Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Home | Profile | Register | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 JABS Forum
 News and Comment
 SENSE - charity for rubella damaged children
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

VoiceOfReason

33 Posts

Posted - 06/15/2009 :  16:21:58  Show Profile  Send VoiceOfReason an AOL message  Reply with Quote
SENSE is a charity set up for deaf-blind, rubella damaged children. You can find their website here:
http://www.sense.org.uk/Home.htm

They also have this paper on MMR vaccines:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16439371/Sense-and-Mmr

I encourage you to fully read this document as it is written by a charity set up to support parents and damaged children just as this one is.

I particular I would like to draw your attention to the following facts which can be read in full from the above link:
-A study conducted on almost every child born in Denmark over 10 years showed no difference in autism cases between those who had the triple vaccine and those who didn't
-A study in Canada showing that autism continued rising even when uptake of the vaccine dropped
-Reasons why single vaccines aren't as effective as triple vaccines
-Why it is important that every child who can be vaccinated is vaccinated

Suba

United Kingdom
404 Posts

Posted - 06/15/2009 :  22:31:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The New England Journal of Medicine reported that it is possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following
vaccination.

New England Journal of Medicine, vol.313,1985.
See also Clin Exp Rheumatol 20(6):767-71, Nov-Dec 2002.

Herd immunity is a myth as long as vaccines are used because these injected viruses can escape the immune response. The only true herd immunity is obtained from exposure to wild virus naturally. Vaccines allow virus to remain in situ wreaking havoc with the immune system by causing inflammation.

A deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.
Go to Top of Page

MinorityView

USA
611 Posts

Posted - 06/16/2009 :  01:52:53  Show Profile  Visit MinorityView's Homepage  Reply with Quote
familiar with both of those studies and they are not good quality science...

Aged survivor of many years of alternative health care...and one vaccine, administered by a doctor without the consent of my parents, 50 years ago.
Go to Top of Page

MissyC

9 Posts

Posted - 06/16/2009 :  12:34:57  Show Profile  Send MissyC an AOL message  Reply with Quote
This study is again comparing children that are vaccinated.

There will still be the usual toxins of alimunium, formaldehyde, msg etc in single vaccines. So its no surprise that autism rates are still rising if the main ingredients of the MMR are still found in the single doses.

What none of these so called "studys" have looked at is comparing a non vaccinated child with a vaccinated one.

They won't do that because it will scare them!!!
Go to Top of Page

VoiceOfReason

33 Posts

Posted - 06/16/2009 :  15:18:51  Show Profile  Send VoiceOfReason an AOL message  Reply with Quote
MinorityView - Please could you expand upon that statement I would be interested to know what was wrong with the studies.

Suba - the whole point of vaccines is that the immune response is almost exactly the same as for 'wild' viruses. You don't get herd immunity without vaccinations which is why deaths from diseases drop when vaccines for them are introduced.

MissyC - the Denmark study was on both vaccinated and unvaccinated children

Edited by - VoiceOfReason on 06/16/2009 18:13:31
Go to Top of Page

MissyC

9 Posts

Posted - 06/16/2009 :  17:00:37  Show Profile  Send MissyC an AOL message  Reply with Quote
"the whole point of vaccines is that the immune response is almost exactly the same as for 'wild' viruses. "

Yes, that is what the doctors, scientists and big pharmaceuticals are trying to create but unfortunately it doesn't seem to work. E.g the viruses are going directly into the blood stream instead of through your nose/mouth lungs airways bypassing part of our bodies defence mechanisms. So the immune response in not the same. That's why some people only have immunity for 5-10 years unlike lifetime if they had caught the disease naturally.

"You don't get herd immunity without vaccinations which is why deaths from diseases drop when vaccines for them are introduced."

All Suba is trying to say is that the herd immunity is a myth. Yes deaths from the diseases drop when vaccines for them are introduced but deaths from the vaccine itself have increased!

http://www.naturodoc.com/library/public_health/truth_re_smallpox_vaccine.htm

Go to Top of Page

Govna

43 Posts

Posted - 06/16/2009 :  19:19:57  Show Profile  Send Govna an AOL message  Reply with Quote
quote:
[i]Originally posted by VoiceOfReason[/i]
[br]Please could you expand upon that statement I would be interested to know what was wrong with the studies.




