Re: Cameron baby to be given MMR Jab

[Guest guest]

In today's Daily Mail he is apparently advocating single jabs on the

NHS (only read the headline no time to read the rest at the mo).

Jacqui

>

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4758062.stm

> Cameron baby to be given MMR jab

>

> Cameron says baby Arthur will have the MMR jab

> Tory leader Cameron says his new baby will have the

MMR jab but suggests single injections should be considered.

> He has already said his other children have been given the

vaccination in contrast to Tony Blair who has refused to disclose

whether his son has had it.

>

> But he reopened the debate about single jabs saying if the

uptake falls the NHS should consider individual injections.

>

> Last year 81% of two-year-old's had the jab - up on the year

before but short of the 95% needed for herd immunity.

>

> My children have had the MMR vaccine and the new one

will have it

>

> Cameron, Tory leader

>

> When 95% of the population have been vaccinated, protection

is provided to everyone whether or not they are vaccinated

themselves.

>

> Mr Cameron became a father for the third time two weeks ago

when his wife, , gave birth to Arthur.

>

> The couple have a three-year-old son, Ivan, and two-year-old

daughter, .

>

> He said: " My children have had the MMR vaccine and the new

one will have it.

>

> " But I think the NHS needs to look out very carefully. If

the amount of children having the infection falls, it has to look at

how to encourage parents and that might mean single jabs. "

>

> The rise in the vaccination rate in England last year from

80% was the first since doubts were cast on the safety of the

vaccine - which protects against measles, mumps and rubella.

>

> Research which linked the jab to autism has since been

discredited - but uptake rates remain below official targets.

>

> Concern over the jab was sparked by a paper published in The

Lancet in 1998 by Dr Wakefield.

>

> The same journal published a study last year concluding that

there was no evidence to support a link between MMR and autism.

>

> Throughout the controversy, the prime minister has refused

to say whether Leo had the jab.

>

[Guest guest]

Maybe I'm slow (I know I am), but why do they need 95% for " herd immunity " ? If

the shots work, they work. If they don't, they don't. Could someone please try

to explain what " their " rationale is on this?

Sheri B.

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

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

[Guest guest]

I have trouble with it too Sheri. I saved this from a Sheri N. post. Hope it

helps.

Anita

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/July_5_02/Scandal23.htm

Scandals - 07/05/02

Is the theory of " herd

immunity " flawed?

" Herd " immunity is a theory which purports to explain how an entire group

can be protected from disease. It is thought to result in protection of

everyone once a magic percentage of vaccinated or otherwise immune

individuals is reached, by preventing transmission of the virus to those

who remain " unprotected " , either because a vaccine didn't happen to work

for them, or was too risky in their case.

It relies on getting as high a percentage vaccinated as possible, which

means requiring that everyone who doesn't have an obvious contraindication

to getting a vaccine, be vaccinated.

However, it is ironic and worth noting that it is the failure of

vaccination, not its success, which is used as justification for requiring

its use. Thus, children attending school are required to get vaccinations,

whether their parents want them to or not, whether it is personally good

for them or not, simply because vaccination doesn't always work. This,

all in the name of " herd immunity " .

Notwithstanding the questionable validity of using the weakness of a

product as justification for forcing it on people (more on that another

time), and whether or not there is any justice in forcing someone to

potentially sacrifice their own health in order to " protect " someone

else's, there seem to be problems with the theory itself, i.e., the notion

that if you reach a high enough percentage that is vaccinated, a " herd

immunity " will result.

One of those potential problems is that outbreaks have occurred in highly

vaccinated populations, including those documented to be 100% vaccinated.

If the " herd " cannot be protected with 100% vaccination rates, maybe there

is something wrong with the theory.

