to think it's not terribly helpful to keep referring to parents who haven't MMR'd as "whack jobs"...

(865 Posts)
MsGillis Thu 25-Apr-13 13:01:03

..or morons, or unfit parents, or up there with people who drink and drive?

I appreciate that people have very strong feelings around the subject, but I think that we need to understand that there are a significant number of parents who didn't/haven't vaccinated, not because they are crystal waving nutjobs, but because they are actually scared shitless and paralysed into indecision?

Surely there are ways and means to communicate information, and arrogantly shouting about how one person is right and anyone who disagrees is all kinds of nobhead is not going to be conducive in opening up reasonable dialogue?

Pootles2010 Thu 25-Apr-13 13:03:05

I agree, if you want to persuade people then being agressive won't work. Who has been saying this out of interest?

MsGillis Thu 25-Apr-13 13:05:47

The most recent thing I've read is this but I've seen similar all over the place, especially Twitter and some of my FB friends. I just think it's a bit short sighted, arrogant and counter productive.

WaynettaSlobsLover Thu 25-Apr-13 13:07:07

Yeah it's not helpful. I couldn't give a monkeys though. I do not give my kids vaccinations, my ds is recovering from mumps at the moment and we are getting on with life.

Tailtwister Thu 25-Apr-13 13:17:24

YANBU. It's not helpful and in any case, some people have valid reasons not to vaccinate.

The problem with this most recent outbreak is that it illustrates there are a large number if unvaccinated children, who are suddenly being vaccinated due to the recent outbreak. That makes people who have vaccinated feel justified in their decision and therefore they feel it's fine to criticise those parents who haven't.

Pootles2010 Thu 25-Apr-13 13:21:13

Twitter & fb generally is short sighted, arrogant & counter productive grin

That link is to a spoof site.

sashh Thu 25-Apr-13 13:21:35

Well that website does say it is spoof news.

I think tailtwister has said it very well.

BlueberryHill Thu 25-Apr-13 13:27:17

It is a spoof site, if you had linked to a reputable news site your argument would have had more impact. That site isn't intended to be informative.

thegreylady Thu 25-Apr-13 13:28:40

I am glad your ds is 'recovering' waynetta and hope he also recovers from measles,meningitis,tetanus,polio,TB and all the other disesase that he MAY get-especially if everyone else decides to go your way.

thebody Thu 25-Apr-13 13:33:10

Agree the grey lady.

Waynetta when I was training as a nurse 2 children died in the paediatric ward I was working on for 12 weeks.

One was from measles and the other from whooping cough.

I think you are dicing with your child's life.

I hope they never decide to go back packing abroad.

Oh dear, do you think newsthump is a genuine news site?

MsGillis Thu 25-Apr-13 13:35:52

I know that that was a spoof site - but it's fairly typical of a lot of similar sites such as The Daily Mash etc which although spoofs a lot of people do actually read and agree with, and circulate. I've actually avoided the threads on here but I suspect that there are similar opinions here too.

I know that a lot of people who haven't vaxed have just gone to ground and aren't talking about the subject because admitting you haven't done it is opening yourself up to a barrage of abuse.

Pootles2010 Thu 25-Apr-13 13:38:57

People read & circulate but its sacarstic and not meant to be taken seriously?! Its a joke for goodness sake.

You can't say there are similar opnions on here if you haven't seen them! Plenty of people disagree with not getting vaccinations without being abusive, and I can't imagine anyone on here coming out with that sort of thing tbh.

specialsubject Thu 25-Apr-13 13:40:30

well, Waynetta now knows why she should be living on a desert island.

glad to hear her son will not be left sterile. Hopefully he also won't be deafened by mumps, paralysed by polio or killed by any other preventable diseases.

fortunately for him, there's no smallpox. Now, how did that happen?

Andro Thu 25-Apr-13 13:41:08

Tailtwister - spot on! Some of us have genuine, medical based reasons for not vaccinating.

MsGillis Thu 25-Apr-13 13:44:41

Oh fgs Pootles, I am aware that it is sarcastic, but as I said a lot of people that I come across genuinely hold the same opinion as that and go about sharing similarly offensive comments in real life.

And I know that a lot of people who might be persuaded to vaccinate just aren't having the conversation because this is the attitude that so many are going in with.

Pootles2010 Thu 25-Apr-13 13:47:40

Well then those people are pillocks. My point being you can't use that link as an indication of a commonly held belief, because its not meant to be genuine.

MsGillis Thu 25-Apr-13 13:48:27

I know, but otherwise it's just me being ancedotal. wink

BlueberryHill Thu 25-Apr-13 13:53:07

It is still you being anecdotal, nothing wrong with that, just be up front about it.

OutragedFromLeeds Thu 25-Apr-13 13:55:32

I really love the term 'whack jobs'.

I think anyone who is 'paralysed into indecision' by the idea of vaccinations is at best, a bit silly, tbh. I agree though that telling them they're an idiot is probably not helpful. Nodding, smiling, slowly explaining the benefits of vaccinations whilst thinking they're an idiot would be more productive.

BlueberryHill Thu 25-Apr-13 14:09:22

I had a quick look on three news websites, BBC, Telegraph and Guardian. Lots of columns on 'Why I didn't vaccinate my child, because I felt etc etc', no hammering of parents not vaccinating there, just explaining why they hadn't and so quite supportive really.

Some comments on stories on the Guardian website, different views on whether single / combined vaccinations worked. I didn't search the whole thing, but I didn't see any comments attacking parents. I haven't looked at the Daily Mail, I just don't want to go there if I can help it.

My quick trawl didn't show a deluge of stories in the papers lambasting parents and calling them idiots.

There is an element of 'I told you so'. So many conversations and arguments with people who didn't want to vax, then to see the queues...

And, once again, of course no one is giving people a hard time for not vaccinating their children when they have a proper medical reason. You are the reason for herd immunity not the problem.

seeker Thu 25-Apr-13 14:52:03

Msgillis, you do realise that's a spoof website, don't you?

ubik Thu 25-Apr-13 14:54:16

I love the Daily Mash. It's a national treasure already.

seeker Thu 25-Apr-13 14:54:27

Ah.i see you do. Why not link to similar views in a serious newspaper, they we can have a discussion?

Jengnr Thu 25-Apr-13 16:40:47

I'm not supportive of parents who don't vaccinate* I think it's seriously fucking irresponsible.

*Obvious caveat for those whose children are too ill to be vaccinated. Those children need everyone else to be even more than the rest of us do.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Thu 25-Apr-13 16:46:04

My advice would be, don't go on Facebook Twitter or The Daily Mail website. They are all whackos and morons

It's not terribly helpful to call anyone "whack job", or similar, just becaus they have a different view to you. Sadly that's what happens in just about every situation. Religion and politics spring to mind.

Unfortunatelyanxious Thu 25-Apr-13 16:49:08

Twatter and fuckbook are just irritating beyond belief as is The Daily Heil.

LaQueen Thu 25-Apr-13 16:56:34

Obviously, there are a small handful of DCs, who genuinely can't be vacinated for medical reasons. I seem to think, back in the 70s I couldn't be vacinated against diptheria, because I'd had febrile convulsions as a baby/toddler?

But, have very little time/patience for the parents who didn't vacinate because they felt a little inner surge of triumph/smugness that they weren't merely going to be just like everyone else, and meekly follow the herd...

And that they were every bit as equal to make a medically-based decision, as supposed know-it-all doctors who had spent over a decade training as specialists. Who needs 7 years at medical school, when you have Google - eh hmm

I don't ever say what's on my mind. And, I just smile (barely) and nod politely...but, all the while I mentally grind my teeth at these parents, and think they were utter, utter idiots.

WaynettaSlobsLover Thu 25-Apr-13 17:07:31

Ds and dd have had chickenpox already, twice in fact. I am a former HCP and need no reminding about the deaths of children who happen to suffer from underlying health problems and leaky gut syndrome. This is not reported and researched enough IMO. I keep my children away from others when they are ill and neither attends school or nursery, so do not twist and make out like I am endangering anyone. The hysteria is completely over hyped as well as the fact that certain children have extremely poor immunity due to underlying health and environmental factors. The level of basic care that a child receives having contracted measles mumps or chickenpox makes a huge difference also.

Pagwatch Thu 25-Apr-13 17:15:15

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

alistron1 Thu 25-Apr-13 17:24:04

As I get older I have little time for armchair scientists who have 'researched' vaccination programmes and exercised 'their' choice not to vaccinate because they know better. Clearly, they don't 'know better' the cosy bubble of herd immunity has given them (over the past 10 years) the luxury of choice, whist removing a safety net from the chronically ill, immunologically vulnerable who do not have the luxury to choose.

WaynettaSlobsLover Thu 25-Apr-13 17:28:31

That's why you keep your children away from other people when they are sick and don't send them to school or nurseries alistron

And don't talk about scientists so flippantly when you most likely have no idea in hell how much research one does in order to come to a conclusion about vaccination. It's not as black and white as you may think.

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 17:28:37

....as well as the fact that certain children have extremely poor immunity due to underlying health and environmental factors. The level of basic care that a child receives having contracted measles mumps or chickenpox makes a huge difference also.

I'm glad you point that out Waynetta because they appear to have been completely overlooked.

alistron1 Thu 25-Apr-13 17:30:11

Waynetta - what about when they are infectious before obvious signs of illness?

mathanxiety Thu 25-Apr-13 17:30:46

I had meningitis as a child and to say it wasn't fun for me or my parents would be very much an understatement. I have no sympathy for whoever I caught it from. I was very glad to be able to have my DCs vaccinated. Not only will they probably never get it, they will not spread it.

As a HCP you should know, Waynetta, that many illnesses are contagious before a victim shows any sign of illness. By the time you have decided to keep your child away from others it may already be too late in other words. Thanks.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Thu 25-Apr-13 17:35:50

What kind of HCP Waynetta?

Have you heard of incubation periods?

LaQueen Thu 25-Apr-13 17:37:59

Er - Waynetta.

Chicken pox incubates for several days, before any physical symptoms manifest. But during this time, the person can be infectious.

I am not a HCP...but, I would assume that you, as a HCP should be equally aware of this hmm

alistron1 Thu 25-Apr-13 17:42:27

I remember having mumps as a kid - it was horrid. Ditto German measles - the only childhood illnesses I didn't have were the ones I was vaccinated against. Funny that isn't it?

And isn't it strange how since people have 'chosen' not to vaccinate we now have outbreaks of whooping cough and measles - but obviously vaccination is still a dreadful thing and let's all sod anyone with those pesky underlying health conditions that might make these alleged 'mild' childhood illnesses fatal.

Armchair scientists who have done their painstaking research know better, clearly.

ExRatty Thu 25-Apr-13 17:44:06

I'm one of the whack jobs. I care not what I'm labelled.

LaQueen Thu 25-Apr-13 17:46:34

I had measles when I was 9. I had to be off school for 2 weeks. Full bed rest, and 4 visits from the doctor (this was back when they did home visits).

I was horribly, achingly ill - and often cried because I was in so much discomfort. My Mum got scared, when I stopped even having the energy to cry, and just lay there, dull eyed and listless sad

NumericalMum Thu 25-Apr-13 17:48:10

See in some ways I think those labels actually make them feel even more smug. <despairs>

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 17:48:38

Well, I had German measles as a 14 year old. You had to stay off school for about 3 days because you were infectious, but otherwise it was no problem.

TSO Thu 25-Apr-13 17:48:43

"I'm one of the whack jobs. I care not what I'm labelled."

You're not alone, ExRatty. While they're kvetching about us they're leaving some other soul alone.

ExRatty Thu 25-Apr-13 17:51:20

cuddles baby laqueen

NumericalMum Thu 25-Apr-13 17:52:33

LaVolcan German measles is rubella and only serious if pregnant I believe.

BlueberryHill Thu 25-Apr-13 17:53:30

Are German Measles and measles the same thing, I thought they were different and measles has the potential to more severe. Can someone medical let me know?

BlueberryHill Thu 25-Apr-13 17:53:55

Numerical, x-post, thanks

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 18:02:35

NumericalMum - I am well aware that German measles and rubella are the same thing, and serious if caught when pregnant. But still, you did help someone else with a query, so that's good.

alistron1 Thu 25-Apr-13 18:05:06

German measles - rubella is a different thing to measles. And yes, 3 avoidable weeks off school is totes great! It's not detrimental to life or learning at all.

Bring back smallpox I say, bit of breast milk and a homeopathic necklace will sort that out. Pesky vaccines.

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 18:09:48

No such luck - I only managed either two or three days (can't remember). I wouldn't have minded three weeks off at the time. (I did manage a couple of weeks off when I got flu a couple of years later, and felt absolutely wiped out by it).

Giving babies breast milk is beneficial, I didn't think there was much doubt about that now?

MsGillis Thu 25-Apr-13 18:10:28

What also doesn't help is the news coverage about a month ago with regard to the swine flu vaccine that was rushed out and has since caused problems. It's all well and good telling people to blindly place their trust and whatever they're told but there have been incidents where this hasn't gone so well...

grants1000 Thu 25-Apr-13 18:10:30

It was a horrible time back in 2002 when my DS was due to have his first round of injections (he's now a very tall, moody and fabulous about to be 11 yo!) my own GP was unsure and said singles were fine, just get him vaccinated, being the most important thing. He was unsure if he was going to do his own child who was 3 months because of the unclear and the conflicting media and lack of directive from the NHS at the time. It was all over the news, radio, TV programmes and the anti MMR lobby were very strong indeed.

Put youself in my shoes ten years ago, what would you have done? Paid for singles, took the risk or missed the MMR competely?

JamieandtheMagicTorch Thu 25-Apr-13 18:13:57

I have a 12 year old and a 10 year old. There was no doubt from my GP or me. MMR it was

alistron1 Thu 25-Apr-13 18:17:22

I've got a 16, 15, 13 and 9 year old. All vaccinated, no paralysing indecision or soul searching. All fit, strong and healthy.

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 18:25:39

Surely there are ways and means to communicate information, and arrogantly shouting about how one person is right and anyone who disagrees is all kinds of nobhead is not going to be conducive in opening up reasonable dialogue?

I do think that this statement is worth repeating.

Years ago my health visitor stated that all children who got whooping cough became brain damaged, and I had to tell her that both me and my husband had it as babies, and as far as I knew we weren't brain damaged.

In a similar vein a vaccination would stop you getting diseases, and therefore pass the infection on, so you were being selfish not being vaccinated. She then spoilt her argument by saying that if you did get the disease it would only be mild. She couldn't answer my question about what would happen if you then passed your mild dose on.

I gave up on her at that point, so her little moral lecture didn't work. I felt that my aim would endeavour to keep my children as healthy as possible by a sound diet and lifestyle. I did vaccinate them BTW but it was after my own research.

OrbisNonSufficit Thu 25-Apr-13 18:28:44

YABU. I'm currently 7 weeks pregnant and thanks to the idiocy of anti-vaccination parents, there is now a reasonable risk of a London measles outbreak during my pregnancy. Which, since the vaccinations I've had do NOT stop me from getting measles, increases my risk of miscarriage. I'm completely furious about this and I refuse to be anything other than incandescent in my criticism of people who do NOT have a sound reason not to vaccinate (ie immuno-compromised child). "They're paralysed into indecision" just isn't a reason, sorry. It's stupid, it's selfish, and it's justified by junk science.

mathanxiety Thu 25-Apr-13 18:38:48

German measles is a case where the effects of exposing unintended victims by someone going about their daily life during the incubation period can be devastating -- spontaneous abortion, congenital rubella syndrome (including birth defects and neurological abnormalities).

You are contagious before, during and after the symptomatic period, so two to three weeks.

Grants1000, I had DD4 immunised 11 years ago just like her four older siblings. She got the chicken pox vaccine too, as the older ones had had the disease before she was born and there was little chance of her catching it. Since then all the DCs including DS have had HPV vaccination. DD4's turn will come next summer.

balia Thu 25-Apr-13 18:39:32

I really don't like the use of those kinds of terms. I don't see why derogatory terms for the mentally ill are acceptable, TBH. But having said that, the only person I know who is anti-vac believes that the rubella virus is made out of ground-up aborted foetuses and that the government secretly put mercury in kids vaccines (in 'undetectable amounts' hmm) because they have a mercury 'lake' they have to get rid of. I wish I was making this up.

GoblinGranny Thu 25-Apr-13 18:49:10

As I posted on the other thread that is currently running:
www.iayork.com/Images/2008/8-22-08/MeaslesDeathsUSA.png

www.topnews.in/files/measles-child.jpg

That's what you are risking for your child, and other children. But by all means, keep thinking that your child will be protected by your overwhelming belief that you are right.

hiddenhome Thu 25-Apr-13 19:47:14

Bring back smallpox I say. That'll bloody teach everybody [angry[

Ffs just get your kids vaccinated.

WaynettaSlobsLover Thu 25-Apr-13 20:01:41

Whether they would be infectious or not, it is a fact of life that there will always be a minority of the population who do not deal with illness well.

Now that could be something as serious as meningitis to the common cold that in SOME people results in pneumonia. laqueen I'd also like to kindly point out to you (without any of the immature hmm faces) that most humans that contract the flu or a head cold lay 'dull' and 'listless' on the sofa for a period of time.

No matter how much you vaccinate or how much you don't, survival of the fittest is a fact. Nobody can disprove or deny it and we NEED to come into contact with disease NATURALLY to stimulate our immunity without artificially injecting copious amounts of live viruses into our blood.