I assume you are referring to the study in Denmark by Madsen et al 2002. Here is a link to the study, followed by links to comment on it:


Madsen KM et al. A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism (2002). N Engl J Med 347 (19): 1477–82

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/347/19/1477?query=prevarrow

Response by Stott, Blaxill, Wakefield:

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/stott.pdf

Response by Goldman, Yazbak:

http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/pdf/goldman.pdf

Response by Branell:

http://whale.to/a/branell.html

Response by Yazbak to this and later studies:

http://www.taap.info/DanishStudy2005.pdf

The question raised by Yazbak over the inconsistency between Madsens data and other studies of his co-authors is based on the following:

http://www.fourteenstudies.org/pdf/HG_8.pdf

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/13/1763

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/112/3/604

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15697060


And the study from Canada you mention is probably Fombonne 2006:

Fombonne E et al. Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations (2006). Pediatrics 118 (1): e139–50.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139

Comment by Yazbak:

http://www.consumercide.com/blog/index.php?p=200&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1


There are many more studies than that available, the vast majority of which look closely at time trends of autism cases and MMR exposure. No matter how accurately they attempt to do so (Fombonne was pretty spectacular in his failure), they are limited by a number of factors, the biggest of which is that autism comes in different guises, and there is no way of finding statistics for cases of regression into autism following normal development prior to MMR. There are also a number of variables that are impossible to control - Wakefield's theory for the mechanism by which MMR can lead to autism involves compromise of the immune system prior to MMR, and if as yet unknown environmental exposures involved in that compromise were also changing over the time period of MMR introduction, that would have a big impact on those studies of time trends. Another potential variable, which has never been controlled, is age of vaccination which with younger children potentially more at risk:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16729252

http://autism.com/triggers/vaccine/wakefielddsouza.htm

As for single shots being more effective, I have never heard that before, perhaps you would care to cite your source. The link you provided said the same thing as the NHS, namely that it is more convenient to provide them at once, but that is far from the same thing.

'All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident.' - Arthur Schopenhauer

Edited by - Govna on 06/16/2009 22:02:32
Go to Top of Page

VoiceOfReason

33 Posts

Posted - 06/16/2009 :  22:05:31  Show Profile  Send VoiceOfReason an AOL message  Reply with Quote
Thank you for your well researched reply Govna.

Firstly my source for the effectiveness of triple as opposed to single vaccine was the site I stated, which did not just talk about convinience but the problems associated with delay etc.

The first link you posted was coauthored by Wakefield who did at the time of publishing have a vested interest in proving a link between MMR and autism to avoid being discredited. The main point he raised in the article was that the age of the children from later cohorts wasn't sufficient to show a proper trend. However many people on this site claim that the reason they know it was the vaccine that damaged their children was because symptoms emerged very soon after MMR was given. The researchers were also aware of the age problem and adjusted their results however the results from earlier cohorts showed the same trend without age adjustment.

The second study begain by talking about how cases of autism are increasing year on year. This can be explained by the fact that children who would, in the past, have simply been labled as stupid or other such things are now getting the diagnosis they need. Our definition of autism is becoming broader all the time with autistic spectrum disorders and recent news that many girls may have autism who were previously missed. This issue is discussed quite briefly here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/322/7284/460?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&titleabstract=MMR&fulltext=MMR&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0

In the third link I am slightly confused from 'source of error #2' onwards. The author actually appears to be saying that the researchers have included children who couldn't have got autism from MMR in the 'set' of scholdren who could have possibly got autism from MMR but then goes on to say this makes the result invalid when it actually makes the result stronger.

The fact that the next link began with 'another useless CDC supported study' means I'm not even going to bother to read it - sorry, if it had been in the conclusion instead it wouldn't have been a problem but starting an article with it seems pretty biased.

MissyC - Scuba actually said 'The only true herd immunity is obtained from exposure to wild virus naturally' (sorry I don't know how to quote). Also there are so many mistakes in the article you posted that I can't list them all here. Smallpox has been eradicated it's a good thing. If you post links to proper peer reviewed articles about the issues from the naturodoc link I would like to read them.
The point of our noses and the tubes leading to our lungs is to filter out contagions - as far as I'm aware this doesn't trigger an immune response until it actually reaches our lungs which it can do just as effectively through the bloodstream

Edited by - VoiceOfReason on 06/16/2009 22:11:42
Go to Top of Page

Suba

United Kingdom
404 Posts

Posted - 06/17/2009 :  11:34:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Voice of Reason says:
"Suba - the whole point of vaccines is that the immune response is almost exactly the same as for 'wild' viruses. You don't get herd immunity without vaccinations which is why deaths from diseases drop when vaccines for them are introduced."

