Opinions on MMR vaccinations for children

1,235 posts in this topic

Big shocker: the 1998 research which first started the scare of a link between autism and MMR vaccinations WAS FAKED.

 

 

The ... February 1998 ... article in The Lancet ... claimed that the families of eight out of 12 children attending a routine clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR for their autism, and said that problems came on within days of the jab. The team also claimed to have discovered a new inflammatory bowel disease underlying the children’s conditions.

So a sample of 12 when statistical significance cannot be proven with any reliability unless the group size is at least 30. But it gets better:

 

 

...evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records.

Read the story of how this all happened. Contemplate the fact that the scumbag doctor responsible earned half a million pounds for this plus millions in research funding.

 

In 1998, when over 92% of parents got their children vaccinated for MMR, there were only 56 cases of measles in the UK. Last year, with vaccination down below 80% thanks to people preferring to go with their "gut instincts" and give Stupid as much credit as Smart, there were 1348 cases of measles in the UK. Two of those children DIED.

 

Stop being stupid. Vaccinate your kids.

 

woof.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have my own belief on this MMR matter. I believe it has to do with heavy metals. Mercury, Aluminum, etc... the fact is, they are bad for you and little baby bodies can't deal with them as well as adult bodies. We are told to avoid certain foods while we are pregnant to avoid heavy metals which could damage the baby.

The MMR vaccine is no longer preserved with a mercury derivative. And hasn't been for well over a decade. If you are worried about aluminum, you better make sure you never eat a take out meal and check the pans you cook things in...

 

 

Why is it NO LONGER possible to have the MMR done in separate shots? Because one company monopolizes the drug...be it a patent or whatever...but it is sick how much greed is behind the health and well being of our kids.

It's possible to get the shots done separately here in the UK. You have to pay for it yourself however and it means you lucky kid gets 6 shots instead of 2. Also, single vaccines have shown to have problems with them; mainly a higher number of anaphylactic reactions than to the 3 in 1 vaccine.

 

 

The researchers estimated anaphylactic reactions to single measles vaccines to be 18.9 per 100,000 doses and 22.4 cases per 100,000 doses for single rubella vaccines; these are thought to be underestimates. The reactions are higher than the MMR vaccine, which has a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 doses.

See the NHS site and Single vaccine 'safety' warnings (BBC News) for more info on that.

 

I agree, do some research before getting your kids jabbed. Just make sure you have up-to-date information and that it's from a credible source, not just a website full of anecdotal "evidence".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you are worried about aluminum, you better make sure you never eat a take out meal and check the pans you cook things in...

In reality this a inaccurate comparison. The body eliminates 99.9% of Aluminum(Al) absorbed in the gut (orally). Al absorbed via injection bypass those mechanisms. In point of fact there are no known studies on safe levels of injected aluminum in infants. However, according to WHO the amount injected often exceeds there own standards for adults.

 

Does this mean that this is causing harm? No? Does it mean that it isn't? No? Seems to me that there is some research that needs to be done. Does that mean that even if there may be a degree of harm do we not use it anyway for certain diseases that are seriously dangerous? I think we continue to use Al until we find a better way.

 

Many very thoughtful persons (and doctors) have legitimate questions and concerns regarding vaccines. I am not talking about those who are anti-vaccine accross the board or those who do not believe that some of these diseases can and do cause real harm. That said, there is and should be room for questioning and making sure the research is there to "first do no harm".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, fair enough about the aluminum. Still worth noting mercury isn't used in the MMR vaccine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this changes often, but as far as I am aware there is no mercury in any vaccines EXCEPT the injected flu vaccines. And as an alternative you can get a nasal spray that is mercury free.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Many very thoughtful persons (and doctors) have legitimate questions and concerns regarding vaccines. ...There is and should be room for questioning and making sure the research is there to "first do no harm".

If parents questions every little aspect of their children's lide isn't it going to make life basically untenable though? I mean one might as well questions whole range of foodstuffs and environmental issues such as cars, not to mention things a bit later in life such as makeup etc??

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

do some research before getting your kids jabbed. Just make sure you have up-to-date information and that it's from a credible source, not just a website full of anecdotal "evidence".

