The U.S. federal constitution “constitutes” this federation of states, and describes the relationship of the various states to each other, and also the realtion of the federal governing structure to the states.

So, the federal govt does not have ultimate authority in governance of all topics acruss this federation of states; the states have a range of issues for which each state is sovereign. Again, very similar to E.U.

Some things are stipulated. For those that are not, the constitution notes that all other issues fall to the authority of the individual states. So, the U.S. was set up as a limted governing body, especially, purposefully limited and circumscribed.

One of the areas of governance left to the states is “health.” This includes immunization/ vaccination policy. So, there is no single answer to whether the U.S. requires MMR or not; there are 50 answers. Generally, in many things, the majority if not most or all states, arrive at similar styles of health governance, including the immunization requirements: most require a professionally and federally encouraged set of immunizations along with the prototypical schedule for these.

Whether this is better than the scope and range of the NHS is debatable, but is nonetheless the reality. The good news is that we Americans are thus protected from the tyranny of sweeping “health” efforts – if a president (PM) gets elected that believes immunizations are bad, and has a correspondingly supportive congress (Parliament), they are not able to outlaw immunizations. The Fed govt largely influences state-level health policy through the “carrot” of funding (i.e., states can apply to get money for this or that health effort) rather than the “stick” of federal mandate /fiat.

Well, most readers probably know this, but I wanted to throw this comment in since this is trhe answer regarding the U.S. immunization policy, or lack thereof.

BTW: this also explains why you will soon see the “electoral college” vote for the Pres, not us citizens directly: the citizens vote for whom their state will support for Prez, then this decision affects each state’s electoral college votes, and each state is the unit of voting for prez, as it is the states, not individuals, that will be governed by the fed gov’t.

Now you know more than 95% of us yanks (education also left up to the states).

That would have addressed issues about incomplete protection.

IIRC the vaccine to be used is the cheaper of two by quite a long way but leaves more virus strains uncovered, but I think it will destroy the strains that it is aimed at. And perhaps something better or cheaper again will be available later.

that’s interesting, because as far as i can tell that’s exactly what they do with the Rubella jab. Technically, I suppose they could argue they’re protecting the boys against rubella, but of course everyone knows that rubella is a mild disease, and the real reason for vaccinating is to stop women contracting it while pregnant.

I am not sure why vaccineinformation.org should not be taken seriously. It supports vaccination. These are its partner organisations listed below(see link below) and a link to the board.

http://www.immunize.org/aboutus/advisoryboard.asp
http://www.immunize.org/aboutus/directors.asp

Professional and public health organizations
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Physician Assistants
American College of Nurse-Midwives
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American College of Physicians
American Medical Association
American Nurses Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Pharmacists Association
Division of Viral Hepatitis, National Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC
Emory Vaccine Center, Emory University
Infectious Diseases Society of America
Institute for Vaccine Safety, Johns Hopkins University
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates and Practitioners
National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC
National Medical Association
National Network for Immunization Information
National Vaccine Program Office, HHS
Office of Minority Health, CDC
Pediatric Dengue Vaccine Initiative
Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society
Society for Adolescent Medicine
Vaccine Education Center, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

The comment starting “This is a forum applies to the site below” was meant to apply to the site below the comment and not above it.

Eg this link

http://www.nvic.org/doctors_corner/lawrence_palevsky_aluminum_and_vaccine_ingredients.htm

Now having skimmed some of your aluminium link I have a minuscule understanding of the aluminium issues too. For some reason I had not followed the link earlier. I apologise for that. Had I done so I doubt I would have posted the nvic link.

Thank you for your response

This looks like an informative site on the thimerosal.

http://www.vaccineinformation.org/thimerosal.asp

This is a forum expressing concerns about adjuvants and particularly aluminium. It claims insufficient research…I…would appreciate any informed comment.

I’m sure that people are happy to comment when there is sufficient indication that links that they have previously given have been followed.

In this case, I decline, for that reason. I very much doubt that anyone who followed the abundance of links to further information about aluminium would then present vaccineinformation.org or nvic as sites that should be taken seriously.

Robert Brown anyone can write a book and get it published. However to get a research paper published it has to be peer reviewed. So the conclusions you draw have to supported by your results, you have to asked the right questions and used the proper techniques. Even then results in papers are provisional and they are like swallows, one does not theory make.

So if you have an idea and can’t prove it or even get any sort of decent evidence then, you write a book. So in any such book look to see if there are lots of references to the primary literature (journal of such and such) and not just authored by the book author. Look up the author on PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

and see if they have published primary research papers in the area (ignore those in Review journals). Often eminent people will opine on things outside of their purview (Penrose on consciousness is a good one). Their academic authority when they do is not worth a bean, unless they also have the evidence. Follow the evidence not the Authority.

Based on your response IF thimerosal was ever an issue in the UK it has been sidelined by removal.

This looks like an informative site on the thimerosal.

http://www.vaccineinformation.org/thimerosal.asp

This is a forum expressing concerns about adjuvants and particularly aluminium. It claims insufficient research. The site also asks if over vaccination of children is an issue. I again have insufficient knowledge to form any view, but would appreciate any informed comment.

http://www.nvic.org/doctors_corner/lawrence_palevsky_aluminum_and_vaccine_ingredients.htm

I agree the book just raises questions.

I MADE NO CLAIM in my post. I have no grounds to do so.

I was simply seeking to raise the questions that were being asked in the book and see if any body could throw more light on the subject in the way of information on thimerosal, current UK policy and usage, views on outstanding questions if any etc.

I heard a practicing American Neurosurgeon publicly and unequivocally stating in no uncertain terms there were a number of answered questions as to the impact of additives in vaccines on glial function and oxidation and was curious.

I regrettably do not have time to go and read some of the papers be better informed.

It seems that some at least believe(d)we do not know all the answers yet.http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/suppl-1/11-23clarkson/EHP110s1p11PDF.pdf

Is that significant in the current debate? I am not in a position to form an opinion.

Many thanks

What added products are used in vaccines in the UK? Do they include mercury based products?

Strictly speaking, everything in a vaccine is an added product, including water. However, thiomersal (contains ethylmercury) was removed from UK vaccines some time ago.

At the very least, why not remove mercury and other toxic substances like aluminum, anti-freeze, and formaldehyde as preservatives from vaccinations

Aluminium salts are used as adjuvants, they are not preservatives: without them, the vaccines would not be as effective. Aluminium exposure is ubiquitous. Discussion and lots of links to information about aluminium or aluminium salts in vaccines.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any anti-freeze in vaccines – that’s a misunderstanding.

As for formaldehyde, it is an intrinsic metabolic by-product that is already in our bodies. The amount in a vaccine relative to the amount that is already present in a new-born seems to be neither here nor there.

Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 ml per kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found in an infant’s circulation would be about 1.1 mg — a value at least five-fold greater than that to which an infant would be exposed in vaccines. Second, quantities of formaldehyde at least 600 — fold greater than that contained in vaccines have been given safely to animals.

I’m a neuroscientist too, I can ‘raise questions’ too and it amounts to fuck all just the same.

His interest list as

Transport mechanisms from the periphery into the brain, developmental neurotoxicology, role of metals in neurodegeneration, Gulf War syndrome

Did you look at the book I posted a link to which was raising issues as to the use of thimerosal.

From your comment about WEB science I assume you did not.

This is the book

The Role of Glia in Neurotoxicity
By Michael Aschner, Lucio G. Costa

which raises the issue I highlighted in a considered way. It is authored by a neuroscientist.

Professor of Pediatrics; Professor of Pharmacology; Gray E. B. Stahlman Professor of Neuroscience