Tuesday, 24 April 2012

Measles Vaccines! Unbelievable?

The Article below is a good indication of just how the figures can be presented to indicate what ever you want to emphasise.
Clearly it is intended to get parents to ensure their children are vaccinated, even encouraging them to ignore the recommended vaccine programme for MMR and have the jabs earlier just so their children are 'protected'

But look at the figures carefully. Of the 113 cases, 29 are in the non vaccinated adults & teenagers and 27 are in the children under the vaccination age for the measles vaccine.  This obviously gives a combined total of 56.  Are we to assume then that the remaining 57 cases were in the vaccinated??
If this is the case, not quite the story it would seem then. At best the vaccine gives you   50/50 chance and at worst could mean you have a greater chance of contracting the disease. 
I'm sure if the un-vaccinated  figures were greater than those mentioned, they would show that proudly so as to really prove how 'effective' a vaccine is, but on these figures so far, that is not the case.
 Bearing in mind the awful adjuvants that go into vaccines, is the risk worth it for a 50/50 outcome at best.
For another side to the Measles vaccine read Vaccine-nation by Andreas Moritz.

Measles on Merseyside: Outbreak 'largest since MMR introduced'

MMR jabParents are being advised to ensure their children are fully vaccinated

Related Stories

An outbreak of measles on Merseyside is the largest in the North West since the MMR vaccine was introduced, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) has said.
There are now 113 confirmed cases of the illness and another 43 cases are being looked at.
Twenty-eight people needed hospital in-patient treatment and three of these, two adults and a child, were extremely ill but have now recovered.
The HPA is urging parents to ensure children are fully vaccinated.
Two doses of the MMR vaccine give protection against measles, mumps and rubella.
The HPA declared an outbreak of the illness last month after six people needed hospital treatment.
'Measles spreading'
It said most cases were in children who had not been given the MMR vaccine - which was introduced in 1988 - and babies and toddlers too young to be vaccinated.
Approximately 29 of the confirmed cases are in teenagers and young adults who were not vaccinated as children and 27 cases are in children under the age of 13 months who were too young to be vaccinated.
Dr Roberto Vivancos, a specialist with the HPA's Cheshire and Merseyside Health Protection Unit, said: "Measles is highly infectious and anyone who has not previously been vaccinated is at risk when it gets into a community, as it has done here.
"In this outbreak we have seen measles spreading amongst unvaccinated children, teenagers and young adults and affecting infants and toddlers who are too young to be vaccinated.
"Our advice to teenagers and young adults is to arrange vaccination now. Speak to your family doctor. It's not too late.
"Our advice to parents is, arrange to have your children vaccinated regardless of their ages. If you are not sure if they have been immunised in the past, check with your family doctor."

Sunday, 8 April 2012

The Cancer Act - Is this how it should be?

