Yuuna

A 'grab bag'? In the US, there are people who have prepared bug out bags. My husband was in the military for over 10 years, and he has one ready, just in case...

Hello, I'm hoping that someone is able to recommend a locally based (ideally) dressmaker, specifically of lingerie, who can help. I would like to have vintage 1940s/1950s style lingerie made, and I was wondering if anyone could recommend (or know of someone) with those skills? I am looking for an individual, ideally, who is based here, that I could personally visit, if that helps. Thanks in advance!

This thread was posted in error to this forum.

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A-chan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Please stop focussing on me and what I say and > > what I don't say in an interview. This isn't a > > question and answer. This was my experience and > > what I learnt and how I am making others aware. > > Unfortunately, I now think people will focus on > me > > and not my message due to certain comments. > > When you post a comment on a public forum, you > open yourself up for public debate. > Particularly, but not limited to the fact that > you've made the post specifically about *your* > experience: > > > I am also making the point that part of the > problem is my perceived age, due to my appearance, > something I could not change if even I had ten > years of experience. I'm not sure she opened herself up for public debate. That is so broad as practically to be a non statement. She mentioned her personal experience. She is not on trial here. 'Public forum' or not does not mean wishes cannot be respected. People use that flimsy explanation all too easily. They have to prove the 'occupation requirements' are justified, as was written above if challenged. Your last paragraph makes little sense to me. I see no critical reflection, only deflection and noise. You've created a barrier that 'some people will find difficult to process.' It could be seen as you write however it's highly unlikely to stand up in court. Obviously, we're going to go round and round on this one. You disagree, I get it. Your attempts to appear objective are just that, attempts. You already expressed "And personally I think families should be able to specify and hire whomever they want and the government (except for lawful collection of taxes) should stay the hell out of it." So you set out to prove that. That was your agenda: to prove A-chan wrong not give an alternative way at seeing it. The post was about the Equality Act not the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the Rights to Receive Equal Treatment: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-to-receive-equal-treatment/index.html it reads: 'The United Kingdom (UK) has specific legislation on equality that outlaws discrimination and provides a mechanism for individuals to lodge complaints with the courts when they experience unlawful discrimination. The UK now has legislation prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of race, religion and belief, sex, sexual orientation and transgender status, disability and age.' Under Exceptions it is written: 'A second exemption which applies to recruitment and dismissal is that an employer can refuse to employ you where possessing a characteristic which is related to age is a genuine and determining occupational requirement and it is proportionate to apply the requirement in your particular case. If you do not meet the requirement or the employer reasonably does not believe that you satisfy the requirement then the employer is not obliged to employ you and the employer may dismiss you if you are already employed. However, these genuine occupational requirements are exceptionally rare and if your employer suggests that he can rely on one of these you should immediately seek legal advice.' Whilst I agree that's about as clear as mud (what is the characteristic related to age and does ut apply to all ages?), it does show employers would have to prove the supposed 'occupational requirement' were indeed genuine and not simply discriminatory. Only wanting older and more 'experienced' applicants doesn't seem like a genuine occupational requirement. That's just discrimination. There are many laws I don't like however, the Equality Act isn't one of them. The lawyer has an opinion, as do you. Unlike you, I believe the lawyer knows the law better so I think their opinion counts for more. The main focus of the original post was about the interview/recruitment process which is also covered under the law not just once you are employed. I think it is important people know that.

SBot please also read this on the Equality Act Guidance: https://www.gov.uk/equality-act-2010-guidance. If you look under the Age discrimination: exceptions section you can see whom is exempt. It reads: "There are no specific exceptions to the ban on age discrimination for health or social care services." I believe childcare is part of social care. If you click on the government response you can read the full document on the consultation on exceptions. Whilst it doesn't specify household workers that does not mean the law does not apply to those jobs. It is merely unspecifed. I actually think the page is worth reading and I'm glad I looked.

SBot if it is on your CV do they need to ask...? If you read the first post, you would have seen the link to the Know How Non Profit website with inappropriate and suggested questions. http://knowhownonprofit.org/how-to/how-to-avoid-illegal-or-innapropriate-interview-questions Prospective employers can read it also. Employers do discriminate based on what details are written on a CV. You have raised a fair point. You aren't obligated to provide that on your CV it may be standard practice however it can be used against you. A-chan wrote: "However, it would not be so easy to deflect, dodge, or simply refuse to answer such a direct question without potentially ruining the chance of being hired." Obviously it isn't easy to avoid the questions. Did you read that or anything she wrote... A-chan copied this in her first post: The following are prohibited questions that interviewers may not ask: How old are you? Are you married? Are you gay? What are your childcare arrangements? Are you planning to start a family soon? Are you a member of a trade union? What political party do you support? Source: Which? Which of those questions is appropriate, (forget the legality part for now), and if only some are why and why are the others inappropriate? Do you understand how a person can be given favourable or unfavourable treatment based on the answers to any of the questions? Do you understand the point of the Equality Act 2010? It's not wrong to ask an employer that if you have the job already. I would not think it appropriate to ask at the interview - if they didn't specify they plan to have more children, why should you ask during the interview? I would be surprised if I was asked at such an early stage. Should my prospective employee ask for my sexual orientation or my age? Your questions are: How old are you? Are you married? So you have any of your own children? What do I answer?? Are you regularly asked them? If they are on your CV why would they? Anyway, you could attempt to deflect from say the age question by mentioning experience counts for more. I'm not asked my age, my date of birth is not on my CV. If an employer asked me if I have children I would ask if it relevant to the job. My marital status is my business, I wear a ring... What you call 'basics' I say is unnecessary. Discrimination literally is: The term discriminate appeared in the early 17th century in the English language. It is from the Latin discriminat- 'distinguished between', from the verb discriminare, from discrimen 'distinction', from the verb discernere.[3] Since the American Civil War the term "discrimination" generally evolved in American English usage as an understanding of prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their race, later generalized as membership in a certain socially undesirable group or social category.[4] "Discrimination" derives from Latin, where the verb discrimire means "to separate, to distinguish, to make a distinction". This is from Wikipedia. So making a distinction is discrimination. However we are discussing inappropriate, and unlawful discrimination. You think it is fine, others don't. The above link, is meant to help parents avoid such questions. Is A-chan clicking her fingers to make the situation instantly better? Or is she trying to inform people and providing links to back up her points? Did you honestly read only what you wanted to? I know it was long, but it wasn't that taxing. I mean she even gave a link with suggested questions. I wanted to post them but I am unsure if the page is copyright or I may do so. Did you do any research? I actually read the law here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents.

