A 'Misguided Crusade By Middle-Class Parents'

[Guest guest]

" MISGUIDED Crusade " .... Hardly... I agree with Sheri...Single vaccines

of any kind are not the answer. None the less,these parents are not

misguided in asking " why are these medicines that are to be GUARDING our

child from disease are causing so many incurable ones in their stead. These

vaccines are supposed to prevent diseases that most children get through

unscathed with stronger immune systems in the long term, passing these

permanent immunities onto their progeny. Vaccines cannot do this.

Vaccines wane and " WEAR OFF " . In most cases that is why so many are needed

every 2, 4 to 6 months. Or in the cases of the MMR, that was touted to have

been the " one shot only needed " cure in the late '60's and now is needed to

be boostered every 7 years as is the HEP B vaccine. Be aware folks, you

are playing with FIRE, when you continue to ask the

medical/pharmaceutical/CDC community to come up with " SAFE VACCINES " .

There are none and will never be.......Vaccines for one illness only leads

to a plethora of other chronic aliments that are labeled " non-curable " by

the allopathic standards of healthcare. This will only lead to more

pharmacuetical drug therapies that will cause other side effects that surely

will continue to feed the " MONSTER " that caused the problem for your

children from the start.... the inoculations and the industies that

manufacture them.

From: Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...>

> Get this one. I ONLY agree that parents haven't weighed the evidence for

> the single vaccines - NO VACCINE IS SAFE, single or combo. But this

> condescending article is over the top............

> Sheri

> **********

>

> Don't Give In To This Misguided Crusade By Middle-Class Parents

> 'It's astonishing how many parents weighing the MMR evidence haven't done

> the same for single vaccines'

>

>

> [ nce is a writer for the Independent of UK.]

> http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=3D91254

>

> What is it about MMR? Another survey, this time by the Today

programme

> on Radio 4, has once again shown widespread public alarm about the triple

> vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella (german measles). Two-thirds of

> those polled, according to the BBC, think that parents should have the

> choice of three single vaccines for their children, if that is what they

> want.

> Extraordinary, is it not, that Britain's middle classes have whipped

> themselves into such a frenzy over MMR? Given all the threats to life and

> limb to which children are exposed =96 tobacco and roads are the two that=

> top

> my list =96 it is remarkable that parents are prepared to devote so much=

> time

> to minimising what is already an infinitesimally small risk from a single

> childhood vaccination. If they devoted half as much energy to stopping

> smoking and slowing traffic, think how much genuinely safer for children

> this country would be.

> But I digress. For the real problem here is that the arguments

against

> MMR are completely wrongheaded and, frankly, daft. Their effect is to

> increase the risk, both to the individual child and to the wider

community.

> It is not too strong to say that the continued campaign against MMR

> threatens a public health disaster.

> Let us take the issue of choice first, for this is what most

exercises

> parents involved in this debate. Whatever the facts, it is said, it must

be

> just that parents have the right to give their children them singly, even

if

> ultimately that option is proved to be less safe. Parental choice is

> sacrosanct.

> It is this, superficially laudable, sentiment which presumably

> explains the Today poll finding. But the argument is flawed. It is

> astonishing how many intelligent parents, who have spent hours carefully

> weighing the evidence for and against MMR, have neglected to do the same

for

> the single vaccines that they favour.

> They blithely assume that the single vaccines are the same as the

> component parts of the triple MMR vaccine, and that by having them singly

> they can avoid the theoretical " shock " (for which there is no evidence)

all

> three at once delivers to a child's developing immune system.

> Unfortunately, the single vaccines are not the same. No safety

review

> has ever been conducted of the single measles vaccine, which is not

licensed

> in the UK. Many parents who have paid for the single mumps vaccine

privately

> will have received the Urabe or Rubini strains imported from the

continent.

> The Urabe strain, which was included in the early version of the MMR

> vaccine, was withdrawn after it was linked with cases of aseptic

meningitis.

> It was replaced, as a constituent of MMR, by the Jeryl Lynn strain in

1992.

> The Rubini strain has not been licensed in the UK since it's effective in

> only 12 per cent of children.

> Even if the single vaccines were equivalent, which they are not,

> giving three at intervals is inherently less safe than giving one. During

> the intervals between the separate vaccines, the child remains exposed to

> the risk of catching the illnesses against which it has not yet been

> vaccinated. Furthermore, some parents will inevitably fail to return for

the

> second and third jabs, reducing the level of cover in the community. In

> Japan, the only country where single vaccines are recommended, regular

> measles outbreaks have occurred since the early 1990s, and between 1992

and

> 1997 there were 79 deaths.

> MMR is much more widely used than the single vaccines and has

> consequently been more intensively studied. At least 500 million doses

have

> been given worldwide, and continuous post-marketing surveillance has not

> revealed any significant risk. Four specific studies set up to examine the

> claims of a link with autism and bowel disease have failed to confirm

them.

> Although cases of autism have risen dramatically in the last decade this

is

> thought to be largely, if not wholly, because it is better detected.

> This is still not enough to satisfy many parents. They are alarmed

by

> the continuing publicity around MMR and they insist they must have the

right

> to choose, even if that means making the wrong choice.

> But this is a libertarian step too far and one that threatens the

> public good. We already accept restrictions on our right to choose, in the

> interests of protecting both personal and public safety. The clearest

> example is the ban on drink-driving. We accept it because we know the

> terrible consequences of the alternative =96 shattered bones and smashed

> lives. Nor is this only about the protection of others. Seatbelts and

> motorcycle helmets are also compulsory =96 the state's attempt to protect

us

> from ourselves.

