Mothers Lose Vaccination Fight --- MOTHERS LOSE JAB APPEAL

SkyNews ^ | 07/30/03 | Staff Writer

[bedolido]

Two mothers trying to stop their daughters being compulsorily vaccinated - including the controversial MMR jab - have lost their battle at the Court of Appeal.

The fathers of the girls, who are not married to the mothers, launched the legal action after the mothers refused to allow the children to have the jabs.

The women took the case to the Court of Appeal after Mr Justice Sumner ruled last month that the girls, aged five and 10, should have the medical treatment.

Now three appeal judges have again ruled against the mothers, one of whom is considering taking the case to the House of Lords.

The mothers cannot be named to protect the identities of the children.

In a hearing at the appeal court last week, Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel, representing the mothers, told the court that Mr Justice Sumner had not taken sufficient notice of the mothers' wishes and the effect the ruling would have on the families.

The mothers, the sole carers of their daughters, argued that immunisation should be voluntary and it was not right to impose it against the wishes of a caring parent and it would cause them great distress.

The elder girl had asked not to be given the MMR jab but had asked for meningitis protection.

Some parents fear the MMR vaccine could be linked to autism, even though doctors and most experts say there is no evidence of a link.

Mr Justice Sumner decided both children should receive the jab because the benefits outweighed the risks.

Lord Justice Thorpe said the High Court judge`s approach had been "above criticism".

He said: "What is plain is that ultimately these applications were decided by applying the paramount consideration of the welfare of the two children concerned."

Last Updated: 10:40 UK, Wednesday July 30, 2003

[Born Conservative]

Every case of Polio in the United States since 1972 has been caused by the Vaccine.

Exactly why they switched from OPV (Oral Polio Vaccine) to IPV (Inactivated Polio Vaccine) 3 years ago. From what I understand, the OPV was probably more effective since it contained the live polio virus, but now that polio has not been diagnosed in the US in several years, the government mandated the switch to IPV. The OPV does have a small risk of getting polio from the vaccine, but there is no risk with the IPV. Do you have any numbers of how many polio cases there have been in the US since 1972? I was only able to find stats beginning in 1996 (no reported polio cases in the US yearly since then).

As for Varivax (Chicken Pox vaccine), chicken pox is usually not fatal, but if your child is home sick from school, plan on taking off a week from work; chicken pox is contagious for 5-7 days after appearance of rash. And yes, getting the vaccine does not provide 100% protection; 2 out of 10 children getting the vaccine will still get chicken pox (the symptoms are much less in those vaccinated). Again, the disease isn't bad unless you are the one who gets it.

[agrace]

So, the upshot is, that they oughtn't to do anything if it'll hurt even just one person?

I didn't get that from the article at all, and I read the whole thing. Are you suggesting that the risks shouldn't be explored and published?

As the mom of a 7 month old, I agree there are some valid concerns regarding vaccinations. Especially the Hep B given at birth. And the unpublished findings which didn't rule out a link between autism and the ridiculous levels of mercury given. Do you think vaccines should be given in quantities that inject children with 40 times the levels of legal mercury exposure?

I still care - thanks for the post. I'm keeping this one.

[Chemist_Geek]

Are you suggesting that the risks shouldn't be explored and published?

No, but it seems that the anti-vaccination people would rather see this again...

Than "A stranger would put a drug filled needle in my arm against my will only over my dead body, or his."

[Boot Hill]

jlogajan says:   "...'society' is just an abstract idea."

If I were to select just one concept that best epitomized the intellectual logjam that passes for Libertarian philosophy, that would be it. The shear ignorance of that idea is breath taking. By extension of your reasoning then, a person would also be "just an abstract idea", since they are merely a chance association of individual organs.

What do you think CJ, should jlogajan's quote make it to the "Libertarian Hall of Shame"?

--Boot Hill

[Myrddin]

They're clearly engaging in biological warfare against the rest of us by serving as fertile breeding grounds for pathogens.

A perfect description of every active case of AIDS. Walking petri dishes. An AIDS patient can incubate a massive volume of cytomegalovirus that can overwhelm the immune system of healthy persons who are immune. When I see AIDS and HIV positive people being quarantined, then I'll take the current discussion of forced vaccination more seriously. Forcing school children to be vaccinated against hepatitis B as a prerequisite to attending school is ridiculous.

[kailbo]

Here's a hint...Mass polio immunizations in the Fifties knocked that disease for a loop. So you'd discontinue polio immunizations, leaving future generations of Americans at the mercy of the bug which may manage to strike at whatever time it chooses.


That's not true. Polio was welll on the decline before mass imunization.