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yuuna Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > SBot Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > It's my opinion within this discussion, no > > intent > > > to discredit. So if at an interview you we're > > > asked "how old are you?", what do you say?? > > > > > > Are you serious? What exactly are you > discussing? > > Trying to find out her age? Will you please > stop > > ruining this thread? > > SBot's question seems legit. And, in fact, if the > OP's goal was to educate and inform both parents > and carers, it would be helpful for prospective > nannies to know how other prospective nannies are > dealing with these questions, which can be awkward > for both parties. That's not ruining the thread > in anyway. It's simply adding to the discussion, > IMHO. SBot's question 'seems legit'... (and her others)? A-chan wrote (in her first post): "I am almost always asked my age during interviews. I answered because I did not know better." Yet, apparently, SBot (short for SuperBot?) wrote: "So if at an interview you we're asked "how old are you?", what do you say??" and it is supposedly a 'legit' question. This is from the same user who wrote: "And you've "removed" all of your old posts regarding nanny jobs because........." Please explain how that is both 'legit' and relevant to this 'discussion'. SBot also wrote: "You have a job so well done, the nanny market is not what it used to be, we can't be choosy these days." Patronising and sarcastic much? Of course, none of that was in any way intentional (?). SBot is a mother and I think a nanny also. Her opinion is that personal sujects will be discussed, which is fair enough. I disagree that it is appropriate to ask such questions, as written above, during an interview or not hire someone for any of the characteristics above. It is also illegal. However, why does SBot feel the need to ask about unrelated subjects, like previous posts being deleted. Did she think by reading them she would gain an understanding of A-chan's discrimination? Perhaps she thought she would find justification? Or perhaps by asking about them she would cause people to wonder 'oh yeah, why did she remove her previous posts, hmm...' therefore invalidating her post? Did it not occur to SBot that she removed her posts because she was no longer seeking employment, her commitments changed, or she didn't want personal details like her phone number or email address still being on the forum? I mean, I'm just thinking aloud... I too have removed previous posts (suspicious activity?). Also, why should A-chan have to explain this to SBot? Is it her business? A-chan could ignore her, SBot could also not have asked... That's why I maintain that SBot was providing a distraction by not so slyly putting the focus on A-chan's character. The way I wrote was intentional to highlight another way of looking at what 'seems legit'. Please focus on the points she wrote not what you want to know about her personally, that is inappropriate. Apart from the SBot comment, Saffron, I agree. Unfortunately other nannies have not offered such nor have parents. You may have tried to pursue critical analysis, however, it didn't come across that way. It looked like nitpicking and trying to find fault. When my family move I will be seeking childcare. I don't think I have asked any inappropriate questions at interviews but I am and I will be more mindful about how I view people. I think I am quite open minded. I am still a young mum and I have sympathy for others who are discriminated against for being young. I also sympathise with older people who are discriminated against, something A-chan also pointed out. She also wrote about national/ethnic discrimination something I have experienced. Whilst the focus was undoubtedly on age, the point was also to highlight all forms of discrimination. I agree it is good to have a nanny's point of view, though I don't think some are attempting to see it from her point of view. The legislation is not so poorly written in my view; the exceptions are clear. The childcare sector be it domestic or not, is simply not one of them. That's the point. I think the piece is meant to be empowering also: know your rights (to fair treatment). Thank you A-chan for writing what you did. I know there are many who will appreciate the time and energy it took for you to write it (whether they agree with the law or not). I like your writing too.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You make a very good points. > > Just to re enforce your point. A newly qualified > teacher could start work at 21 full-time and have > been on teaching practice earlier. They'll be in > charge of classes of 30 children. That's a good example.

SBot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's my opinion within this discussion, no intent > to discredit. So if at an interview you we're > asked "how old are you?", what do you say?? Are you serious? What exactly are you discussing? Trying to find out her age? Will you please stop ruining this thread? Your comment shows you did not read the post. You're not even trying to understand you're just causing a distraction from points raised in the first post.

