MMR, do you or don't you?

[Ruth_Baldock]

single vaccines is meant to be a lot more painful and damaging, actually.

The way I see it: Autism linked > disproved. Measles/Mumps/Rubella can all kill a child. Therefore it's a no brainer.

I am extremely nervous about giving my son his second dose and my daughter's first dose in a few months, because my son had an extreme reaction to the first one, but I am girding my loins and doing it anyway. Just my opinion

Anecdotally, all of my siblings and I bar my youngest brother were vaccinated. I had the MMR a few times, because of parental idiocy. My brother, the one who wasn't vaccinated, is autistic. So there...?

[Ruth_Baldock]

And, screw it, I'm just going to say it. Sorry if this offends anyone, truely.

A child with autism = not the worst thing in the world.

A child dying of a disease that was preventable = possibly the worst thing I can imagine.

Fin.

[prickle]

>

> Prickle, I think it's grossly unfair to suggest

> that parents like TE44 are 'gambling' with their

> children's health 'just for the sake' of

> exercising their right to choose, rather than

> because they feel they are doing the best for

> their child, whether we have come to the same

> decision or not. You surely can't really think

> that their motivation is such as you suggest?

Of course they think they are doing the best for their child, I am not disputing their good intentions.

HOWEVER, the issue of vaccination is bigger than that. If every parent decided to exercise their right to do the best for their child then the herd immunity that we more or less enjoy at the moment in this country will be lost. The consequence will be that those children whose parents have 'done the best for their child' will run a greater risk of catching the disease.

Vaccination is a public health issue and perhaps we need to sacrifice some of our personal freedom to choose for the sake of the benefit of society as a whole?

[taper]

Neilly1973

You found Trevor Gunn and Magda Taylor balanced? Taylor is a crank. Gunn is worse: a homeopath. Both promote a bizarre and unscientific approach to vaccinations.

Trust the NHS for advice, not ill qualified crackpots and conspiracy theorists.

[TE44]

I did not have a computer when my children were young, I learnt through my past experiences and books. There is an on going questionaire on line for people who have not vaccinated, there is very little scientific studies been done lookin at difference. I began this questionaire but decided against putting my details in Now i'm sure to some this would confirm I am a conspiracy theorist, but It does not surprise me that compulsary vaccines are now being debated. I do not think it is arrogant to question the medical profession Prickle,on a systematic and individual level mistakes are made. We each have responsibility for our children and our own health, we teach our children as they grow, to see and choose options that will help them to be responsible for there health. My children are now grown and understand the choices I made for them and if I'm honest its a relief they can now make there own informed decisions Got to say if I thought any of them would speak with such disregard to parents who have belief that vaccination is right for there children, I would be extremely disappointed.

[prickle]

TE44, I agree that the medical profession makes mistakes sometimes. But in the case of MMR, a huge amount of research has gone into investigating the safety of the vaccine, particularly thanks the Wakefield debacle. Perhaps when your children were growing up, the safety of vaccines were not so clear.

Pls note that your children are still not in the clear now that they are grown up. They can still catch the illness in adulthood. The risk of death with measles is age-related. It is highest in children under 1 year, falls in children aged 1 to 9 years and rises again in teenagers and adults.

Read more: http://www.medicinechest.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=436&catid=13#ixzz1wXIoWdQt

My main point though is that we need to do our utmost to maintain herd immunity and stamp out these painful and dangerous diseases.

[njc97]

TE44 - sorry to got back to a point you made earlier, but this isn't an issue of giving people a right to choose. The problem is that an immunised child in a population with low levels of immunisation is more at risk that an un-immunised child in a mainly immunised population.

Neilly - the trouble with your examples is (and sorry for the cliche) that the plural of anecdote is not data, and by relying on people who have made decisions based on anecdotal evidence, you risk making a damaging decision.

[Saila]

what Ruth says times a million

[TE44]

Pickle, I am aware that this is not just a childhood issue, at the moment there is an awful lot of adult mumps in Scotland, and I try to stay informed, often by the old fashioned, through friends and family. I feel the discussion would go round and round when focusing on herdmentality, but I have looked extensively into the history of vaccines and honestly believe I am not putting others at risk. I cannot see how you can believe an immunised child would be more at risk when you believe the vaccine give protection. I was worried in the past when vaccines were being administered at school, but found it very hard to be heard, when suggesting maybe the timing should be looked at, but because of a blame attitude it often stopped any conversation. There has not been enough studies done on unvaccinated children, but the one I mentioned earlier (think its a german study) came up with some interesting findings around allergies. Many other things have to be considered and I was glad to see this was pointed out eg diets, alternative life styles. sorry pickle I mean njc73, think thats enough of internet just now, so time consumin. Still find internet a very strange enviroment.

[Saffron]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My response is to TE44 who is clearly trying to

> resurrect the MMR/Autism scare on this forum by

> linking through to a scare site. Saffron too

> (JABs).

Apologies, taper, but if you're lumping me in with "nutters" (re: JABS.org), you have entirely misread and misunderstood my post, and in so doing it misrepresents my intentions in posting.

