Do you believe that the MMR vaccine is safe?

# 119

Posted: 20/08/2006 23:43

I am a 35 year old mother of one. Approximately two weeks ago i received the MMR as I had no immunity to Rubella whilst pregnant (I have a four month old baby) and was advised by my Consultant Obstitrician to have the Rubella vaccine as soon as i stopped breastfeeding. When I went to my GP I was told I could not have the Rubella Vaccine on its own as it was not available so I had to have the MMR. I was not allowed any vaccinations as a child as I reacted badly to the 3 in 1 vaccine when I was three months old and was extremely ill after it. I had to go into hospital to have the MMR because of my history and my own GP refused to give it to me because I was "high risk". I had the MMR on a Wednesday, the Hospital gave me Steroids and Anti Histamines before administering the MMR. I felt ok leaving the hospital and they gave me a prescription for steroids, anti-histamines and allergy tablets which lasted until the following Monday. By Tuesday night I felt very unwell, I felt like my heart was about to jump out of my chest, my neck started to swell , I had great difficulty in breathing to such an extent that by the time I got back to the Hospital (approx 20 mins) I could barely talk and was at this stage gasping for air. I was put on oxygen, given more steroids and admitted overnight for observation. I have now finished my second course of steroids and feel dreadful. I find that I am getting caught for breath, my neck feels swollen, and I generally feel tired. If I had known how badly I would feel I would never have had the MMR. I now have the dilemma of whether to give my Son his Vaccinations as I have been told by a GP that he has a 50% chance of an "adverse reaction". I am absolutely TERRIFIED that if I have him vaccinated and it goes wrong it will go seriously wrong. I have spoken to my Local Health Board and they recommended that I tell my GP that I want an adrenalin capsule beside my Son so that if it goes wrong it can be administered straight away! I am now of the opinion that the risk is too high, I cannot take the chance that my Son will also go into anaphalactic shock. I don't want to have him open to all the various diseases but for me I cannot take the risk that he might react badly to the vaccination. I'm not saying that the MMR is dangerous but there are people like me (and possibly my Son) who just cannot have any vaccinations, I don't know what caused my reactions either to the 3 in 1 or the MMR but I'll never have any other vaccination, I just cannot take the chance.

# 118

Posted: 15/07/2006 23:10

Mary, If you wear sterile gloves when you go to the bed of a hospitalised patient how long do you think they will be sterile for? The minute you touch the bed (not even the patient) they are no longer sterile.
You need to wash your hands after attending each patient. That is all that is necessary for good hygiene, unless as I stated previously, you are carrying out a dressing, in which case you wear sterile gloves.

# 117

Posted: 12/07/2006 12:48

No I don't ear steril gloves when i shake hands with people but as part of my work I am notin the business of handling ill or weak and physically vulnerable people every day.

# 116

Posted: 12/07/2006 01:44

Mary, I am quite at a loss to understand your logic here. I am genuinely not enjoying argueing with you but can you tell me why you think Drs & Nurses SHOULD wear sterile gloves when at the bedside of a patient (unless they are carrying out dressings or surgery) the minute they touch the patient or indeed the bed, the gloves are no longer sterile. You don't wear sterile gloves when you shake hands with someone do you? All of our skin is covered in bacteria, micro organisms which are perfectly normal & indeed, are essential to life. I do, take your point about hygiene but I think you have confused hygiene with aseptic technique. They are 2 totally different principles.

# 115

Posted: 12/07/2006 01:32

Mary, I am quite at a loss to understand your logic here. I am genuinely not enjoying argueing with you but can you tell me why you think Drs & Nurses SHOULD wear sterile gloves when at the bedside of a patient (unless they are carrying out dressings or surgery) the minute they touch the patient or indeed the bed, the gloves are no longer sterile. You don't wear sterile gloves when you shake hands with someone do you? All of our skin is covered in bacteria, micro organisms which are perfectly normal & indeed, are essential to life. I do, take your point about hygiene but I think you have confused hygiene with aseptic technique. They are 2 totally different principles.

# 114

Posted: 11/07/2006 00:37

Nurses NEVER carry out a dressing on a wound without wearing sterile gloves. Now lets answer the question as to how MRSA came into being shall we?

