit all round for the industries involved and anyone asking questions is subject to the ridicule that those who asked was the world round...

why should a parent play the lottery with a fit and healthy chld and subject them to the side effects of a vaccine (inc the short term; mild, moderate, severe, inc debilitation and death, with the long term studies never done) - on your word? On the industry who profits from them?

Forgive my scepticism but it appears like the Bishop Consultants and Priest Doctors from the Medical Churches and Cathdrals telling us "its safe... We promise... now give us your children..."

tallaght01

N8 wrote:

Thanks Tallaght but I did understand it.

To paraphrase, it stated 'yes there is smoke but we did not see a fire; more investigation is needed.'

to paraphrase it, it stated "this is a crap study, with no link between vaccines and autoimmunity demonstrated, and with insufficient numbers to reach any conclusion. Therefore, if you want answers you'll have to do a proper study".

n8 wrote:

I lean toward caution. I have seen very healthy unvaccinated kids fly through (and receive the benefits of) ordinary diseases like measles (now increaingly described as 'deadly and debilitating..') and vaccinated kids get very ill from the very diseases they were vaccinated against, eg measles and the advent of atypical measles.

You're aware that the incidence of every vaccine preventable illness has fallen since the introduction of vaccines, aren't you? Aren't you? No vaccine is 100% effective, but you can't possibly be suggesting a kid is more likely to get measles if he's vaccinated...can you??

n8 wrote:

I believe there is massive under reporting on the issue and I am fearful it has become a taboo subject with very little to be gained for the fit and healthy children other than side effects but profit all round for the industries involved and anyone asking questions is subject to the ridicule that those who asked was the world round...

That last paragraph was just the first thing that pospped into your head, wasn't it. You haven't a shred of proof to back that up. If you're referring to Wakefield, he was only subjected to ridicule when his methods were shown to be nonsense, and all the other authors of the study (bar one other, I believe) admitted that the study into MMR was fundamentally flawed.
As for the "under-reporting" thing. God knows where you've plucked that from.

n8 wrote:

why should a parent play the lottery with a fit and healthy chld and subject them to the side effects of a vaccine (inc the short term; mild, moderate, severe, inc debilitation and death, with the long term studies never done) - on your word? On the industry who profits from them?

I'll tell you why they should "play the lottery". Because vaccines have been one of the most important developments in medicine, ever. They save millions upon millions of lives. Just because some chiropracter's website tells you it's a conspiracy, doesn't make it true. I don't care a jot what you do to your dogs, but please think about people reading this before you post unsubstantiated claims. Please.

With regard to long term effect of vaccines, you're aware of the vaccine surveillance scheme, aren't you? aren't you??
I know you think we're all out to harm babies so some people in big pharma can make a shed load of cash, but that simply isn't true. I have zero life outside medicine (hence why I'm on here on a sunny day off), and that's because most junior hospital docs devote their whole life to trying to do what's best for the patients. If we thought vaccination was dangerous, we wouldn't do it. I don't even know how your conspiracy would benefit us!

DrIndy

Debates like this need to be kept factual and backed up by hard evidence - such as clinical trials, rather than opinion........

Opinions of one person are the lowest form of research and the worst thing you can rely on.

faceman

Is N8 taking the mick or trollin? You dont need to be a doctor or scientist to know the sucess rate of the likes of MMR. Sure most of us got it in school and we hardly dropped like flies afterward! (my nurse was hot but thats a whole new thread altogether! )

2Scoops

N8 wrote:

I believe there is massive under reporting on the issue and I am fearful it has become a taboo subject with very little to be gained for the fit and healthy children other than side effects but profit all round for the industries involved and anyone asking questions is subject to the ridicule that those who asked was the world round...

why should a parent play the lottery with a fit and healthy chld and subject them to the side effects of a vaccine (inc the short term; mild, moderate, severe, inc debilitation and death, with the long term studies never done) - on your word? On the industry who profits from them?

Yes, it's all a conspiracy :rolleyes: And the FDA is silencing the alternative health Jedis because it cuts into the multinational drug company profits. Oh, and the moon landing was faked.

