MMR, do you or don't you?

[susyp]

stand by my previous posting. It is of course only my opinion. I've been around my share of serious illnesses including a friend's son who has had meningitis (not one you can vaccinate against) and it's my view that vaccinations are crucial. If there is a medical reason why they are not appropriate for a particular child then by creating a herd immunity you are also protecting children like that. I don't think you are exposed in parks and playgrounds in quite the same way that you are at school. It's just a no brainer to me. But I do also understand why parents are nervous about sticking these things into their children. I was and I split up the jabs you get at 3 1/2 - rather than 3 a once we did 1 every 6 weeks. Needless to say this was not easy as my daughter then knew what was coming!

susypx

[TE44]

I think it is about weighing up the risks Saila, and I have no problem that you believe it is a rational decision for you, the same as it was for me, I also believe the health of my children and myself for that matter cannot be separated from

emotional, this does not take away the seriousness of decisions regarding individual choices, but plays a part. We may have reached different conclusions, and we may differ on other health choices, but I strongly believe we should have the choice. I think it is a very dangerous road to go down and there will again be many conscientious objectors.

[TE44]

http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

I've found the author of above unbiased and honest.

[Saila]

I absolutely agree emotional risk / benefit plays a role too

I dont find it difficult to imagine the huge regret and grief I'd have at seeing my child suffering from a potentially devastating disease that I could have prevented.

For me, these awful emotions would far offset the emotion of say the pain of an injection, or the injection reactions, that you get with a vaccination.

[Saffron]

Here is another interesting read,on vaccine safety in general and the surveillance of rare and serious side effects. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110525/full/473436a.html Here once again, dear forumites, as I posted previously note my use of the word "interesting". I'm not actually saying by this post what decision is right or wrong for you on this complex issue, so please don't lump me in with vaccine "nuts", and I'm definitely not scaremongering. I just wanted to make that clear.

From the link:

Serious problems are rare, so it is hard to prove that a vaccine causes them. Studies to confirm or debunk vaccine-associated risks can take a long time and, in the meantime, public-health officials must make difficult decisions on what to do and how to communicate with the public. Still, such work is necessary to maintain public trust, says Neal Halsey, a paediatrician at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "If we don't do the research, there will be more people who don't believe in vaccines," he says. ...

Researchers need to investigate possible safety issues quickly, Bonhoeffer adds. Otherwise, by the time scientists conclude that a concern is unfounded, "no one cares, and it takes years to build up the trust again", he says. "So often, the widely communicated concern has caused more harm than it intended to prevent." A global vaccine-safety network would give scientists a faster way to test hypotheses with sufficient sample sizes, he says. In that spirit, the WHO is coordinating a global study on pandemic H1N1 flu vaccines and Guillain-Barr? syndrome.

But strictly controlled randomized trials ? the highest standard of evidence for determining causality ? are often not possible because of the large number of participants needed. And randomized trials in one location will not prevent some researchers questioning whether the results apply in others, says Alfred Berg, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle. ...

Some researchers hope that doctors will eventually be able to screen people for genetic predispositions to vaccine side effects. Gregory Poland, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, says that once predispositions have been identified, genetic screening would at least make the risks and benefits explicit. ...

Even if immunization does prove risky for certain children, withholding the vaccine could pose a greater threat. Vaccine-preventable diseases can be particularly severe or even fatal for patients with metabolic disorders, says Marshall Summar, chief of the division of genetics and metabolism at the Children's National Medical Center in Washington DC. ...

The challenge will be to make safer vaccines just as effective: James Cherry, a paediatric-infectious-disease specialist at the University of California, Los Angeles, speculates that an outbreak of whooping cough in California in 2010 might have occurred partly because the safer acellular pertussis vaccines now in common use in developed countries tend to be less effective than the best whole-cell vaccines.

Researchers are quick to emphasize that the benefits of vaccines still greatly outweigh the risks. But as diseases recede from the public's memory, the population's tolerance for side effects will drop even further. "If you don't know the diseases and you haven't seen them, then you really aren't willing to accept any risk," says Edwards. Despite scientists' best efforts, eliminating risk is impossible. Vaccines are biological products with biological effects, says Juhani Eskola, deputy director general of Finland's National Institute for Health and Welfare in Helsinki. "We can never make them 100% safe."

[Saila]

Measles, a viral respiratory infection, killed over 500,000 children in 2003, more than any other vaccine-*preventable* disease. The measles death toll in Africa is so high ? every minute one child dies ? that many mothers don't give children real names until they have survived the disease. Measles weakens the immune system and renders children very susceptible to fatal complications from diarrhoea, pneumonia and malnutrition. Those that survive may suffer blindness, deafness or brain damage.

http://www.unicef.org/immunization/index_why.html

There are some issues in life which are shades of grey... For me, vaccinating against measles isn't one of them.

[neilly1973]

in africa they have poor sanitation, poor healthcare, many children are malnurished and deficient in vitamin A - which means you will be more likely to suffer from complications if you catch measles.

In the same year in England there were no deaths from measles..

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

[Saila]

.. because we have a decent vaccination program in place whereas sadly some developing countries do not

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

Key facts

Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.