# 113

Posted: 10/07/2006 18:25

Ann, \"dirt\" as in \"dirty hands\" generally means not washed. No one is suggesting that clay etc spawns MRSA. Nurses and doctors are sloppy about washing their hands but I\'m sure that is improving. Visitors are also a big source of infection. MRSA is very common, it is only if it gets into a wound that it can be dangerous.

# 112

Posted: 10/07/2006 09:16

So Ann,

Doctors or Nurses NEVER wear sterile gloves when with a patient UNLESS they are carrying out a dressing on a wound or surgery

- And you really think MRSA is not caused by unhygenic practises. Some people really are wearign blinkers.

# 111

Posted: 06/07/2006 21:43

By the way, Mary, Doctors or Nurses NEVER wear sterile gloves when with a patient UNLESS they are carrying out a dressing on a wound or surgery.

# 110

Posted: 06/07/2006 21:36

Mary, not much point discussing MRSA if you persist with the notion that it is caused by dirt!
Whilst you also continue with a discussion on vaccines but assume they are all "dead"!
If you want to peddle rubbish like that then talk to Bill, he might put you on the right track.

# 109

Posted: 06/07/2006 11:31

Ann says, “My main concern is that because so many children have been given MMR even if there was sufficient evidence to say it is dangerous this evidence would be suppressed to prevent huge legal cases.”

Ann’s faulty logic is typical of conspiracy theory fanatics. If what she says is true then ALL possible scenarios that the human mind can invent are possible. If there is no evidence whatsoever to back up a claim that it is worthless.

# 108

Posted: 04/07/2006 22:31

There are some children who cannot have MMR as in my own case where there is a family history of certain illnesses & G.P. advised not to give MMR.
My main concern is that because so many children have been given MMR even if there was sufficient evidence to say it is dangerous this evidence would be suppressed to prevent huge legal cases. The fact that my G.P. advised against it was enough for me and I am grateful for his advice.
I fully agree that measles, mumps etc are terrible illnesses but so is severe autism.

# 107

Posted: 04/07/2006 17:52

MRSA is caused by LACK of hygene. Take a look at a lot of our hospitals, The hygene standards are appalling. Some Dr's (and I have sen this) are not washing their hands or using disposable sterile gloves as they go from patient to patient.

Of course Rubella is dangerous. Are you goign to ensure that you keep all children away from all pregnant women before you now the children are infected or that the women may be pregnant?
Of course not so the sensible thing to do is take the precaution of vaccination.
All thoe of childbearing age (biologially those who are post pubscent) ARE screened and VACCINATED.
TB & Polio vaccines are given to babies to protect them right from infancy. I would have thought this was obvious. TB can and does kill. Polio can and does cause crippling disbilities.
Babies immune systems are "bombared" on a daily basis right from birth. The addition of six vaccines -
(dead vaccine culture not live. In fact as far as I know live vaccine cultures have not been in use here since the 50's - remember the vaccination does not actually give you the disease, if it did it would make you ill)
- which are potentially live saving is no extra load on the immune system.

Yes, some (A tiny minority in fact) children do have very adverse effects to MMR - which is why Dr.'s will screen them.

Unless 80%+ of the population have MMR then the giving of MMR is practically useless as it will not give adequate cover to the children who have it. Its an all or nothing scenario. Another FACT
- that is EXACTLY why all parents must be encouraged to protect their children by getting the MMR

There are lots of terrible childhood illnesses, and there are no vaccines for most of them so why pick on these 3 or 4?

- Becuase WE DO have vaccines for these four.
And the medical community are strivignall the time to come up with vaccins for certain others.

Antibiotics will do nothgin for a cold becuase it is a virus and anti-biotics do not do nythign for viruses. These mothers need eduation and their children need rapid relief of symtoms and any pain or discomfort.
But as I said before, there is absolutely nothing wrong with perscribing and taking antibiotics as needed.