You want to inject your children with them and claim it does so much good in terms of 'herd immunity' then good for you. I am heavily pregnant and my ds is recovering from mumps like I said, as well as my young dd having her second bout of chickenpox. There are many other better ways to try and strengthen a child's immune system and general health. Unfortunately due to the scaremongering and the constant dolling out of pills and medication by medical professionals instead of getting to the root cause of the problem, this is why people are being lulled into a false sense of security by vaccinating. I have mentioned on one if these threads previously that I was a child who changed after my mother gave me the MMR. I displayed psychotic behaviour and wouldn't sleep until I was almost five years of age. My stepbrother who was also given the MMR has learning difficulties and is on the Autistic spectrum. I believe fully that in some people, vaccines can be a trigger.

I'm leaving this thread because I'm happy with my choices and I think people are free to make theirs without being insulted. Good evening all

EnlightenedOwl Thu 25-Apr-13 20:05:52

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

georgedawes Thu 25-Apr-13 20:08:10

shock at Waynetta's post. Crikey.

Before you go please tell us what your previous health care position was.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 25-Apr-13 20:10:13

In RL I only know one person who could qualify as any of the negative descriptions in the op but I know several who refuse vaccines.

The crystal waving oxygen thief scum bag who fits the description ( who also believes the mercury river thing) says my child had a serious rta because of her bad behaviour in a past life because the aura sprits or some other such shit were unhappy with her.

Its the one time ever in life I have ever punched another persons face in.

alistron1 Thu 25-Apr-13 20:11:18

Waynetta - would you be happy for you and yours to be exposed to smallpox?

crashdoll Thu 25-Apr-13 20:11:36

"Nobody can disprove or deny it and we NEED to come into contact with disease NATURALLY to stimulate our immunity without artificially injecting copious amounts of live viruses into our blood."

I'm the least scientifical person on the planet but even I know that this statement is a big fat pile of horse shit.

crashdoll Thu 25-Apr-13 20:12:31

With regards to the OP, YANBU but I don't see much name calling going on to be honest.

my god I hope you can sleep easy waynetta never mind any immune compromised individuals that have come into contact with you and your family.

georgedawes Thu 25-Apr-13 20:15:28

Cmon Waynetta tell us what your profession is.

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

hospital cleaner circa 1982 ?

GoblinGranny Thu 25-Apr-13 20:16:22

WSL's attitude would be perfectly acceptable if she was the only one in danger of death or serious disability because of her choices.
That's why the Darwin Awards are funny.
Unfortunately that isn't the case, she's making decisions for others, and potentially causing harm to a much wider group.

georgedawes Thu 25-Apr-13 20:18:31

Survival of the fittest, innit. Obviously waynetta accepts no other medical intervention at any other times, doh, the strongest will survive what about the most intelligent?

mathanxiety Thu 25-Apr-13 20:21:21

How about exposing your children to polio, Waynetta? You could take them to some part of the world where it is endemic and see how they fare, survival-of-the-fittest-wise.

labtest Thu 25-Apr-13 20:24:08

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Fecklessdizzy Thu 25-Apr-13 20:27:34

Actually survival of the fittest in the Darwinian sense means survival of the most suitable for that particular environment not the fittest in the healthy-gym-bunny sense. ( I'll get my anorack ... )

It's amazing how some people will believe random internet wibblings over established medical advice ...

ScottyDoc Thu 25-Apr-13 20:27:54

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

LaQueen Thu 25-Apr-13 20:29:09

"laqueen I'd also like to kindly point out to you (without any of the immature faces) that most humans that contract the flu or a head cold lay 'dull' and 'listless' on the sofa for a period of time."

Waynetta is this sentence meant to prove, or disprove something...? Because I have read it through 3 times, and I genuinely don't get what you're trying to pertain to hmm

georgedawes Thu 25-Apr-13 20:29:18

Well quite, why have any medical treatment whatsoever? Just survival of the fittest is how it should be.

I was walking through our local graveyard the other day and spent some time reading the gravestones. It's so humbling how many children there are buried in churchyards across the country, from only a couple of generations ago. Most would have died from treatable and preventable diseases. Medical science has transformed all of our lives, we should celebrate that.

labtest Thu 25-Apr-13 20:29:31

Not when they are on chemo or immunosuppressed due to disease!

georgedawes Thu 25-Apr-13 20:32:15

I agree with waynetta that there are other ways to help immunity in terms of things like probiotics and a healthy lifestyle etc.

Are you talking about measles specifically or illness in general? Clearly being healthy helps to prevent illness, however, measles is one of the most infectious diseases there is. You can drink as many yakults as you want, but if you're not vaccinated and come in to contact with someone who has it, you'll catch it too.

LaQueen Thu 25-Apr-13 20:33:40

Ah, yes...that old chestnut I did my own research ...

And, what did that research entail then? A 5 year medical degree, maybe? Perhaps, a Fellowship at a medical research laboratory? Possibly, an internship at a leading teaching hospital...?

Sorry...what was that? You actually have no medical qualifications whatsoever, and you spent some time on Google?

Well, that's perfectly alright, then hmm

georgedawes Thu 25-Apr-13 20:34:53

Well we all know it's a government/medical/big pharma conspiracy Laqueen.

Fecklessdizzy Thu 25-Apr-13 20:38:51

The bloke who started this whole sorry saga was a Health Care Professional too, right up until the point he was struck off the medical register for agrevated stupidity ...

overprotection Thu 25-Apr-13 20:41:53

No OP it's not a terribly helpful statement, but neither is the statements "chocolate tastes nice". It's just a statement of fact.

ScottyDoc Thu 25-Apr-13 20:46:18

How can you say that because you are around someone with measles that you will inevitably catch it? That depends on the individual entirely! My kids have been around others with very infectious illnesses and didnt catch anything whilst others did catch it. It's not always guaranteed. And I didn't mean Yakult in terms of probiotics, I meant the higher nature powder that naturopathic doctors recommend. It's strong and I take it myself as well as being vaccinated.

ExRatty Thu 25-Apr-13 20:49:25

Fecklessdizzy

I think the entire case surrounding Andrew Wakefield was rather more complex than covered by aggravated stupidity.

I have aggravated stupidity and it's fairly simple

mathanxiety Thu 25-Apr-13 20:51:09

Which came first, the anti vax movement or Andrew Wakefield? Or lawyers handling cases on behalf of autistic children with their eyes on the large judgements they hoped to secure and the percentage that would find its way into their bank accounts?

georgedawes Thu 25-Apr-13 20:51:36

Do you know anything about measles Scotty Doc? Seriously? It is a fact to say it is very highly contagious. You can take all the probiotic tablets you want, but that won't change that fact.

Serious question - do you know much about smallpox.

Fecklessdizzy Thu 25-Apr-13 20:55:13

Exratty You can spell aggravated ( unlike me ) so you can't be all that seriously stricken! grin

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 20:55:19

What really pisses me off are the arrogant people telling others that the MMR is the only thing that prevents measles and that single vaccines don't work. Which is, of course rubbish. Unless you want to believe that until the MMR was introduced in the late 80s, vaccines against these illnesses didn't work hmm

LaQueen Thu 25-Apr-13 20:55:43

"Well we all know it's a government/medical/big pharma conspiracy Laqueen."

George yes, sorry of course, I remember now...

BlueberryHill Thu 25-Apr-13 20:57:44

Georgedawes this is comment from the Guardian website.

The situation in Swansea seems to be a backlash by the government to punish parents whose children didn't have the MMR vaccine due to fears of autism, a lifelong condition. I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but it seems a bit strange that there has suddenly been this big outbreak of measles in one area and a compulsory vaccination programme has been introduced. It's almost like a warning to parents to just do as they are told.

So the outbreak in Swansea isn't due to the low vaccination rates in the general population but biological warfare carried out by our own Government to justify a compulsory vaccination programme. The truth is out there.

Saski Thu 25-Apr-13 20:59:55

Count me among those curious to know Waynetta's profession.

You might find your fucked-up "keep away from sick people" rationale tested in the case of a polio outbreak. What a load of nonsense. Poor mothers in the third world would kill for the opportunity to immunize their kids against these horrific diseases. What a shame that you're so willfully ignorant.

balia Thu 25-Apr-13 21:01:22

I thought this was interesting in terms of the dangers posed by non-vaccination to society as a whole...

Dr. Craig Ventner

LaQueen Thu 25-Apr-13 21:01:33

"And I didn't mean Yakult in terms of probiotics, I meant the higher nature powder that naturopathic doctors recommend."

And, how much does the Naturopath doctor [hides smirk] charge you for their time Scotty ...and how much does their recommended powder cost?

Or, are they dispensing advice for free, because they are just very decent, morally more evolved folk, who have a genuine desire and duty of care to provide free consultations and free medicine, to the general public [tilts head]

Because, of course naturopathic doctors, and homeopathic doctors aren't approached by sales reps, from the very large, alternative medicine industry - and given all sorts of goodies to essentially flog their products to a credulous public...

Oh, no..wait hmm

ExRatty Thu 25-Apr-13 21:03:05

I have been surprised by the language used on the BMJ website surrounding Wakefield.
The editorial went a little "Take a Break" over him which was thoroughly unsettling. I was expecting scantily clad pictures of him in a teadress at one point.

Lazyjaney Thu 25-Apr-13 21:05:20

I came here to say whack-jobs was OTT, but reading some posters here I know think it's probably not strong enough.

I'm starting to incline to the view that these sort of people need to be exposed to the full force of natural selection. Unfortunately their stupidity impacts innocent people too, so one can't leave them to their own devices.

Softlysoftly Thu 25-Apr-13 21:09:24

Probiotics? Leaky gut syndrome? Survival of the fittest?

I give up I truly fucking do.

I don't think not vaxers are idiots I think they are amazingly selfish because by not vaccinating they are making the choice for others to risk infection. They are putting MY baby at risk LABTESTS dd at risk hundreds of other children at risk.

It's a bubble you live in where the risk isn't that great because the diseases aren't rife anymore. I understand those in 1999 not vaccinating because media has a huge influence but now?

Selfish selfish selfish.

Measels in the UK could have been a thing of history like Smallpox and polio of everyone vaccinated fact.

AlbertaCampion Thu 25-Apr-13 21:15:08

Actually OP, I started reading this thread thinking that those terms were unhelpful - and have finished it thinking that they are perfectly apt.

Call me a NIMBY, but I hope that Waynetta's family doesn't live anywhere near mine!

WidowWadman Thu 25-Apr-13 21:15:32

I find the attitude that "oh it only kills those with underlying health conditions" pretty unpalatable. Not only is it not true, it also has a yucky whiff of eugenics about it.

OrbisNonSufficit Thu 25-Apr-13 21:15:59

THIS is why mass vaccination is important. Anti-vaccination parents deserve vitriol. I don't want to go back to the 19th century and its childhood mortality rates - anyone who does can go and live on a very small island on their own a looooong way away from anyone else.

EmpressMaud Thu 25-Apr-13 21:21:42

I think you're right, it's not helpful.

Though I can understand (though not agree) why that language might be used. I've just read a debate, mostly anti-vaccs people (only today, not MN) where conspiracy theories abound. It's actually really quite unsettling. I'd like to hear some less extreme views on the subject.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 21:26:01

There have been anti-vaxxers as long as there have been vaccines

"Religious arguments against inoculation were advanced even before the work of Edward Jenner; for example, in a 1722 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation" the English theologian Rev. Edmund Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation".[8] Some anti-vaccinationists still base their stance against vaccination with reference to their religious beliefs."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversies

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 21:28:41

I think it's obvious why Waynetta is anti-vaccine - she and her brother had bad reactions to the MMR.

People form the opinions they do based upon their own life experience (whether it's a bad reaction to a vaccine or you've seen someone damaged by an illness) and I think calling her a troll is not on.

KneeDeepinPoo Thu 25-Apr-13 21:33:34

Long term lurker here...

survival of the fittest is a fact. Nobody can disprove or deny it and we NEED to come into contact with disease NATURALLY to stimulate our immunity

I don't think I have ever read anything on MN that has filled me with rage so much. Obnoxious and ignorant. Makes me really angry.

quesadilla Thu 25-Apr-13 21:34:57

What LazyJaney said.
I came on here expecting to read cogent anti-vaccination arguments from people working in the field who really know their stuff. But in a couple if cases (not all), what I am reading is astonishing levels of selfishness and delusion. I don't think people should be labelled "whack jobs" without real cause and if people can make a decent argument for not immunising their children against preventable but deadly diseases then I am willing to listen but so far nothing I have read here from the anti vac camp has been anything but mumbo jumbo.

labtest Thu 25-Apr-13 21:36:15

There is no proof whatsoever that either waynetta or her brother suffered due to the vaccine. That's merely her opinion and unsupported by any evidence other than her own anecdotal. I don't think it's on that my child is at risk despite being vaccinated.

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 21:37:41

Really labtest? How on earth would you know what proof there was?

Arrogant posts like yours don't help

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 21:37:53

'I find the attitude that "oh it only kills those with underlying health conditions" pretty unpalatable. Not only is it not true, it also has a yucky whiff of eugenics about it.'

Well, that argument also applies to when people say 'The number of children who are vaccine damaged is tiny' and who imply collateral damage is ok for the greater good.

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 21:38:59

Hopefully most vaccinated children are not at risk from catching the disease. The vaccines should generally actually work...

JacqueslePeacock Thu 25-Apr-13 21:41:30

There's no proof that ANYONE suffered because of the MMR vaccine, is there? So how could there be proof that a particular peter and her brother had suffered?

SuffolkNWhat Thu 25-Apr-13 21:41:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Thu 25-Apr-13 21:42:15

Well Waynetta demonstrates, that as a former HCP, she doesn't understand the phrase Survival of the Fittest, nor does she understand about incubation periods.

Oh dear

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 21:43:06

Jacquesle - a child in Italy's family has just been awarded compensation due to damage from the MMR.

To say that vaccine danage is non-existant is frankly, ridiculous and insulting.

JacqueslePeacock Thu 25-Apr-13 21:43:20

Peter?? I meant poster.

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 21:43:29

damage*

mathanxiety Thu 25-Apr-13 21:44:34

Lottie -- in the wake of the Andrew Wakefield debacle a lot of testing was done to evaluate his alleged results. So far, the overwhelming indications are that no, there is no link between autism and MMR. It's not just an opinion.

crashdoll Thu 25-Apr-13 21:44:48

I'm sure someone will come along and tell me, that the stats are wrong and that big pharma and trying to con us all from us but.....given that the risk of being vaccine damaged is less than the risk of being severely harmed by one of illnesses, I would always veer towards vaccination where possible.

labtest Thu 25-Apr-13 21:45:51

She said her brother has autism caused by mmr. The link has never been proven. As I said previously my child had the mmr but she has been treated for leukaemia since the age of four and is no longer protected by it.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 21:46:39

People who say the number of vaccine damaged children is tiny have usually put their money where their mouth is and vaccinated their children. For their own good, and the greater good.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Thu 25-Apr-13 21:46:42

I don't think all anti-vaxers are all whackos or whatever. That would be illogical and based on a very small sample.

Ironic really

JacqueslePeacock Thu 25-Apr-13 21:46:44

I do not count the Italian case as evidence at all. It goes against all medical consensus on MMR and autism, as supported by robust evidence against any possible link.

Lazyjaney Thu 25-Apr-13 21:49:26

I think they should hold a conference for Non Vaxxers - in Swansea. I wonder how many would go :D

(Hell, I'd sponsor a few thinking about it...)

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 21:49:47

Why have people been awarded compensation in both the US and Italy then mathanxiety? People were damaged by vaccines and compensated for it long before AW came along.

Which is not to say that I don't think vaccination is generally a good thing.

But I do think that the outbreak we have now is the fault of the government rather than people who are scared to vaccinate, because of situations like Tony Blair telling everyone to have the MMR, then later we find out his son hasn't had it he's had singles! No wonder people don't trust the official line. I also know a GP personally who gave her son singles but I bet she isn't allowed to recommend them to her patients...

LouiseSmith Thu 25-Apr-13 21:50:41

I think this slamming mums with poorly children says more about the people writing the comments than, the parents of the children who were not vaccinated.

Drs said the the MMR jabs could cause autism, some parents listened. Some didn't. People made the choice at the time based on the information they had, I think these parents have suffered enough don't you.

Fecklessdizzy Thu 25-Apr-13 21:51:41

If there was a link you would expect a massive spike in autism cases following the introduction of the MMR. There wasn't. QED.

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 21:51:59

'People who say the number of vaccine damaged children is tiny have usually put their money where their mouth is and vaccinated their children. For their own good, and the greater good.'

Nobody would have their child vaccinated if they believed they could be damaged as a result.

mathanxiety Thu 25-Apr-13 21:52:16

You can't treat what happens in a courtroom as evidence that there is bad science or good science involved in vaccines. For every court that has made an award there is another that has denied one. What happens in courts is irrelevant.

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 21:53:56

'If there was a link you would expect a massive spike in autism cases following the introduction of the MMR. There wasn't. QED.'

No, Feckless because the number of children affected is and was small. Nobody has ever said otherwise to my knowledge.

WidowWadman Thu 25-Apr-13 21:55:51

I don't deny that vaccine damage exists. However adverse effects to vaccines are much much rarer than the adverse effects of the wild virus.

The Italian court case did not prove anything but that a judge can make bad decisions based on bad evidence.

JacqueslePeacock Thu 25-Apr-13 21:56:13

I agree, that at the time there were valid reasons for people to think MMR vaccines mint not be a good idea. Now though, with the benefit of hindsight, I think people (especially HCPs) who still oppose the vaccination are a bit dim (maybe not whack jobs but I do like the term).

