FAQ

No, at present there is a choice.
However in recent years there has been increasing pressure on parents who question or decline vaccinations for their babies and children. Some parents are met with disapproval from their GPs and health visitors and treated in a hostile manner for refusing the vaccines.
Inform you health professionals that you are investigating the subject and have not reached a decision, and ask them to kindly provide you with more detailed literature to assist you with your research. Whilst we do have a choice here in the UK some countries, e.g. Italy have recently (July 2017) brought in strict mandatory vaccine laws despite public outcry and new laws are due to be introduced in 2018 in France. There are also penalties and increasing restrictions in US, Australia, Germany and other european countries.
At a British Medical Association conference in June 2017 a motion was passed to re-examine mandatory law in the UK. London GP, Dr Farah Jameel, who proposed the motion stated: “Parents who willingly choose not to vaccinate their children, despite the safe evidence base are displaying negligent behaviours that are in some cases seriously harming the health of children, who have no say or control over this decision, and in extreme situations costing lives.” (BMJ 2017; 358: UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination; Tom Moberly, UK editor, The BMJ)

It is very disturbing that parents who are actually making the effort to do independent and thorough research on vaccination, to reach an educated decision are being labelled as ‘displaying negligent behaviours’.

Concerned parents should take as long as THEY need to make an informed decision. Vaccines can be given much later on if parents wish. Allow yourself as much time as YOU need to decide what you feel is the best health option for your family whether it be a delayed schedule or none at all.

No. Most vaccine reactions go unreported and are usually dismissed as a coincidence. All reactions, whether proven or only suspected, should be reported by your GP using the Yellow Card system. Unfortunately due to the fact that this system is voluntary and that most GPs are reluctant to admit to possible reactions there is gross underreporting.

Yes. Please go to this link and follow the instructions https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/

No, at present you can opt out at any stage of the schedule.

Unfortunately the immunisation status is not indicated on the PHE website in the data regarding notifications of cases. Also when outbreaks are reported in mainstream media the accuracy is open to question. A general rule is to look at what information is omitted e.g. if most cases were in the vaccinated it is likely that there will be NO indication of their immunisation status in the report. Be observant of the wording in these articles – it is often what is not said that is more revealing.

It is very well-documented that steep falls in these diseases, e.g. diphtheria, measles and whooping cough, occurred BEFORE the introduction of vaccination. Indeed, death rates had fallen by as much as 95% in the pre-vaccine era. This was mainly due to better and less-crowded living conditions, improved nutrition and clean water. In the graphs plotting figures for both cases and deaths – the declines usually run in parallel with each other.

No. Vaccines are injected directly into the body by-passing the normal route of a pathogen (bacteria, virus etc). This results in certain aspects of our natural immune response being over or under stimulated leading to a skewed system. Which has the potential to result in developing. conditions, such as allergies, asthma, and auto-immune diseases.

Here are a few useful links that go into more detail: http://www.vaccinedecision.info/cgi-bin/viewcontent.cgi?article_id=18

http://dangersofvaccines.com/history-of-vaccines/natural-immunity-vs-artificial-immunity/

No. Since there is no way of proving the above – it is just a hearsay. It is impossible to prove as diseases like measles and whooping cough have become much milder over the last century so generally most cases will be mild regardless of their vaccination status.

Also in some situations a seemingly mild dose of disease in a vaccinated child may be a suppressed version, resulting in the body being unable to express the symptoms.

It has been documented that some individuals with high levels of specific antibodies have still gone on to contract that specific disease. The World Health Organisation admit that there is no precise relationship between antibody level and immunity. In other words, there is no full understanding in the role antibodies play. When a vaccine is said ‘to take’ on 90% of recipients, that means that those 90% will produce a certain level of antibodies. This should not be equated with immunity.

We are told that we need to achieve a certain level of vaccination in order to create ‘herd immunity’ in the population. Often vaccination levels, such as 95% are indicated as a necessity to eradicate disease. The theory is that when a certain number of individuals are immune that this interrupts transmission of the disease, reduces the number of cases and leads to the eradication of the disease. However at any given time, even if 95% uptake was achieved this would only account for the babies and young children receiving the vaccines at that moment. What about the rest of the population? All the adults who may well have never even received these vaccines? Those in whom the debatable vaccine-induced immunity has waned? Those that the vaccine did not take on – termed ‘vaccine failures’? There are many grey areas in this theory and yet it is presented by the authorities as scientific fact.

• http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/05/herd-immunity-theory-has-been-repeatedly-disproven/
• http://vaxxedthemovie.com/notes-herd-immunity-andrew-wakefield/
• http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/03/30/what-is-herd-immunity-and-how-does-it-relate-to-vaccines/

Firstly this highlights how toxic and immune-compromising vaccines are. Vaccines are not tolerated in these individuals. Then why should healthy children receive vaccines and risk becoming compromised or even result in a fatal outcome for the assumed protection it may offer someone else’s child? Secondly, why is the following statement made on some Patient Guidelines: Cancer patients should avoid contact with recently vaccinated individuals. This is because there are concerns regarding vaccine shedding, especially with live vaccines. For example, the oral polio vaccine was replaced by the injectable version due to the live vaccine causing many cases of polio. You may consider that vaccinated individuals pose a threat to an immune-compromised individual rather than a healthy unvaccinated one. We should also be asking why there is an increase worldwide of children developing auto-immune disease at such a young age and whether the routine baby vaccines are playing a role in many of these cases?

