Violating their stance? What is the reasoning behind their stance? Some reasons that I've heard are downright stupid, others I'll entertain.

In the long run, if you want to partake in society, you need to live by the rules, and if too many people take advantage of herd immunity, then there will be no herd immunity.

Well pardon those members of the public that you think are stupid. They may not have such a high opinion of you either, especially if you can't demonstrate informed knowledge of the subject.

Fortunately we live in a democratic society where people have freedom of choice. If you think you're smart by getting shots then you have nothing to worry about if you believe it gives you immunity. Excuse others from doubting you do this because you think it's your civic duty and will uncomplainingly accept whatever nasty "side-effects" you or your children experience.

There are people who object on religious/conscientious grounds, those who have scientific objections to the adjuvants/toxins in vaccines, those who are apprised of evidence of contaminants in vaccines, issues about whether or not people are consenting to being jabbed without informed consent (like when package insert warnings are ignored and unhealthy people, the elderly and pregnant women are given shots despite it).

The "herd immunity" conferred by large populations being actually exposed to communicable disease and surviving it with the development of memory cells that preclude them from becoming infected again is one thing -- there are those who doubt that it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that vaccines are capable of doing the same thing. There is no test for memory cells.

There are researchers who are not satisfied that antibody theories are adequate, and are not satisfied that artificial interference with a body's innate immune system does not dispose susceptible individuals to future auto-immune problems. There is more that is not known than is known about the workings of biological organisms and how the immune system actually functions.

Flaccid paralysis is the name given to the artificial strain of polio that has infected thousands of people in India -- the result of polio vaccination. B. parapertussis is the new strain of whooping cough that was created by the present pertussis vaccine (Australian research no less). The more we mess with nature the more mess we seem to be causing.

There are also legitimate concerns regarding the financial motives of drug manufacturers in promoting their products.

There are 2 major issues with communicable disease transmission that have not been adequately addressed -- exposure and suceptibility. If there is minimal risk of exposure, prophylaxis is unnecessary. If an individual is not susceptible, prophylaxis is unnecessary.

Let's develop or use tests to determine who is susceptible and who isn't and plan accordingly. That way everyone's concerns/choices are respected and addressed.

Laurie Willberg repeats all the old anti-vaccination tropes.

India has recently celebrated a year without new cases of polio - simply due to vaccination.

"Acute flaccid paralysis" is an umbrella term referring to a group of neurological signs, with a range of causes, including Guillain-Barre syndrome, tick bite, snake bit and a range of other causes.

Laurie Willberg has alleged that antibodies do not reflect immunity, and yet now he/she calls for using testing. What tests do homeopaths use for immunity, Laurie Willberg?

Anti-vaxers learn a few words of jargon from the science of immunology, and misapply them. That doesn't make for a rational argument.

I think the article on opinions is quite valid here.

A stupid argument for not vaccinating: They cause autism (cf, MMR vaccination). This has been roundly found to be false.

A good reason not to vaccinate: Child reacting to the vaccine (as happened to my youngest)

A reason I'll entertain: religious/conscientious objection, but only if you can justify it with respect to your child. Case in point: Friends initially objected on religious grounds to a vaccine that was originally developed using blood from an aborted foetus. They eventually decided that they couldn't object on behalf of their child on religious grounds as their child had no religious opinions.

And I think the fact that doctors are having trouble diagnosing measles because they never see it, as a big tick in the box that immunisation works.

"There are also legitimate concerns regarding the financial motives of drug manufacturers in promoting their products"

The same could be said regarding the financial motives of homeopathy practitioners.

"those who have scientific objections to the adjuvants/toxins in vaccines"

It is true they have an objection, but it is not a scientific one.

All the more, Bryn, because homeopaths often retail the "remedies" that they recommend, at a grossly inflated price for the ingredients.

IN medicine, dispensing is almost always at arm's length from prescription.