SBot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And you've "removed" all of your old posts > regarding nanny jobs because......... > Being a nanny is a very personal job for both > sides so interviews are generally more relaxed and > your personal information gets discussed. > Age will obviously show years of experience, a 23 > year old will only have had 4/5 years experience, > possibly only working for 1 or 2 families. > > I don't think it's discrimination, it's more their > preference of a nanny. > You have a job so well done, the nanny market is > not what it used to be, we can't be choosy these > days. And A-chan's previous nanny job posts are relevant because...... Are you looking for a nanny? Would you like to be turned down for a job because of your age? Do you have a sensitivity chip, SBot...? You might be fine with your personal information being discussed but that doesn't mean others will or should be. Who is 'we', parents? I really hope not. Don't include others in your snide comment. It shows lack of maturity and reveals your true intent (deflection of the thread). For some people someone 23 years old is sufficient, because they are looking for the right person for them and their children. I had my first child then. Age is not a designation. I don't get why you felt you had to post and be insulting as well. Is it too much for people to put across their opinions WITHOUT putting another down? I think it's a real shame that this thread has been turned negative by a few. That's why I don't much like this forum. A person can share their experiences and genuinely want to make others aware to help and what do people do? Try to discredit them and practically knock them...

I do suspect some will read what you wrote as they wish to, possibly abhorrently/oppositionally which is a shame. That's people for you. You wrote a thorough, yet long post, people were bound to read what they wanted and skip the rest which I am sure you knew. I think the negative perception was spot on. I'm glad you got a positive message, despite the message deflection above, I hope people do become more aware. Karii (good health), Yuuna

Saffron I believe you took the quote out of context. I think it is true. I'm not sure A-chan wrote that she asked for the age of the potential employers... They knew her age, because they asked for it. I actually agree with what was written wholeheartedly. It's a shame the first comment from another forum user was less than supportive. The point of the post was try and open people's minds. I disagree that families should be exempt from the law in regards to employment. Age isn't the only form of discrimination potential as well as current employees face. Obviously, the complainant would have to prove the discrimination. I actually think the Equality Act is a good thing and more people should be aware of it. If parents want to employ staff, abide by the law. If anyone else disagrees with the Equality Act 2010 or thinks parents should be made exempt, you can act now: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk. I am great believer in actions speak louder than words. I believe A-chan was trying to turn her experiences into a positive by educating others and being supportive of those experiencing similar situations. That is how I read it. I have experienced discrimination based on my age, gender, skin colour/ethnicity so I do empathise with people who are discriminated against.

Ianr you miss my point... I posted, as I have observed others have done, so people could read the whole text not have others simply pick quotes out to use for their opinion. I understand how a discussion works. Perhaps, suggest that to others being rude? Please do not assume I was being inconsiderate, that is untrue. Also, am I missing something? You said to Admin, only about what I wrote...? Roots, if you can't tell I was being sarcastic, then...perhaps consult Wikipedia for useful examples? Let me help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Ianr I posted the link already, twice. I did not realise it was copyright, however I did post a link (twice)... I removed the text I copied, from my second posting of it (admin please delete the first one or allow us to delete our posts, please?). I did not just dump it, Ianr, like I wrote, I did provide the link (read my post next time...?). Is it not better to remove the thread then? If you only think 'succintly' stated points have been useful...

I posted earlier accidentally and this forum doesn't allow for a delete button... It is unfair to make parents feel bad by claiming not vaccinating their children means they put other children at risk. How so? If the other children are all vaccinated for all known diseases, what's the problem? They'll be protected, won't they? That is all just propaganda with little to no evidence to back it up. It is also undermined by disease outbreaks in vaccinated populations whose victims were all vaccinated. Well that makes no sense to me. Shame on people for scaremongering and branding others selfish. I and others who have not allowed their children to be vaccinated, am/are not responsible for the measles outbreaks in developed countries; they're only occurring in highly vaccinated areas. I'm not a bad parent for realising this.

I did think root was trolling before, hence my 'protip'. If they won't be serious (by being rude), why should I think they want to be taken seriously? Remember, you wouldn't say these things to me in person as it's far easier to do it online. Apparently people don't know what MRSA stands for or why it isn't easy to treat and they also don't believe that there are illnesses resistant to antibiotics... You were trivialising the many, many, problems in Africa as if only vaccinations could or would help; they won't. I have not trivialised anything. I have given true examples of suffering; war, starvation and rape. Disease is not their only problem and your arguments and it seems you, do not want to acknowledge that. I think it is best we stick with problems we can truly relate to here, not in a place we can only imagine what it is like. That was CLEARLY my point you deliberately sidestepped. Calling my posts idiotic won't change that. Insult to your heart's content, it only further invalidates your points. I know how to make a point and not be deliberately rude. One can disagree with another and still be civil. Try it some time. I will also add that David, it is nice of you to highlight the chosen quotes you used yet you only chose to respond to the points that suited your agenda, clearly. I could highlight your insults and clear confirmation bias but what's the point? You didn't enter this discussion to truly partake in a constructive manner. Encourage others to mock me if you wish, you'll find I'm not easily intimidated by that behaviour. I think people should remember to think before they write. I am interested to know others' thoughts on the subject but I see no reason why some choose to contribute to just be insulting. You're obviously not winning over anyone... Anyway, I was going to mention that in India apparently polio is on the rise after vaccinations were introduced... Regardless, I'm not here to convince people to not vaccinate their children, I just wanted people to try and see the other arguments and be open to data not widely available in media due to it being unfavourable to vaccine companies etc. It's still surprising how much faith people seem to have in organisations that have been so deceitful and unscrupulous in the past. Perhaps I am more suspicious, but why shouldn't I be? Would you trust a government that knowingly sends vaccinations they won't use on their own children abroad to use on 'foreign' children? That makes me angry and sad for the families who have suffered. I have read from many doctors that they think vaccination injuries are a necessary 'sacrifice' for the 'greater good'. Very few seem to think we owe those children anything for being unwilling 'sacrifices'. (I believe one sacrifices oneself so a child is not a willing participant). Most it seems, think otherwise, which is why vaccination victims have been discredited, shunned and purposely had their voices silenced...is that right? Spare a thought for these people, or do you think there are no vaccination victims (those that have adverse reactions)? Some do. Some people even deny their existence. Anyone heard of Dr. Offit, champion of mandatory vaccinations in America? The same doctor who thinks a child could have 10,000 vaccinations a day? He must be credible because he believes vaccinations to be totally safe. I read he even upped that number to 100,000. The way some of you have written, it seems like you would get along just fine. I on the other hand, believe you do not sacrifice others; only yourself, otherwise that is truly selfish. I think that Saffron posted a link to an article that has been circulating around the Internet and I came across one woman's take on it. There have been claims that the post Saffron provided a link to is a hoax written by a CDC employee to use as 'pro vaccine' propaganda and apparently doctors are handing it out to patients as a kind of justification for vaccinations, like it's proof. Obviously, as Saffron pointed out, personal accounts are just that; personal accounts. Don't simply be swayed by them alone, regardless of your views on vaccinations. http://www.modernalternativemama.com/blog/2014/01/10/growing-up-unvaccinated-scary-potential-or-healthy-reality/#.UubUe1NFBPG Please bear in mind that I am not posting it as an authoritative view. It is simply one woman's take on the article. She is trying to shed light on it. She raises some interesting points. I also appeal to people to stop assuming people who don't vaccinate their children are therefore 'crazy' or 'selfish' we are not. That is offensive to say and you know it. I am annoyed by it because it shows that the propaganda has won many people over. A differing opinion does not render someone idiotic, as others would have you believe.