In 2010, there were 139 300 measles deaths globally ? nearly 380 deaths every day or 15 deaths every hour.

More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.

Measles vaccination resulted in a 74% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2010 worldwide.

In 2010, about 85% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services ? up from 72% in 2000.

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

Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

It remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. An estimated 139 300 people died from measles in 2010 ? mostly children under the age of five.

Measles is caused by a virus in the paramyxovirus family. The measles virus normally grows in the cells that line the back of the throat and lungs. Measles is a human disease and is not known to occur in animals.

Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. From 2001 to 2011 more than one billion children aged 9 months to 14 years who live in high risk countries were vaccinated against the disease. Global measles deaths have decreased by 74% from 535 300 in 2000 to 139 300 in 2010

[MrsDanvers]

TE44 Wrote:

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

> That must have been very difficult hellosailor, I

> hope your daughter recovered without any lasting

> effects. As you said we can only choose what we

> believe to be best, When my daughter was little

> and had whooping cough, i found the doctor very

> unhelpful, he seemed more interested in blaming me

> than caring for her. I have also found this with

> some parents, especially when kids were at school.

> I think it is a difficult decision, but one that

> should b down to us.

You didn't immunise your children against whooping cough? That means, I suppose, that you left them unimmunised against polio, diphtheria and tetanus as well. I honestly think you must be mad. I also think that you might have come to a very different decision if you hadn't known that most parents do immunise their children and so your children would benefit from herd immunity without any risk that they might be amongst the unfortunate few who do have a reaction to an immunisation. Best of both worlds for you, thanks to the rest of us.

Going back to measles, it's not a trivial disease. Any child who gets measles is going to be miserably ill in bed for over a week with a high temperature. Who'd want that if it could be avoided, and that's even without the worry of complications? And what about the risk to the unborn child if an unimmunised child has rubella and infects the mother?

[TE44]

Mrsdanvers No I would not have come to a difeerent decision, I dont see how you think I can have the best of both worlds, when our beliefs are so different. I have no concern over my mental health, thank you, and I am aware the majority of people immunise there children but no, I am not grateful nor feel guilty for my decision. Natural immunity has no time limit, where as vaccinations do, hence boosters, so herd immunity is impossible. I have never at anytime said any childhood illness is trivial. I would not have put my own unborn children at risk, I have no idea who you are or you me but by your comments seem to suggest you are a saviour to my children whilst also a victim.

[hellosailor]

MrsDanvers Wrote:

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

>

> You didn't immunise your children against whooping

> cough? That means, I suppose, that you left them

> unimmunised against polio, diphtheria and tetanus

> as well. I honestly think you must be mad.

Yes, with a whopping 8 cases of diphtheria in the UK since 2010 and a grand total of 0 cases of polio in the last 14 years, she must be freaking BANANAS, hope she's not taking this poor little mite to school, sainsbury's, the swings....;-) (joke..)

[susyp]

er ... why are there so few cases.... we live in a society, it is not a cult of the individual, vaccination is a responsible and a considerate action to take for the entirety of society. It is not all about your individual child.

susyp

[Saffron]

TE44 Wrote:

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

> Natural

> immunity has no time limit

That statement is not correct. Natural immunity does changes with time.

In addition, the "lifespan" of immunisation is different for different imms, with some losing only minimal seroconversion over a lifetime.

[hellosailor]

susyp Wrote:

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

> er ... why are there so few cases.... we live in a

> society, it is not a cult of the individual,

> vaccination is a responsible and a considerate

> action to take for the entirety of society. It is

> not all about your individual child.

>

> susyp

..I had hoped that the word 'joke' would tip the wink that I was trying to inject a little humour into proceedings, but it perhaps wasn't obvious enough...I totally agree that the issue of vaccinations is about society and not just about your individual child, but, the fact remains, it's also about the individual child, and TE44 has made a decision about her individual child, and I find it difficult reading to see her lambasted for that choice.

She may also think we're all 'mad' for immunising our children when a government unit has had to be set up specifically to pay out (millions) in compensation to families whose children have been severely disabled by vaccinations they had in good faith to protect their own child, and wider society, but she has not come on here and labelled us as nutters for our choice..

[TE44]

Thanks hellosailor, It seemed obvious to me you were joking, in fact I was going to reply with another joke but realised it was probably a bad idea, I do find this sort of communication rather bizarre. Saffron, I may be wrong scientificly, yes I am aware that anyones immune system can change at any time, but I genuinely believe when your immune system is allowed to become strong naturally it will become stronger and create a better chance of fighting things off. I have known many children who are vaccinated and not had immunity, Everyone is different. I do believe there are many things that are attached to health, I also think instinct and natural defence is very much underated, in an enviroment that stifles personal responsibility. It seems obvious to me that many people have had to fight to get information from our goverment, time and time again we hear of information that was kept from us, I feel for the people who have had to try and prove there children have been damaged, in a society where many people do not want to recognise ths is a reality. As for the possibly less severe adverse reactions, I can't see any desire to know from the scientific side.

[Saffron]

You can of course believe whatever you choose to believe. However, your comments about immunity show that you have no actual understanding of immunity or the immune system.

