josiebee

St Francesca Cabrini's only takes non Roman Catholics if it can't find enough Roman Catholic baptised children to fill its places. The secretary said that for as long as she had been working there (8 years) she wasn't aware of any non-Romans going there. ...a quick edit.....it turns out I am wrong about this...do visit tomorrow!

skip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone had this done locally, know anything > about it, whether it works etc? Worried about the > standard jabs, and wondering whether the > homeopathic route is the answer? Confused The antagonism and anger directed towards people who don't go along entirely with the mainstream view about immunisation is a real eye opener for me. What I see here is a far cry from the description given by the moderator of this site: "My perception is that the family room is a fairly laid-back and welcoming place, where advice sought and given is supportive and constructive." Supportive and constructive as long as you go along with what the majority believe! Here is a limited collection of some of the remarks directed toward those who don't: "sheer breadth and (misplaced) confidence of contemporary crackpot nonsense residing there." "those "who dare question the orthodoxy on immunisation" have put *themselves* in the same brackets as holocaust deniers, no one else" "Some of the opinions expressed here are ignorant, foolhardy, dangerous and irresponsible." "I am putting the analytical skills of those who deny the efficacy or safety of immunisation in the same bracket as holocaust deniers." "against the subjective 'opinion' of a few backed up by flat earth conspiracy theory websites. Subjective opinion doen't really stand up against rigourous scientific evidence except in the minds of those that feel their feelings are somehow as valid as facts...." "What a ridiculous, typical, middle class dilemma: we are so spoilt and whiny that we actually have the luxury of "deciding against" medical advances" "I am really trying not to post further on this thread since it is getting ridiculous but seriously some of these posts are highly irresponsible." Very often the people who question immunisation orthodoxy are people who have had vaccine damaged children and have spent years, not a few evenings, sifting through good and bad material on websites, libraries, medical journals etc in order to find out more about immunisation. Their views are usually based on a lot of research and analysis and they don't deserve to be discredited in the way they are here by a few people who have "opinions", but apparently not a great deal of knowledge on the subject. Personally I am not completely sure where I stand on immunisations and that uncertainty seems to be regarded almost as a crime in itself. However I would for example, really like to see more longitudinal research done comparing the health of equivalent immunised and non-immunised individuals. But in a climate where any questionning of the value of immunisations is so incredibly unpopular it must be very difficult to get the necessary open ended, objective research done.

> > Really? Thanks to a sustained anti-MMR campaign > led by the likes of the Daily Mail, based on no > scientific evidence incidentally, MMR take-up has > dropped to a low enough level that measles has > sprung up again in this area. Measles is not the > cuddly child-friendly illness that the same media > organisations may lead you to believe - it can > kill or lead to permanant brain damage in very > young children. That could be any one of our > pre-MMR age children exposed to this disease. Of > course it is a public issue! Random V - get your facts right - The Daily Mail is on YOUR side - it is pro not anti MMR - please see article "The anti-MMR mothers who are putting us all in danger" by novelist Jonathan Myerson in the Daily Mail 11th August 2008 www.dailymail.co.uk