I did think root was trolling before, hence my 'protip'. If they won't be serious (by being rude), why should I think they want to be taken seriously? Remember, you wouldn't say these things to me in person as it's far easier to do it online. Apparently people dob't know what MRSA stands for or why it isn't easy to treat and they also don't believe that there are illnesses resistant to antibiotics... You were trivialising the many, many, problems in Africa as if only vaccinations could or would help; they won't. I have not trivialised anything. I have given true examples of suffering; war, starvation and rape. Disease is not their only problem and your arguments and it seems you, do not want to acknowledge that. I think it is best we stick with problems we can truly relate to here, not in a place we can only imagine what it is like. That was CLEARLY my point you deliberately sidestepped. Calling my posts idiotic won't change that. Insult to your heart's content, it only further invalidates your points. I know how to make a point and not be deliberately rude. One can disagree with another and still be civil. Try it some time. I will also add that David, it is nice of you to highlight the chosen quotes you used yet you only chose to respond the points that suited your agenda, clearly. I could highlight your insults and clear confirmation bias but what's the point? You didn't enter this discussion to truly partake in a constructive manner. Encourage others to mock me if you wish, you'll find I'm not easily intimidated by that behaviour. I think people should remember to think before they write. I am interested to know others' thoughts on the subject but I see no reason why some choose to contribute to just be insulting. You're obviously not winning anyone... Anyway, I was going to mention that in India apparently polio is on the rise after vaccinations were introduced... Regardless, I'm not here to convince people to not vaccinate their children, I just wanted people to try and see the other arguments and be open to data not widely available in media due to it being unfavourable to vaccinate companies etc. It's still surprising how much faith people seem to have in organisations that have been so deceitful and unscrupulous in the past. Perhaps I am more suspicious, but why shouldn't I be? Would you trust a government that knowingly sends vaccinations they won't use on their children abroad to use on 'foreign' children? That makes me angry and sad for the families who have suffered. I have read from many doctors that they think vaccination injuries are a necessary 'sacrifice' for the 'greater good'. Very few seem to think we owe those children anything for being unwilling 'sacrifices'. (I believe one sacrifices oneself so a child is not a willing participant). Most it seems, think otherwise, which is why vaccination victims have discredited, shunned and purposely had their voices silenced...is that right? Sapre a thought for these people, or do you think there are no vaccination victims (those that have adverse reactions)? Some do. Some people even deny that there are even people who I think that Saffron posted a link to an article that has been circulating around the Internet and I came across one woman's take on it. There have been claims that the post Saffron provided a link to is a hoax written by a CDC employee to use as 'pro vaccine' propaganda and apparently doctors are handing it out to patients as a kind of justification for vaccinations, like it's proof. Obviously, as Saffron pointed out, personal accounts are just that; personal accounts. Don't simply be swayed by them alone, regardless of your views on vaccinations. http://www.modernalternativemama.com/blog/2014/01/10/growing-up-unvaccinated-scary-potential-or-healthy-reality/#.UubUe1NFBPG Please bear in mind that I am not posting it as an authoritative view. It is simply one woman's take on the article. She is trying to shed light on it. She raises some interesting points, I think. I have copied the text and posted it also. I also appeal to people to stop assuming people who don't vaccinate their children are therefore 'crazy' or 'selfish' we are not. That is offensive to say and you know it. I am annoyed by it because it shows that the propaganda has won many people over. A differing opinion does not render someone idiotic, as others would have you believe. "There is a pro- vaccination article circulating the internet right now. You may have seen it ? most people have. It was originally published at ?Voices for Vaccines,? and later republished on Slate, Jezebel, and several smaller blogs. The blogosphere is abuzz with this story. It?s called ?Growing Up Unvaccinated.? There are two general thoughts about it right now: Good, finally. Maybe all those silly anti-vax people will finally listen and get their kids vaccinated. and This is pure propaganda nonsense. Who is she kidding? You can drive a Mac Truck through the holes in this story. I can?t prove one way or another if the story was real. Maybe it was. Or maybe it is only propaganda. Here is the most important thing to remember, though: this is one woman?s story and opinion. It is not science. It is not data. It is not a reason to make a decision on this very important issue. Anecdotes from either side are just that: anecdotes. Ignore them. Why All The Fuss? For some reason, many people who strongly believe in vaccines are very fond of saying ?The plural of anecdote is not data,? and they immediately dismiss any story about vaccine reactions or any anecdote that may be ?anti-vax? no matter how many there are. Yet, they?re spreading this story as far and wide as possible. They?re championing it. What a great story! What a great way to get peoples? attention! It should be understood that everyone, regardless of their opinion on a topic, will naturally side with information