You are legally entitled not to immunise your children, and I do respect that as your personal decision. However, your statements about immunity are quite wrong from a very basic scientific point of view. They are indeed your beliefs, and not at all statements of fact.

It is widely recognised and published that immunisations, like any medication, are subject to side effects which can in rare cases be severe. I think that immunisations are important, though it's not one-size-fits all. I symapthize with any parent of a child who has suffered severe side effects from imms. Equally, I sympathize with parents of children who have suffered profound disability due to contracting an illness against which their child could have been vaccinated.

If people feel the need to make decisions based on their "feelings", it is their choice to do so. But, to make a choice on feelings alone without understanding the facts is to make an uninformed choice. But even worse than that, to know that scientific information exists about the benefits of immunisation, and to choose to disregard/disbelieve it, is as irresponsible as those who chose to disregard/disbelieve information about vaccine side effects.

[minder]

It's such a minefield isn't it? My three all had their MMR's with no reactions but this was before the Andrew Wakefield? report came out. I think I might have swayed a bit but would still have had my children immunised.

I've also had to make the decision to have my two teenage girls vaccinated against cervical cancer over the past few years. There are 3 jabs over a 6 month period (if I remember) and the youngest (13) has just had her final one.

Finding a prevention for any kind of cancer (or other disease)is a yes with me.

[Saffron]

Yes, minder, I totally agree, a minefield! I think that's what keeps the discussions going, not just on the ED forum, but also in the popular press. Hopefully the discussion also fuels people's desire to know and understand more, and in turn leads to more research on both the outcomes of immunising and of not immunising.

[TE44]

Saffron, Science is now at the early stages of recognising links with stress affecting the immune system, whilst many people have always known that, through there own experience, now this link has been made (although also conflicting views) this does not make it any more real to the people who already recognised this. We do not need permission from science to know our own bodies. Scientists have spoke out against vaccines, any one who has looked at both sides of this will decide, and do what they believe to be right. I have a good understanding of my immune system, you seem to be assuming that although the scientific view is lookin at links, no one else can make there own links,and if any one else suggests there own, you assume they have no understanding or even worse than that, they allow there feelings to come into it , its then an uninformed choice. As ive said earlier, I believe there is more to isolated systems in your body, dont you believe there are people who want to take responsibility for there own immune system, I could not imagine making a decision about vaccines, without looking at both sides, then looking at what I believe myself, amongst conflicting views. It causes me less stress, helps the immune and an overall balance with the body,

[Saila]

Goodness me.

I think we should let this thread die a *natural* death...

[Saffron]

TE44 Wrote:

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

> Saffron, Science is now at the early stages of

> recognising links with stress affecting the immune

> system, ...

Also not true. The links between stress and immunity have been some of the earliest recognised by medical science, and research to further the understanding of adrenocortical interactions with the immune systems continues to play a role in the understanding of these interactions in both human and veterinary research.

The reason I'm drawn to pointing out the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in such posts is not to tell people what choices to make. So, TE44, it's not about whether or not I personally "believe there are people who want to take responsibility for there own immune system". That actually does not even come into it. The reason I'm drawn to pointing out inconsistencies and inaccuracies is that providing wrong and conflicting information does not help parents make informed choices about whether or not to immunise their children, which is actually the topic of this thread

[susyp]

agree with saffron about science having long recognised the effects of stress - when i was v ill a few years ago it was one of the first things that one of my doctors said to me as a possible trigger - However often there are no obvious reasons why someone gets ill and someone else doesn't and a lot of it is probably down to different genes, which have not all yet been discovered. You don't know what genes you have however and so if you are offered a vaccine it would always be wise to take it. And I don't see how you protecting yourself from stress helps your children not get measles.

susypx

[TE44]

I cant put links at the moment but easy to find different scientific views. I have merely tried to answer and explain to comments made to me. It may seem to some I've moved off topic, but as Ive said before other aspects etc. if there was no conflict of info, would there be a "minefield" I am not concerned with proving to anyone whether I'm right or wrong and certainly have not claimed to be an expert, as has been said, an individual decision. Well I'm off, as I'm getting bored of saffron not grasing anything beyond the science.

[reneet]

When people are reading research and quoting them are they considering:

1) Who did the research?

2) Why they did the research?

3)Who funded the research?

4) Where was it published?

5) Was it peer reviewed and by who?

6) What was the sample?

7) What was the control?

8) What was the bias and/or skew?

My 2 cents:

Just because the research paper is out there does not make it good or correct research especially in medicine.

Immunisation is not all about you and your child, its about the community and those children out there who are weak and cannot be immunised (childreen on chemo and those with HIV), they need protection and the best protection we can give them is preventing outbreaks by immunising the healthy children. Use whatever scheduling you want but immunise them before they start mixing actively with other children and becoming a danger.

[prickle]

Immunisation is not all about you and your child, its about the community and those children out there who are weak and cannot be immunised (childreen on chemo and those with HIV), they need protection and the best protection we can give them is preventing outbreaks by immunising the healthy children. Use whatever scheduling you want but immunise them before they start mixing actively with other children and becoming a danger.

Totally agree