"Credible sources" means "tested and reproduced studies published in peer-reviewed journals", not the latest scare in the Daily Hate Mail. But people have been getting used to affording stupid ideas the same weight in an argument in the interest of "being fair" and "hearing all sides". When one "side" is stupid uninformed opinion, it is NOT as valuable nor is it worthy of consideration when weighed against an opposite opinion from someone who spent a lifetime learning about the incredibly boring minutiæ of that very subject.

 

 

The body eliminates 99.9% of Aluminum(Al) absorbed in the gut (orally).

And your source is what? About 95% of the body's aluminum load is eliminated renally (throught the kidneys) after becoming bound to transferrin and albumin intravascularly. Whether any other Al is absorbed gastrically or through injection is meaningless. Al toxicity almost always comes about through renal dysfunction when excess which can't be excreted is deposited in place of other similar metals like calcium and magnesium, two metals which are much more important to human function.

 

 

In point of fact there are no known studies on safe levels of injected aluminum in infants.

In point of fact there are also no known studies on unsafe levels of injected aluminum in infants. Muppet.

 

 

That said, there is and should be room for questioning and making sure the research is there

Not from idiots. Only from other SMRT people who have also studied specifically in the field they presume to address.

 

 

Okay, fair enough about the aluminum.

No, not fair enough. Some of the aluminum use is specifically to enhance the immunological response. Tests done specifically for the CDC have shown that even though aluminum from vaccinations exceeds that from dietary sources, it's below the minimal risk level equivalent curve after the brief period following injection. Effectively nada.

 

Concerns about aluminum are bullshit, just like the concerns about mercury (in the form of thimerosal). The thimerosal is used early in the production and the levels by the end of production are so low they can only be detected these days because science is that good. Environmental mercury exposure is higher; you'd absorb more Hg from eating a can of tuna fish than you would from getting two flu shots.

 

VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN!

 

woof.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not "questioning every little aspect of their life". This is getting appropriate information and making informed choices about issues that affect them. If you find it easier to live your life by choosing blind faith in the CDC, WHO, APA, or drug companies than that is certainly an option. The drug companies were forced to improve vaccines (such as changing the whooping cough vaccine, removing mercury, etc) because some people (both concerned parents and physicians) didn't just accept that the vaccines were "safe enough". I personally am glad those people were not put off by the enormity and complexity of the issue, nor BD rants, and the ENORMOUS pressure exerted from the aforementioned entities.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN!

Glad I don't have any children to have to make this decision for.

 

Btw, the new immunization to prevent the papilloma virus there are some "minor" side effect attributed to this drug. As a parent I wouldn't give this drug to my daughter if I had one. I know there are possible side effects with any drug, but this drug is still too new.

 

I don't consider lost of vision, numbness, seizures, dizziness to be "minor" side effects. either.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am frankly gobsmacked that there are parents still taken in by the anti-immunisation lobby. This really is a nobrainer. Measles and mumps are killer diseases and as viral infectious diseases they cannot be adequately controlled through better sanitation or diet. The risk of catching either is VERY much greater without immunisation than the very negligible risks of a negative reaction to the immunisation itself. Jesus, the risks are obvious and if you have some doubt about that then you are not fit to be parents!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

presumably you would prefer she gets cervical cancer eh?

 

Look, all pharmaceuticals and vaccines have side effects. Be thankful that they have been tested exhaustively so that we KNOW in advance what those side effects are and also that regulatory authorities have approved the treatments because the benefits are far better than the limited negative side effects.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Didn't Aidan Quinn's daughter become autistic as a result of taking the MMR?

look there are kids with autism who did not have MMR. There is no evidence whatsoever that the onset of autism and MMR are in any way linked.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and I am frankly "gobsmacked" that it is considered somekind of heresy to even question safety, ingredients, numbers of vaccines given, the timing of vaccines and one size fits all policy.

 

I certainly didn't have my hours old daughter vaccinated with Hep B. Why should I? I tested negative and last time I checked I was not injecting heroin! There is absolutely no reason, in a negatively tested mom with no risk factors, to do that vaccine when they do. And yet...that is the vaccine schedule.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

presumably you would prefer she gets cervical cancer eh?