# 106

Posted: 03/07/2006 23:39

Mary, MRSA is most DEFINiTELY NOT CAUSED BY DIRT. Where did you get that notion? What do the letters MRSA stand for? Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus, caused by the over prescribing/use of Methicillin Anti-Biotics. That is a FACT not fiction. Lots of people carry it without even knowing it.
Of course, nobody in their right minds would find it acceptable to put their children deliberately in danger but we will never eradicate ALL viruses from our planet. Rubella is not dangerous for children (only for pregnant women) so should\'nt all women of child bearing age be screened? If they need it they can have the vaccine then but if they don\'t need it why inject them with a vaccine they don\'t need?
Likewise with TB & Polio. The vaccination programme for TB & Polio was very successful but it was only given to school going children, never to new born babies. Why is it now being given to new born babies? We are not giving babies the chance to develop their own immune systems before we bombard them with up to 6 different live viruses. We are all different and some children do have very adverse effects to MMR whether you like it or not.
Unless 80%+ of the population have MMR then the giving of MMR is practically useless as it will not give adequate cover to the children who have it. Its an all or nothing scenario. Another FACT.
I am not pro or anti MMR but the true facts are not out there and as I work in the Medical Profession, I know lots of Health Professionals who are not fully convinced either but would never speak openly. That makes me wonder as to what is driving this campaign in the first place.
There are lots of terrible childhood illnesses, and there are no vaccines for most of them so why pick on these 3 or 4?
Also, sterility in males is not an effect of mumps in childhood. Mumps is far more dangerous in adolescents than it is in childhood/babyhood. How often would you propose that we screen for these things as everyone is different. Screening in this country is 3rd world unless you have a fortune at your disposal.
I know Mothers who take their children to their GP\'s insisting that the child has a cold and MUST have anti-biotics when its also a known fact that anti-biotics will do absolutely nothing for colds. We live in a society where we always want a quick fix but that doesn\'t work & is certainly not good care.

# 105

Posted: 03/07/2006 18:13

Ann, saying that you had an illness and survived and using that as an argument to suggest that children should not be immunised is only evidence of your inability to think logically.
This sentence of Ann’s is utter nonsense, “The verdict is still out on the safety of MMR in the medical world unfortunately.” The verdict was never out anywhere. A small handful of now discredited and the rest apologetic “scientists”, published a now withdrawn paper that has resulted in a charge of professional misconduct and you say there is a dispute! There is NO dispute between doctors and scientists of any description about MMR. It has been proven conclusively to be safe and not related to Autism in any way.

Finally it IS possible to eradicate virtually all illnesses in humans. Scientists are successfully working on it (Smallpox is gone. Polio is nearly gone .. Measles and Mumps are declining). Their biggest problem is stupid humans, low quality journalists and newspapers, religion (the Muslim leaders in Nigeria stopped Polio vaccination on the basis that it was a Christian conspiracy to sterilise their daughters, the Cathoilics oppose AIDS prevention) and ignorance. If all humans were immunised from Polio it would disappear in a few years.

# 104

Posted: 03/07/2006 16:24

Ann, if the MMR is not fior life then surely a booster can be given.
I beg to differ, I know three lads who had mumps as children and who as adults, are sterile today.

Why not wait until just before they go to school?
Because they then will not be protected from infancy obviously.
I know children who had measles, mumps and rubella and it resulted in deafness, brain damage and heart problem.
The deaths from meningitis every year are, sadly, well known.

\"It is impossible to eradicate all illness so why even try?\"
You think it\'s acceptable to knowingly expose children to illness and all the attendant pain and suffering, when they could be easily avoided?
How very callous and cruel that sounds.
If history had taken that attitide, we would be rife with TB and small pox and dying in out 40s - those of us who survived infancy.
MRSA IS CAUSED BY dirt.
The mutations are not the result neccessarily of over-prescription of anti-biotics but of people being prescribed them and not finished the course as intended in order to build up their immunity.
No one is talking about over perscribing anti-biotics but there is absolutely nothing wrong with perscribing and taking antibiotics as needed.
Surely you would not countenance depriving anyone of them with the posible result that they end suffering in hospital on far far larger doses than they would have needed initially, which is what I have seen happening to some.
Needless to add, antibiotics are NOT the same as vaccination.