You may wonder why I choose to publish the Cancer Act 1939, but since it is something we have had to be aware of in regard to our convention this October, it is surprising just how restrictive this act is to free speech and knowledge.      
Of course we are all aware that with free speech goes a level of responsibility, but are we to first assume that we do not have a 'level of responsibility'? And are we to assume that should a person with a diagnosis of a disease such as cancer, suddenly lose the ability to be discerning or have the capacity of judgement on their own health?            
 If we are to assume that a person cannot make a considered choice, then why do we accept that their only choice should be whether to opt for the conventional route is also sound?                
The traditional route of course is free at the point of delivery, but that doesn't make it the only choice that should be given. If a better treatment might be on offer elsewhere, then why can’t  those be given 'free' under the NHS.             
 We surely cannot deny people an opportunity to know what is available and have open speech on it. No one can talk of cure in any illness, basically it is the body that will cure or not. It depends on the treatment given and to how it responds to it, no matter what that treatment is.  We must recognise that a range of treatments is needed to cope with the fact that cancer is very individual in its onset and development. If it was predictable, then I’m sure a 'cure' or 'magic bullet' would have been found by now for us all to follow.          
This act seems to do just that!, deny opportunity. If it is only those already in the medical profession that are allowed to hear others speak on alternative methods of treating cancer and to have the opportunity to question constructively those who are suggesting other routes that may work alongside or as stand-alone treatments, then the public at large is being denied a right to be fully informed of methods that may help them or someone they know.          
 I fully appreciate that the act was considered to protect people at a vulnerable time from charlatans and anyone offering a ‘magic cure' but i think we must have moved on from this and given that the 'cure' rates of cancer in most forms is still appallingly low using the methods currently accepted in the NHS, isn't it time to allow an integrative approach?              
What better opportunity for everyone to be able to hear and ask questions of the very people who are developing treatments rather than suffocate the expansion of knowledge that can lead to better decisions.                 
 I find it amazing that those who have blogged and written against the conference in October this year, have not seen it as an opportunity to ask the very questions they seem to have already formed the answers to, of the professionals they seem to so despise.              
 Having taught, i suppose the wanting to suppress knowledge and the attempts to deny others an opportunity of knowledge, is an anathema to me.  Whether we agree or not with the views of speakers is hardly something you can  decide prior to hearing them speak!                   
 So as long as we do not advertise the conference as treatments for cancer and of course do not allow speakers to suggest this, then we remain within the 1939 Act? Moreover, that by not advertising to members of the public but health professionals only, we can only be operating within the act, whether members of the public are in attendance or not.
After all, are we to check everyone that requests a ticket are of sufficiently sound mind and judgement, as others seem to imply, can only be the case of those in possession of or training for a medical qualification.                     
It would seem then that members of the public need not apply as this law deems us to be suddenly devoid of all intelligence and reason as soon as the word 'cancer' is mooted                    
 Is that the way it should be? Or should you be allowed to attend and hear from the speakers direct?

The 1939 Cancer Act.........

4Prohibition of certain advertisements.

(1)No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement—

(a)containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof; or

(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1

(2)If any person contravenes any of the provisions of the foregoing subsection, he shall be liable on summary conviction, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F2fifty pounds][F2level 3 on the standard scale], and, in the case of a subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F2one hundred pounds][F2level 3 on the standard scale] or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such a fine and such imprisonment.

(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F3

(4)In any proceedings for a contravention of subsection (1) of this section, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove—

(a)that the advertisement to which the proceedings relate was published only so far as was reasonably necessary to bring it to the notice of persons of the following classes or of one or some of them, that is to say,—

(i)members of either House of Parliament or of a local authority or of a governing body of a voluntary hospital;

(ii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F4

(iii)registered medical practitioners;

(iv)registered nurses;

(v)registered pharmacists and [F5persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business in accordance with section 69 of the M1Medicines Act 1968];

(vi)persons undergoing training with a view to becoming registered medical practitioners, registered nurses or registered pharmacists;

(vii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F6

(b)that the said advertisement was published only in a publication of a technical character intended for circulation mainly amongst persons of the classes mentioned in the last preceding paragraph or one of some of those classes; or

(c)that the said advertisement was published in such circumstances that he did not know and had no reason to believe that he was taking part in the publication thereof.

(5)Nothing in this section shall apply in respect of any advertisement published by a local authority or by the governing body of a voluntary hospital or by any person acting with the sanction of the Minister.

(6)A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted in England or Wales without the consent of the Attorney-General F7. . ..

(7)Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, it shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough to institute proceedings under this section.

(8)In this section the expression “advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document, and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting sounds.
Annotations: Help about Annotation
Amendments (Textual)
F2Words “level 3 on the standard scale” substituted (S. ) for words “fifty pounds” and “one hundred pounds” in each case by virtue of Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21, SIF 39:1)ss. 289E–289G
F7Words in s. 4(6) repealed (30.9.1997) by 1997 c. 60s. 3(2)Sch.
Modifications etc. (not altering text)
C1Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48, SIF 39:1)ss. 35 (in relation to liability on first and subsequent convictions), 38 (increase of fines) and 46 (substitution of references to levels on the standard scale) apply (E. W. )
C2Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21, SIF 39:1)ss. 289E (in relation to liability on first and subsequent convictions), applies (S. )
Marginal Citations