The Italian case was genuinely a case of one judge's opinion, not evidence. I can see no reasonable grounds for that judge's conclusion. The basis appears to be simply that there was a correlation between the time of vaccination and the onset of autism and that they could find no reason for the onset of autism. This apparently led the judge to conclude that the MMR vaccination was linked. confused By contrast, the evidence that there is no link between MMR and autism seems to be abundant.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Thu 25-Apr-13 21:56:48

There would be a large increase, not a large number, lottie

mathanxiety Thu 25-Apr-13 21:57:16

Why have people been awarded compensation in both the US and Italy then mathanxiety? People were damaged by vaccines and compensated for it long before AW came along.

Why was an old lady compensated when she spilled hot coffee into her lap at a McDonalds drivethrough? Because there are hotshot lawyers who take cases on spec and get a percentage of the judgement. In the case of class action suits in the US the payoff to the lawyers can put whole families through university, buy yachts, make a lawyer seriously rich.

The law operates on a completely different footing from science.

There is a separate compensation fund operating in the US for families whose children have suffered seizures, brain injury, etc., after vaccination.

Again, autism/MMR is a separate matter entirely.

Fecklessdizzy Thu 25-Apr-13 21:57:42

Even if the number affected was tiny compared to the number vacinated there would be a noticable increase once the vacination was offered to everyone. There wasn't.

gfrnn Thu 25-Apr-13 21:58:12

Parents who refuse to vaccinate are risking their children's and my children's health and lives. We recently had a very anxious week after our four month old was exposed to another child who later developed measles and spent several days in hospital as a result.

Refusal to vaccinate is child endangerment. Measles has been eradicated from Australia and several other countries (officially confirmed by WHO) because they make vaccination a compulsory pre-condition for school entry.

Whack job seems too kind to me. Vaccine refusers are selfish, antisocial and deserve our contempt.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 21:59:57

Lottie, Wakefield tried to make exactly that argument, that there was a massive increase in autism cases following introduction of the MMR.

He was, of course, incorrect. Autism cases continued to increase in Japan despite them withdrawing the MMR.

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 22:00:02

I don't see how anyone on this forum who was not involved in the case itself would be in a position to know better than the judge what actually happened.

I'm sure the parents clearly don't know anything about their child either - they must be idiots, eh? hmm

crashdoll Thu 25-Apr-13 22:00:44

"Nobody would have their child vaccinated if they believed they could be damaged as a result."

Don't be ridiculous. People take risks with their children everyday, everytime they put their child in the car, they are taking a risk. A child is more likely to be injured in an RTC than by a vaccine.

BobblyGussets Thu 25-Apr-13 22:07:43

I've worked out what kind of "HCP" Waynetta is grin

Leaves the room to get some more wine

Purplefurrydice Thu 25-Apr-13 22:08:25

My mother was advised not to get me vaccinated against measles 30 years ago as my uncle was epileptic. Please remember that some people cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Thu 25-Apr-13 22:09:30

Purple

Yes, and that is why I don't think all antivaxers are wrong

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 22:12:09

crashdoll - for most people vaccination is safe but for a few people the effects are devastating. Perhaps if you had experienced that yourself you might have a bit more empathy with parents who are when all said and done trying to protect their children.

MrsHoarder Thu 25-Apr-13 22:13:51

"Nobody would have their child vaccinated if they believed they could be damaged as a result."

I am aware there is a small risk that DS could be damaged by a vaccine. But I would feel much worse in taking the far larger risk that he could be damaged by the actual illnesses. Like many parents after vaccinations I watched him like a hawk and fretted that he might be unwell, but did so confident that we were doing the thing that would be best for his long term health.

BobblyGussets Thu 25-Apr-13 22:16:36

I don't think anyone has an argument with you Purple, or those who do have medical reasons.
It is a shame that we can't all protect you and those who can't be vaccinated for valid medical reasons by our herd immunity though.

I don't know about whack jobs, but I don't have alot of time for those fuckwits who think they can correctly interpret the data from a large scale, randomized clinical trial and come up with a link to autism.

"Survival of the fittest"? I hope those spouting that are emotionally robust enough to shrug and carry on, if one of their children dies from a preventable disease.

BobblyGussets Thu 25-Apr-13 22:17:45

Does anyone else reckon Waynetta is/was a homeopath?

shouldkeepquiet Thu 25-Apr-13 22:26:35

I want to get my children vaccinated but my wife is 100% against it. It always causes rows. I said on monday i think we need to think about it again as they are big and strong now (11and 7) not babies and will be fine. She said if i take them to get done she will divorce me on the spot - and she meant it. Didn't talk to me again for two days for daring to bring it up. What the hell should i do now?

Samu2 Thu 25-Apr-13 22:29:32

I don't think whack jobs is strong enough for the selfish and ignorant people who do not vax their children (those with medical issues excluded, obviously)

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 22:30:07

That is a hard situation shouldkeepquiet, when you cannot agree. I feel for you, I really do.

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 22:30:59

Is your wife against all vaccines or is she specifically concerned about MMR?

JamieandtheMagicTorch Thu 25-Apr-13 22:31:38

shouldkeep

I don't know. It must be hard. I just would be very upset by the irrationality of it. Measles is such an unpleasant disease

littlemog Thu 25-Apr-13 22:33:59

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Thu 25-Apr-13 22:34:49

Also, someone who doesn't talk to you for 2 days is a bit ....

JamieandtheMagicTorch Thu 25-Apr-13 22:35:13

^ that was to shouldkeep

BobblyGussets Thu 25-Apr-13 22:35:17

Ahh shit, ShouldKeepquiet, no practical advice for you, but it sounds like you could get some good help and advice on the relationships board. Without undermining how important vaccination is, it sounds like part of a bigger issue in your relationship.

It sounds as if your kids might be old enough to make an informed choice also. I explained to my then three year old DSs, that the MMR would hurt their arm, but it would stop them getting some diseases that could hurt them and make them feel awful. I didn't have to drag them into the nurses room both times.

littlemog Thu 25-Apr-13 22:35:28

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Lazyjaney Thu 25-Apr-13 22:35:40

@Shouldkeepquiet I think I'd probably get it done anyway, divorce is a fairly minor pain vs what measles can do. Actually, do you think she grasps what measles can do, I find a lot of non vaxxers have minimal grasp of what these diseases can do.

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 22:36:22

I am not particularly anti-vaccination. I am anti not considering individual circumstances however.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 22:36:52

I want to hear more about this mercury lake that the government needs to get rid of so they are sneaking it into vaccines. Is it because they stopped putting it in thermometers?

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 22:38:24

Shouldkeepquiet, if it went to court, the court would rule in favour of your children getting vaccinated.

littlemog Thu 25-Apr-13 22:40:01

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

littlemog Thu 25-Apr-13 22:40:53

The mercury lake is such a weird idea...wtf?

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 22:42:30

Well if you're so sensible, littlemog perhaps you wouldn't need to make personal attacks to convince people of your view.

Jimjams isn't anti-vaccination either. The fact you think that just shows how you are incapable of seeing that sometimes there are grey areas.

And I don't need anyone to 'support' me thanks.

shouldkeepquiet Thu 25-Apr-13 22:43:46

Yes i did think about trying to explain to the kids about the options and getting them to have an input but i know it will just drag them into this battle and my wife will be angry i got them involved.
She is against all vaccines - thinks healthy children will get over diseases and only those with surpressed immune systems will be very ill.
Her whole family is like it - think doctors are in league with drug companibig es ect and all mainstream medicine is corrupted by big business ect. There is probably something to some of that but she is way past being balanced in looking at the evidence.
Look i shouldn't be stealing someone's post so i'll just hope measles doesn't come around here soon while i think what to do.

TheBigJessie Thu 25-Apr-13 22:44:24

NHS site: No, the MMR vaccine has never contained thiomersal - a preservative containing mercury that is used in some vaccines.

Meanwhile: Mercury in the form of one of its common ores, cinnabar, is used in various traditional medicines, especially in traditional Chinese medicine. Review of its safety has found cinnabar can lead to significant mercury intoxication when heated, consumed in overdose or taken long term, and can have adverse effects at therapeutic doses, though this is typically reversible at therapeutic doses. Although this form of mercury appears less toxic than others, its use in traditional Chinese medicine has not yet been justified as the therapeutic basis for the use of cinnabar is not clear.[44]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28element%29#Applications

Andro Thu 25-Apr-13 22:44:35

crashdoll - for most people vaccination is safe but for a few people the effects are devastating. Perhaps if you had experienced that yourself you might have a bit more empathy with parents who are when all said and done trying to protect their children.

^^ This! When you've watched your child go from perfectly healthy to fighting for their life as a direct result of a vaccine (allergic reaction in DD's case), you think very carefully about your next steps.

Kiriwawa Thu 25-Apr-13 22:45:34

shouldkeepquiet - could you make an appt with the GP with your wife? Her arguments are irrational and illogical. And dangerous and selfish.

This outbreak is a direct result of people believing superstitious nonsense. FWIW my DN had singles. He has autism. I think he probably had autism before but it's one of those things that doesn't really become hugely apparent until pre-school/school <states the bleeding obvious>

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 22:49:41

Mercury has been removed fron the DTP now. It was a preservative - cheaper basically. But it is no longer an issue in vaccination programmes for children. And has never been in the MMR.

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 22:50:42

It may still be in some flu vaccines though iirc...

shouldkeepquiet Thu 25-Apr-13 22:52:25

Kiri - there is no chance she would go. She is now seeing an homeopath who has sent her links to an article showing how vaccinated children are 5X more likely to get this and that. She is not going to listen to me or any doctor when she has her mum / sister and these others confirming what she wants to hear.

BobblyGussets Thu 25-Apr-13 22:52:27

I am intrigued to know what your personal, special, medically valid circumstances are for being anti-vacc Lottie, you didn't say.....

TheBigJessie Thu 25-Apr-13 22:52:48

I've never come across the mercury lake idea before. The idea of fluoride stock piles yes, but not mercury. (I have no views on fluoride- so don't ask me for any. I think poundland colgate is cheaper than flouride-free kingfisher, so I buy colgate.)

BobblyGussets Thu 25-Apr-13 22:53:27

Oh no, not Homeopaths! Hunt them down and kill them for the greater good...

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 22:54:12

I am not anti-vacc...hmm

Does being pro-vaccination mean that you have to accept everything the government expects us to do with no question? Or that everybody should be vaccinated no matter what.

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 22:54:41

And no, BG I am not discussing my children with you thanks - it's none of your business.

Lazyjaney Thu 25-Apr-13 22:55:12

"This! When you've watched your child go from perfectly healthy to fighting for their life as a direct result of a vaccine (allergic reaction in DD's case), you think very carefully about your next steps"

You ever seen Measles in action? Thought not......

You are hiding behind the assumption that the herd immunity will protect you, but it's only patchy in the UK now.

BobblyGussets Thu 25-Apr-13 22:55:20

Fucking snake oil sales men/persons, all of them.

FairPhyllis Thu 25-Apr-13 22:55:21

As a scientist I am perfectly happy to call people 'whack jobs' if they think that they can make these kinds of calls from being armed with nothing but Google.

A parent who refuses to vaccinate may well be well-educated and intelligent, but even notwithstanding that, unless they have an advanced degree in whatever relevant subfield of immunology, they are not competent to assess research in it.

The idea that any layman's opinion is better than the current best advice devalues true scientific expertise.

It is the promotion of superstition. It is anti-science, anti-knowledge, is dangerous, and deserves to be ridiculed.

Fecklessdizzy Thu 25-Apr-13 22:55:45

Hang on Bobbly I thought that was badgers ...

BobblyGussets Thu 25-Apr-13 22:59:54

Come on, FairPhylis, you can sometimes get some good stuff from Google, don't be unfair on the Wack jobs. It is not their fault that they are too fucking thick to interpret the conclusive data from large scale clinical trial, presented to them in layman's terms.

They really aren't making an informed choice; let's not blame Google, it is their intellect, or lack of it, which prevents them from making one....

Kiriwawa Thu 25-Apr-13 23:03:25

I was at school with a girl with a really badly disfigured face and one eye because her mother had rubella during pregnancy.

Do we really need to go back to the time when people were severely disabled or killed by preventable diseases to remind us why it's good not to have them?

And as for this nonsense 'I'm a free thinker, not going to be told what to do by government' line, words fail me. Actually, they don't. Grow the fuck up. You're a parent. If you want to live outside society, absolutely fine, that's your prerogative, but don't you dare impose your whackjob nonsense beliefs on children who are unable to override them.

I feel a bit strongly about this topic blush

BlueberryHill Thu 25-Apr-13 23:03:26

FairPhyllis, agree completely. I rely on people with the relevant expertise to keep on fighting and demolishing arguments with no basis.

BobblyGussets Thu 25-Apr-13 23:05:11

Badgers are less harmful Feckless.

I am getting angry now, so I am going to leave the thread and go to bed, as I am no use to anyone. Great debate, keep it going...

TheBigJessie Thu 25-Apr-13 23:05:23

Fucking snake oil sales men/persons, all of them

They're mostly not knowingly mis-selling. They believe what they're saying.

Andro Thu 25-Apr-13 23:06:33

You are hiding behind the assumption that the herd immunity will protect you, but it's only patchy in the UK now.

I'm not hiding behind anything - I am only too well aware of the risks associated with children not being vaccinated. I watched my daughter go into cardiac arrest because of a vaccine, how would it be responsible of me to give her another dose of that same vaccine?

I am not anti vax, I am a highly trained scientist who values good quality research and who openly acknowledges that in the majority of cases the risk of vax is minute in comparison to the risk of the illnesses. I'm also intelligent enough to know that giving a child a vax to which she has been proven severely allergic is as 'responsible' as giving peanuts to an allergic person!

CoteDAzur Thu 25-Apr-13 23:07:57

FairPhyllis - Do you think it was in my DD's interest to be vaccinated against Rubella as a toddler?

As a scientist, of course, you know that (1) Rubella is a very mild disease for children. So mild that most parents miss it in their DC (2) Immunity against rubella is only ever essential when pregnant, and that (3) Having it confers lifetime immunity whereas vaccine immunity can wane or in some cases not even work.

I'm not a whack job. I am not armed with Google. I am armed with logic. And logic says that my DD's interests are best served by hoping she gets Rubella until she is of childbearing age, testing & if necessary vaccinating her at that point. And my DS' interests are best served by not being vaccinated unnecessarily.

Maybe now you want to launch into a monologue on social responsibility, herd immunity, etc but then you are not talking as a scientist anymore, are you?

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 23:08:37

shouldkeep would she accept advice from homeopaths who support vaccination?

"The British Homeopathic Association and Faculty of Homeopathy said they would do so. "There is no evidence to suggest homeopathic vaccinations can protect against contagious diseases. We recommend people seek out the conventional treatments," a spokesman said.

"I don't know where the parents in Totnes are getting their information from – it certainly is not us. There is no legal regulation of homeopathy in the UK and anyone can set themselves up as an expert. It is those people who tend to give us a bad name."

Philip Edmonds, chairman of the Society of Homeopaths said: "The Society does not endorse the use of homeopathic medicines as an alternative to vaccination for the prevention of serious infectious diseases and recommends that members of the public seek the advice of their GP, and/or relevant Department of Health guidelines, concerning vaccination and protection against disease."

m.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/15/homeopathy-measles-mp

Whilst some parents who did not vaccinate their children deserve the description 'whack jobs' (Hm. I wonder where that term comes from? Anyone know?), so do some parents who did vaccinate.

Most parents who did not vaccinate did so through fear. Because they didn't know who to trust, and the bastard press were pushing the Wakefield line. And although I do believe that these fearful parents have had years to correct the situation, they're still not whack jobs, just fallible. As we all are.

CoteDAzur Thu 25-Apr-13 23:11:02

"You ever seen Measles in action? "

Well, I have. I've had it twice. Once as a baby, then as an 8 year old. It wasn't fun but neither was it worrying at any point.

Anyway, DC have had single measles vaccines.

seeker Thu 25-Apr-13 23:12:15

"Oh no, not Homeopaths! Hunt them down and kill them for the greater good..."

No need. Just send them all into an area where polio is still endemic.....
.

BobblyGussets Thu 25-Apr-13 23:12:34

I need to leave this thread now, because I am a bit pissed and angry, and I need to get up for work tomorrow.

I don't know you Lottie, so anything you post about your children, to back up your argument, will remain anonymous and, therefore, non of my business. You didn't give a valid reason, remember, so I am not really sure what it is that you think you are contributing to the thread. We heard from PurpleFluffyDice, and no-one seemed to have an argument with her, so I think people on this thread are receptive to valid medical reasons against vaccination.

RowanMumsnet (MNHQ) Thu 25-Apr-13 23:21:50

Hello

We do know that this is a very heated topic for lots of posters, but please remember our Talk Guidelines, especially those about personal attacks. Attacking an argument is fine; attacking another poster is not.

shouldkeepquiet Thu 25-Apr-13 23:23:57

thanks noble - i'll keep that in my back pocket incase there is talk of 'alternative vaccinations'.

babyhammock Thu 25-Apr-13 23:24:02

"You ever seen Measles in action? "
Me... I was examining myself for spots in the hope of a day off school (sunday night in the bath...remember it quite clearly) and I was covered! It was measles. Spent a week with curtains drawn (eyes quite sensitive to light) feeling mildly poorly and making soap sculptures and watching tv.

Fecklessdizzy Thu 25-Apr-13 23:27:15

It's the fact that some kids can't be innoculated due to allergies/surpressed immune function that makes it so important that the ones that can have the jab do have it so as to minimise the chances of the vunerable minority getting the disease ... It's the adults who put their half-baked theories above the health of their own and other peoples children that really get my goat!

I'm off to argue about string theory with the cats now ...

Kiriwawa Thu 25-Apr-13 23:35:09

Quite, feckless.

