comet555

Oddly enough, I've just discovered that there have been some recent outbreaks in Australia.

My computer is acting up again so I can't post the links. I'm sure the stories could be found easily if they were searched for.

But there was a mumps outbreak in NSW in Oct 2007.
There was also a Rubella outbreak in Sydney just 2 weeks ago.

Trekrider

I'm not sure why you are 'trying to win me over in this debate' or why you have singled me out for this conversion You will NEVER do this so you are wasting your time!

The short answer is no, I wouldn't. Your argument is flawed in many ways - where exactly would these figures have come from? How long a study would this have been? What would these unwanted side effects be? Are you talking short term or long term side effects? What other factors are involved like health, nutrition, sanitation etc. You simply can't put forward an over-simplified statement like this and that is without even considering if you subscribe to the 'germ theory' in the first place.

Trekrider

Not sure I understand your point about (a). How can you say that trends prior to immunisation are unrelated? I thought the argument is that once vaccination is introduced the number of cases of a disease reduces thus proving its effectiveness? So how can you ignore the huge downward trend in the disease that occurred prior to the introduction of the vaccine? The graphs I have seen using 'official' data show no marked difference after the introduction of vaccination which makes it very relevant.

We are talking about the overall trend (which was downward) not individual years.

asprilla

Here's an interesting website that talks about some of the concerns mentioned in this thread:
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/immu...tail.cfv?id=52

comet555

Great link!

asprilla

Sorry ! I haven't singled you out for conversion, I just think that this is a good debate. Nothing personal against you, honest.

Anyway, in response to your comments above... why are you concerned with studies, unwanted side effects (short term or long term), other factors? To me, you are avoiding the main issue - the difference in mortality rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Ok - Let me ask you the question in another way, without the complications of the scenario. Please ignore everything else, and if you'd be good enough, answer the following:

If you were given the following choice, and you were forced to make the choice, which alternative would you choose?
a) your child has an injection and as a result, has a 1 in 500,000 chance of dying that year.
b) your child has a sugar cube and has a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying that year.

Based only on the above...and nothing else....would you choose (a) or (b)?


One other query (sorry about all the questions) - you said:
Do you subscribe to the "germ theory of disease" ? (I had to look it up in wikipedia)

cheers

Trekrider

No worries

Not at all, it's not as simple as just looking at mortality rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated children - What if your unvaccinated mortality rate came from a third world country where general health, diet, sanitation etc. are poor and your vaccinated mortality rate came from a developed country where mostly the reverse is true? This would squew the rates in favour of vacination where the true difference was due to sanitation for example! I think you are over simplifying the basic question.

42

I'm surprised that someone who has researched vaccination would not be aware of germ theory. I also note that wikipedia, although mentioning Louis Pasteur as a proponent of germ theory, fails to mention that before he died he said that he was wrong.

I_Will_Freckle

No he did not! This is where I get annoyed. It's all very well to believe whatever you like but to spout lies in the hope that others will turn towards your quackish beliefs is just plain wrong.

Try reading this. Though I guess this is all part of the conspiracy too?

asprilla

Well, I don't remember ever saying that I've researched vaccination. I am fully aware of the concepts behind "germ theory" - I've just never heard it referred to as germ theory before!

Trekrider - you have not actually answered any of my questions.... I can only assume that this is because the answers do not sit comfortably with your way of thinking.

Re: Louis Pasteur - you say that "before he died he said he was wrong". Please provide a reference for this. If you don't consider germ theory to be correct, then I think I'll leave this debate, and let you carry on with your beliefs.

Trekrider (and others on this thread) - you will really enjoy the book by Alain de botton called 'The Consolations of Philosophy'. Read the first 20 pages, where he talks about people who go against the norm and challenge common wisdom.

cheers

Trekrider

The link you provide says words to the effect of 'as his turn around was not mentioned in his biography it can't be true'. How many biographers over the years have not told the complete truth about the people they write about? Why is it that that well know biographer Andrew Moreton upsets his 'targets' who flatly deny what he has said about them?

Having said that I'm not qualified to comment on what Pasteur may or may not have said - I wasn't there

I have not tried to turn anyone on any topic, I have simply stated my belief, the only one who has said that this is there goal is Markallwood who wants to turn me to being pro vaccination.

Before you start accusing me of having quackish beliefs you should first note that I didn't say I didn't agree with germ theory so which quackish belief do you mean? - to be honest I am still undecided on this issue myself.

Trekrider

I think this is rather a sweeping statement, I have answered your questions with the exception of meaningless ones of the choose a or b type which really have no relevance whatsoever. Equally there have been plenty of questions that I have raised that you have not answered either.