# 103

Posted: 02/07/2006 19:13

THE FACTS ARE:-
MMR is NOT a vaccine for life.
Mumps does NOT cause steriliy in males IF the mumps have been contracted in childhood. HOWEVER, there is a serious side effect of sterility in males if mumps are contracted in adolescents.
Being vaccinated with MMR does not alleviate this problem obviously as MMR does not give life cover.
The verdict is still out on the safety of MMR in the medical world unfortunately.
Personally, I don't understand the need to give new borns up to 6 different vaccinations before anyone can even tell if they are 'normal'. Why not wait until just before they go to school?
By the way, I had measles, mumps, rubella (didn't even know I had rubella) and meningitis. I survived. It is impossible to eradicate all illness so why even try and then end up with mutations that are far worse.
Look at MRSA? That is a product of over prescription of anti-biotics.

# 102

Posted: 24/04/2006 00:51

I am living with proof of the mmr vaccine
my husband is deaf as a result of his mum not being vaccinated.So I would advise anyone to get it for their children

# 101

Posted: 06/02/2006 10:26

Whatever you think of MMR, you have to admit there are problems with it. See this report in yesterday's Mail On Sunday: http://tinyurl.com/b78rz "Former science chief: 'MMR fears coming true'."

# 100

Posted: 09/10/2005 11:18

Probably most of the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children with MMR are “normal” parents who genuinely have got confused about the issue, mainly due to the antics of non medically trainded quack peddlers.. I note that the percentage of those still “afraid” of MMR is down to 11% so at least that is an improvement.

# 99

Posted: 15/08/2005 11:22

I don’t know what point Joe is making re Evolution and disease. Disease does mutate and evolve like all life. The Small Pox disease HAS been eradicated worldwide as a direct result of vaccination therefore the same can happen with other human diseases. Millions of lives have been saved as a result. While diseases can evolve, we can still eradicate them with proper vaccination because we can eradicate them faster than they can evolve. However because of the nonsense that is spread about vaccines, many poorly read and uneducated people have not given the vaccination to their children and postponed the day these very dangerous diseases will disappear. Bill Gates is quite entitled to do with his money what he wishes. If he feels that spending it on vaccination is worthwhile then that’s his decision.

I’m surprised Anon of the 12/8 21:50 got MMR in his teens. Is he sure it was MMR? Why was he not vaccinated as a child? Doctors are well aware of the allergies people have and take that into account. Some of you posters must think doctors are awful ejets. There is no connection between MMR and Meningitis, so I cannot see the point you are making. You say, “People should do full research…” but I can quite definitely state that the vast majority of parents are not qualified to do “full research”. That is why we train doctors and scientists. They do the research for us and do it much better than we can. If a parent uneducated in medicine makes a decision in variance with her doctors then she almost definitely will make a wrong decision. That is totally obvious and logical, isn’t it? Why can people not see this yet wouldn’t under any circumstances try and fly a Jumbo Jet or doubt that an Engineer is better positioned to build a bridge. If you were building a house and an engineer said that you needed 2 inches of concrete for the floors would you do “full research” and use 1 inch? Many people cannot understand the difference between a decision made on complex technical matters and an opinion such as which football team to follow. They think that their “opinion” is as valuable as a highly trained and experienced scientist or doctor. Amazing!

# 98

Posted: 12/08/2005 21:50

I got the MMR when I was in my early teens and YES there are side affects that can be fatal whether you are told or not.I have an allergic reaction to eggs and have done since I was born and the MMR injection has egg traces in it.I was never told this and got it done.A girl living beside me had a gorgeous seemingly healthy child she died aged 18months of meningitis she never received the MMR vaccine.It should definitely be a law but people should do a full research whether it's with their GP or researching themselves.Its needs to be done before any vaccine.

# 97

Posted: 05/08/2005 16:17

But the rubella vaccination is not a life long vaccine and in many cases does not take at all. Even having rubella does not give you a life long immunity. There is also some studies going on into the take up of immunity to Mumps in relation to immunity and exactly how long this immunity lasts. So even with worlwide vaccinations it is unlikely that these 2 will be eradicated

# 96

Posted: 22/07/2005 11:24

Ys, Joe, in the 50 and 60's and even 70's childen did get measles mumps and rubbela. Many were left blind, sterile, brain damaged and physically disabled.