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 23:50:56

'I don't know you Lottie, so anything you post about your children, to back up your argument, will remain anonymous and, therefore, non of my business. You didn't give a valid reason, remember, so I am not really sure what it is that you think you are contributing to the thread.'

So, let me get this straight - you are asking me to explain and justify myself to you? Why should I? when so many people on this thread are posting in a way which comes across as nasty and aggressive.

Do not tell me that in order to have a valid opinion I have to ask you first to assess whether my opinion is valid or not. You can't tell me not to post on here because I won't discuss my children on this thread.

My children are real people - I will not use them in arguments for point scoring.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 00:01:11

In any case, I am not trying to convince anyone not to vaccinate and I view vaccination as a good thing, generally.

What I take issue with is a one size fits all approach to vaccination. Because one size doesn't fit all.

ExRatty Fri 26-Apr-13 01:04:09

"Measles in Action"

is a good name for a band

FairPhyllis Fri 26-Apr-13 02:54:52

I'm not talking about social responsibility Cote - although I don't think it particularly covers anybody in glory if they haven't considered that. I'm talking specifically about the fact that people often justify their decision not to vaccinate with a statement about having 'researched' their decision, which imo shows a lack of appreciation of how skilled and knowledgeable scientific researchers are, and how difficult it is to acquire that skill.

Now you can access a lot of quality research via the internet - but by no means all of it. I expect those of you who so confidently claim you have done the research all have access to databases of all the relevant journals. I expect you all attend the relevant conferences every year. I expect you all have a network of friends dating back decades in labs who work on the same problems and whose results you usually see before they are published.

It's not good enough to read the abstract and understand the claim that a paper is making - any intelligent person can do that. You have to be able to contextualise the research. You need to be able to evaluate research design. You need years of FT research and background knowledge of the field to be able to do that properly.

It's not good enough to say look at the reputation of the journal - I can trust it! (even if you know enough about the field to be able to 'rank' journals) I've read papers in Nature from my field that have made me laugh like a drain. Stuff gets published in journals only to be superseded later all the time. That's how science works.

It's not good enough to be an intelligent, well-educated, sincerely-motivated person, which I'm sure many anti vaccine people are. I know that I myself couldn't confidently assess the quality of a paper in a different subfield of my own discipline, because I am not an expert outside my own subfield. I see no reason that someone without advanced training in the relevant area would be able to properly evaluate a piece of research on vaccines, and I include myself in that number.

I have no idea why you Cote haven't vaccinated your DD for rubella as I am not aware of your story. I hope it was on the advice of your doctor though.

MrsHoarder Fri 26-Apr-13 06:34:02

Andro that sounds terrifying. I doubt there us anyone who would want you to risk that again. Hope that herd immunity does protect her as it should do.

As for measles being an unpleasant disease, a reminder of the numbers. 1 in every 10 who have it are admitted to hospital. 1 in every 1000 die. I don't have the figures to hand for those blinded etc. This is with the benefit of modern medicine and sanitation.

Lazyjaney Fri 26-Apr-13 07:03:35

Seems to me reading this thread that anti vaxxers not only deny the efficacy of the MMR but also deny the effects of the diseases. Measles is not inoculated against because it makes you spotty and causes discomfort for a few days, it's a killer. Or are those facts also a conspiracy?

Lazyjaney Fri 26-Apr-13 07:08:56

"I am not anti vax, I am a highly trained scientist who values good quality research and who openly acknowledges that in the majority of cases the risk of vax is minute in comparison to the risk of the illnesses. I'm also intelligent enough to know that giving a child a vax to which she has been proven severely allergic is as 'responsible' as giving peanuts to an allergic person!"

I don't understand your logic then Andro.

Given that you know the risks, and given that your child reacted badLy to the MMR, I'd have thought you'd be very keen on ramping the herd immunity rate up. Yet here you are attacking those arguing FOR vaccination?

Maybe because andro doesn't want people to go through what she has?

I get slightly fed up being told what to do by people who know absolutely nothing about autism (to the point where they don't even know what it is) & am happy with the decisions we made after reading the research (yes can understand it cheers), attending (& presenting) at international autism conferences & talking to researchers about their current research. With a quick chat with ds1's paed & neurologist along the way. I think the people who think they know better are whack jobs tbh.

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 07:30:25

What I find odd about this debate is that the "anti -vaxxers" (hate the term but not sure what else to say) persist in talking as if then"pro-vaxxers" want to force everyone to vaccinate regardless. While the "pro-vaxxers" say in practically every post that of course there are some that shouldn't be, and that is one of the reasons why everybody who can be should be- to protect the few that can't.

Lazyjaney Fri 26-Apr-13 07:40:01

Jimjams, may I suggest that instead of going to conferences talking about autism, you go to help in hospitals in developing countries so you can see what measles looks like. You may begin to get a glimmer of understanding why countries do inoculate.

To think that Autism is a bigger risk than measles is true whack job thinking, as it is the triumph of hysterical belief over scientific fact.

Lazyjane - I am well aware of the damage that measles can do - my mum is deaf in one ear from measles. But I find severe brain damage quite life stopping as well - and with our family history severe autism is a risk. Your comment about autism sounds like you're exactly the sort of person I'm talking about who doesn't actually know what it is.

I didn't say 'countries' shouldn't inoculate - I am talking about taking into account individual risk factors.

Heebiejeebie Fri 26-Apr-13 07:48:37

I struggle with the logical sequence of the anti-vaccs. if exposure to small amounts of virus in the vaccine causes effects like autism, why wouldn't there be an even more cataclysmic response to actual infection, when huge numbers of viruses are replicating in and bursting out of your cells.

Because the 'pro-vaxxers' seem to lack an understanding that there are grey areas seeker. Something that senior doctors incidentally seem very aware of (junior ones not so much). If you inhabit a grey area no-one can tell you which is the 'correct' decision for your child.

As I said on another thread - roll on the heel prick test at birth for immune deficiencies that are associated with autism. If ds2 & ds3 have children they may not have to make best guesses as we have - they may have better information.

crashdoll Fri 26-Apr-13 07:58:06

"crashdoll - for most people vaccination is safe but for a few people the effects are devastating. Perhaps if you had experienced that yourself you might have a bit more empathy with parents who are when all said and done trying to protect their children."

That is really bloody unfair lottieandmia. On these threads, I have never once criticised parents who have been through the tradedy of their child severely regressing and have acknowledge that for some children, the MMR will affect them in a devastating way. Of course I have empathy and I won't pretend for a second that I know what it feels like. What I did say was that it is a measure of risk and in most cases, I would veer towards thinking vaccinating is the right decision. What I won't do is make an assumption that I would or wouldn't vax subsequent children if one of mine suffered badly as a result of a vaccination. How can I make a judgement when I have never walked in those shoes and hopefully, never will? So, your comment was out of order. I said I was measuring risk and for me, I believe the risk of not vaxing (in MOST cases) is a bigger risk than vaxing.

crashdoll Fri 26-Apr-13 08:00:00

"I struggle with the logical sequence of the anti-vaccs. if exposure to small amounts of virus in the vaccine causes effects like autism, why wouldn't there be an even more cataclysmic response to actual infection, when huge numbers of viruses are replicating in and bursting out of your cells."

This is what I have asked in previous threads but I've not had a straight answer and I am genuinely curious (not in a snarky way) to see if there is an answer.

Heebiejeebie Fri 26-Apr-13 08:02:14

And we need to do away with the straw man of 'my child can't be vaccinated because 'inserts valid reason' therefore you are all wrong'.

'Don't throw your children out of the window'
'That's a ridiculous thing to say, I saved my baby's life by throwing her out of a burning building
'Well, obviously that's a rare but valid exception'
HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST I SHOULD HAVE LEFT HER TO BURN?
'Errr, never mind'

Heebiejeebie - it depends on the immune response. Plain English summary from one of the most respected researchers in this field (note she is suggesting separating them which is a perfectly reasonable suggestion and easy to organise in the States - not so easy here)

Judy Van de Water, Ph.D., is an immunologist at the University of California, Davis, who is directing an investigation, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), into the potential environmental risk factors that may be behind the rise in autism. "A healthy child should do fine with our current vaccination schedule," she says, "but you can't always know how robust a child's immune system will be prior to vaccination." Some experts suggest that some children who develop autism have faulty immune systems. A 2008 study published in the journal Autism Research compared levels of immunoglobulin (antibodies that play a role in immunity) in normally developing children with the levels in children with autism. It showed that children with autism had lower levels of immunoglobulin, suggesting "an underlying defect in immune function." A 2009 study published in the journal Brain, Behavior and Immunity did a similar comparison and found abnormalities in the "natural killer cells" (the big guns of the immune system) of children with autism spectrum disorders, which "may predispose them to the development of autoimmunity and/or adverse neuroimmune interactions during critical periods of development." "Since some vaccines are designed to mimic infections," Van de Water says, "you can imagine how sick you could be if you get nine at once and your immune system is not working optimally -- for any number of reasons." She and her team are developing a heel-stick test that will determine the health of a child's immune system before immunization, but it's still years away from FDA approval. In the meantime, if your child has a bad response to an early vaccine -- acting very lethargic for more than 24 hours and running a fever of 100 degrees Fahrenheit or higher -- Van de Water suggests that it may sound a warning about future vaccinations. For other signs of how the state of a patient's immune system impacts immunization, visit the CDC website (cdc.gov).

The research in this area is in it's infancy but for someone with at-risk children, siblings of a child who regressed severely following an immune event, it seems wise to listen to it - even if a lot of this is just opinion at the moment.

crashdoll - answer above - as much of an answer as can be given at the moment. Ds1's doctors have told us to wait 10-20 years and we'll get a much more accurate answer (like I said, hopefully in time for ds2 and ds3's children if they have any).

noblegiraffe Fri 26-Apr-13 08:09:04

The NHS recommends caution with vaccines where the child's immune system is dodgy. If there is a test being developed so that we can better tell before vaccination who these children are, then that's brilliant.

No one wants children to suffer. That's why we vaccinate in the first place!

What I did say was that it is a measure of risk and in most cases, I would veer towards thinking vaccinating is the right decision.

crashdoll I do know what you mean with the above (and it's why ds1 was vaccinated) but a point that the above research group make sometimes is that at the moment we often don't really know what the risk for each child is until we give them a vaccination. It's why that heel prick test is so important imo. I also found it interesting that she mentions lethargy & a high fever as warning signs, as that was exactly how ds1 reacted to his baby jabs, & I thought it was normal (I'm sure I was told it was normal) & we just carried on with the regular vaccination programme. We're years away from a heel prick test but there could be more notice paid to red flags already imo.

crashdoll Fri 26-Apr-13 08:14:33

saintly I'm certainly not adverse to a heel prick test at all and anything that protects children is obviously worth fighting for. The trouble with warning signs is this they are subjective and some children will have those warning signs but not be at risk at all.

Heebiejeebie Fri 26-Apr-13 08:20:06

Saintly, thank you for the link, but it doesn't answer the question. If yo r immune system is not functioning well, then you are more not less at risk if you catch the infection that you haven't vaccinated against.

Yes crashdoll - but at the moment they are not discussed at all (and currently in the UK it is very difficult to follow her advice on how to vaccinate whilst reducing the risk from the vaccination - even when your doctor agrees with you incidentally - btdtgtts)

yes heebiejeebie - rock and a hard place, welcome to my world. At that stage if you are thinking about the child as an individual you have to look at their risk from each disease (including whether or not they're likely to get it - for example if you have a child who you strongly suspect has an immune disorder and you know they're never going to be able to travel on a plane - are you (or their doctor) going to worry about polio for them - remember we're thinking individually?). Unfortunately over the last decade the UK system is very much all or nothing at which stage you start to have to toss coins really.

*the UK system has become very much

Bramshott Fri 26-Apr-13 08:39:14

I think you're reading the wrong things TBH.

Andro Fri 26-Apr-13 09:50:57

Given that you know the risks, and given that your child reacted badLy to the MMR, I'd have thought you'd be very keen on ramping the herd immunity rate up. Yet here you are attacking those arguing FOR vaccination?

I'm not attacking pro vax people at all, I'm agreeing with OP that dismissing all those who haven't given any/full program of MMR (for example) as 'whack jobs' etc is very unhelpful...and pretty insulting to those of us who have reason not to go ahead.

You yourself dismissed me as 'hiding behind herd immunity' when I was only responding to another comment suggesting that a bit more empathy would be a good thing. Quite honestly, your response read like a dismissal of my DD's life threatening allergic reaction...as if you assumed the reaction was less dangerous to her than measles.

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 10:00:43

See? Andro- that's the sort of thing I mean. I don't think there's a "pro-vaxxer" anywhere who doesn't agree that there are some children who shouldn't be vaccinated. And a child who is anaphylacticly allergic is obviously one of those. But somehow that's how people are reading the words that are actually being written. Very odd.

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 10:01:51

And it's important to remember that the OP linked to a silly spoof website, and when asked to come up with samples of the same sort of language from somewhere sensible, couldn't.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 10:06:51

seeker - the way I read it was that the OP knew it was a spoof website. She linked to it because there are people that refer to people who don't vaccinate as 'whack jobs' etc

There are also people on this thread who are not sympathetic to those who may have a good reason to vaccinate but those posts have been deleted. I am not saying you are one of those.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 10:07:17

a good reason NOT to vaccinate*

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 10:13:43

But anyone who says that a person whose child has a medical reason for not being vaccinated should vaccinate is most definitley a "whack job"! I don't judge you by the standards of my friend who thinks that her children don't need vaccines because homeopathy is so much more effective- so why judge the overwhelming majority of "pro vaxxers" by the whack-job few?

Andro Fri 26-Apr-13 10:17:23

* But somehow that's how people are reading the words that are actually being written. Very odd.*

Perhaps there's one or two posters who haven't thought about how their words might be taken? The other possibility is that some of us who haven't been able to give a full program of vaccinations have been hassled/bullied/dismissed a crazy so many times that we're a little sensitive. On the internet we can only see what is written, not tone or the caveats running trough a poster's head.

Here are the comment in question, the this as the beginning was where I had agreed with a comment about empathy (nothing about being anti vax at all)

This! When you've watched your child go from perfectly healthy to fighting for their life as a direct result of a vaccine (allergic reaction in DD's case), you think very carefully about your next steps

"You ever seen Measles in action? Thought not......

You are hiding behind the assumption that the herd immunity will protect you, but it's only patchy in the UK now."

The response was imo, at best, dismissive (and could even be taken by some as implying that I ought to have completed the vaccination program in spite of her reaction).

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 10:22:53

'so why judge the overwhelming majority of "pro vaxxers" by the whack-job few?'

Hopefully I haven't done this - it was certainly not my intention.

MsGillis Fri 26-Apr-13 10:36:02

"seeker - the way I read it was that the OP knew it was a spoof website. She linked to it because there are people that refer to people who don't vaccinate as 'whack jobs' etc"

Lottie - yes, you are spot on. Seeker, obviously mainstream newspapers don't use language like that (except for perhaps the Star and the Mail, which don't count for anything!) but as I said several times upthread this is indicative of actual real life opinions held by people, which this thread has gone on to demonstrate.

I'm not anti vaccination, but as some people on this thread have said it isn't a black and white, all or nothing situation. My initial point was that to tar everyone who as yet hasn't signed up with the same "whackjob" brush is short-sighted and unhelpful.

"I don't see why derogatory terms for the mentally ill are acceptable, TBH."

Apologies if I've got the context wrong here, but that read to me like if you don't vaccinate you are mentally ill. And there are many posts here which make blanket statements, whereas I think that a lot of people who haven't vaccinated could probably be convinced to do so if they weren't patronised and insulted. Which has to be beneficial to society in general, surely?

MsGillis Fri 26-Apr-13 10:37:22

"Perhaps there's one or two posters who haven't thought about how their words might be taken? The other possibility is that some of us who haven't been able to give a full program of vaccinations have been hassled/bullied/dismissed a crazy so many times that we're a little sensitive. On the internet we can only see what is written, not tone or the caveats running trough a poster's head."

^^This

olgaga Fri 26-Apr-13 10:43:13

I heard some parents on R5 Live yesterday trying to defend the discredited Wakefield.

I agree that derogatory insults are unhelpful. I've heard other parents talking in those terms about parents who refuse the vaccine, but I haven't seen anything like that in the media. I do think it's about time people understood that getting the MMR vaccine is the right choice, and that is the way the DoH is encouraging the media to report the current epidemic.

Like these advertisement features.

I only hope this epidemic can be contained, for all our sakes. Measles is a horrible illness which could have been almost eliminated in this country, as in the US, had it not been for the irresponsible media treatment of Wakefield's bogus theories.

Spero Fri 26-Apr-13 11:05:00

The message I am taking from this thread is that some posters would be content for me to die because they have a right to make their own witless decisions.

I am on chemo and in last 6 months my neutrophil levels have dropped to dangerously low levels 3 times.

If you want to live in mainstream society, taking advantage of publicly funded schools, roads, hospitals then you vaccinate your children against life threatening diseases.

If you chose not to, would you kindly fuck off to a remote island or gated community and not let your children anywhere near me, particularly if you have no understanding of infection or incubation periods.

'Whack jobs'is way too kind and gentle a phrase for me.

noblegiraffe Fri 26-Apr-13 11:08:17

The article linked to by the OP says
"“But then there are the whack-jobs who would prefer to seek their medical protection and treatment from someone who runs a website selling sugar pills to poor African people.”"