Until the concerns of vaccine sceptics are properly addressed they will continue to arise. The problem with people like Sue Ieraci is that she merely defends the status quo and attacks anyone that disagrees with her, especially when they have the medical knowledge to do so.
Sue Ieraci's take on the situation in India is incorrect. Acute flaccid paralysis is the term being used because researchers will only use the term Polio to describe natural/wild polio. Sue Ieraci is entirely unaware that the strain infecting Indians at present is a mutation caused by polio vaccine or that the present strains of pertussis are actually parapertussis mutation caused by the vaccine.
Vaccine pimps always deny the negative impact of vaccine products.
I am calling on the vaccine industry to put its money where its mouth is and actually prove its theory. Vaccine sceptics are still waiting for proof. Vaccine pimps are incapable of providing anything more than jargonized answers to attempt to avert probing questions.
The medical industry created titre testing, so let them put it to good use to see if it proves or disproves their theory in clinical practise. Why should anyone with any common sense have a problem with that?
Homeoprophylaxis, like that used in Cuba over the past several years to prevent Leptospirosis outbreaks, is used when an epidemic is anticipated. It is being used in Brazil for Dengue and in India for Malaria.
Since Homeopathy doesn't rely on Antibody Theory it's not an issue Sue Ieraci.

Yeah, it's "at arms length" because GPs like to close themselves off from the backlash that their patients invariably have when they find they can't afford prescribed medication or have to do without food, rent, or clothing in order to buy it. GPs also don't like it when patients complain that they've been given 17 different drugs and feel worse than they did when they first started taking the drugs or ask them pointed questions about toxic effects.
Sue Ieraci seems to be practising false economy or at the very least, indulging in about the weakest argument regarding homeopathic treatment I've ever heard.

The possibility of a vaccine/autism link has not been "roundly" found to be false -- more independent research needs to be done that is NOT sponsored by the vaccine industry. You are entitled to make your own choices regarding vaccination hopefully after satisfying yourself that it's the right choice for you.
Doctors frequently have trouble diagnosing all sorts of medical conditions, especially when they're acute self-limiting ones like childhood diseases. There is no evidence that disease outbreaks=lack of vaccination and more than lack of outbreaks=more vaccination. These are untestable hypotheses and have no scientific validity. It's an assumption not a fact. No exposure, no disease. No susceptibility, no disease.

And Grendel might answer for the infants that lately died,.. with the vaccine manufacturer later allowing the DNA strands were not broken down sufficiently....and show how how he is aware that it was only those infants that died that had adverse effects?

OK, TIME OUT! A little logic goes a long way. Is anyone saying that big pharma is good or great? I do not think so -

But all anyone has to do to see that vaccinations are great it to see how far the disease profile that kills humanity has declined. More and more of us survive into adulthood thanks to vaccinations- what else do you really think is a viable explanation??

Sometimes the status quo IS the status quo BECAUSE it works! I am thankful for that.

Major epidemic disease outbreaks of the past were largely eradicated due to the advent of universal public sanitation and water purification in developed countries. It is also very likely that parents who experienced various diseases passed on immunity to their children.
There is no evidence to suggest that "most of us survive into adulthood thanks to vaccinations". It's a great promotional slogan for vaccine manufacturers, but it has never been proven. No exposure, no disease. No susceptibility no disease.
An issue of great concern today is the possibility of already declining diseases mutating (as has been the case with polio and pertussis).
Another issue is that tinkering with virus DNA in labs has the potential to create viruses that are able to cross species, and this has already happened with Swine Flu.
Parvo virus which suddenly arose in the 1970's killed thousands of dogs before canines were able to largely acquire natural immunity to the point that it is only a mild nuisance to adult dogs. Parvo virus has been linked to biological warfare experimentation that -- oops! -- escaped the lab.

You know what they say about a little bit of knowledge being dangerous and it is even more dangerous in some hands. Would it not make more sense for you to target the populations that you believe are at risk instead of sewing such fear and discent?