# 95

Posted: 21/07/2005 22:21

In their discourses about evolution, William and others have failed to consider how humans have evolved in relation to measles, mumps and rublella (and other diseases). When William and I were young, every child contracted measles, mumps and rubella (and I never knew anyone permanently damaged by those diseases, nor heard any alarm about them - back in the 1950s and 60s). But William said above that "these illnesses will never disappear [if parents don't vaccinate their children] and we will have to continue vaccination longer than necessary." He seems to believe in the complete eradication of those diseases by compulsory vaccination. Which doesn't square with millions of years of human evolution with measles, mumps and rubella (until MMR came along a few years ago). William, can you really believe in a future in which children grow up without contracting any diseases?

I suppose William is not alone in having faith like that. Bill Gates is donating 750 million dollars for vaccination programmes in Africa. It's just a shame that so many of the Gates-vaccinated kids don't have decent food to eat or safe water to drink. Obviously MMR is more important than food and water.

# 94

Posted: 20/07/2005 18:06

William, in criticizing vitamins and supplements, wrote that \"One obvious flaw in using supplements is the dosage.\" How come he doesn\'t criticize fluoridation on the same score? The health authorities have no idea how much fluoride people are ingesting. Do you have any idea, William?

William is exercised by a perceived need to protect people from fraud perpetrated by quacks, but he says and does nothing about the much greater fraud perpetrated by the WHO and other health authorities pushing fluoridation, claiming that fluoride is an \"esential nutrient\". (See, for example, http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/FluoridePoisoning/message/3528) William, why are you so selective in your anti-fraud campaigning?

# 93

Posted: 11/07/2005 12:34

If there is such a trait as "medically inclined" then it too is caused by genes.

# 92

Posted: 11/07/2005 11:51

Nurses, obviously, go into nursing not just becuase they are good with people but because they are medically inclined.

# 91

Posted: 08/07/2005 18:15

I don’t follow the adoption bit but the other matters are obviously influenced by genetics and Evolution. People tend to work where they have some skills to offer, skills relate to genes. One person has genes that make him good with his hands so he becomes a tradesman, another good with figures, he becomes an engineer or programmer, another has genes that make them good with people and they become nurses. Sons often followed their fathers into the same line of work and I suspect it was largely to do with the fact that the share the same genes. The father might be a carpenter and the son ditto. My son has the same profession as myself and it’s not just because he is my son. He has a talent for it. I do have another son and he has no interest in my work, but maybe those genes came from his mother. I suspect many people who are unhappy in their jobs are unhappy because thy are round genes in square gene holes. Hobbies ditto. Sport is clearly a substitute for competition among males. Instead of head butting like Dear, we form scrums, instead of galloping fast like horses competing with one another we run races. It’s obvious sport is 100% linked to our primitive past. Everything we are is linked to Evolution or is based on traits that are a consequence or a by product of Evolution. There is no other reason. Evolution is now such an established fact that we can start using the Theory to make statements about nature, make predictions and explain things with it.

# 90

Posted: 08/07/2005 11:24

So where you work, who your friends are, what sport you like, hobbies you have, who you marry, what chldren you adopt, (I don't mean you personally, you do understand that don't you?) is all a result of genetics and evolution?

# 89

Posted: 07/07/2005 23:51

No, you are wrong. It is religion and its false beliefs that cause these problems. In fact one could argue that the existence of any particular religion in an area, region or country IS a direct consequence of corruption, wars, power struggles, the ego of individuals, natural disasters, accidents of history etc. It has nothing to do with any particular god or gods. If the Muslims were slightly more powerful than they were, then they would have moved up from Spain and conquered all of Europe and today Ireland would worship Allah. You do accept that don’t you? Corruption creates religion. Religion promotes corruption. Is the sorry saga of the massive child abuse scandal in Ireland not a direct consequence of a false religion? If the Catholic Church was the representative of God on Earth would that organisation’s hierarchy carry out such abuse and then cover it up? Was their God involved in the cover up? Did he condone it? Did the Catholic God support the 50 year long scandal of child abuse in Ireland? The Catholic hierarchy only stopped when society overthrew their absolute power and turned on them. All was hidden until then. Proof that religion is a man made fallacy is evident. Would an organisation directly linked to a God cause such misery? On the other hand wouldn’t we expect a false ideology to cause such misery? Truth=Good, Lies=Bad. The consequence of wrong theories is wrong predictions & actions.

Anyone’s relationship with anyone is a direct result of Evolution and the particular set of genes that person is born with. This is now understood. It is cut and dried, in fact the astonishing thing is that it is very cut and dried and becoming well understood.

