Does using a mobile phone fry your brain?

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:02:54 +0100, Iain wrote
> Dave Higton wrote:
>
>>
>> That's because MMR protects better than the separate jabs.
>
> It's that sort of downright lie that has got MMR in the situation it is
> in.

Is it a lie? Do you have a reliable citation for that? TIA

---

› See More: Does using a mobile phone fry your brain?

Iain wrote:
> Dave Higton wrote:
>
>> That's because MMR protects better than the separate jabs.
>
> It's that sort of downright lie that has got MMR in the situation it is
> in. Having all three is LESS efective, but there are two other factors:
>
> 1. Three jabs would cost more
>
> 2. The NHS reckons that parents wouldn't bother to go for all three.
>
> They're possibly right about 1. but 2. has backfired badly.

2. only backfired because of the panic brought on by the mis-informed
media. Most parents had no idea why they wanted separate jabs. They just
'felt' it was safer...

The MMR situation has ended up costing the tax payer a huge amount and
this time it is by no means the gov't's fault.

I heard the other day that they are considering doing catch-up MMR jabs
for school kids in order avoid the increased deaths and disabilities due
to having unimmunised children about.

I really feel that the media should be held responsible for this fiasco!

On Aug 10, 8:09 pm, "Steve Terry" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Higton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...> In message <[email protected]>
> > "Steve Terry" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> MMR is very different, many parents would be only to happy to accept
> >> separate vaccines as used to be offered, but the Gov insists it's dogma
> >> of forcing MMR
>
> > That's because MMR protects better than the separate jabs.
> > Dave
>
> and separate jabs eliminates any risk of damage using a multiple vaccine.

Risks that have been proven not to exist as the "research" indicating
it was dangerous has been utterly discredited.

Stimpy wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:02:54 +0100, Iain wrote
>> Dave Higton wrote:
>>
>>> That's because MMR protects better than the separate jabs.
>> It's that sort of downright lie that has got MMR in the situation it is
>> in.
>
> Is it a lie? Do you have a reliable citation for that? TIA

Yes, it is a lie. Deliberately incorrect. By having all three at once,
the body's immune system has to tackle all three at the same time. By
having all three at once, millions of children are not immunised at all.

FWIW, my worry is not just about Autism (though I do know two children
who appearewd to have been affected) but also about other problems, such
as the Urabe risk and particularly Crohn's disease.

But what is MUCH more of a worry is the way that the medical
establishment has ganged up against a few whistle-blowers. It has been a
witchhunt. Other European countries that are less cost-averse do the
jabs separately, so the vaccines are made, but you can't get them in the UK.

I'd want to be confident that I trusted a vaccine before it was injected
into my children. This might be less risky than not being vaccinated,
but there ia qualitative difference between doing something you suspect
to be dangerous and leaving a danger unaffected.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:59:23 +0100, Iain wrote
>>>
>>>> That's because MMR protects better than the separate jabs.
>>>
>>> It's that sort of downright lie that has got MMR in the situation it is
>>> in.
>>
>> Is it a lie? Do you have a reliable citation for that? TIA
>
> Yes, it is a lie.

Do you have a reliable citation for that?

Pd wrote:
> Dave Higton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Go read the evidence, then make up your mind on an objective basis.
>> MMR is better because it provides full protection, i.e. against all
>> three diseases, at the earliest age, thereby leaving the shortest
>> window of opportunity for the child to be killed or left permanently
>> disabled by any of them.
>
> But it's not better, because a significant proportion of the population
> have been scared off it, rightly or wrongly. Simply shouting loudly that
> "MMR is perfectly safe!" doesn't achieve the desired result, which is a
> sufficiently high immunisation rate. Disease control is only half about
> the medicines and vaccines, the other half is dealing with the
> variability of humans.
>
> If the government were really concerned about the potential damage from
> an outbreak of these diseases, they'd offer the separate vaccines.

But by succumbing to the 'panic' the government would be undermining
their own argument, costing the tax payer more, making life more
difficult for GPs and reducing the effectiveness of the vaccination
strategy. In the aftermath the government would have been crucified had
they changed their policy. It's a sad testament that they are not being
praised for their stance.

The government had to stick to their guns as they were right and had to
wait until it washed over, which it has finally, and pick up the pieces
later.