Check out www.909shot.com

Excellent site to give both pros and cons.

[jlogajan]

a person would also be "just an abstract idea", since they are merely a chance association of individual organs.

There's not much to say to someone who doubts their own consciousness.

[Hank Kerchief]

Where does the Constitution aknowledge a right to be a plague carrier making people around you ill and possibly killing them?

Everyone who doesn't accept a government mandated injection is automatically a plague carrier. Is that your logic?

Hank

[discostu]

Nope.

[Hank Kerchief]

There already exist exemption procedures. But, at what point do we let other people hold our and our childrens' health hostage?

Let's see, you want to force people to have something done to them or their children against their will by an agency whose soul authority is a gun, and you say they are holding your hostage? If your thinking is always this backward, I guess you really don't mind what the government does to others, so long as you think it is going to be good for you. Right?

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

What is, "societal good?"

hank

[Clara Lou]

Thanks for the links. I have read very recently, that those of us who had the small pox vaccinations 30-40 years ago still have some immunity.

[Boot Hill]

jlogajan says:   "There's not much to say to someone who doubts their own consciousness.

Thereby demonstrating the ignorance of your postulate that "society is just an abstract idea", QED

--Boot Hill

[TomB]

That's not true. Polio was welll on the decline before mass imunization.

That is asserted on almost EVERY vaccine thread, and it is not even remotely true. The fact of the matter is that the largest polio outbreak in history occurred around 1953-54. So the idea that polio was on the decline is preposterous.

This chart shows that polio was prevalent, with normal ups and downs, up until the introduction of the vaccine.

[lupie]

Good article. I didn't thoroughly read it - I will later - but I read enough and several of the comments here.

I didn't have the vaccines except for polio as a test subject and smallpox. I survived. My brother and sister survived also. Yeah, we were sick with some of them, but I have had a more than one flu where I was much sicker. But my kids born in the early to mid 80's had all the required ones at the time. If I had babies now, (which is no longer an option) I am not sure what I would do. I can see valid points on both side. But if I had little ones, I know that, considering all, I would be upset if I did not have more control on the children that the good Lord blessed me with and gave me the responsibility to bring up in His Name.

It often seems to comes down to knowing that whenever we mess around somehow with Creation/the natural order of things, etc, whether we have good motives or not, there always ends up being a tradeoff of some sort or another. The problem is that with a lot of this stuff, is that we really don't know what the tradeoff are until years, decades later. It is easy to say "yes" to something that has an immediate benefit without thinking about the long term possible tradeoffs. If we knew all the possible tradeoffs, good and bad, then it would be easier to make a decision. But I feel we are often in the dark about the ramifications of many things, such as vaccines. So it seems to me, that nobody, individuals or the government, are really making informed decisions. There just isn't enough data yet to make sound scientific decisions. It may be years and at the risk of many people's health and lives.

Here we are messing with an very extensive, complicated and wonderfully made immune system. We know that so many new auto-immune diseases are becoming more and more frequent and new ones popping up all the time. Not to mention all the autism, etc. I wonder how much of it is caused by our well-meaning meddling with the immune system? I don't know. I am not sure we will really know until we meet Him face to face.

A good point was made about AIDS. That seems to be an epidemic that does have safe and effective ways to stop/slow down the progress, yet nothing is done because it is too political to mandate behaviors. Yet, it is not to mandate that we inject infants to things that we just don't know what the adverse side effects are long term.

In Jesus alone,
Andra

[Diva Betsy Ross]

And now that the disease is irradicated, how does it make sense to force people who are at risk of contracting another illness from the polio vacination to get a shot to prevent a diesease that no longer is around?

My point is that there are some people who are at higher risk of being harmed by the vaccination program. If it is highly unlikley that said person would get the disease , and highly likley the said person would have harmful, even fatal side effects, from the same vaccine, why is it not accepatable to you to have SOME people opt out ?

When you have kids and if you knew those children could die or be seriously hurt from vaccinations then you will understand what I am talking about. I wonder how your arguments will hold up if you are ever in that situation.

Most thinking people familiar with this topic will say the vaccination program is good for the health of this country, that being said there are some people who should not get the vaccinations because they are at greater risks of dangerous and life altering side effects if they do get the shots than if they opt out.

Again I ask why I should put my child at risk when everyone, including the governemnt , the NIH, the CDC, the drug companies, and many docters around the world admit there are some people at high risk of dangerous side effects from these shots.

Why can't people with exema get the small pox vaccination? I know why .. do you?

[Verax]

My wife stays home with our kids. But don't get me started on day care ;)