Sounds like vaccines are doing just what the "health" authorities (aka drug companies) want them to do.

ie,

Assault the human immune system and thus open the door for future,long term illness which are hard to link to vaccinations and increasing profits.

Luvvly Jubbly Rodders,everyones a winner.....err.. except us,our kids,mum,dad etc

How many millions did not get them, especially from the first vaccine, the second and possibly third I have no comment, these things seem to come back sometimes and bite is in the backside, but I still think immunizations are necessary to save millions of lives and keep millions from gettin sick.  I do think the ones that do not get vaccinated are at a great risk.  You think mrsa is related with the mumps, mrsa is a bad, bad, one for anyone. clora conn

My feeling is that these childhood (normally) diseases should be encouraged to run their natural course in young, healthy children.  And that is the crunch word.  Healthy.  A healthy immune sustem should be able to cope with everything that invades naturally - unlike the artificial assault through our unsuspecting hermetic seal; the skin.  Infections do not invade by means of a sneaky, un-announced, exceedingly poisonous hypodermic injection directly into the bloodstream, bypassing all our immune defences.

I and my children had mumps at a young age.  We were all very healthy and ate a good, natural diet.  The swelling and inconvenience were minimal, and school forbidden only because we were iiinfectious!

The evidence demonstrates very clearly though, that your feeling is wrong.  Childhood illnesses can vary quite considerably in their severity.  Most children who have measles for instance, will fight it off and recover with no lastning damage.  But a good proportion of them wont.  In the example of measles, this can be damage to the nervous system in as many as 1 in 1000 cases.

That doesn't sound like much, and chance are if you let your kids have measles, they would be fine (statistically you would need to have 1000 children to see one case of severe neurological damage).  But when it comes to the whole populations, obviously this translates into a very large number of seriously ill children.

That's why vaccination is used.  If a virus has infected your body (i.e., you are ill), this means that it HAS bypassed all your immune defenses, incubated, spread and is doing its job or making as many copies of itself using your cells until your immune system can overcome the problem.

A healthy immune system is essential for health, but it wont protect you from everything.  Vaccination protects other people from the infections that are spread around by those who refuses it.  Mumps is rarely serious, but it can be very much so, particulalry in adult males.  There have been recent outbreaks of mumps precisely because a large number of parents did not have their children vaccinated, thus providing the virus with plenty of people to incubate in, and hence spreading on to other people.  

It is a very worrying outcome that precisely because vaccination has reduced so many childhood illnesses to rare occurences, that a few people now fear the vaccine more than the illness itself.  

This is the damage than hysetria and fear about vaccination spread by sites such as this one can do.  

You just said it - Mumps is rarely serious except in adult males. Surely the best way to avoid this would be to ensure that children contract mumps at a young age, when less serious, as this is the best form of protection from future infection. How many people do you know who have had mumps twice (as a child and then adult)? I

And these 1 in 1000 children who are seriously damaged by mumps - what is there state of health? From what I can gage, it tends to be children who are already seriously ill or immune compromised who suffer badly from infectious diseases and not those children who are healthy and well nourished. Surely it would be better to vaccinate by exception rather than this 'herd immunization' approach which is potentially damaging many children’s immune systems.

At the end of the day, as a parent you have to decide whether your child is more at risk from the effects or contracting the disease or the risks of vaccination (of which there appear to be many). The problem is the most parents do not even know about the latter risks and do not even realise there is a choice of not vaccinating. And it's sites like these that are educating people and giving them choices - or is that not a good idea in today’s democratic society?

Choice, or at least the illusion of choice, definitely seems to be a buzzword in politics right now.

I entirely agree, as a parent what you will think of is whether your child is at more risk of vaccination than the diseases (the 1/100 stats I quoted were on measles).  And this is the problem.  This website encourages parents not to use vaccination, which carries a much lower risk to a child than having to fight measles.  Vaccinating just a few children doesn't work.  The dieases simply spreads around incurabing in those that haven't been vaccinated and cases stay high.

The problem is that when you look at the data, this risks of vaccination are less than catching the diseases on a population level, but when it comes down to the individual, what do they care about populations, herd immunity or halting the spread of the disease?  As long as their child is ok, then really that is all that matters being honest.  This is obviously in conflict with how vaccines work, how health authorities must think, who are more interested in keeping actual number of cases of the disease down.

That's my point, this site is not educating you.  it is scaring you, misleading you and ultimately providing you with a completely incorrect view of vaccination.  Of course, in a democracy, as you point out, you are free to accdept advice from any source you see fit.  That's why I am posting here:  to remind people that this site is not a medical site, it does not provide medical advice, but yet it claims to and takes responsibility for guiding people even though neither of its authors are in any way medically informed, give advice that is in direct contradiction to all accepted medical advice, can hardly be said not to have vested interests of their own, ec, etc.

Just something to bear in mind, but ofcourse, listen to whichever advice you like.

I understand your point but I do not trust the advice of the medical profession because they are in the pockets of the drugs companies - and all they are interested in is making a profit. They don't test the drugs/ vaccinations properly - just look at the different drugs that have been withdrawn over the years and the damage done to innocent people - or is this the price that has to be paid for the many people who have been helped. Trying telling this to those parents whose children are seriously ill or have died due to drugs/ vaccinations.