Jimoslimos wrote:

A Phd in chemistry (quantum theory for all we know), chiropractor or an MSc in health promotion all ain't the same as having a medical degree (or at least a Phd in Immunology)

Shouldn't that be "ain't all the same as having a PhD in Immunology (or at least a medical degree)" ?:D

Respectfully,
2Scoops

Jimoslimos

2Scoops wrote:

Shouldn't that be "ain't all the same as having a PhD in Immunology (or at least a medical degree)" ?:D

Yes, yes it should:D , but there are a few grumpy docs here I didn't want to upset;)

DrIndy wrote:

Opinions of one person are the lowest form of research and the worst thing you can rely on.

I'm not sure if this was aimed at me specifically since I stated my "opinions" earlier and for good reason.
1) The evidence is missing or inconclusive and I needed to highlight this rather than claim something that may actually turn out be false or misleading
2) This is a debate on a bulletin board and as such personal opinion will play a part. See how two posters have come to totally differing conclusions on the same piece of literature

tallaght01

jimoslimos, I thought it was in response to N8s reliance on the opinions on one person's website. I don't think it was aimed at you, as you didn't make any major claims.

N8

Tallaght I have no doubt that on a personal level each and every clinician I know and workwith has the very best intention and for many of them they have devoted the substance of their life to caring for people. This in indisputable and something I would stand behind you 100% on.

However why is there so much controversy about the vaccination issue?

tallaght01

I don't know. Why don't you tell me which controversy you're referring to, and then we can try to work it out.

N8

tallaght01 wrote:

I don't know. Why don't you tell me which controversy you're referring to, and then we can try to work it out.

"The reason controversy plagues vaccination is that for all the good many people will experience some will be harmed. Mass medication ignores the differences in people." Kathy Sinnott MEP

I suppose this sums up the controversy and that is that some children appear expendable...

faceman

N8 wrote:

"The reason controversy plagues vaccination is that for all the good many people will experience some will be harmed. Mass medication ignores the differences in people." Kathy Sinnott MEP

I suppose this sums up the controversy and that is that some children appear expendable...

And wheres the source of her statement? Sounds like rubbish to me. You're swimming upstream during heavy rains....

N8

faceman wrote:

And wheres the source of her statement? Sounds like rubbish to me. You're swimming upstream during heavy rains....

Faceman - are you calling me a liar? Its a direct quote email her; kathy.sinnott@europarl.europa.eu

rather than childish accusation you could maybe address the issue?

"The reason controversy plagues vaccination is that for all the good many people will experience some will be harmed. Mass medication ignores the differences in people." Kathy Sinnott MEP

I suppose this sums up the controversy and that is that some children appear expendable...

nesf

N8 wrote:

"The reason controversy plagues vaccination is that for all the good many people will experience some will be harmed. Mass medication ignores the differences in people." Kathy Sinnott MEP

The mass medication debate is a very broad one and is analogous to many other debates where there's a lot of misinformation and a lot of misread and poorly understood studies being bandied about the place.

N8 wrote:

I suppose this sums up the controversy and that is that some children appear expendable...

Here's a question for you. Say I've a hypothetical vaccine that is strongly linked to a mortality rate of 1 in 100. So for every 100 kids vaccinated we'll have one death that we're pretty sure if down to them being vaccinated. Now, say if we take unvaccinated kids we'll have a mortality rate of 2 in 100 from the disease the above vaccine protects against. So in essence by vaccinating the 100 kids we know that at least one will die but we know that we'll lose twice as many if we don't vaccinate.

Would you be in favour or against vaccination in this hypothetical case?


The above is meant to distinguish between the two main anti-mass medication camps. The first being against mass medication because they think it causes more deaths than it prevents and the second is against it because it causes deaths irrespective of whether there's a "net drop" in deaths due to the vaccination. i.e. the first is a logical position and the second is a moral one.

tallaght01

N8, would it be possible for you to actually tell us about what controversies you kep referring to, rather than quoting another person who's referring to the controversies that you have't referred us to? Quoting a politician isn't evidence.

