BCG Vaccination - At Birth (UK) - Blamed on Immigration

Recently my partner found out that she was pregnant with out second child. She went for her first Midwife appointment and was given all her paperwork etc and the "drills" regarding blood testing and scans etc were explained.

Since this is our second child in 3 years, we already knew the information but to our surprise we were informed of a new practice that wasn't around in 2009 at the birth of our first child, and its being blamed on immigration.

The new procedure is that ALL newborns are given the BCG vaccine for TB. The midwife explained that this would be given no later than 6 hours after birth and that it would leave scarring on the child but its OK to give it at that young an age because the child doesn't really feel pain. My partner (who is a Pediatric Nurse) asked why the rules have changed. Prior to this, here in the UK, the BCG vaccine was given to children when at school, around the age of 11-14. The midwife explained that the rate of increase of cases of TB in the UK had risen so much due to mixed parental parents i.e. Asians, Europeans, Africans etc and that TB was being taken over here by immigrants and it was becoming a serious issue. She the proceeded to ask my partner is she and I would consent to this and my partner said no. My partner explained that we both feel that the Vit K injection at birth is sufficient and that we'd rather not inject our child with the BCG at such an early age.

I was shocked to say the least that this new procedure has been introduced. With this information and notion, i decided to do some research.

BACKGROUND: In most tuberculosis (TB) endemic countries, bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is usually given around birth to prevent severe TB in infants. The neonatal immune system is immature. Our hypothesis was that delaying BCG vaccination from birth to 10 weeks of age would enhance the vaccine-induced immune response.

METHODS: In a randomized clinical trial, BCG was administered intradermally either at birth (n=25) or at 10 weeks of age (n=21). Ten weeks after vaccination, and at 1 year of age, vaccine-specific CD4 and CD8 T cell responses were measured with a whole blood intracellular cytokine assay. RESULTS: Infants who received delayed BCG vaccination demonstrated higher frequencies of BCG-specific CD4 T cells, particularly polyfunctional T cells co-expressing IFN-gamma, TNF-alpha and IL-2, and most strikingly at 1 year of age.

CONCLUSIONS: Delaying BCG vaccination from birth to 10 weeks of age enhances the quantitative and qualitative BCG-specific T cell response, when measured at 1 year of age

Source

Now, unless I'm wrong, i didn't realise the UK was in an epidemic state with TB. This information also states that evidence suggests that giving the BCG vaccine at 10 weeks is more beneficial to the efficiency of the vaccine...so why give it at birth?

BCG vaccine is given at birth "to babies who are more likely to come into contact with Tuberculosis than the general population."

From Wikipedia

Now there are NO mixed marriages or children in my family, nor do we have any friends with mixed parents. Our risk is NOT any greater than the general public's. So why are they taking this stance? What do the NHS know that we don't?

The BCG vaccine is thought to offer protection for around 15 years. But it is not effective for everyone. In the UK, only around two thirds of those who receive the vaccination are believed to be protected. Some trials have suggested protection could be as low as 30%

Does this mean my child will need a second shot at school when he/she is 15?

Source

What are your thoughts on this? Can the NHS take the stance that this procedure is based on immigration into the UK? All i can say is thank goodness the NHS require parental permission here in the UK before they can do these things...

NHS BCG Information For New-Borns

reply to post by jrmcleod


:sigh: when will we be rid of the creeping fungus like creeps with their poisons cough vaccines why can't they just drop dead and leave humanity alone?

Vaccines: Pre-Industrial Age Quackery Posing As Modern Science gnosis474.blogspot.com...

at the risk of being accused of being a shivering paranoid by the pajama people [or even yourself]
since it's supposed to be related to immigration,
might i suggest the real purpose of injecting something into your soon to be newborn is to fit the child with one of these:

Efficacy
In the world's largest and only double-blind vaccine trial of BCG vaccine in India, the incidence of TB was higher in the vaccinated group then in the control group.
The New Scientist wrote: "the world's biggest trial to assess the value of BCG tuberculosis vaccine has made startling revelation that the vaccine does not give any protection against bacillary forms of tuberculosis." (5)

The Lancet (14 March 1992) also carried out a study of 83,000 people who had been vaccinated against TB and concluded that they could find no statistically significant protection by the BCG vaccine against tuberculosis. (6) Holland does not have a BCG programme, and they have the lowest TB death rate in Europe. (5)

They don't know how or if it works
In the book `Vaccines' by Plotkin and Mortimer, under the heading `Efficacy of Bacille Calmette-Guerin' it states:
"The true effectiveness of BCG vaccine has been debated for decades. Large clinical trials from the 1930's and through the 1970's yielded wide ranging and conflicting results, demonstrating efficacy from 0 to 80%. The most recent trial in India only served to continue the argument".even after years of study and debate, the question `does BCG work?' cannot be answered definitely."