This article makes interesting reading: ‘Don’t Vaccinate to Protect My Cancer Kid’ http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/dont-vaccinate-protect-cancer-kid/

Formaldehyde, mercury products and aluminium hydroxide, to name a few, have been used for numerous years in many of the vaccines. Due to grassroots pressure the mercury product thiomersal has been removed from many of the vaccines. However it is sometimes used in the early stages of vaccine production with the potential to result in ‘trace amounts’ in the final vaccine.

Mammalian products are used too, which opens the door to the possibility of viruses from other species crossing into the human system and creating new disease in humans. This is not a theoretical risk and over the years there have been particular scares regarding contaminated vaccines e.g. polio vaccine and SV40 (monkey virus).

Concerns are growing regarding both the cumulative and synergistic effects of the ingredients used in vaccines, particularly with the ever-increasing vaccine schedule for both infants and adults.

For details you can visit the electronic Medicines Compendium (eMC) to search for the PIL (patients information leaflet) of a vaccine using its brand name. http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/browse-documents

Here are a few useful links related to vaccine ingredients:

• https://worldmercuryproject.org/
• http://cinemalibrestudio.com/injecting-aluminum/Stop-Mandatory-Vaccination-Viewing.html
• http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vaccine-ingredients (an ‘official’ site presenting the established view)
• https://vaxcalc.org/most-common-vaccine-ingredients (US site)
• https://youtube.com/watch?v=_b6tqVSdotE

Vaccines are made separately initially, and where medically indicated would be available. However single vaccines are not generally available and so if you are considering this option you will have to find a private doctor who offers this service. As regards to safety, ALL vaccines have the potential to cause harm. From a ‘common sense’ point of view you might assume single vaccines might place less of a burden on the immune system than multiple ones, however ALL vaccines initiate an unnatural immune response whether single or multiple – so this is a particularly grey area. Another where there is a lack of thorough and long-term study.

By asking this question one is assuming that vaccines offer some protection. Some critics believe that vaccines do NOT protect at any stage, whilst others feel that infections may be suppressed by the jabs, leading to more chronic illness later in life. Certainly many vaccinated individuals go on to develop the diseases they were supposed to be protected against but it is not often publicised.

There are also those who believe that the vaccines may possible give some kind of short lived protection but that this ‘immunity’ wanes and leads to teenagers and young adults developing childhood diseases at an inappropriate age.

There are homeopathic ‘alternatives’, however many homeopaths prefer to treat constitutionally. The idea of giving ‘protective’ remedies conflicts with their philosophy of treating symptoms.

The most obvious alternative is quite simply HEALTH. Creating and maintaining a reasonably sound, stable and healthy lifestyle is the best way to avoid illness and complications. Diseases do not strike randomly there would have to be underlying factors and weaknesses.

If you decide to vaccinate there are homeopathic antidotes to the various vaccines that can be given either before, after or both. Interested parents should discuss this option with a qualified and experienced practitioner.

Please go to USEFUL LINKS for a list of links and publications on the subject that highlight the vast body of information that is not widely circulated to the public.

The National Vaccine information Centre (NVIC) based in the US highlight a number of key points listed in a summary of a 2013 Institute of Medicine report on The Childhood Immunisation Schedule and Safety.