Yes, longevity is greatly and primarily advanced by public sanitation but please look at the curves - one was just about completed when the other started.

I am not apologist nor advocate of the pharmaceutical business and at one time this sort of hyperbolic pseudoscience had me convinced to delay the immunization of my own second child- and then I wised up and got educated on the real issues and they include the significant danger to the population as a whole that is represented by the abstainers.Add to that the real and terrible losses and suffering of Canadian families during the last chicken pox outbreak which was entirely CAUSED by these crappy pseudoscience lies which were bought by well meaning parents of now university aged students who brought disease across our country and you will understand my stance.

It would be one thing if they agreed not to participate in all the benefits of society but they cannot simply become harbingers of death for so many through their ignorance and willful abstainance. We all have responsibilties as well as rights in a society. The free ride MUST be over for the good of the many.

Vaccination has virtually eradicated childhood epiglottitis (caused by Haemophilus Influenzae type B) - since the 1980's in Australia. No change in nutrition, sanitation or living standards, Laurie Willberg. Just vaccination.

The same is now happening with measles, chickenpox, rotavirus, and soon, pneomococcus. No change in living standards or hygiene, Laurie Willberg, just vaccination.

I have not heard anybody claim that immunisation "strengthen's" the immune system - that is a term used by the pseudo-scientists. Immunisation merely exposes the immune system to the antigen without the person having to suffer the infection, and lets their immune system form the antibodies. If their immune system is not functioning, they may be unable to mount a response, which is why herd immunity is so important.

Belittle and criticise all you will, Laurie Willberg, but without knowledge and experience of effective health care, you can repeat old anti-vax arguments. We have seen them all before.

We have all seen your transparent attempts to belittle factual information that refutes your opinions, Sue Ieraci. Face it, you're not an immunologist or epidemiologist and are hardly an expert on the subject. Your tired repetition of well-worn vaccine propaganda isn't going to push people with more medical knowledge than you give them credit for into going along with your opinions.
It's the vaccines that are keeping these diseases going and the independent research verifies it. You can choose to go along with the official party line if you wish. Those of us who know better won't.

Laurie - whenever you have been presented with evidence to the contrary, you deny it. Whenever you have been pointed in the direction of studies quite clearly not paid for by drug companies, you deny their validity on some other spurious grounds. You deny vaccines work and you repeatedly make scientific sounding claims - like this: "There is no evidence that disease outbreaks=lack of vaccination and more than lack of outbreaks=more vaccination. These are untestable hypotheses and have no scientific validity. " that are just wrong.

You have no credibility.

Mark, I have no idea to what you refer. Details?

The following cases are what I am talking about, and they dont mention the deaths--vanished off the net?, and youll be looking pretty hard to get these up on google, they've already moderated their algorithms,..1984 was years ago,

1. The 7.30 Report - ABC

The flu vaccine was suspended last week after hundreds of children in Western
Australia experienced side effects including fever and in some cases
convulsions The scare has significantly damaged par
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2885203.htm - 28 Apr 2010
2. Flu shot scare has confidence low - ABC News

The flu vaccine was suspended last week after hundreds of children in Western
Australia experienced side effects including fever and in some cases
convulsions. The scare has significantly damaged parents' confidence in
ongoing flu vaccinations.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-28/flu-shot-scare-has-confidence-low/2673448
- 28 Apr 2010
......
Vaccine maker CSL Biotherapies has voluntarily recalled its flu vaccine
Fluvax after Australia's chief medical officer said a study showed there was
a risk to children under five.

CSL Biotherapies, a unit of CSL Ltd, had written to doctors and immunisation
providers over the recall of its 2010 paediatric influenza vaccine, but was
unsure how many doses of Fluvax were still in circulation.