 

Look, all pharmaceuticals and vaccines have side effects. Be thankful that they have been tested exhaustively so that we KNOW in advance what those side effects are and also that regulatory authorities have approved the treatments because the benefits are far better than the limited negative side effects.

I think it's a very interesting debate about immunizing children. However, being a hippy skeptic and cynic I believe the immunization policies could be because pharmauceutical companies have powerful lobbyist who encourage government officials to buy into this so these companies can make money. Then as a culture we buy into this because to get our children in school they are required to be immunized and because the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (government) says that this is good for our children.

 

How does the U.S. government continue to support subjecting children to immunizations, however the foreigners who are immigrating and traveling to this country do not have to show they are immunized against certain diseases upon entry to the U.S?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Be thankful that they have been tested exhaustively so that we KNOW in advance what those side effects are and also that regulatory authorities have approved the treatments because the benefits are far better than the limited negative side effects.

The problem is this drug has not been tested "exhaustively". Futhermore, there have been many other drugs approved by "regulatory authorities" that have been found to be harmful to the public and subsequently taken off the market.

 

 

Currently, an HPV vaccine is approved for children and adults ages 9-26. Despite encouraging results in prelicensure studies, research definitively establishing the duration of HPV vaccine protection, degree of protection and spectrum of side effects remain to be determined.

As of 2006, HPV vaccines have been tested on 25,000 people in 33 countries. The Merck trials involved 20,541 women 16 to 26 years of age, and 1121 girls between 9 and 15 years of age.1,2 Vaccine recipients were given 3 doses over a 6 month period. About half of the 16 to 26 year olds in the Merck studies received that manufacturer�s HPV vaccine (Gardasil, which targets HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18) and the other half was given placebo.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it's a very interesting debate about immunizing children. However, being a hippy skeptic and cynic I believe the immunization policies could be because pharmauceutical companies have powerful lobbyist who encourage government officials to buy into this so these companies can make money.

whereas the reality is that the regulatory hoops a pharma company must jump through to get a product on the market are set by government. More than 90% of most pharma companies discovery programmes never reach the market because they fail clinical trials. It amazes me that anyone could think that lobbyists could in any way subvert these regulations. The reality is that the pharmaceutical lobby in the USA tries in the main to get tax benefits for drug development and occasionally to prevent additional stringent regulations being added to the tally.

 

 

Then as a culture we buy into this because to get our children in school they are required to be immunized and because the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (government) says that this is good for our children.

The schools and the CDC say so because both are bodies concerned seriously with the healthy wellbeing of children

 

 

How does the U.S. government continue to support subjecting children to immunizations, however the foreigners who are immigrating and traveling to this country do not have to show they are immunized against certain diseases upon entry to the U.S?

because the US is innefficient at dealing with imigrants? There is no big conspiracy. Really there isn't

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem is this drug has not been tested "exhaustively". Futhermore, there have been many other drugs approved by "regulatory authorities" that have been found to be harmful to the public and subsequently taken off the market.

FHS, 25,000 people in 33 countries have recieved the vaccine in trials. It has been tested exhaustively as per all FDA requirements. It has not however been tested from the longevity of the vaccination as that cannot be accomplished pre-market authorization and can only be established through thirty or 50 year post-marketing trials. This is the same for every single new vaccine and will establish in due course whether the vaccine is a once for all time vaccine or one that needs boosters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

and I am frankly "gobsmacked" that it is considered somekind of heresy to even question safety, ingredients, numbers of vaccines given, the timing of vaccines and one size fits all policy.

 

I certainly didn't have my hours old daughter vaccinated with Hep B. Why should I? I tested negative and last time I checked I was not injecting heroin! There is absolutely no reason, in a negatively tested mom with no risk factors, to do that vaccine when they do. And yet...that is the vaccine schedule.

I agree. I didn't do Hep B for my newborn, either. My kid is fully vaccinated, but with a slightly altered schedule. Our ped worked with me on this, not against me.

 

And before BD calls me an idiot, I used to clone [single chain] antibodies for a living. So kindly BACK OFF. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now