that confirms what they believe, and will be naturally critical of information that goes against what they believe. It is called confirmation bias. That is exactly what is happening here. The people sharing the story don?t seem to understand that they are engaging in this behavior; if they do, they don?t care. Since I?m not a fan of emotional manipulation and attempts to force people into making certain medical decisions, I?m going to break the article down and explain why so many are angry about it. I?ll point out all the sections that have raised questions or concerns and explain why they have. Then I?ll leave it to you to decide whether you believe this story or not, as well as ? as always ? what decision on vaccines is right for your family. I don?t abide by bullying?and that?s what this was (or at least, that?s how it?s being used). Breaking Down the Story My goal is to share several inconsistencies as well as simply incorrect or abusive statements. I was brought up on an incredibly healthy diet: no sugar til I was one, breastfed for over a year, organic homegrown vegetables, raw milk, no MSG, no additives, no aspartame. Aspartame wasn?t approved in the UK until 1982, and wasn?t used in many popular products until the late 80s. The author, according to her bio, was born in 1976. It wouldn?t have been an issue for the author, very likely, since it wasn?t really in common use until she was older. ?I would?ve killed for white, shop-bought bread in my lunch box once in a while and biscuits instead of fruit like all the other kids. This statement sets up resentment towards the parents ? implying that parents who offer their kids a healthy diet are doing them a disservice, that their children will rebel, and dismissing the impact that a healthy diet has on a person?s overall health. As healthy as my lifestyle seemed, I contracted measles, mumps, rubella, a type of viral meningitis, scarlatina, whooping cough, yearly tonsillitis, and chickenpox, some of which are vaccine preventable. In my twenties I got precancerous HPV? There were no vaccines for most of these illnesses. Only measles, mumps, rubella, and whooping cough. Viral meningitis, scarlatina, tonsillitis, chicken pox, and HPV did not have vaccines at this time. Mixing these illnesses all together in a long list makes it look scarier than it really is. Vaccines, even if they work as intended, do not prevent against other illnesses (like tonsillitis). Some parents believe that they do, but this is simply false. HPV is a sexually-transmitted disease that can be prevented by abstinence, safe sex practices, and regular pap smears. ?mummy might have cancer before it was safely removed. I can?t help but note that the author overcame all the illnesses she faced. She did not have any complications, lasting damage, and obviously did not die. She doesn?t even mention any hospitalizations (until age 21, which was not for a vaccine-preventable illness) ? so they couldn?t have even been that bad. So having the ?natural immunity sterilised out of us? just doesn?t cut it for me. How could I, with my idyllic childhood and my amazing health food, get so freaking ill all the time? This statement implies that the steps her mother took ? alternative health and good food ? were (are) useless to prevent disease, and that vaccines are the only (best) solution. It casts doubt on relying on a healthy lifestyle. (Although, again ? she may have gotten sick ? but she came through just fine! Could that have been because of her lifestyle?) My two vaccinated children, on the other hand, have rarely been ill, have had antibiotics maybe twice in their lives, if that (not like me who got so many illnesses which needed treatment with antibiotics that I developed a resistance to them, which led me to be hospitalized with penicillin-resistant quinsy at 21?you know that old fashioned disease that killed Queen Elizabeth I and which was almost wiped out through use of antibiotics. Ah, there it is. Vaccines are the solution. They prevent (all) illness. But, wait a minute ? she developed resistance to antibiotics by the age of 21? Most ?super crunchy? parents do not get antibiotics very often, if at all. They use natural remedies to treat. So why did she have antibiotics all that often? Either her parents weren?t really crunchy, or they are trying to say that when natural remedies ?inevitably? fail, people fall back to using antibiotics (apparently frequently). Casting more doubt on using natural remedies. As for quinsy, it occurs when you don?t treat strep throat (but wait ? didn?t she have antibiotics a lot? wasn?t it treated?), it did not kill the queen, who was 70 years old (in the 1600s, when this age was extremely old). It?s also extremely uncommon because strep throat is usually treated early on. These are simply a bunch of false statements to make antibiotics look like major champions and natural remedies look useless. I struggle to understand why I know far more people who have experienced complications from preventable childhood illnesses than I have EVER met with complications from vaccines. I have friends who became deaf from measles. I have a partially sighted friend who contracted rubella in the womb. My ex got pneumonia from chickenpox. A friend?s brother died from meningitis. The most likely explanation for the first statement ? that she hasn?t met anyone with complications from vaccines ? is that it isn?t something people talk about. Plus, vaccines weren?t that commonly used until the late 80s in the UK, so cases of these illnesses were more common and vaccine reactions, obviously less common. It certainly isn?t something the media talks about. But it?s everywhere. As for the other illnesses, these complications are, in fact, rare. Knowing a few people who did have complications doesn?t mean that they are actually that common. ?anecdotes are the