In case anyone else is unclear in a similar way, let me take this opportunity to clarify.

I have never tried to scare anyone. I posted the link b/c I thought it was interesting. According to the definition of "interest", an item need not be right or wrong to be of interest. To be of interest it needs only to excite curiosity or attention and thus yield a state of wanting to know or learn more about the subject of interest.

I found this an interesting summary:

[www.jabs.org.uk]

Note, that in the US case(s), they're talking about thimerosal (mercury) in immunisations, which are no longer in use in the UK.

I highlighted the excerpt from Jabs.org as an example of information which is out of date in so far as UK immunisations are now concernd, to the best of my knowledge. I would strongly encourage people to read information very carefully and fully from all web sources, especially non-scietific sources, regarding any medical information, and not to jump to their own conclusions without reflecting on the information they have read.

Reading this thread fully and completely, it will be abundently clear that I do not support scare tactics:

I'm hugely FOR the MMR, but I don't believe that only ever offering a single vaccination schedule is correct.

It is also my opinion that science must never support scare-tactics. Science should only provide information. Eventually, the use of scare-tactics only ever undermines the information it delivers.

[Saffron]

prickle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Vaccination is a public health issue and perhaps

> we need to sacrifice some of our personal freedom

> to choose for the sake of the benefit of society

> as a whole?

Indeed there is a precedent for it in the UK. Queen Victoria (Act of Parliament 1853) made compulsory the smallpox immunisation.

[hellosailor]

Ruth_Baldock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> single vaccines is meant to be a lot more painful

> and damaging, actually.

>

In what sense more damaging Ruth? And more damaging than what? We're going to have some jabs done singly and would be good to know where you've got that information from?

Neilly1973 wrote:

>I was really interested by the doctor who off the record said they would not be vaccinating their children, I was also >interested to find out that a friend of mine who is a health visitor who has not vaccinated any of her 3 children as she >had seen too much vaccine damage in her work (i was very surprised by this).

Neilly1973 I was also very surprised when the GP told me that they were not vaccinating their children, as with your health visitor, due to the amount of vaccine damage they had come across.

I respected their honesty (it was in response to me asking various questions about spacing jabs, my daughter's own reaction, and I used the phrase 'if it were your child...' and they obviously felt that they couldn't be untruthful) I appreciated that rather than parroting advice to me, but doing something different by their own children, with information they were privy to in their line of work, that I wasn't, they were being honest when I asked.

It did of course give me a lot of cause for thought!! But rightly or wrongly, we are vaccinating, but on a somewhat delayed schedule, and will have the MMR done privately in single jabs, not because of the autism debate, but because with her bad reaction to a multi jab in the past, if I can get some vaccinations done singly, then I will, as this makes sense to me.

[Pickle]

Can I just point out that it's "Prickle", not me, who is posting on this thread :)

(due to the fact that I've just glanced through it and become very confused, thinking "I dont remember posting that"...)

[prickle]

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> prickle Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> > Vaccination is a public health issue and perhaps

> > we need to sacrifice some of our personal freedom

> > to choose for the sake of the benefit of society

> > as a whole?

>

> Indeed there is a precedent for it in the UK.

> Queen Victoria (Act of Parliament 1853) made

> compulsory the smallpox immunisation.

Thank you Saffron, I rest my case.

And Pickle I was getting confused too! :)

[Saffron]

RE bad reactions to the MMR... do/don't with the 2nd jab. I just wondered if anyone in this scenario had considered having a blood test for the child to determine how high the seroconversion to the 1st MMR was?

My understanding from the current scientific lit is that the 2nd MMR is not a booster, as with other imms. It is instead intended to catch those children who did not sufficietnly seroconvert (ie, produce adequate antibody reaction) to the 1st MMR injection. This is not an insignificant number of individuals, therefore warranting by current public health guidelines a blanket admin of the 2nd MMR.

If, however, your child had produced a fair immune response to the 1st MMR as measured by a blood test for seroconversion, then you might consider the 2nd as unnecessary. I have no idea how readily available or expensibe this test would be. It's just crossed my mind as a possibility. Pending the outcome of the bloodwork, you'd then have to decide what level of immunity you felt was ok. Eg, 40%, 60%, 80%?

[Kes]

TE44 it's heard immunity, not heard mentality. If almost everyone in a population is vaccinated then that population has heard immunity- there are too few individuals for the disease to keep going and so even those who aren't immunised are protected as they're never exposed. This doesn't just help those who's parents have chosen not to vaccinate, it also protects those who are too young or too sick to be vaccinated.

Someone can choose not to vaccinate there own toddler, I have no choice if that toddler then spreads measles to my as yet unvaccinated new born.

The idea of making it compulsory doesn't sit well with me, not letting unvaccinated kids into school only further disadvantages them, but my daughters nursery won't take kids who aren't up to date on vaccines and I think that's the right policy as they also have young babies there who would be vulnerable.

ahhhh, I got drawn into commenting, just couldn't stay away!

I'm with Ruth. I honestly can't believe this debate is still going on!

