canuck

If you had read the blog article, you would have seen that it ends with an extensive list of peer-reviewed medical literature specifically dedicated to vaccinations. Including a long list of peer-reviewed studies examining thiomersal. It was removed as a precautionary measure and to help encourage parents to keep up with getting the jabs because they "hype" had resulted in a low vaccination rate, despite all the evidence showing no links. While you didn't bring up Wakefield, it was his flawed research that set this all up. The first study you linked to demonstrated a correlation between one vaccine and hayfever. (1) the correlation was extremely small. (2) Correlation does not equal causation -- there is also a correlation between increase in vaccine rates and computer use between 1980 and 2000, but nobody would argue that this relationship is causal. Likewise, no study has ever shown that vaccines cause hayfever or anything else. (3) Even if vaccines did result in a slight increase in hayfever, in the balance, hayfever (rhinoconjunctivitis) is a magnitude less risky to a child and to the population at large than measles, mumps or rhubella. The second page you linked to is not a peer-reviewed scientific article. It is an article written by a "natural living" practitioner who is trying to sell you his books, dvds, natural "medicines", etc. He is hardly an unbiased source, and his article trots out all of the same nonsense that every peer-reviewed study has rejected time after time. When the person posts an article advocating using "natural" medicine on the same website where he sells "natural" medicine, well, let's just say it should be taken with a grain of salt. Look. I'm not saying you were wrong to not have your kids immunized. If you have a family history of bad reactions, then it was probably a prudent decision. But that is quite different than the millions of people who are deciding not to immunize their children based on bogus science, incorrect statistics, and the ridiculous (and dangerous) claims of "Natural Living" practitioners.

Again, this is simply not true. In each case where vaccinations have been dropped, incidence rates have risen. To the extent that there were pre-vaccination reductions in the late 1930's, it was because people realized how bad the diseases were, and severely quarantined the sick. They certainly didn't develop a "natural" immunity by exposing children. As for it being the carrier fluid (i.e., thimerosal) not the vaccine -- there is absolutely no research demonstrating this. In fact, the research demonstrates the opposite. http://interverbal.blogspot.com/2006/09/listing-of-articles-which-do-not.html The same is true of the triple jab vs the single jabs. I'm sorry, but there are no credible scientific studies demonstrating the triple has any increased risk than the singles, and there are loads demonstrating the opposite. To present this debate as if there is an "equal" amount of research on each side is simply false.

This is simply untrue. There is an overwhelming amount of research demonstrating that the benefits associated with vaccines vastly outweigh the risks, and that vaccines are not related to autism, aspergers, etc. Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who originally proposed the link, is now facing charges for unprofessional conduct. His conclusions have never been demonstrated -- in fact every study ever done contradicts his results. It also turns out that his "research" was funded by lawyers who were searching for evidence that could be used to help take legal action against vaccine manufacturers. As for you not suffering because of your lack of vaccination -- this is quite simply a function of the fact that most other people have been vaccinated so the diseases are rare. However, since vaccination use has dropped around the world -- largely because of the publicity surrounding Wakefield's flawed research -- these diseases are coming back. And they are killing children. Earlier this year in San Diego there was the first outbreak of measles in 17 years -- none of the affected children had been vaccinated. In Iowa a recent out break of mumps -- same reason. In London, the number of mumps went from 4.204 cases in 2003 to 16,436 in 2004 and 56,390 cases last year. May people say, so what, measles and mumps aren't that bad. This is as wrong as wrong can be, and is simply because our generation hasn't seen first hand the real effects. Measles, in a significant number of cases, leads to blindness, encephalitis, brain damage and death. There is no "natural" way to gain immunity. Intentionally exposing your children to other kids who have measles, mumps, etc., not only misunderstands disease transmission and immunity, but it is potentially life threatening. Calling this approach "misguided" is being charitable. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/02/yet_another_really_bad_day_for_antivacci.php

Ummmm, yes, that is what I said. Is there any reason you decided not to quote my very next sentence? "But there is also quite an extensive amount of research suggesting that as little as a single drink can lead to problems". Look, I'm not really interested in getting into a row over this. It is a personal issue that can't be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. You started the thread to ask why some soon-to-be mothers would stop drinking altogether "when the medical advice is that a small amount is absolutely fine". You also implied (if not outright stated) that soon-to-be mothers who decide not to drink "make the decision emotionally rather than rationally". I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but statements like that can come across as somewhat insulting -- our hormones are running high, you know My point is simply that your assertion that "medical advice is that it isn't necessary or beneficial to give up completely" simplifies the issue somewhat. Not all medical experts agree -- some believe that it is necessary to stop entirely, some believe that a small amount of alcohol is fine (within certain limits, or during certain phases of pregnancy, etc.), and some believe that we don't have enough information to decide either way and so advocate not drinking until we get better data. I don't think that taking that last camp's advice makes me an irrational "emotional" decision maker. It simply means that, after evaluating the pros and cons, I balance the risks and rewards differently than others. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. If you didn't like that one study, here is another for you: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/119/2/e426?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=alcohol&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT Results: "After controlling for a range of prenatal and postnatal factors, the consumption of <1 drink per week during the first trimester was independently associated with clinically significant mental health problems in girls at 47 months. This gender-specific association persisted at 81 months and was confirmed by later teacher ratings. Conclusions: Very low levels of alcohol consumption during early pregnancy may have a negative and persistent effect on mental health outcomes. Given the lack of a clear dose-response relationship and unexpected gender effects, these findings should be considered preliminary and need additional investigation.