If you haven't vaccinated because of medical issues and not because you prefer homeopathy or crystal healing or whatever, then why are you identifying with the people being slated in the article? It's clearly not about you.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 26-Apr-13 11:13:26

The thing is the one person in RL who I would describe as a wack job actually believes she has a medical reason ( the wide spread conspiracy of the gov to harm everyone using vaccines that are made of poison and don't work as well as nettle tea just to make money).

She thinks she's a forward thinking intelligent woman.

My kids are all done firstly to protect themselves and secondly to protect people who have actual medical reasons like vaccine damage or allergy or more likely to become ill and genuinely unable to protect themselves.

As seeker says if everybody who CAN be is then its better for those who can't.

ilovemyelectricblanket Fri 26-Apr-13 11:16:17

My 21 year old nephew is autistic. He was normal until he had the MMR. We have recordings of him playing and talking.
He is has never said I love you Mummy.
He had the MMR, terrible fever and was never the same again.

If you were me (I have two sons) what would you do....

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 11:18:38

On another thread the other day there was a poster saying that her child had a condition and that one of her doctors had said it would be ok to vaccinate and the other doctor said don't vaccnate. So even when you speak to HCPs you sometimes get a divided opinion.

It can therefore be a difficult decision to make as a parent when your child is in a grey area.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 11:25:38

Like these advertisement features which says:

"In 1987, the year before the MMR vaccine was introduced, 86,000 children caught measles and 16 died in the UK."

Whereas Public Health England giving the stats from the Office for National Statistics for England and Wales shows the following:

1986 Notifications 82,054 Deaths 10
1987 Notifications 42,158 Deaths 6
1988 Notifications 86,001 Deaths 16

This refers to all notifications which includes adults as well as children.

So it looks like someone somewhere in The Guardian has got their countries mixed up and Scotland and NI had another 43842 cases producing another 10 deaths, which sounds a little on the high side but may be correct.

Or that they have got their years as well as its countries muddled up and the stats don't show the point they are trying to make, but show a marked increase in measles in the year the vaccine was introduced.

The data for the following year would make their point:26,222 notifications with 3 deaths.

These figures were easy to find, and IMO points to one definite conclusion: you can't always trust what you read in the press.

olgaga Fri 26-Apr-13 11:29:51

LaVolcan Yes it's true, you can't always trust what you read in the press. It's thanks to the credulous media reporting of Wakefield's bogus research that we are in this situation today.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 11:35:39

6 years ago, David Cameron was saying parents should be given the choice of single MMR - I wonder if he remembers that now?

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 26-Apr-13 11:38:13

Blanket. I have 5 kids with autism and I just booked for my 13 month olds jabs on the advice of docters involved with my older children's health care.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 11:39:37

Yet olgaga Wakefield's research was published in The Lancet so at the time no-one had any cause to believe that there were doubts about the research. And he didn't say don't vaccinate against measles - at the time he suggested using the alternative of single vaccines which were freely available.

The Press now are going on an on about Wakefield but I bet a good majority would have forgotten all about him if it wasn't for them.

Chunderella Fri 26-Apr-13 11:39:58

Lottieandmia, the Italian courts are known for throwing up some, shall we say, eccentric decisions. They're currently basking in the glow of convicting some geologists for not predicting an earthquake. Not necessarily a brilliant source of evidence or information. Oh, and Leo Blair did have the MMR.

FairPhyllis makes very good points about research. I'm a solicitor not a scientist, so I wouldn't claim to understand everything I read on the matter, but even I know that you have to do more than read the abstract. But people often respond very badly to the idea that the abstract doesn't necessarily accurately describe the actual findings! That can be true in social science too.

With regards to the OP, no it isn't helpful to refer to non-vaccinating parents, however poorly informed, as whackjobs or anything else derogatory. Being spoken to like that just makes people defensive, angry and less likely to change their behaviour.

Best of luck Spero.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 11:42:00

How do you kow Leo Blair had the MMR? I thought it was eventually discovered he had single vaccines.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 11:43:08

ilove I'm really sorry about your nephew. I don't know how common regressive autism is (maybe a third? I honestly don't know). I would go ahead with vaccination if it was me.
It's possible the link between mmr and autism has been made because 13 months is around the time autism is first picked up.

I remember on a similar thread a poster said her son come down with a horrible fever and screamed for 3 hours straight the night he was due his mmr. The only thing was she forgot to take him for his jabs that day. If she had remembered she would have almost certainly linked the fever with the mmr jab.

Spero Fri 26-Apr-13 11:46:07

I do agree that speaking to people angrily or using offensive terms is unlikely to make them change their behaviour as they may get defensive or dig their heels in further.

But frankly, what will work with some of these people? As the old saying goes, belief in homeopathy exceeds the boundaries of a rational mind.

Therefore, given that at least waynetta has unambiguously declared that people like me should die as illustrations of 'survival of the fittest' I will reserve the right to insult them in the most crude and offensive terms I can find because to put it mildly I think they are disgustingly selfish people who have abdicated their right to live in mainstream society or recieve any courtesy from people like me.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 11:46:26

'It's possible the link between mmr and autism has been made because 13 months is around the time autism is first picked up.'

Actually, this is a bit of a myth. There are very few parents who manage to get a diagnosis at 13 months, and 2-3 years even in severe cases is the youngest it's generally picked up ime.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 11:47:58

But electricblanket has a dilemma. Telling her she's a 'whack job' or selfish or whatever doesn't help her with her decision. Telling her that it's just a coincidence that her nephew has autism doesn't help her too much either. Some real informed information would help her, but where does she get that?

Pagwatch Fri 26-Apr-13 11:48:35

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 11:49:00

The survival of the fittest comment was not very nice. Same goes for when people infer that some collateral damage to some children from vaccinations is ok. People who say these sorts of things fail to see people as individuals with real lives.

Spero Fri 26-Apr-13 11:49:28

She doesn't have a dilemma. There is NO credible evidence linking MMR with autism. When I was about to vaccinate my daughter I asked my doctor friends what they had done. They had ALL vaccinated their children. So I did.

Chunderella Fri 26-Apr-13 11:51:01

Cherie confirmed it later, Lottie, in her book. I've never heard of any evidence to the contrary, but by all means if anyone has any please post it.

Pagwatch Fri 26-Apr-13 11:53:12

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 11:54:08

'She doesn't have a dilemma.'

Well, that all depends what genetic make up her children have doesn't it and whether they have the same predisposition her nephew had.

noblegiraffe Fri 26-Apr-13 11:54:11
WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 11:55:02

lavolcan well Japan switching from mmr to single jabs and seeing no fall in autism rates (I think they continued to rise) is pretty solid real data.

lottie I will be the first to admit that I don't know a lot about autism but doesn't it take a long time to get a diagnosis. So parents first suspect there is something wrong around one year old and then after many investigations the diagnosis is made around 2.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 11:55:16

Well I stand corrected Chunderella if Cherie was being truthful!

Spero Fri 26-Apr-13 11:56:06

Lottie what are you talking about? There is NO credible evidence showing link between MMR and autism. Her nephew's 'genetic makeup' is irrelevant.

She has no dilemma.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 11:57:04

Did your doctor friends have children with autism spero? How does telling her that there is No credible evidence convince her? What if her nephew had regressed into autism after getting measles? Would you say get the jab, that's why we don't want measles to circulate? Or would you say, it's just a coincidence?

Pagwatch Fri 26-Apr-13 11:57:58

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WearsMinkAllDayAndFoxAllNight Fri 26-Apr-13 11:59:26

Vaccine refusers – those who could, but don’t, have their children vaccinated – are either knavish or foolish.

IME the great majority of vaccine refusers are knavish: they know what they’re doing is hiding behind herd immunity while proudly boasting of their individuality and deeper knowledge. But, just like many of the people queuing in Wales now, when disease comes knocking they’re down the jab clinic like shit off a shovel. It’s all posturing and “look at me – I’m different!” rubbish. Being anti-vaccination makes them feel important and special.

Pathetic reasons for not vaccinating are generally inflated to sound like genuine ones. But it’s always striking that those whose children have, or who themselves have, LEGITIMATE reasons for not vaccinating and for most fearing infectious disease – those who’ve had chemo, for example – are openly grateful to those who do vaccinate and would accept vaccinations straight away if they could.

A few refusers are foolish and genuinely don’t know how to make choices of any sort.

But all anti-vaccinators are dangerous when they start publicly to spread lies and myths, and to smear vaccination with vague suggestions of harm and cover up.

MMR does not cause autism, neither in general nor in a susceptible few. How do we know? Because many studies show it.

Devastating adverse reactions to modern vaccines are incredibly, almost vanishingly rare. How do we know? Because the carefully monitored and analysed data show it.

If you argue otherwise you are either knavish or foolish.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 12:00:07

I suppose it depends WhenShe, not least on where you live I suppose and how good services are. But I think when a child has regressed spectacularly as described by Pag, who just said her son had the MMR at 18 months then it's quite rude to say the parents are just looking for a reason or it was a coincidence.

There is currently another thread where a child was hospitalised after his booster and the OP was asking where to report the reaction. She says she took him to A and E where they said after investigation it must have been the booster that caused it.

Spero Fri 26-Apr-13 12:00:37

If telling someone there is no credible evidence doesn't convince her, then nothing will. Coincidence isn't cause. Individual tragedies do not entitle people to behave like selfish fools when they chose to live in mainstream society with all its benefits and yet expose others to the consequences of their very poor choices.

As laQueen said much earlier, if you think your half an hour on google has more relevance and substance than many years of medical training, your credulous nature runs disturbingly deep.

That is a general 'you' by the way.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 12:04:07

pag I am really sorry about your ds2. The thing is there really isn't any evidence that mmr causes autism. I know parent experience is important but the appearance of a link isn't the same as an actual link.

I find it hard to accept there is a link between mmr and autism because when it was dropped in Japan the was no drop in autism rates.

Pagwatch Fri 26-Apr-13 12:04:47

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 12:05:03

'IME the great majority of vaccine refusers are knavish: they know what they’re doing is hiding behind herd immunity while proudly boasting of their individuality and deeper knowledge. But, just like many of the people queuing in Wales now, when disease comes knocking they’re down the jab clinic like shit off a shovel. It’s all posturing and “look at me – I’m different!” rubbish. Being anti-vaccination makes them feel important and special.'

Do you personally know anyone like this? Because I don't...

'If you argue otherwise you are either knavish or foolish.'

Ok, WearsMink - you must be right because you say so hmm

Life is not black and white. If there was more help to determine the grey areas, maybe we wouldn't have the outbreak that is going on now.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 12:07:37

lottie I'm not saying vaccination doesn't cause any reactions every. There are reactions most commonly a bruise or mild fever and very very occasionally (1 in 100,000) a severe allergic reaction. But there isn't any evidence that it causes autism.

Spero Fri 26-Apr-13 12:08:03

I don't give a shit about being superior or posturing. I would just like to be alive for the next five years as my daughter is only 8.

Pagwatch Fri 26-Apr-13 12:09:29

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Chunderella Fri 26-Apr-13 12:10:05

Well she may or may not have been telling the truth Lottie. But ultimately, either people find what the Blairs say and don't say to be persuasive or they don't. No double standards.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 12:12:12

But WhenShe - as we've said elsewhere autism is not one condition - it's many conditions which could all have different causes. One person with autism can present very differently to another and have totally different needs.

Pagwatch Fri 26-Apr-13 12:13:05

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 12:13:13

I agree, Chunderella

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 12:16:11

lottie ok then there isn't any evidence that mmr causes any condition on the autistic spectrum. I'm not arguing about what autism is just that mmr doesn't cause it (it = the wide range of conditions that encompass autism).

Andro Fri 26-Apr-13 12:17:17

Pagwatch - I'm sorry to hear about your sister Pag.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 12:17:32

I think there is evidence because I choose to believe parents who know their own child. (shrugs)

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 12:17:59

That is not to say that I think MMR generally causes autism - I don't.

Spero Fri 26-Apr-13 12:18:05

I am sorry to hear about your sister, particularly to go through chemo with no positive outcome.

I think the problem for the 'nice' anti vaxxers is that you travel under same umbrella as waynetta and her ilk.

I don't want to make anyone genuinely wrestling with a dilemma feel like shit. But you have to understand the consequences of your decision. I would like to spend some time with waynetta face to face while she justifies her view to me that I am acceptable collateral damage to the consequences of her decisions.

olgaga Fri 26-Apr-13 12:20:05

Who cares what the Blairs did or didn't do?

The evidence for the safety and efficacy of the MMR vaccine is now established.

A mother who rang R5Live yesterday exclaimed "But I refuse to play Russian Roulette with my child's health" and would not accept that she was doing just that by refusing the vaccination.

I imagine when this epidemic spreads and more young people start dying people might start feeling differently. It's a shame that it has to get to that stage though.

tempnameswap Fri 26-Apr-13 12:20:44

YANBU OP.

This whole debate is making me furious. Life really isn't black and white - family history, previous reactions, allergies all make the decision much more difficult.

It is just not the case to suggest that those who do not vaccinate are negligent or stupid. And nor can the debate blithely exclude those who 'cannot vaccinate for a medical reason'. Because it has become a medical blasphemy to debate vaccines (and I say this *as a qualified doctor*) you will rarely get a definitive opinion not to vaccinate from a mainstream medic.

However there are children for whom I believe single vaccines are more appropriate and those for whom not vaccinating is safer for them , if not for the herd.

I felt differently before I had my anaphylactic daughter and was a medic dealing with other children. The herd came first. Now I feel that DD2 who has a clear allergic predisposition that multiple vaccines are not appropriate, particularly multiple vaccines that contain egg.

And the media just repeating the same stuff with no variation is making any alternative view sound ignorant. Whereas it may well be the result of more investigation and questioning of the official line.

Some of the facts are deliberately being simplified to reduce this questioning. Eg info about the MMR booster which suggests that you have 95% immunity after the first vaccine. This is not true - 5% will have no immunity, 95% will have had a definitive response to the vaccine. Obviously it would cost a fortune to do antibody tests on all after the first vaccine, so we vaccinate everybody again. 95% of those did not need a second vaccine - it is not actually a booster it just mops up the non-responders.

But this isn't being explained because the official line is to spout the same, simple information to ensure herd immunity (important though that is).

There is far more grey area in all this than people are suggesting....

Pagwatch Fri 26-Apr-13 12:22:13

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 12:24:07

Well said tempnameswap

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 12:25:09

Tempnameswap - very eloquently put.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 12:31:24

pag really sorry about your sister.

temp just wondering what your opinion is re mmr and autism.

Spero Fri 26-Apr-13 12:33:22

some people who refuse to vaccinate clearly are negligent and stupid. And they are spoiling the debate for those who aren't.

I appreciate life is rarely black and white. But from all that I have read over the years about the MMR/autism debate, it tends much more to the monochrome for me.

WearsMinkAllDayAndFoxAllNight Fri 26-Apr-13 12:36:18

"(and I say this *as a qualified doctor*)"

Good for you, but I'm glad you're not my and my DC's doctor.

tempnameswap Fri 26-Apr-13 12:43:33

Pag - sorry x-posted, I am so sorry about your sister.

WhenSheWas - I suppose my honest opinion is I don't know enough about it. It is not my area of expertise and I have never had significant experience in a working environment. Plus thankfully it doesn't affect my children so I have never had to delve any deeper.

My view though is that if you believe have personal experience of regression you have every right not to go ahead with further vaccines. In general, it is not for those who have an easier ride to judge. These decisions are hard as a parent.

In the area I do have particular experience of - allergies - it is clear that there is so much we do not know. It is just as wrong IMHO to give a blanket assurance that multiple vaccines are 'perfectly safe' than to say they are not. Much of the anti- vaccine stuff is bonkers I reckon but some of the blindly pro-vaccine stuff is arrogant and ignorant.

tempnameswap Fri 26-Apr-13 12:44:51

Why Wears? If you had concerns I would discuss them with you, if not I would strongly recommend you vaccinate.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 12:45:22

Eg info about the MMR booster which suggests that you have 95% immunity after the first vaccine. This is not true - 5% will have no immunity, 95% will have had a definitive response to the vaccine. ...... 95% of those did not need a second vaccine - it is not actually a booster it just mops up the non-responders.

Just thinking aloud about this: a good way forward might be to develop a cheap inexpensive and easily administered test to find out who needed the second jab?

Much is made of the numbers who were 'incompletely vaccinated'. Unless we can say for certainty that it's only that category which are getting measles it might suggest that the vaccine has begun to lose its efficacy? In which case, what is being done to address the issue? Or is the question even being asked?

Spero - there are very few on these threads who refuse to vaccinate, but as tempnamechange says, those who want to question the timings or use single vaccines are lumped in with them, and told that they are knaves and fools. If those who don't vaccinate have children with the disease and go round spreading it yes, it's a bit selfish. But, a genuine question here, are you going to get the disease from someone who hasn't caught it themselves? You get the impression from some of these threads that those who don't vaccinate have children who are walking cauldrons of disease!

Andro Fri 26-Apr-13 12:51:18

If you had concerns I would discuss them with you, if not I would strongly recommend you vaccinate.

We need more doctors like you temp!

Spero Fri 26-Apr-13 12:56:54

Those who don't vaccinate are contributing to such situations that have arisen in Swansea when infections may proliferate widely across an unprotected community. My chances (in Bristol) of being exposed to an infected person is thus much greater.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 12:57:47

However there are children for whom I believe single vaccines are more appropriate and those for whom not vaccinating is safer for them , if not for the herd.

Are you allowed to recommend single vaccines to your patients?

Lazyjaney Fri 26-Apr-13 12:58:46

" some people who refuse to vaccinate clearly are negligent and stupid. And they are spoiling the debate for those who aren't"

It is interesting that the number of those in the UK who absolutely cannot vaccinate their children post 1999, owing to unique special factors, is so very high, higher in fact even than the number needed for herd immunity, when in the rest of the world it is a fraction of a %

And the high incidence of MMR caused autism in the UK is a puzzle, as globally no correlation has been found.