2Scoops wrote:

Shouldn't that be "ain't all the same as having a PhD in Immunology (or at least a medical degree)" ?:D

Are the immunologists dabbling in epidemiology these days? :P You just don't meet so many of them down at the vaccine surveillance office

N8

tallaght01 wrote:

N8, would it be possible for you to actually tell us about what controversies you kep referring to, rather than quoting another person who's referring to the controversies that you have't referred us to? Quoting a politician isn't evidence.

Of course it isn't evidence. It was meant to illustrate the controversy.

Here it is then:

Vaccines inject diseases deep into the body. Diseases contracted naturally are ordinarily filtered through a series of immune system defences. But when the vaccine virus is injected into the child’s blood stream it gains access to all of the major tissues and organs of the body without the body’s normal advantage of a total immune response.

Vaccines routinely contain aluminium, mercury, formaldehyde (neurotoxins and carcinogenic hazardous waste). None within determined safe limits for adults nevermind infants.

Vaccines cause short and long term responses from an immune system not yet fully understood.

Vaccines have been linked with auto immune disturbance and cancer (a failure of the immune system). They have been clearly linked to a lowered DALE scale (World Health Organisation Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy scale, which measures the length of a healthy life rather than longevity alone), along with disability and death.

Not only is the evidence of risk a factor for many of us, but there is the added moral and ethical question of the use of aborted foetuses in the MMR vaccine – opening up the moral question for those within the community opposed to abortion and those concerned with the direct injection of foreign DNA into the developing human and its unknown effects.


Is this enough of a controversy for you Tallaght01?

nesf wrote:

Here's a question for you. Say I've a hypothetical vaccine that is strongly linked to a mortality rate of 1 in 100. So for every 100 kids vaccinated we'll have one death that we're pretty sure if down to them being vaccinated. Now, say if we take unvaccinated kids we'll have a mortality rate of 2 in 100 from the disease the above vaccine protects against. So in essence by vaccinating the 100 kids we know that at least one will die but we know that we'll lose twice as many if we don't vaccinate.

Would you be in favour or against vaccination in this hypothetical case?

A great question and a nice illustration of the dilemma I wanted to get to. Thanks Nesf. To the question – the answer would be a qualified yes – yes go ahead there but not my children thanks. I would ensure they are healthy and strong and able to fight the infection and got the best care possible if they got that infection.

And before you say it, herd immunity has turned out not to be true.

We know that today, in areas of the US, with a 98%+ vaccination status due to enforced vaccination, epidemics of measles still occur at three to four year intervals, unabated and uninfluenced by vaccination. Worse still is the appearance of Atypical measles witnessed in these groups previously vaccinated.

Last year a story appeared on the BBC news site about the first death in fourteen years from measles in the UK. He hadn’t been vaccinated. The story focused on the lack of vaccination but reading through it the facts were there. He was a thirteen year old member of the travelling community with an underlying lung condition for which he had been treated with an immunosuppressive drug for his lung condition.

Was it not being vaccinated or the fact his immune system charged with fighting such an infection was being suppressed?

I plump for the latter. What do you think?

However, the PR was there; it was the lack of vaccine killed him.

The report also went on to state that there had been cases of measles where the individuals had been vaccinated.

Shocking – perhaps they don’t do what we thought they did? What we have been told they do??

Is it time to extend our heads into the ground and tell everyone they work and are safe when it is plain to all concerned there is a problem? Is this perhaps part of the basis for the rumour about doctors being arrogant discussed on another thread on this forum??

I read recently about controversy in regard to the aluminium content of vaccines, the aluminium based adjuvant (immune system stimulant) now coming under increasing study.

A strong causal relationship has been determined with an emerging condition worldwide known as Macrophagic Myofasciitis. This condition causes profound weakness and multiple neurological syndromes one of which closely resembles multiple sclerosis.

A growing amount of evidence points to high levels of aluminium in the brain as a major contributor to alzheimer’s disease and possibly parkinson’s and ALS.

Hugh Fudenberg, MD, one of the world's leading immunogeneticists, states that if an individual has five consecutive flu shots his/her chances of getting Alzheimer's disease are 10 times higher.

Apparently the aluminium and mercury in the flu shot have an affinity for brain tissue causing brain damage. So why is the flu shot recommended for pregnant women and infants?

The flu shot helps infants and children with asthma and congenital heart disease?