randomv Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh dearie me. I am really trying not to post > further on this thread since it is getting > ridiculous but seriously some of these posts are > highly irresponsible. Is the best the > anti-vaccine brigade can do to post some random > links to websites that list a series of > unsubstantiated claims? Incidentally, notice how > many of these websites charge you for their > apparently indispensible information..methinks > that greed is not limited to the > pharmaceuticals.. > > Open your eyes people!! If I put up a website > claiming that a fork is a spoon, a cat is a tree > and a car is a book it doesn't make it fact!! > Let's see some real evidence for what you are > saying - not a website put up by AN Other. Facts > are deduced by careful analysis of a range of > information, also taking into account any flaws > there may be in the study, average incidence of > certain outcomes etc etc. > > Antijen et al, are not speaking out. I have taken > the time to read your links, even to look further > into them (with worrying consequences) whereas I > can only assume you have not done the same with my > evidence. So who is narrow-minded? > > I would really urge anybody who is in any doubt to > resist from making very serious decisions with > regards their childs health from the information > provided by holocaust deniers (did I mention the > Aids deniers also on that site?) Isn't holocaust > denial a criminal act? I really didn't want to wade in either because people get so emotional about it. I think immunisations are a wonderful thing and have helped to eradicate some ghastly awful illnesses. However there are issues which need addressing. Firstly the decline is certain diseases is attributed entirely to vaccinations when there are in fact a lot of other improvements in our lifestyles which have helped to reduce the incidence of these terrible illnesses. There is a lot of very well referenced data out there about this and it is important to acknowledge this. It is just as important that poor countries have good drainage, clean water, decent diets as immunisations. However what is also very important is that there is hardly any research on the long term health consequences of a highly immunised society. For example while horrible diseases have virtually disappeared other things have replaced them, terrible allergies, cancer etc. I am not saying that immunisation cause these things. No. But I do think that we should be able to explore the possibility that immunisations could have some negative long term impact on our overall health. If we find out they don't great - if they do then necessary improvements to immunisations can be made or alternatives developed. However there is an immense amount of aggression out there towards anyone who challenges common orthodoxy about immunisations and this all makes doing the necessary research into it very difficult. And I think it needs to be recognised that companies really aren't going to fund research which is going to suggest that there is a problem with any of the products they sell. Another thing I would like to point out is that while on the whole most people can deal with immunisations there are people whose systems do respond very badly and there are people who have died directly as a result of immunisations - sadly many of them. Perhaps you regard this as a necessary price to pay to have an immunised society. However there are with some vaccines tests which can be done to see if children can handle a particular vaccination or not. I think it would be good if there could be a slightly more individualised approach to vaccination and some recognition that some children's systems will be less able to handle them. With regards to the Informed Parent Website http://www.informedparent.co.uk/- there is actually a lot of work involved in producing the newsletter - which I used to subscribe to and I did used to pay a very small some of money for it. There was someone there who was collecting together the articles and putting them into an accessible form and I see absolutely nothing wrong in paying a small amount for this. I think all I would ask for is a slightly more open minded approach toward the question of immunisation so that medical progress and advances can continue. Putting people who dare question the orthodoxy on immunisation into the same bracket as holocaust deniers sort of sums things up.

antijen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html > > Above link shows how vaccines cannot be separated > with greed, control and scare. None of my children > were vaccinated, none of my friends children who > were, were affected by my choice, njc97; why if > you believe that vaccinated children are protected > would they be more at risk. I have no problem with > people choosing to vaccinated there children and I > do not believe the decision is taking lightly, > ????, I believe there is a bigger choice than > scientific and "mumbo jumbo", often put like this > by people who are unable to have respect for other > peoples decisions. randomv, I googled and found > the book as it seems to have different alternative > alongside homeopathy, I believe the goverment give > out misleading info using scare tactics. Anti-jen thank you for speaking out so bravely against immunisation I have researched the area a great deal after my daughter had a bad reaction to the BCG and have arrived at similar conclusions to you. I don't feel like taking on all these arguments but offer my full support to someone who does. There is a reallly good website out there - for anyone else who is interested - it is called The Informed Parent http://www.informedparent.co.uk/ I think basically they collect together various research findings and articles which are emerging on immunisations and make them accessible to people who are interested. Thank you for speaking out.

njc97 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Antijen et al - immunisation should not be a > personal choice. By not immunising your children, > you put other children (even those who have been > immunised) at risk. In fact you are more at risk > being an immunised child in an area with > insufficient rates of immunisation than an > un-immunised child in an area with a high take-up. > I don't mind if you are pro/anti-homeopathy but by > anyone who takes the selfish decision to not > immunise their children should understand the > consquences. Could you explain this a bit more? I don't exactly understand how if you have been immunised then you are at risk in an area of low take up? Surely the whole idea of immunisation is to get rid of risk?

HeidiHi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There does not seems to be private clinic who > offer the jabs separately. I have no problems > paying for it, but according to the NHS website, > these clinics are not licensed and so on. I want > my son to have his jabs but at a pace that I feel > comfortable with in order not to compromise his > immune system since he might inherit a rubbish one > like mine and I don't want it to trigger off > psoriasis in him so I prefer to not overload his > system but as I said, in the UK it does not look > like we have any choices at all, that is my issue, > we should have some choices. I haven't read all these posts but I think you can get the MMR jabs separately from Dr Halvorsen at the Holborn Medical Centre.