Ditto, these same people also seem to experience measles as a mild inconvenience, whereas it is a global killer everywhere else.

There is clearly something very unique about British post 1999 child physiology.

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 13:00:11

"However there are children for whom I believe single vaccines are more appropriate"

Which children do you mean?

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 13:03:40

I am sure that tempnamechange can speak for herself, but her speciality was allergies, of which she said that there was still a lot we didn't know, so I presume she was speaking of these.

BTW tempnamechange - I'd be quite happy to have a Dr who was happy to use their clinical judgement.

WearsMinkAllDayAndFoxAllNight Fri 26-Apr-13 13:07:15

"Some of the facts are deliberately being simplified to reduce this questioning. Eg info about the MMR booster which suggests that you have 95% immunity after the first vaccine. This is not true - 5% will have no immunity, 95% will have had a definitive response to the vaccine. Obviously it would cost a fortune to do antibody tests on all after the first vaccine, so we vaccinate everybody again. 95% of those did not need a second vaccine - it is not actually a booster it just mops up the non-responders."

Even if the purpose of the secondary jab is misunderstood (which is doubtful in my view), why does this matter? And, particularly, why would it matter to a doctor who will understand the importance of coverage for the individual and the benefit of assuring the extent of herd immunity?

I don't see why this is any sort of argument at all. Would you not give 'boosters' without evidence of need? And what do you fear would happen if you do?

tempnameswap Fri 26-Apr-13 13:09:27

I don't need to recommend vaccines/deal with them in any way in my area LaVolcan but no, single vaccines are not officially recommended.

And the point is Lazeyjaney that the number who cannot vaccinate through special factors is probably incredibly low but there are higher numbers of people who believe they have an issue that affects vaccination.

And because life is not black and white, and decisions that affect a child's health are hard, we need a health service and a media that discusses these issues rather than categorises all these people as stupid and negligent.

Some of these people will have worries that are easily dispelled, others will not be convinced by any argument however evidence-based. But some will have genuine worries that could have some justification. More and more is being discovered about the genetics of immunity - nobody has all the answers.

Chipsbigbowl Fri 26-Apr-13 13:10:32

Haven't read the whole thread but (im going to say this really quickly and run away as I'm sure I'm going to be flamed...) but YABU as, although I'd never say it to someone's face, nut job thinking is along the right lines! Oooh, I'll just give little johnny some homeopathic vaccinations. That'll do the job, right?! Um no it won't nutjob you poor uninformed and illadvised parent.*

Suspect I'm in not in the minority. Sorry OP.

* I am NOT talking about children who have a genuine medically advised reason for delaying/omitting vaccines eg immunocompromised kids etc.

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 13:11:40

Why would single vaccines be be better for allergic children?

Chipsbigbowl Fri 26-Apr-13 13:11:49

In fact I'm in favour of a US style approach - no vax, no school.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 13:12:26

'Would you not give 'boosters' without evidence of need? And what do you fear would happen if you do?'

There is a child described on another thread who has just had a bad reaction to a booster. If the child had been found to be immune from the first vaccination, he and his mother would have been saved illness and stress and worry and a stay in hospital.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 13:14:38

Even if the purpose of the secondary jab is misunderstood (which is doubtful in my view)

WearsMink On what basis do you make this assumption?

The need is that the vaccination doesn't take the first time, and presumably a second vaccination is relatively cheap. But if you could develop an even cheaper test to find out those who did need it, then you could dispense with the second injection for a majority which would save time and money.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 13:14:45

'And because life is not black and white, and decisions that affect a child's health are hard, we need a health service and a media that discusses these issues rather than categorises all these people as stupid and negligent. '

Well said.

tempnameswap Fri 26-Apr-13 13:16:08

My point with the booster issue is that the media coverage (which is a major contributor to polarising the debate) is actually deliberately simplified, almost deceitful.

Of course a medic dealing with vaccines knows this but I am sick of hearing "You are not adequately covered if you have not had a booster" when this is not a fact. You may well be, and if you pay for an antibody test you can find out.

And of course, on balance it is better and easier and cheaper to give everyone a booster.

But if you have concerns about vaccines, and want to limit them but still want your dc to have immunity both for them and the herd, then you deserve to know the facts.

WearsMinkAllDayAndFoxAllNight Fri 26-Apr-13 13:20:46

LaVolcan

Yes, and if we could develop a vaccine that was 100% effective in one go that would be cheapest of all. But we have neither the cheap test nor the once-only MMR.

So, we need a booster to raise coverage from 95% immunity to very nearly 100%.

Is the booster proven to be more perilous than the first jab?

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 13:45:56

WearsMink Why not aim for a cheap test which avoided a vaccination? How many parents would mind if their child only had one jab and not two, but at the same time had the peace of mind that the primary vaccination had conferred immunity?

tempnameswap (sorry got your name wrong before) told us that a second one wasn't necessary in the majority of cases. She told us her credentials and I was happy that she was giving an informed opinion.

Why is it such a crime to ask questions?

Andro Fri 26-Apr-13 13:48:29

Why would single vaccines be be better for allergic children?

Depending on how the individual vaccines are made, it could be the case that an allergen present in the MMR (for example) is not present in the individual vaccines (or that one component can be left out whilst the others are still vaccinated against) example:

Vax abc is produced using egg, as such it is possible that an egg allergic child could have a serious reaction

Vax a is produced without egg - safer
Vax b is produced without egg - safer
Vac c is produced using egg - avoided on medical grounds

That would be one possible mechanism by which individual vaccines could be safer

noblegiraffe Fri 26-Apr-13 13:51:39

Isn't the test for immunity a blood test, so a jab anyway?

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 13:52:03

temp re your view on mmr and autism. You said you honestly didn't know, it isn't your area of expertise. Is this your approach to medicine in general?

Would you refuse to have an opinion on the use of statins because you had not personally reviewed every single trial that has been performed? Possibly taking part in research yourself and investigating side effects. Or do you accept that statins are incredibly useful. If you feel the need to research every single treatment option to an exceptional level?

tempnameswap - can you be my doctor please. Your way of thinking sounds the same as mine (and my old GP's and ds1's current paed and neurologists - I have been lucky). You're what I call a thinking doctor (I know it sounds patronising but amongst the good we have had some bad experiences)- wish there were more of you - (esp some like you working in the public health field!)

Blimey whenshewas - not the best example- a lot of GP's I know do not think statins are quite the wonderful thing they're meant to be. (Have been working with GP's quite a bit recently).

Isn't the test for immunity a blood test, so a jab anyway?

Slight difference between taking blood and injecting something into the blood stream that's designed to elicit an immune response?!

Lazyjaney Fri 26-Apr-13 14:02:13

"And because life is not black and white, and decisions that affect a child's health are hard, we need a health service and a media that discusses these issues rather than categorises all these people as stupid and negligent"

The inoculation rate falling below herd immunity level, and the current measles epidemic, and the high probability of future ones are very black and white.

Or is your preference to allow people to keep on getting measles while all these (provably statistically miniscule) grey areas are debated ad infinitum..

Mind you, seems like there is nothing like a good epidemic to get all these anti-vax people to get their jabs, so maybe there is a method in this hand-wringing madness. Pity about these lost on the way to ensure no delicate feelings were hurt, though.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 14:05:27

'The inoculation rate falling below herd immunity level, and the current measles epidemic, and the high probability of future ones are very black and white.'

This is not likely to be true. Mainly because most people do vaccinate, if not with the MMR they pay for singles. But singles are not included in data collected by the government. So the uptake looks lower than it actually is.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 14:05:59

Isn't the test for immunity a blood test, so a jab anyway?

It is at the moment, but I was sort of thinking out loud and said, what if a simple test could be developed e.g. imagine if there was some dipstick type test for your wee? How many parents would think that this was a good idea, if it saved an injection?

Actually even the herd immunity thing is not black and white as the only figures they have are MMR ones. The only research looking into measles vaccination rate (MMR + singles) (published in the BMJ) showed a measles vaccination rate of 94%. If that is accurate then they need to re-think why the outbreak is occurring (and without accurate figures lets face it no-one knows). Actually that paper did look at reasons for not vaccinating and sibling reaction was a common reason.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 14:07:15

saintly there isn't any drug that doesn't have side effects and risks attached. Side effect profile for placebos would make some people wince.

Yes there are risks with statins, vaccines, antibiotics, analgesics but you need to be aware of the risks of treatment and the risks of not treating. There isn't a treatment option free of risk.

WearsMinkAllDayAndFoxAllNight Fri 26-Apr-13 14:07:24

"Mind you, seems like there is nothing like a good epidemic to get all these anti-vax people to get their jabs"

Yup. Grim, but true.

noblegiraffe Fri 26-Apr-13 14:08:25

I found my blood tests during pregnancy worse than the vaccinations, tbh.

Yes wheshewas - which is why I'm listening to an immunologist who is an expert in my son's condition and his own doctors. I'm always amazed that people on here think they know better, when most of them don't even know what autism is, let alone its many causes. Someone said the other day they'd rather have autism than a severe lifelong disability from measles :face palm: which rather suggests their opinion isn't really one worth listening to.

tempnameswap Fri 26-Apr-13 14:20:52

I don't refuse to have an opinion WhenSheWasBad or need a PhD in the subject to comment, but in that my 'credentials' have become a bit too prominent (!) I wouldn't like to speculate on autism. It would be wrong to imply that my knowledge of autism was greater than a parent with a child with the condition. There are so many 'experts' on other people's lives, there doesn't need to be another.

And thank you, others, for the nice comments. I admit it would be harder to be 'thinking' if I was dishing out the vaccines and do sort of wish I hadn't mentioned my background - it wasn't to suggest I knew more, rather that once you become a parent, your own child rather than the herd will always be a priority. That's certainly what I found.

And on allergies, an allergen in the vaccines is one issue although you can pay privately for an egg-free measles vaccine (or have the eggy one done in a hospital setting, although you have to had a recorded anaphylactic reaction to egg first; this rules out those who may well have a worse reaction second time around, a common occurrence with allergies).

But there is also the issue of an immature, 'allergic' immune system that is liable to 'overreact', to put it unscientifically. There isn't much research to suggest either way, but vaccines are deliberately designed to stimulate a significant immune reaction from very small doses of antigen. There is a view held by some (although people are wary of voicing this) that the current immunisation schedule is pretty full on. So you are attempting to stimulate a major response to multiple viruses at once - something that would not be the case with the wild forms. It is possible that those with a family history of auto-immune disease or anaphylaxis might benefit from a more cautious, single-vaccine approach. In these children the immune system is possibly more easily over-stimulated.

That is my instinct with my very allergic family - and what I would want my GP to acknowledge was that this makes the decision harder. It is not stupidity or negligence that leads me to be cautious. And I may be completely wrong but as the research stands, actually nobody knows.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 14:26:34

Sorry tempnameswap I am probably one who is guilty with the credentials. I thought it was worth re-iterating them, because otherwise what I found to be a sensible, well thought out post, from someone who clearly had expertise in one area of medicine, would have been dismissed as 'five minutes worth of googling' otherwise.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 14:27:24

saintly hope you get some good advice from your sins doctors.

The trouble is as far as I am aware there really isn't very much that has been established about the causes of autism (spectrum disorders). It sees that having an older father increases your risk, having a family history increases risk. So there is a reason why the general public doesn't understand autism well (I've already said I don't have much knowledge re autism).

I personally think the public in general are very poor when it comes to risk assessment, massively inflating the risks of some things (vaccines) while down playing other risks (injuries at home, such as burns and scalds).

I was reflecting more on people not realising that it can be a severe disability whenshewas. My son will never talk again, will never be able to be alone, will never walk down the street unaccompanied. He has been awarded higher rate care and higher rate mobility for life - if that isn't a severe lifelong disability wtaf is? What do people think we're trying to avoid?

temp - I think your nobody actually knows is very important. It's what everyone who knows what they're talking about (from researchers to consultants) have told me. It's honest. So we make best guesses with the information available.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 14:35:08

FairPhyllis - re "people often justify their decision not to vaccinate with a statement about having 'researched' their decision, which imo shows a lack of appreciation of how skilled and knowledgeable scientific researchers are, and how difficult it is to acquire that skill"

You clearly believe that nobody who is not a medical professional can possibly understand the issues involved, but this is not about a terribly complicated question. It is quite simple to understand.

Mass vaccination of babies for childhood illnesses is sensible for certain dangerous illnesses, but is not beneficial to these babies themselves. It is for the greater good, perhaps, but there are ethical issues involved there and parents are perfectly within their rights to refuse these.

I gave Rubella as an example. It is a very mild disease. If the population were left unvaccinated, everyone would have it as a child and have lifelong immunity. Girls of childbearing age can be tested for immunity and those who are not immune can then be vaccinated. This is what I intend to do for DD.

DS is not vaccinated against Rubella for the simple reason that he doesn't need to be. I'm pretty sure that he has had it as a baby, but even if he is not immune, that is perfectly fine because I don't expect him to be pregnant at any point in his life.

All this is perfectly logical and yet vaccinating babies for Rubella is government policy. Why? Because they have other concerns (herd immunity, protecting the the baby of irresponsible pregnant women who didn't check their immunity, preventing economic loss from parents staying home to care for sick children etc) whereas as a parents I have one single overriding concern (what is in the best interests of my child?).

When you have a minute, look up Game Theory studies of vaccination decisions. GT works very well in this situation because it recognises the different and potentially conflicting goals of the state and the individual and concludes that it is perfectly normal for parents to decide not to vaccinate where perceived risk of a vaccine is higher than its expected benefit.

All this to show you that many people who have decided not to accept the full vaccination schedule for their children are not "whack jobs".

LadyGranulomaFortesque Fri 26-Apr-13 14:42:42

Even respected scientists who question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines are labelled 'whack jobs', unless they reach the 'right' conclusion that is. The lay person with horrible personal experience or an aversion to propaganda and and the injection of unknown proteins and live viruses into the body is hardly going to get away with putting a hand up and daring to ask.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Fri 26-Apr-13 14:43:27

Not to mention heavy metals. But that's okay, because there is mercury in tuna hmm

WearsMinkAllDayAndFoxAllNight Fri 26-Apr-13 14:44:15

"When you have a minute, look up Game Theory studies of vaccination decisions. GT works very well in this situation because it recognises the different and potentially conflicting goals of the state and the individual and concludes that it is perfectly normal for parents to decide not to vaccinate where perceived risk of a vaccine is higher than its expected benefit."

That is a travesty of what game theory says and does. It does not in any way validate the actions of people who mis-perceive risk, or who use herd immunity selfishly as a shield. It simply predicts and guides outcomes based on assumptions, whether these are sensible, evidence-based, merely mistaken or voodoo medicine.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 14:45:16

Hi cote I think we've had this discussion before. I've said it before and I'll say it again you and I have a different approach to society.

You seem to have a my dd will be fine if she's gets reubella when young, she will be fine and if she hasn't had it I'll immunise her when she's older -and screw the poor pregnant women who comes into co fact with her

I have a different approach and see myself and my daughter as a part of society. I am lucky she has no medical conditions that would prevent me from vaccinating her. I personally feel I have a responsibility to my family friends and neighbours to keep the risk of disease as low as possible.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Fri 26-Apr-13 14:48:52

Maybe people are reacting to the fact that we cannot know the risks as many of the adverse reactions go unreported and explained as a coincidence (on an alarmingly regular basis - at what point does coincidence cease to be coincidence?). Whether the true risks are purposely misrepresented or genuinely overlooked, the result is the same. A fully informed decision cannot be made.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 14:49:29

co fact = contact. Sorry totally garbled post (need to stop posting from my phone). grin

DuelingFanjo Fri 26-Apr-13 14:51:11

"Refusal to vaccinate is child endangerment. Measles has been eradicated from Australia and several other countries (officially confirmed by WHO) because they make vaccination a compulsory pre-condition for school entry."

how is this enforced? Is entry in to school not a legal requirement? I guess there are still some people who don't vaccinate so it would seem that if measles has been eradicated then it doesn't really need everyone to be vaccinated?

If anyone ever tried to inject me or my son with something against my will i would fight them tooth and nail.

I have vaccinated my child (1st round of MMR) and have had measles as a child but I still think it has to be up to the individual if they want to - this is something the the BMA agrees with too.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 14:51:52

lady so I take it you don't take / wouldn't take any medicine then?

It is true adverse events are under reported though.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 14:53:11

It is perfectly fine for your approach to life to be different than mine. I don't remember asking but thanks for sharing.

If the state wants to protect that hypothetical irresponsible young pregnant woman, it needs to check all teenager girls for immunity and vaccinate the non-immune ones at that point. That is the logical vaccination policy. It is the least risky one for everyone concerned. Of course, it is slightly more expensive so they push MMR on babies instead hmm

Imho it is not reasonable at all to expect all babies (girls and boys) to be vaccinated in the world to protect the hypothetical baby of hypothetical non-immune girls they might hypothetically come in contact with one day.

DuelingFanjo Fri 26-Apr-13 14:53:48

Though I have just read "Endemic Measles declared eradicated from Australia in February 2009" so it's just not Endemic, presumably there are cases?

LadyGranulomaFortesque that is the opposite of my experience. DD had a reaction to one of her jabs. Nasty but short lived. I reported the reaction, then told them when it was over. They called back and started taking details. I said that DD is fine now. They said that every vaccine case of reaction is recorded and they have to keep the record. I was also advised to get her next set later and they sent me a letter to keep with her vaccine record.