Not at all. In fact a study published in Archives of Diseases of Children showed the opposite. The vaccinated group had a significantly increased risk of asthma-related clinic and emergency room visits.

(Christy C, Aligne CA, Auinger P et al. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine for the prevention of asthma exacerbations. Arch Dis Child. 2004;89(8):734-735.)

Have you read this study Tallaght01?

Now what about the combined neurotoxic effect of mercury, aluminium and formaldehyde?

Guess what? No studies.

Interestingly the multibillion dollar international vaccine industry has sponsored absolutely no long term studies in animals or humans to ascertain what the risks of vaccines might actually be.

According to the vaccine manufacturers own product inserts, most vaccines have not been ‘evaluated or tested for carcinogenic potential, mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility’ or ‘impairment of reproductive capacity.’

However, there is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage, immune system damage, SIDS, ADD, as well as the other concerns listed above.

I particularly like this quote Tallaght01

‘There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children does more harm than good.’

Dr J Anthony Morris
Former Chief Vaccine Control Officer
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

nesf

N8 wrote:

A great question and a nice illustration of the dilemma I wanted to get to. Thanks Nesf. To the question – the answer would be a qualified yes – yes go ahead there but not my children thanks. I would ensure they are healthy and strong and able to fight the infection and got the best care possible if they got that infection.

And before you say it, herd immunity has turned out not to be true.

Has herd immunity turned out to be untrue? Looking at smallpox etc I'd tend to disagree, we've gone from diseases which were endemic and lethal to diseases which are non-existent. Sure, not every vaccine has turned out to be as effective but it's not a reason to oppose vaccines in general.

Two points spring to mind.

1) Vaccination for a minority doesn't prevent the spread of the disease among the population as a whole. If enough unvaccinated members exist then the disease can spread widely (there are loads of mathematical models for this kind of stuff).

2) It depends completely on the disease in question. Some yes you can stop your children from suffering from by ensuring that they are healthy etc. But some are more devastating than that and aren't preventable simply by maintaining health in our young. Meningitis springs to mind as an example.

metrovelvet

To those who endorse vaccinations - can I ask you -

if and when they come out with a HIV vaccine, would you take it? Would you inject it into your children?

I would be very very scared of doing so.

nesf

metrovelvet wrote:

To those who endorse vaccinations - can I ask you -

if and when they come out with a HIV vaccine, would you take it? Would you inject it into your children?

I would be very very scared of doing so.

It would depend on a huge number of factors tbh. HIV isn't endemic here for instance, your risk of contracting it is very very low for your average person. Add in that the vectors of transmission are (for the most part) avoidable then if the vaccine had a chance of infecting people after taking it I'd say no.

If however I lived in a country where it was endemic then I'd have to give it serious consideration.

faceman

metrovelvet wrote:

To those who endorse vaccinations - can I ask you -

if and when they come out with a HIV vaccine, would you take it? Would you inject it into your children?

I would be very very scared of doing so.

i dont believe it to be necessary. Potentially those working with HIV sufferers etc may make that decision but i dont think my little junior at 2-3 years old has much risk of catching it. Plus i am one woman guy and dont work in health care so therefore i would have no need.

I expect the vaccine would be pricey.

faceman

N8 wrote:

...Is this enough of a controversy for you...

have you got stats/figures to support your case? a handful of people doesnt warrant issue.

nesf

As an aside to metrovelvet's question:

I know personally that vaccines don't always work, I got both measles and the whooping cough as a kid (and the whooping cough again at 19 which lead to me losing 3.5 stone in weight and contracting pneumonia). The thing is that these are illnesses that are worth vaccinating against. Whooping cough in particular is very contagious and can be fatal in both adults and children (if you get it under 12 months it can be a very very bad thing). As a disease it spreads very easily and it is very hard to prevent yourself contracting it, it really is a question of luck in both severity and contracting it. As a sign of vaccination's worth, when I developed it as a kid (I was 5) no other child in my class got it either and neither of my siblings, if they weren't vaccinated it would have been a very different story considering how virile the disease is. Yes completely anecdotal but it's still worth considering.