The Immune Response Is Not Exactly The Same

The immune response is dealing with other harmful ingredients in the vaccines that aim to confuse and aggravate the immune system. The normal Th1 response, the first line of defence that primes the appropriate immune system response is bypassed.

Typically aluminium is used in vaccines to stimulate a response. You maybe surprised to know Voice Of Reason that wild virus is incapable of coating itself in aluminium and launching itself into subcutaneous tissue in the human body.

How Aluminum in Vacciunes Can Harm Your Brain
When you or your child is injected with a vaccine, the aluminum compounds it contains accumulate not only at the site of injection but travel to your brain and accumulate there. In your brain, aluminum enters neurons and glial cells (astrocytes and microglia).
Studies have shown that aluminum can activate microglia and do so for long periods, which means that the aluminum in your vaccination is priming your microglia to overreact.
The next vaccine acts to trigger the enhanced inflammatory reaction and release of the excitotoxins, glutamate and quinolinic acid.

Meanwhile, if you come down with an infection, are exposed to more toxins, or have a stroke or head injury of any kind, this will magnify the inflammatory reaction occurring in your brain due to the vaccines. Research has shown that the more your immune system remains activated, the more likely it is you’ll suffer from a neurodegenerative disease.

The aluminum hydroxide used in many vaccines, including hepatitis A and B, and the Pentacel cocktail for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, and meningitis, has been clearly linked to symptoms associated with Parkinson's, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), and Alzheimer's.
Scientists discovered the link after injecting mice with an anthrax vaccine developed for the first Gulf War. After 20 weeks, a fifth of the mice developed a skin allergy, and memory problems increased by 41 times compared to a placebo group. Also, inside the brains of mice, 35 percent of the cells that control movement were destroyed.
There is overwhelming evidence that chronic immune activation in your brain, is a major cause of damage in numerous degenerative brain disorders, from multiple sclerosis Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's and ALS, which may explain the link between aluminum-containing vaccines and these diseases.
Late last year a team of scientists also found that vaccination involving aluminum-containing adjuvants could trigger the cascade of immunological events that are associated with autoimmune conditions, including chronic fatigue syndrome and macrophagic myofasciitis, a condition that causes profound weakness and multiple neurological syndromes, one of which closely resembles multiple sclerosis.
Even a study in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, admitted that:
“Aluminum is now being implicated as interfering with a variety of cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system and in other tissues.”
This has led some experts to suggest that aluminum in vaccines may be linked to autism.

Voice Of Reason said
"You don't get herd immunity without vaccinations."

Suba said
"Herd immunity is a myth as long as vaccines are used because these injected viruses can escape the immune response. The only true herd immunity is obtained from exposure to wild virus naturally. Vaccines allow virus to remain in situ wreaking havoc with the immune system by causing inflammation."

Vaccines repeatedly cause herd contamination both with virus and serious life threatening toxins.

Go to Top of Page

samaxtics

Canada
4 Posts

Posted - 06/17/2009 :  15:17:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Voice,

What is wrong with the study done in Canada is that Fombonne used one city for MMR uptake and another city for the diagnosis rate. Please see the Cochrane review of Fombonne's other study. Oh and Fombonne testifies in court cases AGAINST vaccine damaged children and FOR the pharma companies.
Go to Top of Page

VoiceOfReason

33 Posts

Posted - 06/17/2009 :  18:20:49  Show Profile  Send VoiceOfReason an AOL message  Reply with Quote
samaxtics - thank you I didn't know that. Could you post a link to the Cochrane review? I couldn't find anything on Fombonne on their website.

Suba - could you please post links to studies which have shown a link between the aluminium in vaccines and autism?
Go to Top of Page

scotmum

112 Posts

Posted - 06/18/2009 :  09:47:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Voice of Reason,

You have to understand that charities/support organisations like Sense rely on government support and cannot afford to question the government's policy on vaccination.

Hardly anyone objected to the vaccination of teenage girls against rubella which was the norm until the advent of MMR.

If Sense want to prevent rubella affecting pregnant women then logically they should be supporting the call for single rubella vaccinations for those who want them.


