I have chosen not to have my baby daughter immunised. I have not made this decision lightly. First, I thoroughly researched the immunisation issue.
In my opinion, and that of thousands of others, it is not my child who puts others at risk by not being immunised, but vice versa. It is highly unlikely that my child could infect others, who are supposedly protected by being immunised from the childhood diseases that at one time were a normal part of growing up. How is she going to contract the disease and pass it on if 99.9 per cent of the children in the nursery have been inoculated?
One of the first things people say to me if they discover my daughter has not been immunised is, 'It's a good job we don't all think the same way as you, or these diseases would be rife once more.' Most of the diseases in question are innocuous and if the child's immune system is not attacked by the harmful substances that make up vaccinations, the immune system should be able to deal with the disease quite well on its own. In addition, the immune system becomes stronger each time and the child then has lifelong immunity, which is not the case with vaccinations.
There is no proof that immunisations have reduced diseases. Most people who contract diseases have been immunised. Indeed, there are cases of parents contracting polio from their children who have been recently immunised.
Most of the diseases in question were in decline long before immunisation programmes were introduced. So why are there now new diseases, or diseases on the increase such as autism, leukaemia, childhood cancer, ME, Crohn's disease and meningitis?
I believe if doctors, midwives and health visitors were to give out an equal amount of information on the adverse effects of vaccines, many more would decide against them. But this is unlikely to happen while the Government gives doctors such a financial benefit to implement their heavily-advocated vaccination programme.