"Vaccines are being brought back to CSL for further testing and analysis by
both the Therapeutic Goods Administration and CSL and we will continue to
work with regulatory authorities in the on-going investigation," a CSL
spokeswoman said.

CSL shares were up 34 cents, or 1.1 per cent, at $31.90 in late trade,
underperforming a 2.3 per cent rise in the broader market.

In late April, CSL said it had ceased distribution of the vaccine and was
investigating reports that children in two states in Australia were getting
sick after receiving flu shots, supplied by the firm.

Suspension of the seasonal flu vaccine for healthy children under five comes
after a higher than usual incidence of fever and convulsions in the 24 hours
after vaccination, linked mainly to Fluvax, Australia's chief medical
officer, Jim Bishop, said in a statement.

Investigations conducted by Australia's drug administrator identified no
apparent factors that would explain the higher than expected rates of fever
and convulsions, the statement added.

Analysis of Fluvax revealed that febrile convulsions in children under five
following the vaccination was at a rate of about nine per 1000 children,
while the expected rate would be less than one per 1000.

"Influenza itself often causes fever in young children which can lead to
convulsions and flu vaccine can also produce these side effects, but there is
a clear signal that the rate of fever with convulsions is higher with this
year's vaccine across all jurisdictions," Dr Bishop said.

Reuters

Read more:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/risk-to-children--csl-recalls-flu-vaccine-20100603-x2cp.html#ixzz28sL5sAvZ

"And Grendel might answer for the infants that lately died"

There was a significant issue with the manufacture of the flue vaccine in 2010 - it cause febrile convulsions. I do not recall any recorded deaths however. None of the reports you posted reported any deaths.

I am aware that in a coronial case in Brisbane there was a death recorded in which a link to the vaccine could not be ruled out, and another case in Western Australia where a child acquired brain damage - again a link to the vaccine could not be ruled out - that however is a long way between a causal link between the vaccine and the death and injury. This was also the case of a batch of a vaccine - there were manufacture problems. You cannot from that incident make the logical claim that because one batch of one vaccine is bad, therefore all vaccines are bad.

I am unsure of what you meant by this statement "and youll be looking pretty hard to get these up on google, they've already moderated their algorithms,..1984 was years ago"

If by 1984 you are referring to the George Orwell novel of a totalitarian future society - I suggest that you may have just not googled the right way. I had no difficulty whatsoever finding multiple links to those and similar reports. I searched for "flu vaccine CSL withdrawn".

LOL, Laurie Willberg.

I'll ask again: Where did epiglottitis go?

Oh, and when you say "those of us who know better..."- know better about what? Journalism??

I would like to add an excerpt from an article in the Canadian Medical Assoication Journal which clearly deals with the original offender that led so many hurting parents of autistic kids and their supporters astray. I think this very act of victimizing hurting people is heinous and that is part of why i fight it so seriously.

Quote:

Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines

Laura Eggertson

Twelve years after publishing a landmark study that turned tens of thousands of parents around the world against the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine because of an implied link between vaccinations and autism, The Lancet has retracted

the paper.

In a statement published on Feb. 2, the British medical journal said that it is now clear that “several elements” of a 1998 paper it published by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues (Lancet 1998;351[9103]:637–41) “are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.”

Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, declined through a spokesperson to speak to CMAJ about this issue.

In the original paper, Wakefield and 12 coauthors claimed to have investigated “a consecutive series” of 12 children referred to the Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder. The authors reported that the parents of eight of the 12 children associated their loss of acquired skills, including language, with the MMR vaccination. The authors concluded that “possible environmental triggers” (i.e. the vaccine) were associated with the onset of both the gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression.

If you believe I'm wrong then let's see the science to back up your opinion. The vaccine hypothesis can only be validated through challenge studies -- comparing vaccinated vs. unvaccinated groups through actual exposure. The vaccine industry neatly ducks this challenge by claiming it's "unethical", however that's the only real proof that will lay their hypothesis to rest. Therefore the vaccine hypothesis is untestable and invalid.

