Has anyone read this months edition of the journal New Scientist? I was surprised to see an article dedicated to the controversial theme of vaccination but disappointed to read a completely one sided argument. The article completely disregards the studies carried out by Andrew Wakefield relating the MMR vaccine and autism and claims that it has been clearly proven that there is no link between the two. (Is this true?) It then goes on to describe anti-vaccination behaviour in Africa and the UK (quite different in nature). It infers that all of us who don't vaccinate are completely and unfoundedly paranoid about mercury in vaccines. (A little bit of mercury never hurt anyone!). But what annoyed me the most is the complete lack of objectivity for a supposedly scientific journal . In no moment does it refer to the negative impacts of vaccines (apparently there are none) or  the fact that many parents don't vaccinate their children because they believe that non-vaccinated children are healthier with better developed immune systems than those who have been vaccinated.

Anyway, I'd be interested to get some feedback from anyone who's read the article.

Ellen. 

I was outraged too - this is my response...I didn't even receive an acknowledgement!

Re. MMR case opinion
Dear Sir/Madam,
The ‘confusion’ among parents over the MMR is not just coming from highly publicized cases, with Wakefield or the recent ruling by the US courts. 
The vaccine issue for many is far wider than whether the MMR causes Autism.
 
Please let me offer just a few examples.
 
* The only drugs that have not been double blind safety tested have been vaccines. 
Certain such tests were carried out in Finland and Sweden in 1986 and found no significant difference between placebos and the vaccine. 
These are often mentioned. However, Jayne Donegan found it very difficult to find the contents of this placebo as they were omitted from subsequent 
reprints of this research. She found that in the Finish study Neomycin , an antibiotic listed in the British national Formulary as 'too toxic for parenteral 
(by injection) use', and Phenol Red were included. And similar to the 'placebo' in the Swedish one – it also contained mercury, aluminum salts, and formaldehyde. 
Basically, everything in that particular vaccine minus the virus.
 
*Parents are told that a baby can be safely exposed to many virus at one time but what about the above toxins? 
Considering that a baby cannot produce bile until 4-6 months these toxic substances are mostly being stored in the brain.
 
*The top Government spokesperson on Vaccines, Dr David Elliman, was left floundering on many vaccine issues in court; for example, he didn't even know that 
the thiomersal (now thimerosal) in a diphtheria vaccine was listed as capable of causing kidney damage, despite it being in the vaccine package insert 
written by the Dept of Health.
 
*Asthma kills around 1,300 people each year (200 children) with many more debilitated by this disease. 
These figures have doubled in the past 40 years. Studies comparing cases of asthma between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated show that the vaccinated 
are 6 times more likely to contract asthma. (Steiner Educated pupils are 50% vaccinated and all are from otherwise comparable social backgrounds.)
 
*From a profession who took half a century to calculate how much actual mercury was injected into babies before it was mostly removed 
(it was just taken for granted that traces of the most highly toxic substance was OK until someone used a little math), I am perplexed why 
The Department of Health is not looking into why certain children visit a GP less and rarely need a prescription. 
 
Until the medical profession can show that the vaccinated child is healthier than the unvaccinated child, I will continue to treat my healthy children 
without intervention from vaccines and antibiotics (unless necessary). And from my contact with thousands of unvaccinated families through several 
Natural Immunity Support Networks in the UK, whose children appear far healthier than their vaccinated peers, I am sure they feel the same. 
 
Yours truly
Anna Watson 
www.arnica.org.uk