It's worth vaccinating against infectious diseases that spread easily through populations or ones which have a high fatality rate. Examples like HiV are unusual, while it receives a lot of hype, it's not exactly a "big killer" in this country.

Vorsprung

metrovelvet wrote:

To those who endorse vaccinations - can I ask you -

if and when they come out with a HIV vaccine, would you take it? Would you inject it into your children?

I would be very very scared of doing so.

It depends whether it's a vaccination or an inoculation. Two very different things.

2Scoops

metrovelvet wrote:

To those who endorse vaccinations - can I ask you -

if and when they come out with a HIV vaccine, would you take it? Would you inject it into your children?

I would be very very scared of doing so.

That's your own ignorance of vaccines tbh. Plus the whole fact that it is largely unecessary in this country. Just got my vaccines for hepatitis:)

N8

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/$75,000VaccineOffer.htm

Any takers amongst us?

tallaght01

Jaysus, it's a total heartsink when you see a thread like this. Same old claims being made by scaremongerers, with nothing but speculation and opinion and misrepresentation to back them up. Same points being raised for years. I do feel I should respond to N8s post though, in case there are members of the public reading this with a view to getting an opinion on vaccination safety. And despite being a member of that overly arrogant subgroup of the population, I do care about the public's health.

Annnyywayyyy, let's start at the beginning.....

This is potentially a long post. One thing anybody reading this might want to do is to print out the following.

http://www.immune.org.nz/site_resources/Professionals/IAS_critique_2003.pdf


It's a report aimed at members of the public written by some excellent doctors in New Zealand. It challenges the facts put forward by N8 in a more eloquent and concise way than I ever could

N8 wrote:

Vaccines routinely contain aluminium, mercury, formaldehyde (neurotoxins and carcinogenic hazardous waste). None within determined safe limits for adults nevermind infants.

Aluminium: N8 claims that the aluminium levels in vaccines are outwith recommended safe lels. This is untrue. see Aluminum toxicokinetics regarding infant diet and vaccinations. vaccine 2002;20(3):13-17

Mercury: Same claims again. Again untrue. Thimerosol is the compound that N8 is likely referring to, rather than pure mercury. There has been a lot of investigation into thimerosol safety. Again, I'll kop out of writing about it myself, and instead provide the links to the cente for disease control and the FDA website about thimersol:

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/thimerosal.htm

http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

These cover most of the factual inaccuracies, and provides a decent bibliography for anybody who's interested in reading the papers.

Formaldehyde: The guys at the sick kids hospital in Philadelphia have summed this up better than I could, so I'll just refer you to their website.

http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=75809

The issue is dealt with very well there

n8 wrote:

Vaccines have been linked with auto immune disturbance and cancer (a failure of the immune system). They have been clearly linked to a lowered DALE scale (World Health Organisation Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy scale, which measures the length of a healthy life rather than longevity alone), along with disability and death.

I can't say anything about that claim, because I can't find evidence of it anywhere. If you could supply the reference to the paper, we can discuss it.

n8 wrote:

Not only is the evidence of risk a factor for many of us, but there is the added moral and ethical question of the use of aborted foetuses in the MMR vaccine – opening up the moral question for those within the community opposed to abortion and those concerned with the direct injection of foreign DNA into the developing human and its unknown effects.

This is probably a fair enough point, insofar as it's not the case that human cell lines are dangerous, but it is a genuine ethical issue. Part of the laboratory process involved in making some vaccines utilises human cell lines. These were derived from 3 abortions perfomed in the early 1960s. However, it is crucial to point out that there are no actual human cells in the vaccine. The abortions carried out would have been carried out anyway, as they were medically indicated. It is also worth noting, for those who are concerned about the religion issue, that ethicists in the national catholic bioethics centre in the USA concluded that, as the relationship between the abortions ad the vaccines was one of non-complicity, the use of these vaccines is not contrary to a religious oposition to abortion.

n8 wrote:

And before you say it, herd immunity has turned out not to be true.