anti-vaccine supporter?s way. 100% incorrect and insulting. There is a wide body of scientific evidence to support the notion that vaccines may not be as safe as believed, and that there may even be benefits to catching some of these diseases. Anyone who says this clearly hasn?t done a thorough search into the anti-vaccine science and is attempting to discredit the entire notion. There are even doctors and researchers in prominent positions who have spoken out and asked for more research into vaccine safety, but the have been ignored. (Bernadette Healy, for one.) I was studying homeopathy, herbalism and aromatherapy; I believed in angels, witchcraft, clairvoyants, crop circles, aliens at Nazca, giant ginger mariners spreading their knowledge to the Aztecs, the Incas and the Egyptians and that I was somehow personally blessed by the Holy Spirit with healing abilities. I was having my aura read at a hefty price and filtering the fluoride out of my water. I was choosing to have past life regressions instead of taking anti-depressants. I was taking my daily advice from tarot cards. I grew all my own veg and made my own herbal remedies. I was so freaking crunchy that I literally crumbled. It was only when I took control of those paranoid thoughts and fears about the world around me and became an objective critical thinker that I got well. It was when I stopped taking sugar pills for everything and started seeing medical professionals that I began to thrive physically and mentally. This entire paragraph is nonsense. It?s mixing ?normal? things ? like being cautious about fluoride in water (which, by the way, the vast majority of the UK doesn?t even have) ? with ?out there? things like tarot cards and clairvoyants. It?s subtly suggesting that anyone who believes in anything natural is basically crazy and believes in magic, not solid, science-based natural options. It also suggests that herbal and natural remedies are ?sugar pills? and that this sort of natural life is driven by paranoid, irrational fears. Where to even start? I can?t. It?s simply nonsense. Perhaps she had these issues (some have said she?s been diagnosed with bipolar), but this is not how most people who choose a natural lifestyle think. If you think your child?s immune system is strong enough to fight off vaccine-preventable diseases, then it?s strong enough to fight off the tiny amounts of dead or weakened pathogens present in any of the vaccines. This is a red herring. Nobody who chooses not to get vaccines does so because they think their child can?t handle the antigens. They are concerned about the other ingredients in vaccines ? a fact that almost all pro-vax people intentionally ignore. Injecting aluminum (injecting, not consuming orally, which is very different) into a tiny body is very concerning. The actual antigens are not. Don?t teach your child to be self serving and scared of the world in which it lives and the people around him/her. And teach them to LOVE people with ASD or any other disability for that matter, not to label them as damaged. This is calling all parents who don?t vaccinate selfish. And saying that by saying that children with ASD need to ?recover? from vaccine damage (which many mothers do believe), is labeling them negatively. I don?t have a vaccine-injured child, but I can only imagine how heartbreaking it is to read these words if you do have one. ?knowingly exposing your child to childhood illnesses is cruel; even without complications these diseases aren?t exactly pleasant. No, they?re not. But neither are potential vaccine complications. No parent wants to see their child suffer, but they have to weigh the risks and benefits of any choice so that they can do what is right for them. Parents who choose not to vaccinate don?t do it so that they can get their kids sick. And if their kids do get sick (no matter what they have), they don?t leave them to suffer, they offer comfort measures! This is?implying parents are heartless and don?t really love their children if they don?t vaccinate, which is ridiculous. Those of you who have avoided childhood illnesses without vaccines are lucky. You couldn?t do it without us pro-vaxxers. Once the vaccination rates begin dropping, the less herd immunity will be able to protect your children. The more people you convert to your anti-vax stance, the quicker that luck will run out. Another appeal to herd immunity, and a subtle threat to vaccinate ?or else.? Most people who don?t vaccinate don?t believe in herd immunity and are not afraid of these illnesses. On a personal note, my kids have had rubella, pertussis (including the baby) and likely mumps, and we have had no issues. Nothing scary. No complications. Not even a visit to the doctor. Kids can, and do, come through these illnesses with no problems. The Bottom Line There have been wild accusations flying around, accusing the author of actually being an employee at the CDC. I can?t find anything to confirm that. And you know, maybe it is just one mom?s heartfelt, fervent story. Maybe she did have a terrible, illness-ridden childhood and she now believes vaccines are the answer. And that?s okay. What isn?t okay is the way her words are being used. They?re being used to judge and shame parents. They?re being held up as an example of what will happen if you don?t vaccinate your children. They?re being regarded as some sort of universal truth. That is terrible. One person?s story is one person?s story. Nothing more or less. It may jumpstart your desire to research an issue, but it shouldn?t push you into a decision. And anyone who would send you such an article and then tell you that you should make a decision because of it is wrong, and to be ignored. (I know some people send it out of concern, like ?hey, did you see this?? and that?s okay. It?s the people that say ?See, you were wrong, here.? that?s bad.)"

