I do want to say, I definitely dislike (and believe) that there is some sort of money kickback for pushing certain drugs.

I used Diane 35 as a BCP for years. I got pregnant off it (ended up miscarrying) but not long after I got pregnant I found (after doing research) that Health Canada posted a bulletin about how harmful Diane 35 was, and how it wasn't supposed to be used for more than 3 months at a time. It helped clear up acne, and I had been on it for 2 years at that point.

After everything was all said and done, my GP asked me if I wanted to go back on Diane 35. I told her no, as according to Health Canada it was supposed to be considered as acne treatment first and foremost, and birth control as a potential side effect.

My GP told me that Health Canada was an "opinion" and it was fine to use. I argued that no it wasn't, and I wanted to have something different. I personally believe that the reason why she was pushing so hard for me to use Diane 35 was because of a money kickback for prescribing it.

But, that is just one case.

I just know I do not choose things for my daughter based on the media. I base them on medical facts and on advice from my doctors and other people who have actually studied medicine. I don't think the medical world would be getting this vaccine and making it mandatory if it was so horrible.

I do agree that the pharma companies have an agenda however there are governmental and non-governmental organizations in place to see through any agenda and examine the science. Governments don't want to pay for a drug because it's pushed, they have limited funds and will spend it where it will hav the best impact. Just because research is funded by a company does not mean it is bad science. It is something to take into consideration but if it is published then it has been peer reviewed by a panel of scientists who are experts in the same field and these days often also assessed by a bioethics team. I suspect there may be differences in drug-pushing between countries with national and private health systems but having only lived with one I wouldn't like to speculate.

I think my problem with a lot of the newer vaccines is that the possible long term effects are not generally studied. A lot of vaccines are only looked at for three weeks after their administration, and the possible long term effects are not looked at. I also agree with MO3 that advances in medicine have made a real improvement. We keep getting told that measles is on the increase and can kill our children, but how many children have died of measles in the last 10 years in the UK?

^yes.

As for the mercury thing: yes it is a small amount, but the body processes it differently when its taken in via food than it is via the bloodstream. Its the same with aluminium. Aluminium intake in medicines etc is closely regulated by the FDA because too much can be harmful. When its ingested, it is harmless because the digestive system processes it properly but it can cause a lot of problems when directly put in the bloodstream, like via vaccinations. there was a brilliant article, written by a doctor, in the La Leche League magazine 'new beginnings' about it and according to her, whilst following a routine vax schedule a baby can get up to 30x the reccommended safe level of aluminium in ONE VISIT to the doctors.

In trying to answer the question about how many deaths have been from measles (an odd question because measles has many other unwanted consequences and how many deaths have there been from the MMR?) I came across this autism website. The article has some links to scientific papers for all it's points and I found it was a very well written and sensible piece. Take a look for yourselves.
http://actionforautism.co.uk/2008/06...measles-death/

And another one from a pro-immunisation site but this is just the details of a relatively recent scientific paper published in the well=known journal The Lancet in 2007.
Study shows reduction in child deaths from measles following global immunisation programme
Here's a wonderful video and transcript demonstrating the total lack of clarity and evidence in the anti-vaccination campaign.

http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/...w_-_full_t.php

My friends son has autsim

I think in no way think there is a link between autsim and the MMR vaccine

Doing child development and studying the difference between the development of babies with autsim and children who dont have additional needs. There is a marked difference especially in social and emotinal development even before the MMR vaccine.

For example this little boy would hate being cuddled even as a young young baby, and as he got older the differences got more sevire for example a child as they get older will parcticpate in parrell play and then actually start playing with others. At his nursery he would go and sit in the corner and not want to interact with anyone

Thats before the vaccine!! The only reason people link it with that is because the symptoms of austim becomes more prominate as they get older and around the time of the vaccine.

The mother of this child is trained in child development and she was telling her HV her son had autsim even before his MMR

x

You're totally right Heather! Have a look at the link, he talks about all the mercury theories, the theories of too many at one time etc.

Edit, sorry wanted to add my nephew has autism and in hind sight there are loads of things we can see that were different from very soon after birth.

See I do understand up to a point

I feel smart now
Bless him, I loved working with children with additional needs their determination amazed me, I also loved helping austic children come out of their shell, it was very rewarding
xx

His article is very interesting.
xx