Also:
"The exact immune response elicited by BCG vaccination and its mechanism of action within the host are not well understood"..Studies of the immunological events that occur within the human host after BCG vaccination are almost totally lacking".both animal data and human clinical studies have provided information about the immune response to BCG, yet no vaccine so widely used is so little known about its mechanisms of action.
The immunology is complicated and development of an assay has been hampered by the lack of understanding".given our incomplete understanding of tuberculosis immunology, we are left with imperfect indicators of immunity." (12)

Side effects
Rash, fever, local induration, pain and lymphadenopathy, discharging ulcer, abcess formation, anaphylactic shock, lymphadenitis, difficulty in breathing, nausea, vomiting, phlyctenular conjunctivitis, draining sinuses, death.
In 1930, 73 children were killed by BCG vaccine in a few months. A book by Dr. Neville Irvine, "BCG Vaccination in Theory and Practice" reports of this disaster.

There had been a similar number of deaths in Spain when the Association of Spanish Pediatricians told their members not to use the vaccine. (7, 8, 9 and 10) A report in the Medical Monitor (June 1992) also stated that the vaccine can give you TB!
"It can cause disseminated TB in immuno-suppressed individuals, including children, and local ulceration and osteitis (wasting away of the bone) appears to be more common in babies."
Complication rates for serious side effects (from the vaccine) were recorded at 3-6 children per 200 (1.5% - 3%). (4)

SOURCE:www.vaclib.org...

please take the time to read both links they include much more info.

Many people do not realize that tuberculosis is unheard of in unvaccinated populations.

"Note: James Phipps, the eight-year-old boy initially vaccinated by Jenner in 1796, was re-vaccinated 20 times, and died at the age of twenty. Jenner's own son, who was also vaccinated more than once, died at twenty-one. Both succumbed to tuberculosis, a condition that some researchers have linked to the smallpox vaccine." [Favez, G, "Tuberculous Superinfection Following a Smallpox Re-Vaccination", Praxis, July 21, 1960; 49:698-699; Ambs, E et al, "Tuberculous Abscess of the Upper Arm With Regional Lymphadenitis as a Consequence of Injection in Two Siblings", Med Klin, July 7, 1967, 62:1050-1054; Eleanor McBean, The Poisoned Needle (Mokelumne Hill, CA : Health Research, 1974) pp. 28-29, 66] (p. 46)

and last but not least i could be wrong but isn't a newborn baby's immune system barely developed ? do you really think injecting Freeze dried attenuated live bacteria wise? perhaps you should consider having your child somewhere else ?

i'm in ireland. babies are given the bcg in the first few months of life. been like this for a long time.

you are then tested around 12-13 to see if you need a booster.

when i was a kid we got tested in school.this is many decades ago. i give off really strong reaction and didn't need anymore. most kids had to get the bcg again. at that age it was agony. the kids were in shock after it. I was never so happy.

i know TB is definitely on the increase here. a lot of media tend to blame folks from abroad bringing it in , but i would have doubts over that, usual fearmongering about foreigners.

it was also appaently fairly rampant in the prison population recently too.

Without getting to technical , the is your child, not theirs, if you do not want it to be vaccinated, say no. It is not possible for them to enforce this on anyone. They will not be able to take the cjhild off of you because the child will not have even been registered on a birth certificate, also i would not register said child to the system either, they say "you must" register the child, "must" actually means"you may" in legalese terms, they are inviting you to register the child, you will be fined after about a year, but it will be around £10 that is all, and you still do not have to do it.

When you register the child, you are relinquishing ownership of it(not that anyone should own the child) but i am assuming that you will be a far better gaurdian than the government will be. Anything you register you do not hold legal title to as it is registered to someone else, your car , house the list is endless, think about it. Also, i have heard of a case where 3 children were removed from a family(probably for the right reasons) and 1 was bought back, purely because they did not have the right to take it as there was no birth certificate.

Anyway, sorry i do not want to blow your mind with all of this, but i know i have refused vaccinations for my children and when asked to write down why, i have just put none of your business. I am firmly of the belief that the majority of vaccinations are not required, i believe it is a good way to get other things into the body system, and at that age, the immune system is not even started yet.

You can u2u me if you want me to point you towards more of this stuff, if not dont worry about it, i hope i have given you my view.

reply to post by jrmcleod


Does this depend on the NHS trust your under? Either that or it's a very recent stance on behalf of the health service. I'm in North West England, Cumbria to be exact. My son was born on the 6th January last year and there was no mention of this.