Now that's a cracker. You'l have to reference that aswell. Would you also pass the reference onto the WHO, who would probably like to know about that, as they still regard herd immunity as an issue.

n8 wrote:

We know that today, in areas of the US, with a 98%+ vaccination status due to enforced vaccination, epidemics of measles still occur at three to four year intervals, unabated and uninfluenced by vaccination. Worse still is the appearance of Atypical measles witnessed in these groups previously vaccinated.

people still get diseases that they are vaccinated against. That is fact. The medical profession has never hidden it. For example, the measles vaccine is 90-95% efective. The whooping cough vaccine is about 87% effective. That's still a hell of a lot of disease prevented. "Unabated and uninfluenced by vaccination" is the real hogwash there. These outbreaks are miniscule compared to what they used to be. The more of the population that is vaccinated, the smaller the outbreak. This is herd immunity.

n8 wrote:

Last year a story appeared on the BBC news site about the first death in fourteen years from measles in the UK. He hadn’t been vaccinated. The story focused on the lack of vaccination but reading through it the facts were there. He was a thirteen year old member of the travelling community with an underlying lung condition for which he had been treated with an immunosuppressive drug for his lung condition.

Was it not being vaccinated or the fact his immune system charged with fighting such an infection was being suppressed?


I plump for the latter. What do you think?

Why do you plump for the latter? I suspect you know very little about this case. Immunocompromised patients get vaccinated. There are some vaccines they can't have. A lot depends on the state of the patient's immune system. Regardless what either of us have to say about this case, it proves nothing, as we don't know the details. For eg....was he slightly immunocompromised, expected to live for another 30 years, but his family didnt get their measles vaccines and wouldn't let him have it...meaning he died of measles....or was he really really ill in the first place. Who knows. Not us.

[/quote]

n8 wrote:

The report also went on to state that there had been cases of measles where the individuals had been vaccinated.

Shocking – perhaps they don’t do what we thought they did? What we have been told they do??

See above. There is nothing new here.

n8 wrote:

I read recently about controversy in regard to the aluminium content of vaccines, the aluminium based adjuvant (immune system stimulant) now coming under increasing study.

A strong causal relationship has been determined with an emerging condition worldwide known as Macrophagic Myofasciitis. This condition causes profound weakness and multiple neurological syndromes one of which closely resembles multiple sclerosis.

If you could post your references I'd be very grateful, as I'm sure would the people you're trying to convince.

Macrophagic Myofasiitis: It most certainly is not just "now coming under increasing study". This is something we've has our eye on since 1993. It was taken very seriously by the WHO. Their global advisory committe on vaccination concluded that there is a link between vaccines containing aluminium and macrophagic myofasciitis. However, not the macrophagic myofasiitis that N8 describes. He descibes a link between vaccination and a disease resembling multiple sclerosis. This is not the case. The condition associated with vaccination are small areas of muscle necrosis, generally not associated with any symptoms. In fact the first case of macrophagic fasciitis ever documented in Australia was discovered about a year ago, and the patient was asymptomatic. It was found coincidentally. I can't remember the reference for that case report, but it was in the Australian medical journal around 2005.

I'll post a link to the WHO website that answers a lot of questions about this issue:

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/aluminium/questions/en/index.html

n8 wrote:

A growing amount of evidence points to high levels of aluminium in the brain as a major contributor to alzheimer’s disease and possibly parkinson’s and ALS.

Hugh Fudenberg, MD, one of the world's leading immunogeneticists, states that if an individual has five consecutive flu shots his/her chances of getting Alzheimer's disease are 10 times higher.

This is one of these claims that gets bandied about a lot without any real evidence to back it up. I'm not aware of any epidemiological studies whch prove the link. N8, again, i you could post the paper, I'm sure we'd all aprreciate it. It's very hard to argue against a point when there's no real evidence. In essence, I'm trying to argue against speculation. One of the ways to look at it, I guess, is to look at the claim being made in its most basic form. So, N8 says aluminium in vacines causes alzheimers. Now, that woud imply that aluminium causes alzheimers. There are studies that have failed to find any trace of aluminium in brain samples from alzheimers patients.

Landsberg J P, McDonald and Watt. Absence of aluminium in neuritic
plaque cores in Alzheimer's disease. Nature. 360 (1992) 65-67

J Makjanic, B McDonald, CPL-H Chen and F Watt. Absence of Aluminium
in Neurofibrillary Tangles in Alzheimer's disease. Neurosci. Lett. 240
(1998) 123-126.