# 88

Posted: 07/07/2005 11:42

willaim, it is not religion tht has caused these terrible thing (wars, hatrd etc.) but the manipilation and corruption of religion in the hands of those who have been given power. The fact that my immunhe system improved at 12/13 whithout any apparent cuase IS evidence that not everything can be labelled? “Life is not cut and dried” means exactl that. Is there a cut off poitn between your relationship with your wife and thatwith your children. Is there a cut-off poitn bwtween your home life and wotrk like or between your home life and social life or between your social life anfd whatever sports and hobbies you play?

# 87

Posted: 06/07/2005 20:07

Anon 6/7 14:44 You speak in cliché. What evidence have you that not everything can be scientifically labelled? What does “Life is not cut and dried” mean? Science is far from boring and scientific research has produced some of the most awesome intellectual challenges ever. Is it boring that 2 robots are trundling around Mars after a year? Is the study of Evolution boring? Is Quantum Mechanics boring? Are the discoveries of Cassini boring? Magic is boring, predicts nothing, solves nothing, explains nothing. Science is on its way to explaining everything. Don’t be fooled into thinking Pseudoscience is a replacement for Science. What has religion given mankind? Division, wars, hatred, planes crashing in buildings, discrimination against women, advice not to use condoms in the fight against AIDS, JW’s who allow their children to die rather than get blood transfusions. Give me the rational, evidence based scientific approach to reality any day, at the very least it’s far more accurate. Can I suggest that those that are anti-science please refrain from using the products of science. Don’t switch on your lights, leave the car at home, don’t fly, switch off the TV, forgo the pain killers, the antibiotics, the cancer drugs, go back to the era when we only had religion and the average life expectancy was 25 years and life was brutal, full of illnesses and most children never saw adulthood.

# 86

Posted: 06/07/2005 14:44

The very fact that at 12/13 my health improved AND I DIDN’T take Echinacea (or anything else for that matter) should tell you that not everything can be scientifically lablled, with a the ticks in the boxes and put into one of your litle mental boxes. ife is not cut and dried. It would be neater for all the wannabe scientists out there but it would also be a hell of a lot more boring.

# 85

Posted: 06/07/2005 14:19

There are several ways they are going to be banned. At an international meeting in Rome the other day it was agreed to reclassify the way supplements and vitamins are classified and this will result in them having to prove their use and safety. As they are useless and there is evidence to prove this most will be de facto banned. The EU has passed legislation that I referred to a few weeks ago that is similar, i.e. that supplements cannot be sold unless proven to be efficacious. Sepp, Joe’s friend who opposes water fluoridation and believes in UFOs also supports BIG CAM. See here http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/06/10/codex_alimentarius_to_approve_vitamin_guidelines.htm

This is what Sepp says in his opening paragraph, “..the agenda ... is the final approval of new world-wide vitamin guidelines that are expected to restrict availability of nutrient-containing supplements to consumers the world over.” Needless to say Big CAM are up in arms.

This link is to another US based “wellness” website http://www.nutritionalwellness.com/archives/2005/jun/06_guidelines.php whcih says the same thing.

The fact that the web is chock full of fringe websites and lacking in scientific ones is evident if you search for information on this matter. I gave up trying to find a non-quack website that is reporting on it. The Quacks are certainly quacking very loud.

I’m not calling you a liar but as you are posting under Anon and I have no details of your “study” I do not accept that you are telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. For example was it 18 months or 17 or 16 or 9? What about the little cold he got a few months ago that he didn’t mention to you? What about the days he forgot to take the Echinacea? What exactly was his medical history in the proceeding 18 months? You get my drift? Furthermore a “study” no matter how honestly reported consisting of one individual is totally useless in proving anything. You totally ignored my reference to a study showing that Echinacea didn’t stop 500 odd children getting colds. Why? You quote one case and I quote 500. Snap! The sentence “strengthened my immune system” is a cliché invented by BIG CAM. The very fact that at 12 your health improved AND YOU DIDN’T take Echinacea should tell you that taking a herb and at the same time experiencing an improvement means the two are not necessarily linked. This was put well in something I read recently. You walk into a room and the light is on and it’s dark outside doesn’t mean that turning on the light made it dark. I call this the Marian Finucane Delusion (MFD). Marian said on radio that she had Migraine when young and went to an Acupuncturist for a number of visits over some months and hasn’t had it since and attributes this to the Acupuncturist. On the other hand when I was young I too had Migraine, in fact was hospitalised for it, I DIDN’T go to an Acupuncturist or take any medicine, as there was none then, and haven’t had it since either. Now why again does Marian think the Acupuncturist cured her? Isn’t this failure in your logic obvious to you? What’s a scientific box? You are talking in riddles.