I wouldn't have allowed them to give him the BCG right after birth. It seems too soon, but like you I was unaware TB was such a problem these days.

reply to post by brommas


Thanks for the info. I have never thought about Birth Certificates in that light before...and that is scary! If you have any further reading on your angle, i'd appreciate it if you could post them or u2u me.

Regarding the vaccines. In the UK i don't need to allow it or write it down that i don't want to give it, i just sign the maternity book.

It really does frighten me that my children or anyone's children could be removed because of non-compliance

Originally posted by Grifter81
reply to post by jrmcleod

 

Does this depend on the NHS trust your under? Either that or it's a very recent stance on behalf of the health service. I'm in North West England, Cumbria to be exact. My son was born on the 6th January last year and there was no mention of this.

I wouldn't have allowed them to give him the BCG right after birth. It seems too soon, but like you I was unaware TB was such a problem these days.

I don't think so...but possibly. Like i said, my partners first midwife appointment was last week so its pretty recent. We are under NHS Grampian in Scotland.

reply to post by jrmcleod


I would have thought if TB was that much of a risk these days the local health trust would be contacting all parents of recently born children as well?

My Neice is pregnant, I will have to ask her if she has heard anything about this from her visits to the midwife. Unless they just drop the bombshell once baby is born?

Also why are they going to blanket vaccinate all babies? Some people are immune, that's why at school we got the prick test (insert joke here ) 2 weeks before, to find out if we actually needed the injection.

It all seems a bit excessive to me.

reply to post by jrmcleod


My sisters baby was given the BCG when she was one,about 5years back,as she was going overseas to visit family.
The doctors said it was the same jab you get in school when you are 12 or so,as their is no "low dose" vaccine for babies.

The poor girl developed asthma within 3 weeks of that jab,and has been hospitalized more than a few times since.
She had never had any chest complaints before that jab.

Now I am not saying the jab is 100% responsible,but I am not saying it wasn't either.

Just do as much research on the BCG first,before you go ahead and have it given to your new born child.
In hindsight,my sister says she would not have given her the jab,as she blames it on the asthma.
Best of luck with your new baby!

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
reply to post by jrmcleod

 

My sisters baby was given the BCG when she was one,about 5years back,as she was going overseas to visit family.
The doctors said it was the same jab you get in school when you are 12 or so,as their is no "low dose" vaccine for babies.

The poor girl developed asthma within 3 weeks of that jab,and has been hospitalized more than a few times since.
She had never had any chest complaints before that jab.

Now I am not saying the jab is 100% responsible,but I am not saying it wasn't either.

Just do as much research on the BCG first,before you go ahead and have it given to your new born child.
In hindsight,my sister says she would not have given her the jab,as she blames it on the asthma.
Best of luck with your new baby!

Just to point out, i will NOT be allowing my child to get it. He/she will get it when his/hers immunity if fully developed.

Sorry to hear about your niece!

here you go.

www.independent.co.uk...

London has the highest TB rate of any capital city

www.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by jrmcleod


I will send you a link to a couple of things via u2u, as for vaccines, dont do it. there are polls around if you google where you can see children who have not been immunized fare alot better with getting illnesses, however bear in mind that children do get sick very often, this is good for them on the whole because they build there immune system correctly.

reply to post by brommas


do you have many kids yourself?

just curious.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


and here is yet another reason to not get the vaccine: it's worthless
just an attempt to cash in on fear and use your kids as guinea pigs

WHO warns of untreatable TB , page 1www.abovetopsecret.com...

the authorities knew about the above long before the info was given to the public waited abit while setting things up for business as usual and will later use the excuse that it's a new kind of TB when vaccinated and non vaccinated alike start contracting it.

reply to post by jrmcleod


So basically they're allowing immigrants in to the Uk without being medically tested.

Last I heard the newborn BCG vaccine was just for the London area, an area well known for having a high proportion of ethnic minorities who have larger families. I assumed this was to damage the ovaries of the newborn females, like the Swine Flu vaccine; they were targeting the London area due to them having races who have larger families

Originally posted by jrmcleod


Recently my partner found out that she was pregnant with out second child. She went for her first Midwife appointment and was given all her paperwork etc and the "drills" regarding blood testing and scans etc were explained.

Since this is our second child in 3 years, we already knew the information but to our surprise we were informed of a new practice that wasn't around in 2009 at the birth of our first child, and its being blamed on immigration.