> To do otherwise sounds like the Catholic church's response to AIDS -
> "just don't have sex". Uhuh, that's really gonna work.

Don't get me started: It's worse than that! The Vatican actively tried
to persuade their followers that condoms were not effective against
transmitting HIV. So, if people were going to sin and have sex they were
no better off by using condoms. Bloody criminals the lot of them...

Iain wrote:
> Stimpy wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:02:54 +0100, Iain wrote
>>> Dave Higton wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's because MMR protects better than the separate jabs.
>>> It's that sort of downright lie that has got MMR in the situation it is
>>> in.
>> Is it a lie? Do you have a reliable citation for that? TIA
>
> Yes, it is a lie. Deliberately incorrect.

Repeating a statement does not make it true. Please provide some
evidence as Stimpy asked otherwise everything else you say is completely
baseless and probably false.

> FWIW, my worry is not just about Autism (though I do know two children
> who appearewd to have been affected)

In has been shown many times in very different ways that there is no
evidence of a *causative* link between the MMR jab and autism. Of
course, the children you know that have autism will have been affected
by it. All children (up until the fiasco) will have been immunised with
the MMR jab so therefore all children with autism will also have had it.
Just because the autistic behaviour comes to the fore around the same
time as the MMR at 18months is just a coincidence. Again this has been
proved to be a fact.

See here for further info:
http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/library/studies.php

See, I can back up what I say. Plus, there's much more evidence than in
the above link.

> But what is MUCH more of a worry is the way that the medical
> establishment has ganged up against a few whistle-blowers.

It was one 'whistle-blower', Dr Andrew Wakefield, and he has been
discredited and struck off the medical register for his unethical and
agenda-driven research. This is what happens when people lie and put
millions of lives at risk. It is not 'ganging up'.

> I'd want to be confident that I trusted a vaccine before it was injected
> into my children. This might be less risky than not being vaccinated,
> but there ia qualitative difference between doing something you suspect
> to be dangerous and leaving a danger unaffected.

No. It's a quantitative difference. We know how many children/babies are
affected by measles, mumps and rubella if unimmunised (1) or immunised
with separate jabs (2) or immunised with the triple jab (3). The biggest
improvement is going from (1) to (2), but there is an improvement both
in risk and cost in going to (3). So in the balance of *evidence* the
triple jab is the best option.

What people often forget that there is a risk associated with every
vaccination injection. Thus, in reducing the number of jabs by combining
them reduces that risk.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:59:23 +0100, Iain wrote
> Stimpy wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:02:54 +0100, Iain wrote
>>> Dave Higton wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's because MMR protects better than the separate jabs.
>>> It's that sort of downright lie that has got MMR in the situation it is
>>> in.
>>
>> Is it a lie? Do you have a reliable citation for that? TIA
>
> Yes, it is a lie.

In message [email protected],
Iain <[email protected]> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I think you have egg on your face now!!
>
> Er, no.
>
> The result of that study was basically that people who suffer these
> tumour report that they are on the side that they held their mobile
> phone.
> That is not the same as saying that the phone caused the tumour. One
> study (may be the same one, I don't have time to check) also found
> that the rate of tumours went down on the side that the phone was not
> held on.
> Now, it is just possible that holding a mobile phone at one distance
> causes these tumours and holding it a little further way prevents
> them, but I think it is virtually certain that it is not. My strong
> suspicion is just that people report using their phone on the side
> that got a tumour. Partly because they were brainwashed by the sort
> of drivel you have been promoting here.

Assuming that the tumours are random, 50% of 'victims' will have one on the
left, and 50% on the right.
Seeing as more people hold their phone on the right hand side of their head,
surely it's obvious that taking nothing into account except what I've just
said, more people will hold their phone on the side that develops a tumor
(the right) that not...(??)

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

Stimpy wrote:

>
> Do you have a reliable citation for that?
>

Why, yes. <[email protected]>

chris wrote:

> What people often forget that there is a risk associated with every
> vaccination injection. Thus, in reducing the number of jabs by combining
> them reduces that risk.

The basic problem is that this is not made less risky by combining
vaccination: the risk is increaed by it. You have to weigh this against
the added risks from missed jabs and the extra costs.

Many other countries have chosen to make it available as three jabs
(mostly that's the default). The UK has refused to do so, even in the
face of plummeting take-up rates.