I live in Canada. The system is different here. However, if the world conspiracy about vaccine people are to be believed, every country should be covering up adverse reactions. Mine certainly isn't.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Fri 26-Apr-13 14:55:36

Vaccines aren't medicine though. And in general, no I don't, unless necessary. I took antibiotics about five years ago for an infected tooth cavity and ended up with godawful thrush. Other than anit-itch cream (urea based) I haven't really taken anything else. Nothing that carries with it the risk of brain damage, anyway. If I needed such a drug, I would have to think very carefully about the risk/benefit.

DuelingFanjo Fri 26-Apr-13 14:57:57

I think the question the Australian vaccination Network asked was quite good really - "We introduced a vaccine for a disease which was killing almost nobody and one has to ask, why?"

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 15:00:44

Wears - It is not a "travesty of what Game Theory says and does"

Err, this is exactly the sort of situation that Game Theory studies hmm

Here is a paper on Vaccination and Game Theory. It is not easy reading if you have never studied Game Theory, but the conclusion is simple enough:

"This finding formalizes an argument that has previously been made qualitatively; namely, it is impossible to eradicate a disease through voluntary vaccination when individuals act according to their own interests. In situations where vaccination is perceived to be more risky than contracting the disease (r > 1), one would expect, even without the aid of a model, that no parents would vaccinate their children"

LadyGranulomaFortesque Fri 26-Apr-13 15:00:58

MrsT, I know the US are better and more open at reporting adverse reactions. The UK is terrible. Not only will they go to the far end of a fart before admitting it 'could' be a vaccine reaction, the yellow card reporting system is a closed system, so the public are unable to look at the reported figures online and have to write in by snail mail and request specific data. I have downloaded VAERS data for statistical purposes simply because that data is not available publicly in the UK, yet is openly available in the US. The systems are different. And I didn't mention a global conspiracy, I was talking about how UK parents are unable to look at the real figures because reactions are either unreported or not easily available, where they are reported.

Lazyjaney Fri 26-Apr-13 15:02:06

"When you have a minute, look up Game Theory studies of vaccination decisions. GT works very well in this situation because it recognises the different and potentially conflicting goals of the state and the individual and concludes that it is perfectly normal for parents to decide not to vaccinate where perceived risk of a vaccine is higher than its expected benefit"

You conveniently forgot the bit about this game outcome only working when the other 95% did get inoculated.

Essentially it makes sense to cheat avoid inoculation yourself, where there is a small % risk, if you can be sure you will never have to face the far higher risk of getting the disease as enough others have created the herd immunity.

You also conveniently left out the bit about what happens when the game cheaters non inoculators undermine the herd immunity level.

It's called Swansea, it kills, and it's no longer a game.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 15:02:45

'If the state wants to protect that hypothetical irresponsible young pregnant woman, it needs to check all teenager girls for immunity and vaccinate the non-immune ones at that point. That is the logical vaccination policy. It is the least risky one for everyone concerned. Of course, it is slightly more expensive so they push MMR on babies instead'

What Cote says is right, and absolutely logical. If all girls were checked at 11 or so for rubella immunity (perhaps earlier now that some girls are starting periods much earlier) and vaccinated at that point, then there would be no risk to pregnant women at all.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 15:03:21

lady you took antibiotics, some antibiotics can cause life threatening reactions, seems you didn't mind the risk then. I mentioned medication because your statement about the risks and adverse reactions applies as much to medicines as vaccines.

The 'world conspriacy' comment was general, not directed at you smile Different paragraph, I was trying! It was mainly directed at my idiot friend who posts quasi-scientific bullshit on FB about vaccines. A 12 year old could pick apart the science in these conspiracies but she can't. It made me very angry yesterday so that got mixed up into my post.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Fri 26-Apr-13 15:05:10

"I have a different approach and see myself and my daughter as a part of society. I am lucky she has no medical conditions that would prevent me from vaccinating her. I personally feel I have a responsibility to my family friends and neighbours to keep the risk of disease as low as possible."
At least you recognise that this attitude is a luxury not available to all. i would urge you to think with similar care about what has happened in societies where the communal interest has been prized above individual liberty. Once you make the interests of "society" more important than the rights of the individual this tends to lead to some pretty unattractive outcomes.

Lazyjaney Fri 26-Apr-13 15:05:13

And as to people like jimjams denying the link between non-inoculations and epidemic outbreaks, that is wha....well, it says it all really.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 15:06:31

cote and lottie I thought we had already established that a small number of individuals cannot be immunised. What about those women?

cote I brought up the whole society thing as your attitude of I'm alright Jack I'll look after me and mine and sod the rest of you really grated my teeth.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 15:07:03

Lazyjaney - if the government had not stopped parents being able to choose single vaccines then perhaps there would not be an outbreak in Swansea right now?

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 15:07:08

Measles hasn't been eradicated in Australia. There are still measles outbreaks.

Their claim to fame is that they meet WHO's "elimination criteria" of "80% of outbreaks having transmission of less than 10 cases".

Australia declared "endemic measles eradicated" in 2009 because 16 out of 19 measles outbreaks in the first quarter of 2009 had less than 10 cases.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 15:07:37

Here is the source.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 15:10:32

karlos don't worry I'm not about to argue for communism to be implemented in the uk (shudders at the very thought). Given the choice I'd rather have our health care system than the states - theirs is great, if you have money and insurance.

I'm not denying anything Lazyjane - stop being lazy and not reading what I am saying. I said that the only paper that looked at measles vaccination rate found that 94% of people in the UK had given a measles vaccination. Then I said if this was accurate (and it was a very pro vaccination paper) then this outbreak was occurring in a highly vaccinated population (which does happen).

I also said no-one actually knows what is going on as they don't have the figures.

I also saw a report (in a pro-vaccination report) saying that 25% of people going down with measles in this outbreak had been vaccinated - this seemed surprisingly high to me so I asked David Salisbury to comment and he didn't. So none the wiser.

IMO the 'best' case scenario is that 100% of people catching measles in the outbreak have been vaccinated as then it's easy to control. If 25% of them have had a measles vaccination then they need to rethink the current policy if they don't want a repeat in 10 years or so - but like I said, who knows, the only figures are MMR ones which doesn't actually tell you what you need to know.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Fri 26-Apr-13 15:11:49

I know what you were getting at, whenshe. I am saying that the two scenarios are completely different. And not only that, but the risks are completely different. And in addition, a bad reaction to antibiotics is far more likely to be accepted than a bad one to childhood vaccines.

And more to the point - I wasn't even talking about myself, my own attitude to risk or my habits when it comes to treating toothache . I was talking about the issue with parents giving informed consent when they are not actually informed, and neither are the people responsible for informing them. And the reason they are not informed is because the information isn't recorded.

sorry 100% of people catching have NOT been vaccinated - obviously

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 15:14:12

It's not 'I'm alright Jack'. Look, I'm usually all in favour of collective responsibility and do believe in society etc. But it's naive to not be able to see that the way immunisation policy is decided is quite political!

When you have to make a decision to vaccinate someone without their consent then of course they should be considered as an individual first, and their family background should be considered as well before thinking about whether that person needs a different vaccination schedule.

And none of this means that I don't care about people who are vulnerable to certain illnesses, more than most. Nor would I say something as vile as 'it's survival of the fittest'.

Oh and it 94% in the 2000-2002 birth cohort - a cohort you might expect to be low as they were born while MMR was very much in the news.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 15:16:07

"I thought we had already established that a small number of individuals cannot be immunised"

Who are these women who can't be allowed to have such a mild and brief disease as rubella as children, cannot possibly have the rubella vaccination, presumably have a very weak immune system but can socialise with children and are perfectly capable of being pregnant and having babies? I'm genuinely curious.

And how many of them are there in the UK at any given time?

It's not an "I'm alright Jack" attitude. It is the fact that parents' primary responsibility is to their own babies, and that it is not ethical to expect all babies everywhere in the world to be injected, forced to take the vaccine risk no matter how small, and forego natural lifelong immunity which is in their best interests for the benefit of very few hypothetical women who cannot be allowed to have an extremely mild illness such as rubella nor be vaccinated for it.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 15:19:44

LazyJane - re "You conveniently forgot the bit about this game outcome only working when the other 95% did get inoculated"

I didn't forget any such thing, because there was no such "bit" in the study I linked to hmm In fact, I just read through it again and can't find the number "95" anywhere on it. Did you even bothered to look at that study?

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 15:19:57

The thing is the two scenarios aren't all that different we are still talking about severe reactions with a potential to kill. Chances of a reaction to both vaccine and antibiotics are around 1 in 100,000.

I'm not entirely convinced there is less likelyhood of a severe reaction not being reported for a vaccine (yes they probably won't report for a mild fever but most thrush doesn't get reported when its caused by antibiotics).

MrsHoarder Fri 26-Apr-13 15:22:26

cote game theory explains why people make poor choices for the whole population and possibly even outcomes which are worse for themselves overall in aggregate.

For the rubbella example, one of the main reasons was that the group of immunised children had far fewer younger siblings with birth defects. Even with immunised mothers.

No immune system is foolproof. I'm very pro-mumps vaccination for a simple reason: I can't gain immunity to mumps. I've had a full course of MMR and still had the live disease twice (confirmed). Not being a man, this hasn't caused me any permanent issues, but it was very unpleasant. No other known immune problems, I'm just in the small percentage who can't be included in the immune people to contribute to herd immunity.

I presume that is also possible for rubella. If that's only a very small percentage, it doesn't matter for stopping the spread of disease, but as a pregnant individual whose child has rubella it would be very serious, especially as its easy to not know you aren't immune.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 15:23:16

lottie the I'm alright Jack wasn't aimed at you. I fully accept that some people can't be immunised. But that is why I think it is so important that everyone who can be should be.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 15:24:43

Was about to answer cote but mrshoarder got there first smile

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 15:30:34

I had a severe reaction to an antibiotic. I was hospitalised for a few days and suffered for about a week. It wasn't fun but there was treatment for it. I was fine afterwards.

Some children have a slightly more scary reaction to vaccines - regression, lifelong disability, for which there is no cure. It is nowhere near the same thing as having a reaction to an antibiotic.

By the way, you are confusing probability ("1/100,000") with risk where:

Risk = Probability x Expected Outcome

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 15:31:59

I presume that is also possible for rubella. If that's only a very small percentage, it doesn't matter for stopping the spread of disease, but as a pregnant individual whose child has rubella it would be very serious, especially as its easy to not know you aren't immune.

You would have to eliminate it on a world-wide basis for this policy to be effective. It's normally such a mild disease that it can go unnoticed, so could easily go un-notified.

I would very much rather see a public health policy aimed at women of childbearing age to tell them to check their rubella status at intervals. I say this with an adult daughter who travels to out of the way places where health care is poor or downright bad. She has had the rubella vaccition. Did she know the immunity could wear off? No.

bruffin Fri 26-Apr-13 15:42:57

Oh and it 94% in the 2000-2002 birth cohort - a cohort you might expect to be low as they were born while MMR was very much in the news.

No it wasnt it was 75% for two doses of mmr and 84% for a measles containing vaccine

vaccine coverage tables

HPA tables the same

think you are reading the wrong column, the slide down started in 1998 surprise surprise

Bruffin - I said it was a paper in the BMJ. You are reading the wrong thing.

here - BMJ paper

Not sure how they can have single vaccines recorded from 2000 -2002 and they did not officially collect the data as anyone who had them done had them done privately.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 15:46:39

Risk can be defined in six different ways

1) a probability of injury, loss, liability .....

I'm really not interested in getting into a debate with a statistician because I would lose, badly grin

I was just point out the chance of an adverse event occurring.

Do you have any evidence vaccines cause regression?

Honsandrevels Fri 26-Apr-13 15:51:34

There are many people who cannot be vaccinated, have suppressed immune systems yet are fit enough to be pregnant. Being immunosuppressed doesn't mean you are unable to live a full life.

Anyway summary of that paper is data on singles is not routinely collected & lots of people who don't have MMR have singles. Of the ones who have a single vaccine nearly all have measles. Of course their participants may not be representative but it's the best estimate I've found.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 16:06:05

MrsHoarder - re "game theory explains why people make poor choices for the whole population and possibly even outcomes which are worse for themselves overall in aggregate"

That is not the purpose of Game Theory.

I studied Game Theory. It explains why individuals make choices that make sense for them, although they might easily differ from the choices that another party might decide is best for them.

"For the rubbella example, one of the main reasons was that the group of immunised children had far fewer younger siblings with birth defects. Even with immunised mothers."

I have no idea what you just wanted to say here, sorry.

"I can't gain immunity to mumps. I've had a full course of MMR and still had the live disease twice (confirmed). Not being a man, this hasn't caused me any permanent issues, but it was very unpleasant."

That is very unfortunate for you. Maybe have a test if you have the immunity now. I had measles twice and I am immune now. Sometimes it takes the immune system more than one go to form immunity.

I had mumps, too. Yes, it was unpleasant. If I had it again, I wouldn't be happy. But no, I wouldn't expect the entire baby population of the world to be vaccinated so that little old me doesn't get sick with mumps again.

WearsMinkAllDayAndFoxAllNight Fri 26-Apr-13 16:06:51

Cote, you said that game theory "concludes that it is perfectly normal for parents to decide not to vaccinate where perceived risk of a vaccine is higher than its expected benefit". By "normal" you seem to mean acceptable or reasonable. That's why I said that game theory does not validate the non-vaxx decision.

The quote you gave supports me not you: its says "it is impossible to eradicate a disease through voluntary vaccination when individuals act according to their own interests". So, we can't eradicate when sufficient numbers of people are selfish...agreed, but that's NOT validation, it's confirmation of the harm from selfishness and scaremongering against vaccines!

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 16:30:06

WhenSheWas - I had a point when pointing out that Risk = Probability x Expected Outcome, and it wasn't to rub your nose in my superior knowledge in this field wink

My point is that two "bad" outcomes with the same probability of occurring don't make up the same risk, if one possible outcome is an annoyance and the other is a catastrophe.

So, imagine that how bad or good an outcome were to be graded on a scale of -1,000 (Terrible Catastrophe) to 1,000 (Wonderful Blessing), I might assign the values of -300 (nasty but not terrible since it can be treated) to an adverse reaction to antibiotics and -900 (regression, permanent disability for which there is no cure nor treatment).

So the calculations would be:

Risk of antibiotic = 1/100,000 x -300 = -0.3%
Risk of vaccine = 1/100,000 x -900 = -0.9%

... meaning the risk of one would be three times the other's, even assuming that their probabilities are the same.

"Do you have any evidence vaccines cause regression?"

Not personally. I just trust the authorities who have accepted that vaccines have triggered regression and permanent disability in some children, and have paid out compensations to their families.

I also can't bring myself to judge as liars and idiots all these articulate and intelligent parents on MN like Jimjams and Beachcomber who talk about the damage that their children have suffered from vaccines. That is a personal preference, you might not agree with.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 16:36:41

Wears - re " you said that game theory "concludes that it is perfectly normal for parents to decide not to vaccinate where perceived risk of a vaccine is higher than its expected benefit. By "normal" you seem to mean acceptable or reasonable."

No, actually, in this context "normal" means "rational". As opposed to "whack job" thinking, which was the OP's misinformed, ill-considered understanding of the situation. GT assumes individuals making rational decisions that make sense in their particular situations. It does not seek to "validate" one decision over another - i.e. both the government's vaccine policy and non-vaccinating parents' decisions are "valid" and rational.

It is not easy to talk about a discipline with someone who clearly has no training in it, but you will either need to read at least a Wikipedia page on Game Theory, or take my word for it. Saying things like "That's why I said that game theory does not validate the non-vaxx decision" only show that you have read neither the study I linked to nor the plain-English little paragraph that summarises its results which I posted, or just couldn't understand either of it.

MrsHoarder Fri 26-Apr-13 16:47:30

Where's your maths degree from cote? Wondering if we might be connected...

Yes, game theory explains why people make choices that might makes sense for them and what the aggregated impact of those choices would be if the whole population made them, namely to return to relatively high childhood mortality rates where everyone knows someone who has died or been severly disable due to an avoidable disease.

There are server adverse reactions to vaccinations, but in healthy children these are vanishingly rare compared to the complication rates in the old childhood illnesses.

And to explain further:
"For the rubbella example, one of the main reasons was that the group of immunised children had far fewer younger siblings with birth defects. Even with immunised mothers."

There was a study done in looking at vaccinating children against rubbella, the main outcome was that it protected the vaccinated children's own younger siblings more than any other group. I'd put my DS through a tiny risk to reduce risk of serious abnormalities to subsequent DC.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 17:02:06

MrsHoarder - I have an engineering degree and an MBA. I studied Game Theory as part of my MBA curriculum, under a truly brilliant professor who was visiting from Princeton. It was one of my favourite courses ever, in case you were wondering smile

"There are server adverse reactions to vaccinations, but in healthy children these are vanishingly rare compared to the complication rates in the old childhood illnesses."

Risk is not the same thing as probability ("rates"), as I explained just below. For some diseases, the risk of disease might be higher than risk of vaccination, in which case you would naturally vaccinate, but this is by no means true for all diseases.

"There was a study done in looking at vaccinating children against rubbella, the main outcome was that it protected the vaccinated children's own younger siblings more than any other group. I'd put my DS through a tiny risk to reduce risk of serious abnormalities to subsequent DC."

"Younger siblings" as in DC2 in the womb? This doesn't even make sense. When you were pregnant with DC1, you would be tested for rubella immunity. If found non-immune, you would surely get the vaccine yourself after DC1 was born. So by the time your are pregnant with DC2, you would be immune so there would be no need to vaccinate DC1 against rubella to protect the fetus.

