MMR, do you or don't you?

[civilservant]

Totally agree too

[etta166]

Yes. It's that simple.

There are known side effects of the MMR (and autism is NOT one of them - that research has been totally discredited). However, the known side effects of the measles, mumps and rubella viruses are much, much worse. There are no recorded deaths resulting directly from the MMR, but many children do die of the measles.

There is measles and rubella around in south London, so turn down the MMR at your peril.

I also second the comments that it is not all about you and your child, but also about the community at large.

[Saffron]

TE44 Wrote:

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

> 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.

If you post incorrect information on a public forum, you can expect to be corrected, and I'm not the only one who has pointed out the inaccuracies in your statements.

My grasp, if you read thoroughly, goes well beyond science. I have also used the principles of logic, ethics, linguistics, and phenomenology in my statements.

For further clarity, informed choice is not a choice based on beliefs. Informed choice is a choice based on present available data. A choice based on feelings is an emotive choice. A choice based on beliefs (whether religious or otherwise) is a faith-based choice. So to disregard data to make a choice based on feelings/beliefs is by definition not an informed choice. If a parent is happy with that, fine. But by definition one cannot say that that is an informed choice.

The belief that science prevents us from knowing our own bodies is totally illogical. One might more readily say that it's an individual's distrust/misunderstanding/preconceptions/etc that prevent the individual from using science to more fully understand his/her own body.

TE44, the statements you've presented herein are circular, specious, and illogical. They do nothing to help parents make choices about immunisations. Indeed, I would say that if your intention was to add credibility to non-immunisation arguments, you have actually done the opposite. Your ability to side-step criticism with redirection is phenomenal. You should have been in politics.

* * * * *

Moving on...

Just out of curiosity, would anyone who didn't immunise their children for fear of adverse reactions, then also refuse them medical drug treatment if their children developed vaccine-preventable diseases (for fear once again of adverse reactions)? I wonder, is it the fear of prophylactic vs therapeutic treatment that causes some parents not to vaccinate? And how could immunisations (or indeed could immunisations) be advanced to allay this fear?

[etta166]

Saffron - you make good points.

re. treatment vs prophylaxis - if you are already ill, it is much easier to accept the risk of an adverse reaction as the consequence of refusing treatment it immediate and obvious. However, the cost/benefit analysis is much more complex for prophylactic treatment, as the risk assocated with refusing treatment is harder to quantify and more distant. Many people find that any risk associated with a vaccine is too much because their child is well when they are vaccinated and the potential harm from contracting a disease some time in the future hardly enters into the equation...