Go to Top of Page

Lola

United Kingdom
173 Posts

Posted - 06/18/2009 :  13:27:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
[i]Originally posted by VoiceOfReason[/i]
[

The researchers were also aware of the age problem and adjusted their results however the results from earlier cohorts showed the same trend without age adjustment.




MissyC - Scuba actually said 'The only true herd immunity is obtained from exposure to wild virus naturally'


The point of our noses and the tubes leading to our lungs is to filter out contagions - as far as I'm aware this doesn't trigger an immune response until it actually reaches our lungs which it can do just as effectively through the bloodstream




VOR: age problem studies;???? how about having an independent study that looks at vaccinated v unvaccinated I want to see such a study that shows un vaccinated children dramatically changing during their toddlerhood from acheiveing recognised milestones to losing cognitive abilities across a range of developmental areas... with no other events/injuries occuring that may contraindicate such a major change in a well developing, healthy child. in other words "co incidentally" being that its exactly the same criterion that medical people oft use in describing damage occuring shortly after vaccination..

suba is quite correct when she states that true "herd immunity" comes from acquiring of the wild virus the term was coined exactly to describe immunity from disease in this context.. & I would like to further point out that without MMR natural Herd immunity would run at 68% for measles...


directly injecting formaldehyde & aluminium & whatever else man made toxic substence into the blood stream gives the immune system little chance of filtering out adverse effects... more to the point it becomes an assualt on the immune system for which many are unable to tolerate in varying degrees of damage..


Edited by - Lola on 06/18/2009 15:36:12
Go to Top of Page

VoiceOfReason

33 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2009 :  21:29:19  Show Profile  Send VoiceOfReason an AOL message  Reply with Quote
Lola - the Dutch study I was discussing in that post is between vaccinated and unvaccinated children as I said before. It look at instances of autism in vaccinated children and unvaccinated and found no statistical difference.
I was talking about age correction as the last cohort to be studied wasn't very old when the study was published so may not have met some of the milestones you are talking about, the researchers corrected for this.

scotmum - the problem with this approach is if someone who can't have a rubella shot for whatever reason becomes pregnant and then comes into contact with someone who has chosen not to have the the vaccine, or whos parents have chosen for them not to have it, they could catch the disease and their baby could be damaged, never mind the risk to themselves. This is the whole point of mass vaccinations. I believe in the past single rubella shots were offered just to girls but this didn't help much in reducing cases of rubella because no boys were immunised.
I also understand that funding sources should be looked at but as you will see from mine and others posts, they haven't made up the results themselves.
There is also proven connections between rubella and deafblindness, aren't these children just as worthy of sympathy and protection as children who may or may not be vaccine damaged

What I would like to make clear is that I don't doubt that very occasionally people of all ages have adverse reactions to immunisations. This is why drug companies sometimes give compensation - when a link can be proven. But the diseases themselves are also deadly and disabling and the benefits FAR outweigh the risks according to every reputable study.

It is not just the UK government which recommend the triple MMR vaccines but pretty much every government in the world and the WHO, none of these organisations actually want to hurt people!
Go to Top of Page

jackie

United Kingdom
117 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2009 :  12:10:20  Show Profile  Visit jackie's Homepage  Reply with Quote
VOR: Prior to the introduction of MMR vaccine into the UK programme in 1988 single rubella vaccines were offered to pre-pubescent girls to catch those who were not already immune as they entered their child-bearing years. I understand the uptake for this age group was between 97 and 98% much better than MMR has ever been. Following this, each time a female became pregnant she would be routinely tested to make sure she had antibodies against rubella to help protect future pregnancies. (This blood test is still carried out.) If she was found not to have antibodies against rubella she would be offered a rubella vaccine just after she had delivered her baby. This system was not perfect: giving women who were/are breastfeeding a live rubella vaccine or live MMR vaccine when the manufacturers raise a caution shows it is not without risk, however, the right age group had been targeted at the right stage in the women's lives.

The problem with the current practice of offering the vaccine to both sexes twice under the age of 5 years is that the rubella part of the MMR vaccine carries a risk of serious side effects when for this age group of children the disease doesn't.

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first trimester the developing baby can be badly damaged or miscarry. The baby could be born autistic, blind, deaf or with a combination of neurological problems including epilepsy. Doctors have no problem in making the connection between the disease and the disabilities.