The new procedure is that ALL newborns are given the BCG vaccine for TB. The midwife explained that this would be given no later than 6 hours after birth and that it would leave scarring on the child but its OK to give it at that young an age because the child doesn't really feel pain. My partner (who is a Pediatric Nurse) asked why the rules have changed. Prior to this, here in the UK, the BCG vaccine was given to children when at school, around the age of 11-14. The midwife explained that the rate of increase of cases of TB in the UK had risen so much due to mixed parental parents i.e. Asians, Europeans, Africans etc and that TB was being taken over here by immigrants and it was becoming a serious issue. She the proceeded to ask my partner is she and I would consent to this and my partner said no. My partner explained that we both feel that the Vit K injection at birth is sufficient and that we'd rather not inject our child with the BCG at such an early age.

I was shocked to say the least that this new procedure has been introduced. With this information and notion, i decided to do some research.

BACKGROUND: In most tuberculosis (TB) endemic countries, bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is usually given around birth to prevent severe TB in infants. The neonatal immune system is immature. Our hypothesis was that delaying BCG vaccination from birth to 10 weeks of age would enhance the vaccine-induced immune response.

METHODS: In a randomized clinical trial, BCG was administered intradermally either at birth (n=25) or at 10 weeks of age (n=21). Ten weeks after vaccination, and at 1 year of age, vaccine-specific CD4 and CD8 T cell responses were measured with a whole blood intracellular cytokine assay. RESULTS: Infants who received delayed BCG vaccination demonstrated higher frequencies of BCG-specific CD4 T cells, particularly polyfunctional T cells co-expressing IFN-gamma, TNF-alpha and IL-2, and most strikingly at 1 year of age.

CONCLUSIONS: Delaying BCG vaccination from birth to 10 weeks of age enhances the quantitative and qualitative BCG-specific T cell response, when measured at 1 year of age

Source

Now, unless I'm wrong, i didn't realise the UK was in an epidemic state with TB. This information also states that evidence suggests that giving the BCG vaccine at 10 weeks is more beneficial to the efficiency of the vaccine...so why give it at birth?

BCG vaccine is given at birth "to babies who are more likely to come into contact with Tuberculosis than the general population."

From Wikipedia

Now there are NO mixed marriages or children in my family, nor do we have any friends with mixed parents. Our risk is NOT any greater than the general public's. So why are they taking this stance? What do the NHS know that we don't?

The BCG vaccine is thought to offer protection for around 15 years. But it is not effective for everyone. In the UK, only around two thirds of those who receive the vaccination are believed to be protected. Some trials have suggested protection could be as low as 30%

Does this mean my child will need a second shot at school when he/she is 15?

Source

What are your thoughts on this? Can the NHS take the stance that this procedure is based on immigration into the UK? All i can say is thank goodness the NHS require parental permission here in the UK before they can do these things...

NHS BCG Information For New-Borns

reply to post by jameshawkings


I'm afraid it isn't solely for the London Area. This is most definitely here in the remote North East of Scotland too.

Not even EXPERTS in that field would profess to fully understand the immune system of newborns, so why the Government has to get involved and tell us why our kids need all these jabs at birth is a mystery to me.

No it isn't. It's all about the money.

Here in Australia, newborns are expected to have around TWENTY vaccinations in their first year of life! (health.gov.au...) And they wonder why SIDS, ADHD, ADD, allergies and autism are all on the rise.

In the 1980s, the average kid received nine jabs by their 11th birthday. Today it is over 30. In the 1980s, autism was around 1 in 10,000. Today it is around (depending on your source) anywhere between 1 in 80 and 1 in 120. A big jump from 10,000 anyway.

And of course, there's the deaths. According to the CDC, thousands of people die each year from adverse reactions to vaccinations. If you accept there is a scale between 'No Adverse Reaction' and 'Death', then, as any statistician will tell you, there is a bell-curve of other reactions in between.

Are vaccinations worth the risk? Personally, I say no.

Diseases like measles were well in declinehere in Australia BEFORE mainstream vaccination began. The government will tell you that vaccinations have eliminate these diseases, where it is more likely due to better sanitation and nutrition.

And finally, if the government was THAT concerned about saving the lives of the 1 in 150,000 that would have died from whooping cough, mumps, measles etc, then SURELY they would totally outlaw smoking?!

Blood tests were done away with thirty years ago in the US. Those of us with RH- blood are expected to know and receive shots . My first grandchild is on it's way and vaccinations are on my mind alot...Thing is , over here we aren't asked and our children can not enter school without them.

Originally posted by jrmcleod
reply to post by jameshawkings

 

I'm afraid it isn't solely for the London Area. This is most definitely here in the remote North East of Scotland too.

Interesting, perhaps it's related to the recent UK Census. It could be linked to employment rates etc i.e. which areas to target for fertility reduction

One thing you can be certain of; the true reason will have nothing whatsoever to do with TB