The curves show that vaccines were brought out at the end of the natural cycle of the disease outbreaks.
Try to explain why the latest measles outbreaks have occurred in 90% vaccinated populations, and why 90% of unvaccinated kids don't get it?
If you seriously believe that vaccination works as promised then you/your kids won't be infected and you have nothing to worry about. Why the histrionics?

Grendelus (you do have an interesting name) its rather a specific google you are doing for what should be a significant issue, "infant death vaccine" (which still works at the abc and smh). There were more cases by my memory, and what is worrying is the cowboy attitude of bringing a vaccine to market without careful trials. Assumed safe, mass circulated, serious unexpected issues, at first shouted down, continuing serious issues, eventual retraction/recall, studies revealing a fundamental process was misunderstood in relation to infants. Media/medicine dares not make a firm correlation between vaccine and deaths/convulsions/seizures (to protect what they view as a "good" initiative).
The wider issue seems that diseases do have their life cycle. The plague"belonged" to the middle ages, though there seem some current findings of it in oregon, it may even be the recent yosemite tent virus (30% mortality) is an evolution of the plague (but the media wouldnt want to raise such a scare). Spanish flu was epidemic when? Amidst the trauma of WW1 survival. Polio likewise seemed to peak post WW2.
The biggest consideration is that infants that have childhood inflamatory illnesses, find their warmth organism (now tried and tested) has lifelong vigour and accuity to protect from degenerative diseases, cancers included.
Those who have been prevented from fevers (courtesy of vaccines) and not developed the associated enhancement of the immune system are more prone to degenerative diseases. Such research is European in origin, it requires a different mindset to even come up with such considerations, let alone to work enough to find them out.
Grendelus, science might have two aspects, one might lead to future vitality, through lifelong studies, the other might lead to reduced future vitality, through considering test tube processes (mechanical/degenerative) and in vivo processes as "the same", which paralyses the possibility of regeneration. (ie the disease/wasting is shifted to another level).

The mainstream doctors during the 1918 flu pandemic gave their patients aspirin to "bring down their fevers" which invariably killed them http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/9/1405.full
The purpose of fever is to "burn off" pathogens, and well-established medical wisdom is to leave the patient alone unless it goes over 104F. Of course this is an innate immune system response and it needs to develop in infants once immunity conferred by breast milk from the mother begins to wane.
Veterinary science has long known about maternal transfer factors/immune protection and current research shows that in dogs it lasts about 22 weeks. Giving shots before then can screw up innate immunity and also cause the diseases they are supposed to "protect" against.
Maternal transfer factors in human babies are no different (we're all mammals) and likely last longer. Artificially interfering with that process through injectables has not been researched thoroughly enough to lull real people in the real world into a false sense of security/belief that vaccine pushers know what they're doing.

OK, Laurie, I will allow myself to be baited by this silliness one more time.

You are referrring to a cytokine storm- and science only recently- in preparation for a new pandemic learned that it is what actually killed all those young healthy people that you propose we let die due to exposure. As parents and lovers of humanity we think that is a bad idea.

Here is an easy to access segment from Wili[pedia pm the topic:

Tissue samples from frozen victims were used to reproduce the virus for study. This research concluded, among other things, that the virus kills through a cytokine storm (overreaction of the body's immune system), which perhaps explains its unusually severe nature and the concentrated age profile of its victims. The strong immune system reactions of young adults ravaged the body, whereas the weaker immune systems of children and middle-aged adults resulted in fewer deaths

Scientists and others who work to develop vaccines do so because they have a basic premise that less loss of life is a good thing. Would you happen to be a social darwinist?

The medical literature indicates that only 25% of epiglottitis are caused by HIB? So that's what the vaccine was "supposed" to prevent.
It couldn't "prevent" the other 75% so your guess is as good as mine.
You're not open-minded enough to be a journalist and not much of a writer. I was accepted into medical school but decided against it.