Another possible problem is that vaccines often do not prevent

transmission, instead merely preventing full-blown cases of disease (i.e.,

causing mild or subclinical cases). In fact, circulating virus is known to

boost the immunity of the vaccinated (and perhaps even those naturally

immune), thereby prolonging the apparent effectiveness of the vaccine (and

maybe even natural immunity). In the absence of circulating disease,

vaccine-induced immunity is more likely to wane, and boosters will be

required. In any event, it is hard to understand how something which does

not necessarily prevent transmission can result in immunity for the " herd " .

Is the notion of " herd immunity " scientifically valid?

If circulation of disease cannot always be prevented by vaccination, and

instead merely drives it underground in the guise of mild or subclinical

cases, can " herd immunity " be counted on to work?

Is one of the reasons outbreaks have occurred in highly vaccinated

populations because vaccines are not as effective as we have been led to

believe? Are the methods currently used to measure/determine immunity

inadequate or flawed?

How valid is the justification for mandating vaccination, given what

appears to be some evidence against the theory used to support that policy?

Sandy Mintz

Look for the next Scandals on Friday, July 12, 2002.

Past Scandals

©Copyright 2001-2002 by Sandy Mintz. . This content may

be copied in full ONLY with copyright, contact, creation, authorship, and

information intact (including all links), without specific permission, and

ONLY when used in a not-for-profit format. If any other use is desired,

permission in writing from Sandy Mintz is required.

" Sheri B. " <tallchick1966@...> wrote:

Maybe I'm slow (I know I am), but why do they need 95% for " herd immunity " ?

If the shots work, they work. If they don't, they don't. Could someone please

try to explain what " their " rationale is on this?

Sheri B.

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

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

[Guest guest]

This probably isn't even close, but viruses can mutate so maybe they think that

if not enough people get the vaccine, then more people will pick up the virus,

giving the virus a better chance of mutating and then being spread to even the

vaccinated people, since that vaccine will be made for the unmutated virus. If

there so worried about the vaccination rate, maybe they better comply with the

people and take thimerosal out....not just leave trace ammounts, but take it

out. Maybe they should come clean and start telling the truth. I think it's

pretty funny when big wigs start getting freaked out about the vaccination

rates.....now it's their turn to worry.

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

Relax. virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!

[Guest guest]

There is no thimerisol in the MMR, though.

Sheri B.

skunkiesublime fsinisbad <skunkiesublime@...> wrote:

If there so worried about the vaccination rate, maybe they better comply

with the people and take thimerosal out....not just leave trace ammounts, but

take it out.

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

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

[Guest guest]

Ooops. You're right.

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

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

[Guest guest]

They don't want any measles virus floating around and think tht if the

reach 95% vaccination there will be herd immunity and there will be NO

cases of measles, period for those unvaccinated or for those that the

vaccine doesn't work for (in their opinion). Of course I know the vaccine

doesn't give immunity at all.

At 04:47 AM 2/28/2006 -0800, you wrote:

>Maybe I'm slow (I know I am), but why do they need 95% for " herd

immunity " ? If the shots work, they work. If they don't, they don't.

Could someone please try to explain what " their " rationale is on this?

> Sheri B.

>>

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

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

[Guest guest]

Hey Sheri B.,

In my rush to get out the door this morning, I responded to your post without

reading the article (didn't even see it). Knowing you, you probably had the info

I sent you already. I realise now, that probably wasn't what you looking for

when you asked for an explanation as to what to " their " rationale is. I truely

struggle in the morning.

Your ditsy friend,

Anita

" Sheri B. " <tallchick1966@...> wrote:

Maybe I'm slow (I know I am), but why do they need 95% for " herd immunity " ?

If the shots work, they work. If they don't, they don't. Could someone please

try to explain what " their " rationale is on this?

Sheri B.

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

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

[Guest guest]

Never a problem. I haven't read it yet and it's probably something I need to

read anyway. I have a bunch of the long ones flagged and I try to print them

out and get to them when I can.

Thanks!

Sheri B.

Anita Durney <mydurney@...> wrote:

Hey Sheri B.,

In my rush to get out the door this morning, I responded to your post without

reading the article (didn't even see it). Knowing you, you probably had the info

I sent you already.

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

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.