• “Few studies have comprehensively assessed the association between the entire immunization schedule or variations in the overall schedule and categories of health outcomes, and no study has directly examined health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in precisely the way that the committee was charged to address its statement of task;” (S-4)
• “No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes that some stakeholders questioned between entirely unimmunized populations and fully immunized Experts who addressed the committee pointed not to a body of evidence that had been overlooked but rather to the fact that existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule;” (S4-5)
• “The committee believes that although the available evidence is reassuring, studies designed to examine the long term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted; (S-5)
• “Most vaccine-related research focuses on the outcomes of single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Although each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of review of that vaccine, elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Thus, key elements of the entire schedule – the number, frequency, timing, order and age at administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies;” (S8-9)
• “The committee encountered….uncertainty over whether the scientific literature has addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The committee could not tell whether its list was complete or whether a more comprehensive system of surveillance might have been able to identify other outcomes of potential significance to vaccine In addition, the conditions of concern to some stakeholders, such as immunologic, neurologic, and developmental problems, are illnesses and conditions for which etiologies, in general, are not well understood.” (S-9)
• “The committee found that evidence assessing outcomes in subpopulations of children who may be potentially susceptible to adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainly about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures or outcomes.” (S-9)
• “To consider whether and how to study the safety and health outcomes of the entire childhood immunization schedule, the field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in rigorous research that will ensure validity and generalizability;” (S-9)
• “Public testimony to the committee described the speculation that children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies and premature infants might be additional subpopulations at increased risk for adverse effects from immunizations. The 2012 IOM report Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality supports the fact that individuals with certain characteristics (such as acquired or genetic immunodeficiency) are more likely to suffer adverse effects from particular immunizations, such as MMR and the varicella vaccine;” (4-6)
• “Children with certain predispositions are more likely to suffer adverse events from vaccines than those without that risk factor, such as children with immunodeficiencies that are at increased risk for developing invasive disease from a live virus vaccine. The committee recognizes that while the CDC has identified persons with symptoms or conditions that should not be vaccinated, some stakeholders question if that list is complete. Potentially susceptible populations may have an inherited or genetic susceptibility to adverse reactions and further research in this area is ongoing.” (4-9)
• “Relatively few studies have directly assessed the immunization schedule. Although health professionals have a great deal of information about individual vaccines, they have must less information about the effects of immunization with multiple vaccines at a single visit or the timing of the immunizations. Providers are encouraged to explain to parents how each new vaccine is extensively tested when it is approved for inclusion in the recommended immunization schedule. However, when providers are asked if the entire immunization schedule has been tested to determine if it is the best possible schedule, meaning that it offers the most benefits and the fewest risks, they have very few data on which to base their response;” (4-10)
• “Although the committee identified several studies that reviewed the outcomes of studies of cumulative immunizations, adjuvants and preservatives, the committee generally found a paucity of information, scientific or otherwise, that addressed the risk of adverse events in association with the complete recommended immunization schedule, even though an extensive literature base on individual vaccines and combination immunizations exists;” (4- 10)
• “Research examining the association between the cumulative number of vaccines received and the timing of vaccination and asthma, atopy and allergy has been limited; but the findings from the research that has been conducted are reassuring.” (5-7) – 14 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM
• “The literature that the committee found to examine the relationship between the overall immunization schedule and autoimmunity was limited.” (5-9) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
• “The evidence of an association between autism and the overall immunization schedule is limited both in quantity and in quality and does not suggest a causal association. “ (5-11) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
• “The evidence regarding an association between the overall immunization schedule and other neurodevelopmental disorders [learning disorders, communication disorders, developmental disorders, intellectual disability, attention deficit disorder, disruptive behavior disorders, tics and Tourette’s syndrome] is limited in quantity and of limited usefulness because of its focus on a preservative no longer used in the United States.” (S-13) – 5 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
• “The literature associating the overall immunization schedule with seizures, febrile seizures, and epilepsy is limited and inconclusive.” (5-15) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
• “The committee reviewed six papers on the immunization of premature infants published since 2002…..Because small numbers of infants were monitored for short periods of time, it is challenging to draw conclusions from this review.” (5-15)
• “The committee’s review confirmed that research on immunization safety has mostly developed around studies examining potential associations between individual vaccines and single outcomes. Few studies have attempted more global assessment of entire sequence of immunizations or variations in the overall immunization schedule and categories of health outcomes, and none has squarely examined the issue of health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in quite the way that the committee was asked to do its statement of task. None has compared entirely unimmunized populations with those fully immunized for the health outcomes of concern to stakeholders.” (S-15)
• “Queries of experts who addressed the committee in open session did not point toward a body of evidence that had been overlooked but, rather, pointed toward the fact that the research conducted to date has generally not been conceived with the overall immunization schedule in mind. The available evidence is reassuring but it is also fragmented and inconclusive on many issues.” (S-16)
• “A challenge to the committee in its review of the scientific literature was uncertainty whether studies published in the scientific literature have addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of the health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in research that is sufficiently funded to ensure the collection of a large quantity of high-quality data;” (S-16)
• “The committee concluded that parents and health care professionals would benefit from more comprehensive and detailed information with which to address parental concerns about the safety of the immunization schedule; (7-2)
• “The concept of the immunization “schedule” is not well developed in the scientific literature. Most vaccine research focuses on the health outcomes associated with single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Even though each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of the review, individual elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Key elements of the immunization schedule – for example, the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at the time of administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies;” (7-3)
• “The committee encountered during the review of the scientific literature…uncertainty over whether the scientific literature has addressed all health outcomes and safety The committee could not determine whether its list of health outcomes was complete or whether a more comprehensive system of surveillance might identify other outcomes of potential safety significance. In addition, the conditions of concern to some stakeholders, such as immunological, neurological and developmental problems, are illnesses and conditions for which the etiology, in general, is not well understood. Further research on these conditions may clarify their etiologies;” (7-3)
• “The committee found that evidence from assessments of health outcomes in potentially susceptible populations of children who may have an increased risk of adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainty about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures and outcomes. Most children who experience an adverse reaction to immunization have a preexisting susceptibility. Some predispositions may be detectable prior to vaccination; others, at least with current technology and practice, are not;” (7-3)