"It's up to you, but if you're not basing it on government advice and you've not found or read any medical studies, then you're basing it on fear of the unknown or a whim." As I said, there are plenty of medical studies (see below) suggesting that even low doses of in utero alcohol exposure can be linked to neurological & behavioural problems later in life. Are they always . . . clearly not. But I'm certainly not basing anything on "whims" or "fears of the unknown". As I said, I deal with FAS students daily -- it is certainly a "known" in my world. And it is a known that I'd rather avoid. Perhaps I'm too cautious -- but I'd rather be too cautious in cutting out a luxury for 9 months than have to deal with problems for a lifetime. I'm sure you are right that there is a safe limit, but for now the only one that I'm personally convinced about is none. I should also say that I don't think guidelines forbidding women from drinking are necessarily beneficial or helpful. My own limit is based on my own reading of the literature and my own comfort level with risk. Such strict government guidelines have, for example, been blamed for increases in abortion rates as women get so stressed out about their one drink that they choose to abort because of fears that are, more than likely, unwarranted. This is obviously bonkers! It is exactly because of this sort of behaviour that the RCOG and others are trying to avoid "bans" -- they stress new mothers out. It should be pointed out, though, that RCOG guidelines have a bit of a checkered past, and often seem to be more politically motivated than medically sound: http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/34/4/497 The other, only partly related problem, is that very few people actually drink "one-drink" as defined by those studies. Did anyone catch the BBC special last year -- they followed pregnant women around as they went out to the pubs, etc. Most of them cited the "new guidelines that said we can drink a little bit", and at the end of the evening they were quizzed on how many drinks they had consumed -- 90% of them underestimated their actual consumption. This isn't an argument for a ban on booze, since it is obviously entirely a matter of self-discipline, but it is interesting nonetheless in how guidelines are often interpreted by average non-scientists. In addition to the paper linked above: Conclusion of this peer reviewed study: http://www.come-over.to/FAS/LowDose.htm "Maternal alcohol consumption even at low levels was adversely related to child behaviour; a dose-response relationship was also identified. The effect was observed at average levels of exposure of as low as 1 drink per week" Conclusion of this peer reviewed study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8576439?dopt=Abstract "These results support the hypothesis that exposure to a continuous, low blood alcohol concentration can result in the death of developing neurons and lead to permanent neronal deficits. The degree of neuronal loss does not correlate with the magnitude of the peaks of blood alcohol concentration" Conclusions of this peer reviewed study (link will open pdf) http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1530-0277.1989.tb00281.x "Beginning at very low concentration (0.001 g/100ml) alcohol elicited dose-dependent contractions of the human umbilical artery in vitro. These results suggest that alcohol may increase umbilicoplacental resistance in vivo, thus decreasing fetal -placental blood flow"

Cyclone, I'm not sure where you are getting your information -- but there are no scientific studies saying that there is a safe amount of alcohol to drink while pregnant. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/22/drinking_made_it_all_up/ The fact is, it is entirely unknown whether there is a safe limit or not. Anecdotally we all know of people who seem to have loads to drink with no ill effects on the baby. But there is also quite an extensive amount of research suggesting that as little as a single drink can lead to problems, particularly during the first trimester. The current medical consensus seems to be that it is not only quantity of alcohol that matters, but also when during the pregnancy, underlying genetics, luck, plus a whole host of other factors. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, but I'm a teacher who deals with it daily. It is absolutely crippling. Current estimates have 1 in 100 children in the UK affected (1 in 1000 with the more severe Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). Until a study comes out that can convince me that there is a safe amount to drink (and by "study" I mean a dedicated peer reviewed research program, not a government panel that reviews existing studies), I think I'll stick with nothing. 9 months sober doesn't seem like too much of a price to pay for a 100% assurance of a healthy child. Particularly because my "one drink" often turns into "ahhh, just one more".

We've only just moved away from Sheffield back to Canada (I still check in here because I miss Sheffield so much), but we were actually really surprised at how few people buy used prams in the UK compared to other places we have been. Like you, we had a hardly used brand new Mothercare pram that we took to a carboot sale. Nobody showed any interest at all, and there were several other prams for sale at the same sale that nobody touched. There is also a used pram shop down in Hillsborough that is just bursting with great prams and pushchairs but it doesn't seem to sell. I'm not sure whether or not this is a fair comment, but it really does seem that prams/pushchairs are a bit of a "status symbol" in the UK, compared to other places we have lived. For whatever reason, most people really want to spend more money on a new one, than have a used one.