Ozzidoc

There's a lot more to the work undertaken by Louis Pasteur. Radio 4 did a program on him - LOADS of his data/studies turned out to be completely fudged, unreplicable etc.

Rob12paws

Oh dear, if we're now going to start using the articles that Ratbags writes to further this debate, I'm out of here. He has a pathological hatred against any medical approach that isn't 100% orthodox, and a look at his website (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/index.html) will give examples of the passion with which he launches attacks on anything that offends him. I'm afraid I do not regard him as a credible source of information.

I personally do not subscribe to the germ theory. This doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge the existence of bacteria, viruses, parasites and fungi, etc., but I do not subscribe to the belief that they automatically make a person ill. I consider that in some instances they have health-promoting tasks to perform within the body. I do believe that a person has to have an *ill* body for "germs" to cause symptoms of illness/disease. Which, rather than putting me in the "Pasteur" camp, puts me firmly in the "Bernard" camp. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't make me a quack, any more than I consider the followers of the Pasteur theory, quacks. Nor is it a *conspiracy theory*. It's a difference of opinion/belief. This gives a good outline of the conflicting approaches: http://timelessremedies.wordpress.co...e-germ-theory/.

My personal opinion is that the *childhood illnesses* can actually improve health long term. Most parents notice that their children make large steps forward in their development after illnesses like chickenpox, and when I was a kid, the same thing was said about measles and mumps. I don't see them as something to fear the way that so many of you do. Nor do I fear illnesses like pertussis or flu or RSV. We have been so brainwashed over the years into fearing childhood illnesses that many people now see something like chickenpox as being deadly. For some, they can be dangerous and some people have a bad dose, but for the vast majority they are little more than an incovenience.

My opinion is that no illness is worth filling my child's body with mercury (one of the most toxic substances known to mankind), formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), aluminium (acknowledged to cause problems in the neurological system), certain antibiotics, including streptomycin and neomycin (which the vaccine manufacturers say should only be given either orally or topically because of its extreme toxicity when absorbed through the skin), gelatin, phenoxyethanol (antifreeze by any other name), monosodium glutamate, borax, polysorbate...etc., etc., etc., the list goes on. Aside from the c**p that goes into them, vaccines have been linked to diabetes, MS, cancer, leukaemia, CFS and other auto-immune disorders. That's not counting the autism epidemic. These are not the ramblings of conspiracy theorists - they are acknowledged medical facts. Sure, not all doctors agree, but there are many who do. I don't think anyone would doubt the explosion of auto-immune diseases over the past twenty years or so - nor the number of children - and adults - who are allergic to everything in sight, who have severe eczema, asthma, hayfever...again, the list goes on. Something is causing breakdown in people's immune systems. In my personal opinion, vaccination is where the rot starts.

More and more boosters seem to be required nowadays before a vaccine is acknowledged to be *effective*; live vaccines are a potential hazard to immuno-compromised people because they can be shed by recently-vaccinated children. It was recently calculated by a member of a forum I belong to that fully-vaccinated children have received in excess of 90 antigens by the time they are five years old: I haven't checked that out for complete accuracy, but I'm sure it is right give or take a couple...surely this cannot be good for any kid?

I have a healthy, thriving ten-year-old daughter. Having lost five other babies to miscarriage, she is more precious to me than I can say. It is my duty as her mother to protect her, and I would not gamble with her life for one single moment. But I am so convinced by the dangers of vaccination (and I am certainly not alone in this) that I will happily take my chances on the childhood illnesses, or any other that she might encounter. At least she has an uncompromised immune system which gives her a sporting chance with anything that comes her way. She has already had chickenpox, mumps and rubella without any drama - time will tell what the future holds. But I don't believe stabbing her body full of poisons will prevent her being ill for a single second. I do subscribe to the philosophy of creating and maintaining a healthy body with a healthy environment to prevent illness and disease.

How does all of that make me wrong? And indeed, how does it make me "daft"? I have made a conscious and informed decision on this topic and until it is legal to forcefully medicate a person against their wishes, I reserve my right to make this decision in the best interests of my child and myself.

Cheetah7

Do they really put all of those ingredients into a vaccine? Seriously I am horrified if that is true.

No wonder I feel crap after my jabs.

If they do put all of those things in a vaccine, how on earth in gods name can that be healthy.

We know the risks childhood diseases pose but surely some of the vaccines do as well.

Ozzidoc

Nope. Jabs contain molecules which are no worse than some of the food or alcohol that we drink.