> A large part of the reason why the campaign against MMR has been

able

> to gain momentum is that there is no equivalent of the roadside carnage

that

> reminds us regularly of the danger of drink-driving. It is precisely

because

> of the success of MMR that we no longer see in Britain the consequences of

> the diseases against which it protects.

> Yet measles is a killer. Though most adults over 40 will remember it

> as a mild fever accompanied by a rash, it can lead to serious

complications

> including encephalitis (swelling of the brain) and death. Mumps can cause

> sterility, and rubella can result in birth defects if passed on to

pregnant

> women. There have been no measles deaths in the UK since 1990, but in

1988,

> the year MMR was introduced, there were 76,000 casesand 16 deaths.

> There is one other argument that the anti-MMR lobby trots out. It is

> that confidence in MMR =96 thanks largely to their efforts =96 is

falling.=

> It

> must be better to allow parents single vaccines than to risk children

having

> none.

> It is true that the current position is bad, but it is not yet a

> disaster. Nationally, vaccination rates have dropped from 93 per cent to

88

> per cent (and lower in some areas). During the whooping cough vaccine

scare

> of the 1970s, vaccination rates fell below 50 per cent (and it was

followed

> by a series of epidemics). We are teetering on the edge of the abyss =96

but

> it is not yet time to jump into it. Unless vaccination rates fall

> dramatically, the Government must hold firm and work to rebuild confidence

> in MMR.

> The worst feature of this saga is what it tells us about the

nation's

> loss of confidence in science. The best scientific research shows that MMR

> is safe. That is what must govern Britain's policy. If ministers yield to

> the mob, even one composed of the chattering classes, it will be a black

day

> for science, for health and for children.

> j.laurance@...

[Guest guest]

Very well said! I find it quite disheartening when people think " safer "

vaccines are the answer. When they say that, I know right away that their

vaccine research is very limited or nonexistent.

Kathleen

In a message dated 9/1/2001 10:37:22 AM Central Daylight Time,

georgic@... writes:

> " MISGUIDED Crusade " .... Hardly... I agree with Sheri...Single vaccines

> of any kind are not the answer. None the less,these parents are not

> misguided in asking " why are these medicines that are to be GUARDING our

> child from disease are causing so many incurable ones in their stead. These

> vaccines are supposed to prevent diseases that most children get through

> unscathed with stronger immune systems in the long term, passing these

> permanent immunities onto their progeny. Vaccines cannot do this.

> Vaccines wane and " WEAR OFF " . In most cases that is why so many are needed

> every 2, 4 to 6 months. Or in the cases of the MMR, that was touted to have

> been the " one shot only needed " cure in the late '60's and now is needed to

> be boostered every 7 years as is the HEP B vaccine. Be aware folks, you

> are playing with FIRE, when you continue to ask the

> medical/pharmaceutical/CDC community to come up with " SAFE VACCINES " .

> There are none and will never be.......Vaccines for one illness only leads

> to a plethora of other chronic aliments that are labeled " non-curable " by

> the allopathic standards of healthcare. This will only lead to more

> pharmacuetical drug therapies that will cause other side effects that surely

> will continue to feed the " MONSTER " that caused the problem for your

> children from the start.... the inoculations and the industies that

> manufacture them.

>

> From: Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...>

>

> > Get this one. I ONLY agree that parents haven't weighed the evidence for

> > the single vaccines - NO VACCINE IS SAFE, single or combo. But this

> > condescending article is over the top............

> > Sheri

> > **********

> >

> > Don't Give In To This Misguided Crusade By Middle-Class Parents

> > 'It's astonishing how many parents weighing the MMR evidence haven't done

> > the same for single vaccines'

> >

> >

> > [ nce is a writer for the Independent of UK.]

> > http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=3D91254

> >

> > What is it about MMR? Another survey, this time by the Today

> programme

> > on Radio 4, has once again shown widespread public alarm about the triple

> > vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella (german measles). Two-thirds of

> > those polled, according to the BBC, think that parents should have the

> > choice of three single vaccines for their children, if that is what they

> > want.

> > Extraordinary, is it not, that Britain's middle classes have whipped

> > themselves into such a frenzy over MMR? Given all the threats to life and

> > limb to which children are exposed =96 tobacco and roads are the two that=

> > top

> > my list =96 it is remarkable that parents are prepared to devote so much=

> > time

> > to minimising what is already an infinitesimally small risk from a single

> > childhood vaccination. If they devoted half as much energy to stopping

> > smoking and slowing traffic, think how much genuinely safer for children

> > this country would be.

> > But I digress. For the real problem here is that the arguments

> against

> > MMR are completely wrongheaded and, frankly, daft. Their effect is to

> > increase the risk, both to the individual child and to the wider

> community.

> > It is not too strong to say that the continued campaign against MMR

> > threatens a public health disaster.

> > Let us take the issue of choice first, for this is what most

> exercises

> > parents involved in this debate. Whatever the facts, it is said, it must

> be

> > just that parents have the right to give their children them singly, even

> if

> > ultimately that option is proved to be less safe. Parental choice is

> > sacrosanct.

> > It is this, superficially laudable, sentiment which presumably

> > explains the Today poll finding. But the argument is flawed. It is

> > astonishing how many intelligent parents, who have spent hours carefully

> > weighing the evidence for and against MMR, have neglected to do the same

> for

> > the single vaccines that they favour.

> > They blithely assume that the single vaccines are the same as the

> > component parts of the triple MMR vaccine, and that by having them singly

> > they can avoid the theoretical " shock " (for which there is no evidence)

> all

> > three at once delivers to a child's developing immune system.

> > Unfortunately, the single vaccines are not the same. No safety

> review

> >