[hellosailor]

Ha! I also can't believe I have been drawn into joining in with this debate again, it's hard not to for some reason!

Kes, I don't really get why can't you believe it?

I may have chosen to vaccinate after weighing it up, but I can totally see why the subject of potential vaccination damage is still being hotly debated, on this page of the thread we have neilly1973 saying that her health visitor is not vaccinating her children because of the amount of vaccine damage she has seen through her line of work as a medical professional, and my own experience of a respected family GP saying the same thing. Not the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker, but a GP. It would be pretty arrogant of us to write off the concerns of a GP as piffle, would it not?

Plus - and I'm not putting this in a scaremongers way, just because I think it is relevant to our discussion - just did a bit of googling and it appears that the government's Vaccine Damage Payments Unit has paid out ?3, 282, 500 since 1998 in compensation for vaccine damaged children (and adults who were damaged by vaccinations they had to have for work as adults). The department only pays out if the claimant can prove a causal link, and is 60% disabled or more. Yes of course the vast majority of claimants cannot prove a link and don't get compensation, but there are obviously a fair few people who are getting compensation, and in the light of there being a need for this department to exist, why can't you believe it's still being discussed?

It would be weirder if it wasn't discussed surely?

[Kes]

Hellosailor - I can't believe it because the vast majority of quality peer reviewed data has shown no link. There was one paper that suggested there was and it has been totaly discredited as has it's author. This was years ago.

To my mind (and I'm a scientist working in medical research so perhaps it's just how my mind works)that means I am far far better off vaccinating my child than not. I find it really hard to understand why many intelligent people choose to believe anecdotes and things they read on the internet over actual science. But as I said I'm a scientist so perhaps that scews my understanding of how people think.

I also wouldn't put too much faith in the word of one GP or Health visiter, my sisters "respected" GP told her to go to church and pray to be healed when she saw him about a very serious ongoing problem - as a GP said it is that proof of faith healing? I've been told things by GPs that I know aren't true. GPs are humans too, they can buy into a conspiracy just like the next person, they can fail to be up to date on all the literature and they can see connections where they don't really exist

I'd rather make decisions based on carefully controlled studies of thousands of people, not the gut feeling of one or two however well qualified.

I don't know anything about he compensation information you give, it would be good to know where you got it from through?

I am now leaving this thread as it just frustrates me and I know we will never come to any agreement hellosailer!

[TE44]

Thanks Kes for correcting me, I do believe it is spelt herd though. I also can't see why people think this should not be something to talk about, when doctors (google doctors speak out against vaccines)themselves are concerned, and it can't be easy after Wakefield.If people hadn't fought to prove the dangers of thimerosal and had believed it was a concern that should be left in the hands of the defenders of these vaccines,where would the public health issue be now. Quite simply I believe in natural immunity.

[TE44]

Heres a link Kes,

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/236170-New-Study-Vaccinated-Children-Have-2-to-5-Times-More-Diseases-and-Disorders-Than-Unvaccinated-Children

[Kes]

- you have me on the spelling thing lol

[Kes]

Thanks for the link TE44,

however the fist line of the article rings alarm bells

"The data was collected from parents with vaccine-free children via an internet questionnaire by vaccineinjury.info and Andreas Bachmair, a German classical homeopathic practitioner."

ie it was a study conducted by someone with a vested interest in a particual outcome, on a quick look it also seems to have been conducted by questioning anti-vaccination parents who therefore aren't impartial.

Sorry don't have time to read it properly but i couldn't imagine anyone working in medical research taking it too seriously

sorry for any aditional spelling errors - dyslexic and no time to spell check!

[Kes]

and now I really really am stepping away from the forum!!!

[Saila]

'Natural immunity' only works if the first time you come into contact with the virus (or whatever) it doesn't kill you/blind you etc.

Which is fine for relatively harmless bugs

But if talking about more serious bugs, a helping hand, in the form of a very small, harmless, dose, is an alternative.

The resulting immunity is a totally natural process but just given a little kick start so we don't have to suffer the harsh consequences of an initial infection.

So if you weigh up the risks of autism (which has been proved to be non-existant) with the risks of blindess (proven and well known side effect of measles for example) you'd come to the conclusion surely that a vaccination was a rational decision?

It is to me anyway

[hellosailor]

Kes Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I don't know anything about he compensation

> information you give, it would be good to know

> where you got it from through?

>

Kes I have no wish to argue and am also going to step away from the thread! I do find the subject interesting as it comes up such a lot with parents, it's not something I gave a great deal of though to before having a child, admittedly..

I have no idea whether vaccinations can damage children or adults or not (logic tells me the answer is sometimes yes, if governments are paying out compensation, which it seems unlikely they would do if not..)

I do however believe that it must be rare for a child to be damaged by a vaccination, and this is the basis on which I have chosen to have my child vaccinated, but obviously there will be other parents who do not feel, having weighed it up, that they can take the risk that their child will be one of the unlucky ones, however statistically unlikely that is when weighed up against all the children who are fine. I respect this too.

Government Vaccine Damage Compensation Unit web page

>

the US stats for compensation