We have children developing perfectly well, meeting all milestones, and then given MMR vaccines at a variety of ages. We have reports of children suffering adverse reactions in the incubation periods of the vaccine and then regressing, developing vision problems, losing hearing, becoming autistic or with a combination of neurological problems including seizures. Most doctors have stated that the new difficulties are coincidental and can the parent prove differently.

By the way, just going back to the new mum and giving a live rubella containing vaccine: one of the parents registered with JABS was given the vaccine within hours of her baby's birth. The administering practitioner knew the mum was breastfeeding but still gave the jab. Seventeen days later, the incubation period for rubella, the baby developed a high temperature, was covered in a rash and was diagnosed with encephalitis. The mum contacted us and we suggested she ask for a blood test. She reported back that the baby had a high rubella count. The child lost part of his hearing, lost his eyesight, became brain damaged and never developed neurologically beyond raising his head off the pillow. He never learned to speak; he would shriek for attention day and night. His parents had to care for him around the clock until his death at the age of 14 years.

One baby, one family - if the mum had been advised to return for a rubella vaccine once she had completed breastfeeding all could have been different.

VOR: I would be interested in your opinion about the past and current practice of not advising nursing mothers of the drug manufacturers' caution.

http://www.jabs.org.uk/pages/mmrvaccine.asp


VOR: You stated - '...It is not just the UK government which recommend the triple MMR vaccines but pretty much every government in the world and the WHO, none of these organisations actually want to hurt people!..'

Giving combination vaccines is faster and more practicable for governments so I can understand their reasons for recommending multiple dose vaccines. From the safety point of view, VOR, can you tell me how efficient at collecting data on serious adverse reactions are 'all these governments' and how easy is it for a parent whose child has been seriously harmed or has died to have the situation assessed and vaccine damage care packages awarded?

Go to Top of Page

VoiceOfReason

33 Posts

Posted - 06/24/2009 :  11:27:58  Show Profile  Send VoiceOfReason an AOL message  Reply with Quote
I agree giving a new mother who was breastfeeding a live rubella vaccine seems ridiculous. It is well known that viruses can be passed to babies through breast milk. This was obviously a tragic mistake. Unfortunately doctors are human and make them too.

Doctor's should be aware of any side effects when prescribing to pregnant or nursing mothers. I don't think it's the fault of the drugs company for not advertising to the public that vaccines carry a warning when nursing. The onus is on the doctor, and the mother say 'I'm breast feeding is this OK?' Most other medicines say consult your doctor if pregnant or nursing so its a question I think most would ask.

Even though the uptake within pre-pubesent girls was very high the virus still kept circling in the male population so anyone who wasn't immune for any reason was at risk.

Very young children are at risk of serious side effects as in the story you just gave - it is the mothers breast milk which usually keeps them safe by providing antibodies until they are vaccinated. Although in slightly older, but pre-pubesent children the risks are low it is still important they get vaccinated for the same reason boys are now vaccinated.

Say only girls got vaccinated at age 10. 6 year old girl, Lucy say, goes to school and catches the virus which is being passed freely between her classmates with few serious side effects. She then goes home and her aunt is there. But her aunt is pregnant with her first baby - she's been tested for anibodies and doesnt have any but Lucy isnt showing symptoms so can happily pass the infection on to her aunt and the baby and it'll be 2-3 weeks before Lucy starts showing symptoms. Or Lucy gets the virus and goes and visits her week old new cousin who catches it with exactly the same effect as if it were transferred through breast milk.

This is why we vaccinate everyone at an early age - to protect the whole population. And there's no use thinking well its my child I should do the best for them in this case. If herd immunity drops too low it will be the unvaccinated children who will suffer. We are only just starting to see this as more unvaccinated children are sitting in classrooms but immunity is dropping too low to protect children.

Lots of parents on this site say 'I've never had my child vaccinated and they are a happy and healthy 5 year old'
Great I'm very glad for you, but too many parents are doing this for you to get away with it any more. MMR uptake has dropped mainly because of one discredited study. Your currently healthy five year old will be in the school system until they're at least 16. If the uptake of MMR continues to drop they will come into contact with LOTS of unvaccinated children in this time.

I don't know about other countries but in the UK there is the Yellow Card scheme for reporting possible side effects. Collecting this data is also the whole point of the many studies which have been done on MMR. This is the reason some are funded by the government - so they know the information, not as some seem to think as a conspiracy.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support © 2000-2002 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05