The drugs and medical profession are taking things too far. We have developed a very unhealthy relationship with disease and illness and it's as though it must now be avoided at all cost. Being ill is a part of life and can actually benefit you in the long run - making you stronger and helping the body to clear up its own problems. How can herd immunisation against things like Chicken Pox benefit the population? It may benefit a very small minority of children, potentially harm many thousands and benefit the drug companies’ profits significantly.

Who are you supposed to trust?  A small company trying to spread an alternative view or a multi billion pound industry with purely commercial issues at heart?

Isn't it so that we are constantly told that the world has too many people and that it cannot cope anymore?

Contrast this with the medical industry which tells us that "it wants to keep us healthy and alive" and yet, mankind is sicker than ever before in history. 30 years ago, I was deeply shocked when I learned that somebody died of cancer. 15 years later, my mother died of cancer and despite being aggrieved, I was less shocked than 15 years earlier when a non-relative died of cancer. Today, I know many people suffering from it. We attribute this to environmental toxins, unclean air and so forth.

Now guess what, all pharma companies developped out of chemical companies. The same companies who produce the most toxic substances on earth (which end up in the environment) and could not give a damn produce pharmaceuticals and all of a sudden they give a damn? Really? Or is it more realistic to say that they make us sick first and then promote their own drugs to make us healthy again? Or is it even more realistic to say that they are trying to kill us off? If the environmental chemicals don't catch us all, the pharmaceutical products will go a long way further?

It really makes a lot of sense to intoxicate somebody who has a weakened immune system with more chemicals, viruses and bacteria rather than building up the immune system by detoxing the body first.

Harradine, you are just talking rubbish wrapped up in soothing words. The former logo of the Fabian society comes to my mind: The wolf in sheep's clothing.

35 years ago, most of us had measles, mumps, chickenpox and so forth and I do not know anybody who has ever died from any of these illnesses. Whole classes were shut down in my school and guess what: Everybody returned stronger and healthier.

I find it a lot more risky to let my children play with children who were vaccinated with God only knows what than sending them out to play with children who have not been vaccinated. Do you really think that I want my children to catch any of the stuff that vaccinated children carry around?

This site does not give bad advice.  In fact most of us think alike.  Nobody is swayed because of this site, most are already convinced/enlightened because of our experiences in the past (age has its benefits ;-)  )

Vaccinations are not natural.  Our bodies are quite capable of sorting itself out once our immune system kicks in, it just needs to be given the chance to do it without intervention.  Too many of us have been brainwashed into running to the doctor for every little thing like they are gods.

There are always going to be unhealthy people around because their diets and lifestyle are rubbish.  It would be far better to educate these people than pump them full of drugs.  Shame kids don't get a free prescription for the right kinds of foods to help them instead of drugs that supress their immune systems.  Oh! but then the drug companies and their shareholders would lose out :-}

        I know measles bears the brunt of the bad press but autism would appear to be far more complex and have multiple causitive factors so it seems to me we should be looking at a form of overload and general level of toxicity.  Possibly the mumps vaccine also contributes to this via an effect on the trigeminal nerve - hence the exaggerated sensitivity to taste and smell, foods etc.  Has anyone out there looked into this?

Autism if being diagnosed with much greater frequency than ever before.  The people who actually do the diagnoses believe that this is due to the adoption of different testing procedures which have broadened the scope of the diagnosis.

This now included a whole spectrum of disorders.  The diagnosis does not involve any biological tests.  It involves primarily behavioural assesments.  

The current thinking among child psychologists, neuropsychologists and paediatricans is that the rise is autism is largely due to the new diagnostic procedures being used.  That doesn't mean that autims isn't really increasing.  Just that the new methods used to spot it have to be taken account of when interpreting the prevalence statistics.

Looking for external causes has to be backed up with good evidence.  Most of the evidence shows that Autism may be a multifactorial problem, with a genetic component, an environmental component (as yet unidentified- every weel there is a now one thought of and yet another discounted).  

Prental exposure to some drugs has been assoicated but so far no really good evidence for this.

Its a complex field.

Personally, until I read of a serious, impartial, long term, study involving a comparison of vaccinated and non-vaccinated children in a developed country with good living conditions looking at rates of general health incl autism, asthma etc then I will not be injecting very harmful chemicals and illnesses into my children. This is my attitude re: household chemical, chemicals and pesticides in food etc - all of which the Governments and Doctors tell us are safe. I am afraid that they do not have the research to back this up.

I have three unvaccinated boys 3, 9 & 11 years old. We have only had one trip to the doctor out of all those years, never used antibiotics, do not use fluoride in toothpastes and none of them have fillings. This is replicated by all other non-vaccination families I know and am friends with. They are the healthiest kids I know. Other then non vaccination, no antibiotics (oral and household sprays), no fluoride and reduced chemicals (esp artificial sweeteners) and toxins in food and house, I can see no other things that we do differently to other friends. Why are the majority of my neighbours' kids regularly very ill, on continuous rounds of antibiotics, steroids, suffering from asthma, autism, allergies. It may not all lie at the feet of vaccination but it is just another assault on the immune system.

One question though?

Now that these diseases are harder to find, my kids have not had measles and I am not sure if I want to risk them having it during teenage due to the increased dangers so should I have the oldest one vaccinated by single dose with Measles (they have had mumps naturally - very easily). Can't decide what to do?

Cheers

Richard