I happen to think that the UK goverment has chosen the wrong course and
that most of mainland Europe has chosen the correct course.

But given that you have chosen to ignore what I a saying and have
trotted out the usual NHS propaganda, I doubt there is anything worth
saying to you on the subject. And it is hardly relevant to this newsgroup.

Iain <[email protected]> wrote:

> Stimpy wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you have a reliable citation for that?
> >
>
> Why, yes. <[email protected]>

Anecdotal data and personal opinions are not reliable, and citing
yourself as proof of your own argument is a bit weird.

-z-


--
am forget my password of mac,did you give me
password on new email marko.[redacted]@yahoo.com

Iain <[email protected]> wrote:

> chris wrote:
>
> > What people often forget that there is a risk associated with every
> > vaccination injection. Thus, in reducing the number of jabs by combining
> > them reduces that risk.
>
> The basic problem is that this is not made less risky by combining
> vaccination: the risk is increaed by it.

Do you have a reliable citation for that?


> You have to weigh this against
> the added risks from missed jabs and the extra costs.

Hold on, you're saying you have to weigh a downside against two more
downsides? What do you mean by "weighing against"? If, as you claim, a
combo jab increases the risks versus three jabs, then it's a clear case;
three downsides. Surely you'd only be weighing up costs and missed jabs
if a combo jab were beneficial - that's not what you're arguing, is it?


> Many other countries have chosen to make it available as three jabs
> (mostly that's the default). The UK has refused to do so, even in the
> face of plummeting take-up rates.

This is perhaps somewhat wrongheaded on the part of the gubmint, but the
panic is mainly down to Dr Wakefield and the idiot red-top media.


> But given that you have chosen to ignore what I a saying and have
> trotted out the usual NHS propaganda, I doubt there is anything worth
> saying to you on the subject.

Propaganda? It seems that the NHS's stance is backed up by statistical
fact whereas you opinion is not. I'd say that the latter is closer to
the definition of propaganda.

-z-

--
am forget my password of mac,did you give me
password on new email marko.[redacted]@yahoo.com

Iain wrote:
> chris wrote:
>
>> What people often forget that there is a risk associated with every
>> vaccination injection. Thus, in reducing the number of jabs by
>> combining them reduces that risk.
>
> The basic problem is that this is not made less risky by combining
> vaccination: the risk is increaed by it.

Seeing as you're refusing to give any kind of evidence to back this up,
this is clearly just your /opinion/. Whether you like it or not your
/opinion/ is contradicted by hundreds of internationally recognised
studies. Thereby, your /opinion/ is of no value to anyone apart from you.

> Many other countries have chosen to make it available as three jabs
> (mostly that's the default).

Now, you really are lying. This page from the BBC clearly shows the vast
majority of Europe use the MMR, plus the US, Aus and NZ:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1804509.stm

It also states that in some countries (e.g. France and the US) the MMR
is compulsory and single jabs not recommended.

> I happen to think that the UK goverment has chosen the wrong course.

I don't now and I didn't then. I think the government should be
congratulated for strong in the face of such idiocy. I had both my
children vaccinated against the MMR.

As an aside, we had an outbreak of rubella at our nursery when my wife
was pregnant with our second. This caused us real anxiety while we
checked that my wife was still covered for rubella.

This is exactly the sort of thing that vaccination should avoid, but
screaming headlines from the gutter press has and will cause anxiety and
illness to thousands of people in this country alone. Children will die
unnecessarily because of this, which is criminal.

> But given that you have chosen to ignore what I a saying and have
> trotted out the usual NHS propaganda, I doubt there is anything worth
> saying to you on the subject.

I have not ignored anything you're saying. I have clearly rebuffed your
claim that the MMR triple jab is less safe than the separate jabs and
shown you where the weaknesses of the anti-MMR campaign are.

So now all you're left with is claiming that I'm just spouting
'propaganda' and leaving in a huff. Good luck to you...

> And it is hardly relevant to this newsgroup.

It's a bit late to start claiming this is OT...

zoara wrote:
> Iain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Stimpy wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have a reliable citation for that?
>>>
>> Why, yes. <[email protected]>
>
> Anecdotal data and personal opinions are not reliable, and citing
> yourself as proof of your own argument is a bit weird.

Quite.