Easy to label it 'bonkers' than to consider its content. That's how people are these days or I suppose how they've always been; ridiculing what they cannot or willnot understand. Just for the record; I am very openminded. My disagreeing with your opinion does not render me closedminded. Only one with a narrow mind would think that. I had doubts previously and I considered both sides, then I made my decision. Of course, I don't have to justify anything to any of you. Anyway, for a so called bonkers post it had better punctuation than your one liner.

I didn't write that it was an epidemic however I do believe it is a problem if people who eat it regularly build up arsenic in their body. There could be long term health effects. Actually it's meant to be due to the rice fields originally being used to grow cotton that was sprayed with inorganic arsenic; which is a problem. Some brown rice tested had 50 times the recommended allowance. I think it depends how often you eat it I suppose. I think not everyone is aware of this, you write as if people normally look closely into food and nutrition. I personally think it a necessity these days in the UK, though I know many who are most uninterested.

I actually was thinking of another link I had that I didn't post when I wrote about the doctor. The supplements are to help improve people's poor diets along with eating better... Anyway, his articles are sound and well referenced. It's interesting that no one challenged the figures on vaccinated people still getting illnesses they were vaccinated for... The only decision that affects the wider group is made by the parents of vaccinated children; it's their children likely to pass on the diseases to non vaccinated children. I am indeed worried by this. There is a great under reportage of those adversely affected by vaccinations so the true number is not known. It is not selfish to not want your child injected with toxins not proven to strengthen their immunity. Anyone can say 'they shouldn't have children'. The truth will be plain to see for all one day. My niece has had vaccinations and had adverse reactions to them before. Vaccinations are essentially drugs; of which she has a history of bad reactions to. Her doctors refused to record this until we threatened to complain. Our belief is that she ought never to have been given the 'swine' flu vaccination. People's faith in vaccinations is largely based on lies and cover ups they are fed and duped into believing. How many people actually read the statistics of illness among vaccinated populations? It's higher than it should be if what we've been told is supposed to be true. The diseases around now are the man made mutated versions, not the old versions that were virtually eradicated before vaccinations were so widespread. Yes, people die in Africa, not just 'sub Saharan' Africa, of diseases, have you been there? Have you seen the conditions people live in? So you think vaccinations will be their saviour? How about plentiful food and clean water? How about freedon from war, torture and rape? Who are we to trivialise their lives and their suffering? People die of starvation. Shall we vaccinate them too? It's easy for us to say how bad it is in Africa yet not look at the situation in our own country. Are we the healthiest country in Europe? No more obesity, heart disease or cancer, is that right? I believe penicillin was a true success story, until we used and abused antibiotics and created 'superbugs' go figure! Yay science!! Roots, obviously your intention isn't to convince me of vaccinations being good. The government sly threats are no 'conspiracy theories' they have a nice history of underhand behaviour. Protip: insulting and offending people won't get them to respect you or anything you say. Also, I'm not a Christian. I follow the Ryukyu traditional religion (somewhat similar to Shinto). I'm not sure we have doctrine that reads the Earth is 6000 years old or about these 'evolutionary theories' you write of, awkward... (Your trolling is half amusing, sometimes...) Anyway, you're just writing bland statements that you'd not say in person unless you knew how to run, fast. I will acknowledge that this thread has turned more into a discussion about vaccinations in general as opposed to a MMR and autism link thread. I think that there is enough compelling evidence, worldwide that there is a link, however big or small, however MMR is not the only dangerous vaccination. Wakefield originally stated that the triple vaccination was dangerous and children should be given them singularly. The government's response? About six months later, following public demand for the single vaccines, they withdrew it! I won't post a link; do the research yourself. Find out for yourself how unscrupulous, deceitful and immoral the government is. Learn how they shipped a dangerous vaccination over to Brazil, after it had been recalled in the UK over safety concerns, and children got sick! Let's not forget that GlaxoSmithKline were given indemnity by the UK government so charges may not be brought against them... Oh yes, I have perfect trust in vaccinations the government 'recommends' for my children. The British government: it's profits before people. I am confident that I am not adversely affecting children around me by not having my children vaccinated. I have read enough, offline (as is in library books, reports obtained under freedom of information acts etc.) as well as online (both from laypeople and medical professionals) and talked to a whole host of individuals. I know, full well, without a shadow of a doubt, I made the right, ethical and moral choice. I would never knowingly limit my children's immune systems and neither would the rest of you; if you only knew.

I have read, just recently, about arsenic being found in rice. The problem is supposed to be worse in brown, which my family eat. I read also that arsenic was found in baby rice... This has shocked me and increased my distrust of the food industry. Have any of you heard about this? This is apparently a worldwide problem. I've read suggestions on how to reduce arsenic intake by food preparation with others writing to simply reduce or eliminate rice from your diet. My family eat a lot of rice so I am quite concerned... Here are some links: http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2012/09/getting-arsenic-out-your-and-your-kids-diet http://consumerreports.org/cro/arsenicinfood.htm http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/04April/Pages/Arsenicinbabyrice.aspx It seems that organic and non organic rice is affected.

Yes, I should add my decision is not related to Wakefield either. I think people should stop citing him as if he is the only one to question the safety of vaccinations; he isn't. I personally know doctors who do not vaccinate their children and have noticed the children they see most often were vaccinated. TE44, you might be interested to read this article about swine flu: http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/swine/swine-flu/ there was said to be mercury in the vaccination. Apparently swine flu was just a variant of 'regular' flu. My niece was actually vaccinated for this and went on to get flu for the first time in her life. She was ill for weeks and also got tonsillitis. Both her and my sister belive it was due to the vaccination. My sister was upset that her daughter was encouraged to have this by a nurse when told of her daughter's blood enzyme deficiency (she has a hereditary disorder that does not normally affect her and doctors have said her immune system is strong). It's also telling that the Vaccine Damage Payment of up to ?120,000 could affect you receiving benefits such as working tax credit, child tax credit and income support. That's nice of the government, isn't it? Let's deter people from claiming compensation for being injured by their sanctioned drugs by threatening to take away their benefits. Well, they are drugs, so I suppose there was always a risk, wasn't there?