FYI a cytokine storm can be averted by the use of elderberry (sambuccus) in a variety of forms. As per another post of mine, totally avoid aspirin or any other suppressive drug.
Debra, you've got a long way to go to catch up on the immunological/epidemiological studies I've done in both conventional and alternative medicine.
Nobody with a university education would use Wikipedia.
The risk of adverse vaccine reactions, among other issues, are enough to make educated consumers think twice. Since you're obviously not one of them continue to vaccinate yourself and your family members. No one is stopping you.

So why is Andrew Wakefield suing the Lancet and Brian Deer for defamation?
Moreover, other researchers have since verified Wakefield's findings of MMR vaccine virus in the bowel tissues of vaccinated children. This really isn't surprising, since it's not uncommon for vaccines to be "shed" in feces. This is also validated in veterinary research regarding parvo virus vaccine being shed after vaccination and infecting other puppies/dogs in the vicinity.
The nasal flu vaccine can be shed from a patient's nostrils and infect other family members with a "flu-like illness".
Wakefield never actually said that MMR vaccines cause autism. Read the original research paper and stop relying on anecdotes of what his detractors are claiming. As usual, his paper called for "further research".
In the meantime, if you have an autistic child, you'll know that they have lots of digestive/bowel problems. It's a universal characteristic of autism spectrum disorders.

Further to my previous comment. If a doctor urged me to have a MMR shot, without advising me of the option to have serological testing, I would complain to the AMA (for what that would be worth….) And who else can you complain to? Because it appears there is no protection from the tyranny of ‘experts’…
On the subject of serological testing , I provide a personal anecdote. I was born in 1959 and do not remember if I have ever had measles/mumps/rubella. If I did, it wasn’t memorable. My family came here from the UK in 1970, so not sure if we had to have vaccinations before we came? Anyway, I was curious about what a serological test would show, so I had a blood test recently with these results:
Rubella: The patient is immune. A rubella antibody level of 10 IU/mL or greater is considered necessary to ensure adequate immunity to rubella.
Mumps: Serological evidence of past/recent infection or vaccination with mumps virus.
Measles: Serological evidence of past/recent infection or vaccination with measles virus.
So, I have evidence that a MMR shot would not be of benefit to me.

"In my opinion, it is wrong for paternalistic ‘experts’ to tell people to have medical interventions without properly informing them of their options."

In my opinion, it is wrong for unqualified laypeople to provide advice to families that may lead to death and disease because they failed to have medical interventions made available for the purpose of preventing disease.

Elizabeth,

If we conducted Serological testing and THEN had to vaccinate we would double the interventions (and the cost). When vaccination alone occurs we then have a record that it has occurred and the knowledge that probability of protection is high. Individuals who choose to seek Serological testing are free to do so.

The vaccination is free - why should the government also provide free testing. This is even more relevent for the early years vaccinations when the testing would almost certainly find that pre-vaccination results showed nil protection against the diseases.

‘Grendelus Malleolus’, the first MMR live vaccine dose at 12 months or later is likely to produce an immune response and provide lifelong immunity. (Read the link to the letter I provided: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Minister_Plibersek_re_MMR_vaccine.pdf )
So why should every child be revaccinated with a second dose, just because a small minority might not respond? Why shouldn’t parents have the option of serological testing to verify a response to vaccination, i.e. evidence based medicine? If it was my child, I would happily pay $50 for MMR serological testing rather than have an arbitrary medical intervention. In-house serological testing is now available for companion animals (although you won’t hear much about it from many vets…The wholesale cost is inexpensive.) So why not for people?
It’s a free country isn’t it? People have choice don’t they? Well not according to the Federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek, because to qualify for the Family Tax Benefit Part A Supplement, children must have two MMR live vaccine doses. Otherwise they will have to apply for an exemption, i.e.
- A child may have a temporary or permanent exemption if a recognised immunisation provider determines that receiving the vaccine is medically contraindicated.
- A child may also receive an exemption from the immunisation requirements if a recognised immunisation provider indicates that the parent has a conscientious objection to immunising their child.
In the information currently on the Immunise Australia website, dated 24 November 2011, there is no clear advice that serological results after the first dose of MMR live vaccine will be accepted for the definition of ‘fully immunised’ for the Family Tax Benefit Part A Supplement.
Ref: http://immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/faq-related-payments#immunised