I had similar dilemmas about the bcg but eventually went for it when my daughter was 5-6 months old. About six weeks later I found a hard lump on her arm a couple of inches away from the site. We took her to Kings and if I understood correctly the consultant we saw seemed to think this was a lump of TB - I didn't actually understand exactly what he was saying but seemed to be suggesting that she might need to have TB antibiotics if it carried on growing. Fortunately it didn't. However a couple of months after that she developed very TB like symptoms - she was tired all the time, she wouldn't eat, lost a lot of weight, would get temperatures at night, a bad chest etc. It was really scary. This was followed by various appointments at Kings at which another doctor suggested that she might need to have antibiotics against TB. She was given normal antibiotics (with much grief and lots of horrible green poo)and that seemed to clear up whatever she had. She still has a tendency to get coughs and her chest is her most vulnerable area even now. I don't know what the link was between all these symtoms or exactly what the lump in her arm is. However the lump itself is no longer a problem and a doctor friend suggested having it removed only when she was older so that the scar wouldn't keep growing which it would do if we had it removed now. you are welcome to pm me.

HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY!

Excellent idea - you should definately have a cat. In fact it is a good idea not to just have one cat but to have two! I had one cat before and when we we went away we could usually find people who would either stay in our flat or come in and feed him but i did used to feel that he got a bit lonely when we weren't around. Sadly Jesse died last year and we have since got two kittens - who are now big cats and it is lovely seeing them play together and I never worry about them getting lonely. As we live in a flat we don't have the convenience of cat flaps etc but they get used to going out and coming in again when I call them. Issues that need sorting are things like who will look after then when you are on holiday, male cats need to be 'done' otherwise they can stink out the place if they are indoor cats ....and I think that is about it. Go on get one!!! (sorry don't mean to be pushy...just a cat enthusiast)

St Dunstans College in Catford private school well worth having a look at. It may not have the amazing facilities of somewhere like Alleyns, nor such amazing results, but it has very good results and very good facilities and very happy children. It also has a much more socially mixed intake which is good and offers a lot of scholarships and bursuries. The teachers have always seemed competent and friendly and the school has a good feel about it. It is easily accessible from Dulwich. If you are looking for schools for your daughters it is definately worth checking out. It also does the international baccalaureate in sixth form which I think is a very good option. If you have any more queries about it you can pm me.

"I think child benefit should stop after the 2nd or 3rd child - no-one needs more than three and I don't want to have to pay for the child greedy! Although I think there would need to be a provision for people who have twins, triplets etc. because that isn't planned choice." "I also think that child benefit should be stopped after the 2nd child for those who received it. But that's me!" The logic behind stopping child benefit at 2 kids seems to be - 'we have access to contraception etc so why should the tax payer have to fund those who want to have kids at over replacement level'...by the same logic surely the the tax payer shouldn't have to pay for the accommodation of those who want to have more than 2 kids? Another possible saving for the government or is that different?

Hello legalbeagle there is a website directgov - here is the link http://schoolsfinder.direct.gov.uk/ and you type in your post code and it tells you. But I think that does it as the crow flies cause it's a lot shorter. I also emailed southwark council - a contact from their website - they told me they do it by walking distance and they don't used shortcuts (so for example I live on a council estate and they would measure me walking along the road rather than through the estate ) and I seriously think they also take into consideration how high up you are! Anyway they gave me the much longer distance I just noticed all the other replies about whether it is as the crow flies or walking - I just don't know what's true...

I have heard that last year Goodrich and Heber didn't accept children beyond about 600 metres. Was that just an exception last year or has this been the case for a few years? At a walking distance of 1079 Goodrich is my nearest school (apart from St Anthonys and I'm not Roman Catholic), then Heber and I want to know if my daughter has any chance of getting of getting into either of them. She has no siblings at the school.

I don't understand your reference - I don't have a lawn - I live in a council flat!