There's lots of studies like this. It's about all I can offer until we see the papers to which N8 is referring.

n8 wrote:

The flu shot helps infants and children with asthma and congenital heart disease?

Not at all. In fact a study published in Archives of Diseases of Children showed the opposite. The vaccinated group had a significantly increased risk of asthma-related clinic and emergency room visits.

(Christy C, Aligne CA, Auinger P et al. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine for the prevention of asthma exacerbations. Arch Dis Child. 2004;89(8):734-735.)

Have you read this study Tallaght01?

I cerainly have, N8. I remember it well. I also remember when somebody write in to the archives with the response that we were all thinking. They pointed out that the stats were wrong, in terms of the controls used. That put it to bed, but it still gets heauled out on chiropractic websites the world over to this day.

The letter in question is actually available online for anyone who wants to read it:

http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/89/8/734


That's whay we're still vaccinating our infants with heart disease and asthma. Honestly, N8, we're not trying to kill babies! Even if there was merit in what N8 said on this issue, babies with congenital heart disease and asthmatics are a group who benefit from vaccines, but are not the reason for our vaccine strategy.

There's a more recent paper, with a better control group. In this paper, the influenza vaccine was shown to be effective, although the kids weren't heart disease patients/asthmatics. My athens password has expeired over the weekend, so i can't cut and paste the paper in it's ntirety, but the abstract is available online:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/1/153

n8 wrote:

Now what about the combined neurotoxic effect of mercury, aluminium and formaldehyde?

Guess what? No studies.

Yes there are, dealt with above.

n8 wrote:

Interestingly the multibillion dollar international vaccine industry has sponsored absolutely no long term studies in animals or humans to ascertain what the risks of vaccines might actually be.

That's probably true. That's why people like the WHO do it. No self respecting doctor or scientist would fully trust a study funded by the makers of the vaccines!!!

n8 wrote:

According to the vaccine manufacturers own product inserts, most vaccines have not been ‘evaluated or tested for carcinogenic potential, mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility’ or ‘impairment of reproductive capacity.’

The paper I've linked above at the start from new zealand deals with this.

n8 wrote:

However, there is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage, immune system damage, SIDS, ADD, as well as the other concerns listed above.

Dude, you're gonna have to stop using phrases like "there is a huge body of research" that vaccines cause all these illnesses, when it's simply not true. In fact, I'd even ask Dr Indy to maybe remind N8 again that he needs to be able to provide evidence for claims like this, due to th epotential for influencing members of the public.

Please post your papers to support the above, N8

n8 wrote:

I particularly like this quote Tallaght01

There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children does more harm than good.’

Dr J Anthony Morris
Former Chief Vaccine Control Officer
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

This guy is I'm sure a very brainy man. He was once in a position of great power. However, the opinions of one man simply don't compare to those of the WHO, the CDC, the FDA, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence etc...these bodies are all made up of people of equal stature tot at of Dr Morris, yet they have come to the opposite conclusions. You shouldn't post opinion, you should post evidence. There are still experts who claim that BSE isn't a prion disease for eg.

In summary:

1) what N8 presents as evidence is mostly conjecture.

2) doctors are not trying to kill your babies

3) The WHO is not trying to kill your babies

4) You have a civic responsibility to back up your claims, when their influence has potentially serious consequences.

5) If you're going to make claims on the basis of scientific studies, you should let the readers of this thread know what you do for a living, so that they can evaluate the merit of what you're saying. I'm a paediatric registrar. I vaccinate kids. That is my conflict of interest, and potential bias.

6) for anybody who is unsure about vaccination, please talk to your own doctor. Do not rely on what people say on websites. Anybody can say anything on the web. N8 could be a bricklayer and I could be a pimp for all you now. There is no substitute for dealing with your own doc.

7) in relation to N8s kind offer of 75,000 or whatever dollars for anybody who was willing to drink the contents of a vaccine....I've had the oral polio vaccine...do i get the money?

Evil Phil

I personally would like to know what N8 does for a living and, more importantly, what these clinicians he works with do. Are they medically qualified or are they *holisticly* trained?