I'm not sure anyone claimed 'improved conditions' eradicated anything. They did however contribute to lower incident rates. Diseases have cycles. The outbreak of measles at the moment is said not to be the same strain of decades ago. Diseases do mutate, continuously so much so medicines cannot keep up; hence flu vaccinations being largely ineffective in actually preventing flu. The same strain is administered in each vaccination yet flu has been observed to have over a thousand mutations within a single person. In my view, my children are at greater risk of illness by being vaccinated. We can't protect them against everything however giving them the best start in life we can do, if we want to. Vaccinations won't improve my children's immune systems. Unfortunately most people believe the misinformation, lies and cover ups in media and health organisations. I'm in favour of optimum health; vaccinations won't contribute to that. People aren't able to make a fair 'risk assessment' due to not haveing all the available data. If they saw the true statistics, they would reconsider; vaccinations increase the chances of getting ill. I wouldn't risk my children's future health on a temporary 'fix' filled with toxins pumped into their bloodstreams their bodies wouldn't have a fair chance to reject. That's what I call risky. I know I have made the right decision and their good health is due, in part, to this (I know other factors count e.g. breastfeeding and fresh, healthy food, exercise etc.). Hellosailor, thank you for those links. I find that interesting too. They have an equivalent in America too and since the 1980s have paid out over $2,000,000,000 in compensation to families adversely effected by vaccinations. That's not pocket change.

I urge people to read this article on Mercola.com and consider what it means. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/08/18/vaccine-myths.aspx What I find most telling is the truth that so called disease 'outbreaks' or 'pandemics' such as measles have been found in largely, in some cases fully, vaccinated areas! Remember, diseases have 'cycles'. They can come, go, and then come back again. Disease rates fell previously, before the introduction of vaccinations yet they have since increased in vaccinated populations. Also watch the video on the third page. Would you dismiss her and countless other mothers whose children were severely effected or killed by vaccinations as nonsense or 'scaremongering' even? Are they 'crazies'? Really? So health organisations and government agencies telling you that measles seriously harms your child and could kill them isn't scaremongering yet in the same breath NOT inform you of the disease outbreaks being in areas of vaccinated people and those that went onto get measles were more than likely already vaccinated? Now that is both shocking and scary! Let's also not forget deceitful. Root, what you wrote is most incorrect. Only one who has not thoroughly researched vaccinations, their true efficacy, history, politics and of course 'followed the money' yet blindly believe them to be totally safe and risk free because 'everyone does it' is truly ignorant. I pity them and those arrogant enough to write what you did. In my view, autism is not the biggest concern; it is the likelihood of my children going onto contract the very illness they were supposedly 'immunised' against. People who talk of measles being back say it as if most people don't vaccinate their children; they do! Yet, it's still back... Please, don't believe the medical guarantees. The only guarantee I know of is that the vaccine manufacturers are very wealthy indeed. I am from Japan. In the 1970s they raised the vaccination age from 2 months old to 2 years old over fears of SIDS and there was a decrease... We know that we don't have the full picture but it does seem very likely that vaccinations do not protect children, or even adults from disease; they may even be the cause of them going onto develop it. Children are meant to get ill from time to time, they recover and their immune system is better for it. Of course, some children are more predisposed to illness than others. In my view, those are the children most adversely effected by being formula fed rather than receiving their mother's milk. In those cases, their best defence is excellent nutrition and these days that is hard to find here I think. Another point that is important to note is that this so called 'herd immunity' is a myth. It is a lie. If it existed we would never have seen disease outbreaks in 100% vaccinated populations. Vaccinations only give temporary benefits, if any, I have read. The community I am from has low vaccination rates and we have low childhood illness and infant mortality rates. I will also write that previously this was not the case when we were much poorer, lived in cramped, over crowded homes, and were less educated about hygiene (I am told). However, we still lived longer, healthier lives on average than the rest of Japan and we still do... My point is, once we had better standards of living our quality of life naturally improved. Is that not similar to the case in England before vaccinations? The incident rates were decreasing; naturally. Amazing, right? If anyone is interested in reading articles related to vaccinations and health in general, I would recommend Dr. Tim O'Shea's website: http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/chapters/ his articles are very informative and well referenced and he is an actual doctor. I think people should really start opening their eyes and start looking into things more deeply. Don't rely on the government and supposedly well meaning health organisations to make the 'right' decisions about you and your family's health. Remember; follow the money. Who paid for the research? Did the doctor explain what to look out for in case of an adverse reaction? Do you not think they should? 'Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labour; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.' Samuel Johnson

El Pibe, I'm not sure the 'idea of incest' being revolting is 'genetically inbuilt'. Ancient societies, such as the Egyptians, had incest as a part of their culture. Similarly the ancient Greeks had the practice of pederasty as a part of their culture. It's only social influence/indoctrination and such that would make consumption of the afterbirth revolting. If we were raised in a society that had this practice as a normal, regular occurence, we would likely think nothing of it. However, I'm not sure how incest compares to placentophaghy. I think that the incidence of placenta placebo effect likely exists. That's how I tend to view any perceived/reported benefits of eating placenta, especially in capsule form. If people are open to believing these capsules will have a positive benefit and they do; is that bad? No; I am a believer in positive thinking bringing about positive outcomes. Similarly I could believe that eating an apple a day truly will keep the doctor away and not get ill. Either way, would we definitively be able to tell if it was the belief itself or the food or maybe both that brought benefits? Does it even matter? All I know is I rarely see the doctor and I do like my apples...