The thread was closed as you had your question answered, as has been already stated.

I would remind you, once again, of site rule 15.

15. Moderator Actions

Discussions about moderator or administrator actions are welcome in email, or local private messages, but should not be discussed in public forums. This is out of respect for the members, moderators and policy involved.

Well they should do.

You've had 12 hours to find the "science". We're all waiting...

You know how, when the phone rings and you don't have to answer it ? That applies here. I sense provocation in some of the posts above and dont know why anyone would continue to engage with such words (that's all they are) particularly on this subject and with respect to previous comments made about this topic on another post.

Many people continue to come to this forum, despite having successfully immigrated into their country of choice. Despite a new life, there seems to be a need in some, to pontificate, postulate, entertain, be entertained, or perhaps escape boredom, or perhaps the dissatisfaction of being uprooted.
Not my problem. Maybe its a case of lording information, amassed via years on a discussion forum, over others (big fish/small pond syndrome) Very possibly, posters with thousands and thousands of posts are given leeway to conduct themselves in a bullying and provocative manner with impunity.

It could be a lot of things, none of which really interest me. The world awaits. It's sunny where I am and after my morning coffee, and after I have finished trawling this board to find the info I currently require this am, I am off to enjoy the day.



I leave the last word to anyone who wants it. Enjoy!


"“Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?”
― Peter Hitchens

That's the WHOLE point of BE. It's why it's called British Expats and why it was created. People are supposed to come here to moan, laugh, banter, and pontificate and to connect with other Brits all around the world. If you are uncomfortable with that then perhaps BE isn't the place for you.

The one word that Sue missed out was the word Support - there are countless numbers who have moved to Canada for the first time, or back to the country of their birth, who have been helped and supported by the posters of BE.

No one is being personally provocative, but something may have come over in your tone that might have irritated slightly, you even irritated me, and I'm one of the most pacific of posters.

Emigrating is a process, we all take it in our own stride with differing degrees of success. We don't have to tear up our membership of BE just because we touch down in Canada. Also, some on here are poor sad sods, like me, who have no familial support and feel a bit adrift on occasion. BE have been patient and helpful, and I try, when possible, to help anyone who might experience problems I can help with.

I do hope that you have a sunny day in the UK (sadly wet again in NB, so no change there!) and when you next have any queries, there will be someone here in this funny, eclectic bunch who will have the answer and will be willing to share. Best of luck

If you publicly advocate a course of action violently at odds with the norm, one most people consider to be dangerous to those who have not given informed consent to the risk at which that action places them, then you should expect people to take an interest. If you then claim that your position is based on science, and it isn't, you must expect people to point that out.

Debate has failed here because your position is irrational. You can't defend it. No one can defend it.

Well, as I started the thread I suppose I ought to chip in too!

Firstly, there is an overwhelming amount of opinion and "research" out there, both for and against. Some even have references to back them up! You could spend years reading through it all, and still end up none the wiser. No wonder the issue is emotive, and confusing!

Secondly, as most parents, my primary and overriding responsibility is to my kids….. not "the herd" (I am after all Human, not Borg! ). I'm sure all parents feel the same way. If I was asked to put my children at possible risk so that other members of society could enjoy reduced risk, I'd say no. When it comes to vaccinations, as an example, the emphasis is on the individual, not "the herd". Herd immunity is based, as far as I can see, on maximising the number of people who are vaccinated so as to protect those who are not vaccinated…… or have I misread something somewhere? The bottom line is, if you're worried about catching a particular illness, then get the vaccine…. it's really that simple. If you and yours are vaccinated, you have no need to worry, right?

Thirdly, there is plenty of "information" out there that indicates certain vaccines do carry with them a risk, however small, of severe adverse reactions. Between 1989 and this year, the "vaccine court" in the US has paid out over $2.6 Billion in compensation to vaccine injured children ( fact: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensat...csreports.html ) For me, as a simple Dad, that boils down to "Do I risk damaging my kids brain with a shot, or do I go ahead and let them catch Chicken Pox?"…… a dilemma that faces us all at one time or another.

Fourthly, I am sure that we're all agreed that the public's trust in the "authorities" has waned significantly in the last 10 years or so. Politicians and "experts" are increasingly being found out as being only interested in their own bank accounts, not the public good. As an example, in 2011 a Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD (Neural Dynamics Research Group, Dept. of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia) requested FOI from the UK Government. Her report makes gruesome reading.

After obtaining the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010, the report asserts that (for those that don't want to read all 45 pages!!):

1) Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;
2) Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;
3) On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations;
4) Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;
5) Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;
6) Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted;
7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;
8) Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage;
Notably, all of these actions appear to violate the JCVI’s own Code of Practice.

The report, which is full of references and links to the NHS website (although many of them have since been archived) is here, for those who have asked for links etc: http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/...omljenovic.pdf

That was just to back up Cyasoon!

Fifthly, as an anecdote, I was discussing the Chicken Pox vaccine with colleagues and friends recently (about 7 or so). Three of them had been given the vaccine when they were kids…. all three went on to catch Chicken Pox, one of them twice! The other two caught Chicken Pox and had Shingles when they were older…… that's an anecdote, not some fantasy from the web! That herd thingy doesn't seem to work too well sometimes!

Finally, I'll just say it's a tough call for all of us. With the lack of trustworthy information out there, all we can do is protect ourselves the best we can. That will either be getting vaccinated, and breathing easy, or making the call that the illness is less risky than the shot. Good luck, whatever you decide!

Except the ones against. I wonder though why you put the word research in inverted commas. Is the concept unfamiliar?

Er, I posted one "against". You might want to read it. As to the research in inverted commas, the concept is not unfamiliar, it's simply to point out that some of it appears dubious, on both sides.

For every piece of research - in what ever subject you like - you find 'for' something, you will find an equal amount of research 'against'.

As I have said many times to friends, the internet is a wonderful thing provided you understand that anyone can post anything - and it isn't necessarily factually accurate.

Exactly! "Seek and ye shall find"!

Has it occurred to you that Dr. Lucitia PhD might be just another nut job?

No. Has it occurred to you that her links to the UK NHS transcripts might show that this is proper research (for a change)?