Hi Yep, it is the type they sit in and zoom around. Our daughter loved it. We didn't have a son -- it seems that all the little bathtubs are blue, to match the water I guess(?). Send me a pm or give me a call/email if you would like them. H

Sorry Mods, I wasn't aware of that rule. Here are some approximate prices, BUT, as I said, we are leaving the country and are really more concerned about finding the items a good home rather than price -- so consider these fairly flexible (within reason, of course). I'm sorry I don't have a digital camera so can't post any photos, but all items are in great condition -- you can pm or email me for more details if you want. 1) Mothercare Votex Travel System Pram/Car seat, with rain cover, muffs for both stroller and car seat, sunshade, and matching rucksack -- hardly ever used, like new. -- 65 pounds 2) Wooden crib (very large -- my 16 month old daughter still fits in it quite happily and isn't growing out of it anytime soon) that converts to bed for older toddlers, with a brand new, never used, still in the original wrapping mattress plus martress cover sheet. -- 40 pounds 2) Baby Trend Travel cot with carry/storage bag -- excellent condition -- 20 pounds 3) Mothercare "East Coast" traditional pine highchair with padded seat cover -- excellent condition, very solid -- 20 pounds 4) Chico UFO baby walker with lightup/musical activity tray -- excellent condition 5 pounds 5) Mothercare blue infant bath and loads of bath toys -- excellent condition -- 5 pounds 6) Plastic storage bin/toy box, plus a variety of books, toys -- 5 pounds 7) Several Avent bottles/teats -- most of them never used, still in original box -- 5 pounds

Still for sale.

Would 160 pounds be fair? I could even deliver it today if you were interested, but I have a rental car so wouldn't be able to deliver past today.

Hi all, My family and I are unexpectedly having to move back to Canada on the 12th (i.e., next Sunday!). We have a number of items that need good homes quickly: 1) Mothercare Votex Travel System Pram/Car seat, with rain cover, muffs for both stroller and car seat, sunshade, and matching rucksack -- hardly ever used, like new. 2) Wooden crib that converts to bed for older toddlers, with a brand new, never used, still in the original wrapping mattress plus martress cover sheet 2) Baby Trend Travel cot with carry/storage bag -- excellent condition 3) Mothercare "East Coast" traditional pine highchair with padded seat cover -- excellent condition, very solid 4) Chico UFO baby walker with lightup/musical activity tray -- excellent condition 5) Mothercare blue infant bath and loads of bath toys -- excellent condition 6) Plastic storage bin/toy box, plus a variety of books, toys 7) Several Avent bottles/teats -- most of them never used, still in original box Will accept any reasonable offers. Call: 0114 201 7335 or Email: [email protected]

Hi all, My family and I are unexpectedly having to move back to Canada on the 12th (i.e., next Sunday!). We have a number of items that need good homes quickly: 1) Mothercare Votex Travel System Pram/Car seat, with rain cover, muffs for both stroller and car seat, sunshade, and matching rucksack -- hardly ever used, like new. 2) Wooden crib that converts to bed for older toddlers, with a brand new, never used, still in the original wrapping mattress plus martress cover sheet 2) Baby Trend Travel cot with carry/storage bag -- excellent condition 3) Mothercare "East Coast" traditional pine highchair with padded seat cover -- excellent condition, very solid 4) Chico UFO baby walker with lightup/musical activity tray -- excellent condition 5) Mothercare blue infant bath and loads of bath toys -- excellent condition 6) Plastic storage bin/toy box, plus a variety of books, toys 7) Several Avent bottles/teats -- most of them never used, still in original box Will accept any reasonable offers. Call: 0114 201 7335 or Email: [email protected]

Hi all, I have a flight out of Manchester Airport tomorrow (Sunaday) afternoon at 1:00pm. With all of the rain, do you think I'm better off taking a train or trying to hire a taxi to get me there? Or has the rain not affected any of the transpennine tracks or roads?

Fantastic! The Middlewood Festival looks like it was a tremendous event! Of course such things can all be done with volunteers, fund-raising, sponsorship, etc. But that still doesn't take away from the point that these events are not "free". The money has to come from somewhere -- in this case it was raised by an army of fantastic, dedicated volunteers who pounded the pavement for sponsors, etc. It is also becoming harder and harder to host these events on your own because of insurance risks -- if a child gets hurt or, god forbid, kidnapped while at your open-air free event, who is responsible? Sad development, but true. Equally sad, as samsmum noted, is that most volunteer events aren't sustainable for anything more than a few years because, as she put it "we did it for a couple of years, but got fed up of people complaining about petty stuff ... instead of getting off thier arses and helping they just wanted to sit back and whinge about lack of beer tent etc." That's exactly how I feel about those who demand that events be free; but who don't seem to recognize that there is no such thing -- all they really want is "free for them", while letting others pick up the tab, whether it is the council, sponsors, volunteers, etc. We should all get changed a penny for these "free" events, just to remind us that an awful lot of folks had to donate their own time and money to ensure that we have a good time for no pay. And no, I don't work for the Council and I had nothing to do with the Fling, other than I attended and thought it was fun. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I'm looking forward to the Middlewood Festival 2007!