# 84

Posted: 06/07/2005 11:26

William, you have been saying for two years now on various dicussions that supplements, herbs, vitamins are going to be banned but they are not banned yet. I will believe it when I see it. Now tell me, are you saying that my brother - whom I've known all my life is a figment of my imaginaiton or are you simply calling me a liar. Remember, just by you saying something doesn't work does not make it so. I simply outlined the facts. Yes everyone is subject to colds and infections but not at the same rate. I, for some reason got every illness going as a child and seemed to spend entire winters on anti-biotics. Around the age of 12 / 13 it all cleared up, until I was in college. Now, in my late twenties, I haven't had a cold or infection in years. Something strengthened my immune system (I don't take any supplements or drugs, apart from the odd aspirin) but i don't know what - hence you cannot label everything, you can't put it in one of your scientific boxes, it's not cut and dried. As for your condescending refernce to 'magic things' - now who's talking rubbish?

# 83

Posted: 05/07/2005 22:08

Actually I never heard of Bandolier until the other day when Billy Ralph, Homeopathy and “Trigger Point” Acupuncture supporter mentioned it. So to say its one of my favourite websites is total nonsense. I first read it within the last few days. How many times must I repeat that anecdotal evidence is useless? 1/ We have no way of knowing about your brother, he may not even exist 2/ to say someone has been subject to colds and infections is to state the obvious, everyone is 3/ Echinacea cannot be responsible for anyone going 18 months without the illnesses you describe. It’s just nonsense. 4/ One obvious flaw in using supplements is the dosage. Repeated tests of various manufacturers’ products show the quantity of “active ingredient” varies all over the place. 5/ You are claiming that the herb prevented illness, you must prove it I don't have to disprove it. Can you prove that the cause of the 18 months ill free period was the result of the herb? I think not.

Here is a link to a CAM website which mentioned a study that refutes your claim. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/alerts/echinacea/ This comment is from a meta analysis of studies, “Echinacea slightly decreases the duration of colds but does not prevent them.” Overall there is little or no evidence that Echinacea works as you claim, i.e. prevents colds and viral infections for 18 months in someone who regularly suffered such infections. Therefore you story simply doesn’t pan out. The entire supplements and vitamins industry worldwide is about to take a nosedive as governments plan to outlaw most of them within months.

The final two sentences of your post are meaningless. What can this possibly mean, “Certain things cannot be neatly put in boxes and labelled”. What type of boxes and things are you talking about? Magic things is it? Why can’t something be labelled?

# 82

Posted: 05/07/2005 17:41

Ah yes, William, Bandolier and quackwatch, your two favourite skeptic sites. Incidentally, my brother who had been subject to colds, other virii and infections all his adult life (he is now in his mid-30's), began taking echinicea over 18 months ago. He hasn't had so much as runny nose since. He's made no changes to lifestyle, work, diet or exercise. Can you explain that? You see, there are some things that double-blind random controlled empirical tests don't measure. Certain things cannot be neatly put in boxes and labelled.

# 81

Posted: 04/07/2005 16:26

Here is a link to a very thorough and clear cut analysis of the MMR v Autism debate

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/Extraforbando/MMRextra.pdf

# 80

Posted: 01/07/2005 11:20

Well said Michael. I would love to hear Edwina explain how we can quality control Homeopathy to ensure that what we buy has been properly manufactured and isn’t just water as she claims. Edwina has got the huff but maybe if she stayed a bit longer her child might benefit by her education. Echinacea doesn’t “boost your immune system”. Taking Echinacea is just as much a scam as Homeopathy. This is further evidence that taking such advice from nurses is useless. I can assure you that nurse was not thought to advise people on Echinacea. She made up this advice herself as a lay person.