Elizabeth Hart - you appear to have confused the childhood vaccination strategy with checking (and possibly topping up) immunity in adults.

It is normal practice for adults to be screened before being offered follow-up vaccinations - this happens all the time in general practice, ante-natal clinics, health worker screening. If you remain immune - whether from previous vaccination or surviving the infection - you don't need another top-up.

Childhood vaccination is different - for the reasons outlined by GM above.

If you are not familiar with the science of immunology or vaccination, there is no shame in taking the advice of a person who is trained and experienced in the area.

Excellent points Elizabeth!
But if the vaccines are being subsidized then serological testing should also be subsidized.
You should be aware that this Grendelus individual is a member of a Skeptic cult, as is Sue Ieraci. Their general MO is to attack anyone who questions the status quo of the medical establishment. They never question the obvious faults of the system or have anything negative to say about it. If a CAM article mentions a strategy for boosting immunity these skeptics will make (unsubstantiated) claims that immunity can't be boosted. Yet when the notion of vaccines arises, they will make (unsubstantiated/false) claims that more vaccines will somehow magically create "more" immunity. Get the picture?
Oh, yes, then there's that arrogant condescension that arises when you disagree with their opinions that you are somehow lacking in knowledge -- usually from people who are not themselves experts in the fields of immunology or epidemiology, which clearly people like those mentioned above are not.
So here you have a form of tyranny of those pretending to be experts along with the tyranny of real experts.

Elizabeth Hart, when you refer to "paternalistic 'experts' ", do you mean immunologists, padiatricians, infectious diseases experts, epidemiologists, early chidlhood nurses, or NICU nurses and doctors?

All these people research and promote vaccination. Which of them do you find "paternalistic" or not to hold expertise?

Member of a "Skeptic cult" Laurie? Really? Care to demonstrate my membership of any organisation?

I support a sceptical view of medicine and CAM. I think I should, as a parent, have access to good information with an evidence base that I can use to reduce the risk to my children. Most CAM modalities are unable to meet my parental risk test, in fact most of them fail it abysmally as presenting a risk from their advice to not undertake some actions known to prevent disease (such as vaccination) or to undertake action with no proven benefit or with some risk (such as stupid cleansing diets that can cause liver damage).

I have a son with Autism. I questioned much after the diagnosis and came to the clear view of where the evidence lay - and it was not with the AVN or similar groups.

Immunization is extremely low risk for very high benefit - far more so than risking a "natural" immunity through disease.

And that is exactly why trust the (vast) majority medical opinion on issues like vaccination because I do not pretend to have any medical qualifications whatsoever.

Sue, do you do MMR vaccinations?

Humans "risked" natural immunity through disease outbreaks through thousands of years of evolution (or are you a creationist?)
If you believe that vaccines create immunity and that they're low risk, you and your offspring are free to take that risk. Fortunately you don't get to make that choice for others.
You don't seem to be able to do anything other than to quote public health jargon while conveniently ignoring the fact that most mild childhood disease outbreaks like measles take place in highly vaccinated populations.

Sue, on the subject of 'expertise'...
Re my previous comment on this article about Dr John D’Arcy and his statements on measles vaccination.
What do you think about his advice that the second MMR live dose “builds up the immunity”, and his suggestion that if parents are unsure if their children are “up to date” they should talk to their GP about a “booster”?