WearsMinkAllDayAndFoxAllNight Fri 26-Apr-13 17:06:31

Cote, leaving the last part of your post to one side...

You didn't say rational, you said normal. They are different words with different meanings. You're changing position now.

Nobody suggested that it isn't rational to hide behind herd immunity, any more than it isn't rational to push aside others to get into the lifeboat. But it isn't normal - and certainly not creditable - in any social sense, is it?

Had you said rational, or even 'understandably selfish', in the first place you'd have been clearer - and you wouldn't need the game theory smokescreen either.

"Whack job" refers to the reasons sometimes given for not vaccinating, not to the logic of relying on the protection given by others. Please tell me in what way game theory informs us of the reliability and substance of those reasons.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 17:10:02

cote so that would be no you have no evidence that the mmr causes regression and not only do you not have evidence but you are prepared to ignore all the evidence that has failed to link mmr and regression.

As I've said I'm no statistician but I think your interpretation of the expected outcome of mmr (regressive autism) to be highly flawed. You are giving the mmr a much higher adverse event profile than it actually has.

MrsHoarder Fri 26-Apr-13 17:18:06

Cote fair enough.

As for risk, yes I know what the mathematical definition of risk is. Given for a lot of the diseases the worst outcome if you contract the disease is death and is more likely than serious side effects (i'm not counting mild fever and sleepiness for a few days here) from the vaccine.

That's why any decent game theory model of vaccination uptake shows a sharp rise in the face of an epidemic. When its a stark choice of vaccination or almost definitely get the disease then the way for individuals to minimise their total risk is to get a vaccination. The problem us that the best solution overall is the unstable equilibrium where everyone vaccinates (except clear cases where individual risk is higher than usual) not the stable equilibrium where no-one vaccinates and epidemics become more frequent.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 17:26:32

Wears - I'm not changing anything. When you say "normal" in a Game Theory context, that means you are referring to a decision that will normally be made by a rational individual. I'm sorry that you are so unfamiliar with GT that you don't understand this.

"Nobody suggested that it isn't rational to hide behind herd immunity"

This isn't just about herd immunity. It is about not vaccinating when expected risk is higher than expected benefit. Have you missed the myriad posts I have written about how I am not vaccinating DC against rubella and why? Expected benefit is zero, but there is a cost (no natural lifelong immunity) and possibly even a small risk (as from any vaccine). I want DD to have it as soon as possible and we are certainly not "hiding behind herd immunity" hmm

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 17:31:33

"Given for a lot of the diseases the worst outcome if you contract the disease is death"

Not all diseases, though. Which brings us to MMR, which has a component against a disease so mild that many parents miss it in their children.

"The problem us that the best solution overall is the unstable equilibrium where everyone vaccinates"

"Best solution overall" is the result of the government's decision process. Individual parent's decision process looks at best solution for my child.

Until you can separate the two, we will have a long conversation going around the same points.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 17:33:27

CotedAzur you don't really seem to understand about risk assessment yourself, tbh, especially as you don't look at all risk factors, and come up with skewered figures. Plus you actually have not compared the risk posed by non-vaccing to the one posed by vaccing, but compared it to something totally unrelated, namely giving antibiotics.

The risk of non-vaccination, increases the risk of infection in two ways:

a) by the individual not being protected (and don't get me started on the stupidity of the "immunity through infection is better" argument. The whole point of immunity is not catching the disease, surely)

b) outbreaks not being halted, as the less immunised people, the more likely the disease is to spread

c) the severity of the disease - does it cause death or mild discomfort. A risk of death of 1/1000 is pretty hefty, especially if the likelihood of catching it increases.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 17:36:13

"Not all diseases, though. Which brings us to MMR, which has a component against a disease so mild that many parents miss it in their children. "

That's exactly the reason why MMR is and should be favoured over singles - because antisocial morons would cease to vax against rubella, which would without a doubt lead to more cases of congenital rubella syndrome, no matter whether the daughters only get the jab at the beginning of puberty, as the community immunity protection for non-responders is lost.

jomaid Fri 26-Apr-13 17:41:59

I've done continuous research into vaccines for the last 20 years and as a result decided not to vaccinate my children. I feel very secure in my decision as I know that if a person is going to react badly to the natural illness they will react badly to the vaccine itself. Years ago we used to have measles parties so that children would have the illness at the appropriate time, we also used to know how to deal with it and look after the child appropriately as with the majority of childhood illnesses. Most parents I talk to these days wouldn't have a clue how to deal with the illnesses - a generation of lost knowledge! You can still get these illnesses even if you vaccinate and don't think it can be a mild dose that just goes away. If you chose to vaccinate all well and good but I hope you researched it all first and then made your decision. Likewise if you chose not to vaccinate. I wonder if we are a generation of parents who spend more time researching what car, washing machine, dishwasher etc. to get than we do researching what is about to be pumped into our new born baby's bloodstream. Just a thought!

WearsMinkAllDayAndFoxAllNight Fri 26-Apr-13 17:42:14

This isn't a game theory seminar. It's a web forum. Normal means normal on a web forum. I am sorry you're so unfamiliar with the rules of everyday life that you don't understand this.

You have changed position: you tried to pray game theory in aid of a suggestion that it was somehow independently possible to show that it's acceptable to not vaccinate. Now you're merely saying it's rational to let others have their children jabbed instead of yours - which relies on herd immunity whether you like it or not.

Now, how about telling me how game theory substantiates the reasons for not vaccinating with MMR - like, say, the risk of regresssion that you have most definitely said you believe to be an effect of vaccination - despite the absence of any reliable evidence.

MrsHoarder Fri 26-Apr-13 17:49:18

The "best solution overall" is the unstable equilibrium where there is negligable risk of getting a disease because a sufficiently large proportion of the population is immune to it. Its unstable because as soon as we enter that equilibrium it is relatively less risky to not have the vaccination so then disease rates rise, followed by vaccination rates. Then the disease goes into decline again so vaccination rates decrease...

Rubella has a slightly different risk profile, but its not the general population who are most at risk from an non-immunised boy, its his mother (and thus later siblings) and his wife (his own children). Pregnant women have a slightly lower immune system so are more prone to diseases, even ones they should be immune to.

MrsHoarder Fri 26-Apr-13 17:53:28

Sorry, meant to say that the government isn't a separate dictating organisation here, its the setting of social policy to lead to least harm for all of us. You might put "government" and "individual" as the two players in a game, but when the government looses in this game we all do through 1 in every 1000 dying of measles and other rather grim statistics.

noblegiraffe Fri 26-Apr-13 17:57:05

What a shame we have forgotten how to care for children with childhood diseases such as smallpox, polio and diphtheria. All that lost knowledge hmm

MrsHoarder Fri 26-Apr-13 18:03:10

Quite *noble" , I mean when everyone knew how to cope with measles then it was a trivial disease hmm

WearsMinkAllDayAndFoxAllNight Fri 26-Apr-13 18:06:09

"What a shame we have forgotten how to care for children with childhood diseases such as smallpox, polio and diphtheria. All that lost knowledge"

I was thinking that just the other day, as I trepanned myself and let out the plaguey vapours.

ExRatty Fri 26-Apr-13 18:09:31

Can someone tell me if the children who have measles have definitely not been vaccinated?

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 18:17:43

Jomaid- that post is of such surpassing wrong headedness I don't know where to start........

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 18:18:19

On another thread one poster said that she was taught when nursing that fever management of disease was important, and that this was the cause of damage, rather than the disease being a direct cause. If this knowledge has been lost then it would seem to be detrimental to all, regardless of the disease.

WidowWadman. If someone asks you why you should vaccinate your son against rubella who will never get pregnant or a daughter who can't get pregnant before puberty, which do you think is the better explanation:
a)Because we are trying to stop the disease circulating and our policy of vaccinationg babies will do this or
b) you're an antisocial moron.

IMO a) is the better option but this is not being explained. All the information I have seen is of the 'your child is not protected' form, but not explaining the reason behind the policy, which would take a couple of sentences to outline.

WellJustCallHimDave Fri 26-Apr-13 18:28:34

DuelingFanjo sums it all up very nicely:
"If anyone ever tried to inject me or my son with something against my will i would fight them tooth and nail."

Call me what you will. I'll ignore you. Make vaccination a condition of obtaining a school place. I'll home school. Force me or my children to have any vaccination and I'll take your goddamn head off.

ExRatty Fri 26-Apr-13 18:31:20

Can someone please tell me as I am not a scientist and vair confused..

did the man die of "measles"?
those suffering from the measles outbreak...have they all not been vaccinated?

Why can't people vaccinate against measles alone if they want to?

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 18:39:12

welljustcallhimdave - what will you do if/when your children ask to be vaccinated.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 18:39:15

did the man die of "measles"?
They don't know yet, according to today's paper, and were doing more tests.

those suffering from the measles outbreak...have they all not been vaccinated?

They don't know this either, as far as I can tell, but they would like you to think that.

Can't answer the third question.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 18:40:14

I've been wondering why this outbreak occured specifically in Swansea. I heard that there was a local newspaper that put people off. I was wondering if people who didn't want to use the MMR couldn't afford single vaccines? Are people less able to afford singles there than anywhere else? (I don't know much about the socio economic status of Swansea).

Also, I was always led to believe that the US has measles outbreaks but someone on here has said measles doesn't really occur there anymore as vaccination is mandatory?

Anyone have the answer to any of these? (Genuine questions)

WellJustCallHimDave Fri 26-Apr-13 18:41:17

Under the age where they can make their own, informed decisions the answer is no, WidowWadman. Beyond that, the choice is not mine to make, it's theirs.

WellJustCallHimDave Fri 26-Apr-13 18:46:18

The US lottie, has a requirement for all children to be vaccinated in order to attend a public (what UK residents call a state) school. There are exceptions for medical and religious reasons and in some states for philosophical reasons too. Naturally these requirements don't apply if you homeschool or in the case of some fee paying schools.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 18:48:52

In other words, is measles actually eracicated in the US?

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 18:50:15

According to today's paper in the last three years there have been outbreaks of measles in Spain, Italy, France, Ukraine and a number of other European countries which I can't remember. They won't have been influenced by a local Swansea newspaper. I wonder whether the outbreaks are associated with increasing levels of poverty, leading to generally poorer health?

WellJustCallHimDave Fri 26-Apr-13 18:50:15

No, there are still outbreaks in the USA, lottie, AFAIK.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 18:51:53

For which they blame us pesky Europeans.

Raspberrysorbet Fri 26-Apr-13 18:57:18

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 18:59:31

I know that vaccination is mandatory for school places in the US but was wondering, thanks.

Also (going off at a tangent slightly) - I am aware that in the US if you don't have a job you are generally very poor especially if you have children. How do these families afford vaccinations for their children to then get school places?

AlbertaCampion Fri 26-Apr-13 19:01:10

Loving the Game Theory backchat, ladies. You wouldn't get this on NetMums. grin

WellJustCallHimDave Fri 26-Apr-13 19:07:47

Vaccinations are FOC to eligible children through the US public health system.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 19:11:49

Oh I see.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 19:13:31

LaVolcan - obviously the explanation should be given, rather than just abuse hurled. The message why we need a vaccination rate of over 95% is there though, and repeated over and over again already. It's not the lack of knowledge about herd immunity which stops people from vaccinating, it's a blatant lack of tosses given.

There's plenty antivaxxers and single-vax proponents who say outright they don't think that herd immunity is a good enough reason to vaccinate their child against rubella. And those people I quite happily call antisocial morons.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 19:15:26

"According to today's paper in the last three years there have been outbreaks of measles in Spain, Italy, France, Ukraine and a number of other European countries which I can't remember. They won't have been influenced by a local Swansea newspaper. I wonder whether the outbreaks are associated with increasing levels of poverty, leading to generally poorer health?"

Why don't you ask "I wonder what the vaccination rates are over there?" or "I wonder how the media report over there?"

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 19:16:26

'And those people I quite happily call antisocial morons.'

What do you think that will achieve WidowWadman? hmm

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 19:16:30

WellcallhimDave
"Under the age where they can make their own, informed decisions the answer is no, WidowWadman. Beyond that, the choice is not mine to make, it's theirs."

What age do you think is old enough to make an informed decision?

Raspberrysorbet Fri 26-Apr-13 19:17:49

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 19:20:19

lottieandmia - nothing. But since explaining to them about herd immunity doesn't achieve anything either, what is the difference?

I'm not calling for an advertising campaign putting it onto big fat posters, frequent jingles and TV adverts calling them antisocial morons, it's just my opinion, and I doubt they give a toss what little old widowwadman or anyone else thinks.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 19:21:16

It seems very odd to me that a number of posters on this thread think that the way to get people to agree with them is to tell them to fuck off, call them morons or nutters or various other expletives and expect people to outline their family situation at home which they are not qualified to comment on -but- -will- -try- -to- -pick- -it- -apart- -anyway-.

I think you will agree that people are never going to agree with you if you just post insults and attacks.

So are you just trying to upset people?

WellJustCallHimDave Fri 26-Apr-13 19:21:42

Sorry WidowWadman, apparently I'm an antisocial moron - and if that's the case it would be a shame for me to disappoint and start being sociable now.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 19:23:03

Ah, so you don't want to say from what age you would allow your children to have an opinion.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 19:23:51

'Is it not ok to feel conflicted about something?'

Apparently not, Raspberry. Unless we accept the official line of the government, which is MMR everyone no matter what, we are all morons apparently. Even those of us who feel that single vaccines would be safer for our particular children but still want to vaccinate.

Raspberrysorbet Fri 26-Apr-13 19:25:08

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WellJustCallHimDave Fri 26-Apr-13 19:27:42

"Ah, so you don't want to say from what age you would allow your children to have an opinion."

No. It's that I don't want to engage with someone who's rude and abusive, WidowWadman.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 19:28:13

I'm not trying to upset anyone lottieandmia, I just find it upsetting that whilst there is an epidemic which puts lots of people at risk, people still choose to not vaccinate, and blame everyone one but themselves, that the vaccine is spreading like wildfire.

I find the stance upsetting that rubella is a mild disease, and it's simply not neccessary if someone else's child is badly damaged.

I find it upsetting when the lie that only people with underlying other health problems would suffer badly and potentially die from these preventable diseases is used as an argument against vaccination. As if people with underlying health issues were not worthy to be protected.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 19:28:43

*the disease is spreading like wildfire, not the vaccine, obviously

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 19:32:15

But I think that generally, people do want to vaccinate. Maybe not always with the MMR but single vaccines work as well - they just require more discipline from the parents to complete the schedule. If you look in the vaccination topic there are various threads about single schedules.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 19:33:58

raspberry - I understand that people have been scared by overstating of the risks of the vaccine and the understating of the risks of the disease. Being scared is natural, and there is nothing wrong with discussing those fears with a healthcare professional.

The media are a lot to blame, so are those who want to sell the single vaccine despite there being good reasons why the MMR is favoured, not only by the UK healthcare system, but pretty much everywhere in the world.

I don't understand why the cynicism against the government is not extended to those who actually have financial gain from scaring the bejeezus out of parents who want the best for their children.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 19:38:46

lottieandmia - single vaccines mean it takes longer until the full immunisation is reached, means that people opt out of vaccines where they don't see the direct benefit to themselves because they wrongly perceive the disease to be mild, it means jabbing a child six times rather than twice (if all where available as singles and parents would let them be given), it means there is (if all were available as singles and given) 3 times the syringes, packaging, GP appointments, additives etc etc. That's a huge cost for no real benefit. It just doesn't make any sense.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 19:39:35

OK WidowWadman

This website is likely to be a good starting point for parents wishing to find out more about vaccines.

Where does it specifically explain why they need to vaccinate baby boys and girls against rubella? It took me a sentence to say "Because we are trying to stop the disease circulating and our policy of vaccinating babies will do this". I can't find any such statement anywhere but maybe it's hidden. They could substitute this infomation in about the same amount of space it takes to say ..... as well as increasing the amount of work and inconvenience for parents and those administering the vaccines.

I am not looking for an answer about herd immunity because that wasn't the question I was asking about.

Raspberrysorbet Fri 26-Apr-13 19:41:45

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 19:47:33

LaVolcan

Is this good enough an explanation?

"When a vaccination programme against a disease begins, the number of people catching the disease goes down. But as the threat recedes, it's important to keep vaccinating, otherwise the disease can start to spread again.

If enough people in a community are vaccinated, it's harder for a disease to pass between people who have not been vaccinated. This is called "herd immunity"."

It's not on the MMR specific bit, I give you that.

Herd immunity is particularly important in protecting people who can't get vaccinated because they're too ill, or they are having treatment that damages their immune system.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 19:52:00

I find the stance upsetting that rubella is a mild disease, and it's simply not neccessary if someone else's child is badly damaged.

I think few want to see this, and almost everyone would want to see congental rubella syndrome eliminated.

My point still stands. Women older than 25 will have been offered a single rubella vaccine, and men nothing. It is perfectly legitimate to ask, why did this policy change? It's perfectly sensible to say that they found the old policy wasn't effective. That doesn't take much, and is IMO much better than a lot of blather about "inconvenience" and more likely to be persuasive for those who need persuading.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 19:55:32

LaVolcan - by only offering women the jab and only from puberty this means that the immunity of the wider population can not reach rates which stop the disease from spreading.

Herd immunity and how it works is explained on the vaccination page I linked to. I agree, it may make sense to reiterate it on the MMR specific page, too.

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 19:57:13

I wouldn't call anyone a moron- and I do think it's a shame if people do. If only because it gives the anti-vaxxers to focus on.

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 20:03:47

WidowWadman Is this good enough an explanation?

It didn't explain.

How much effort would it be to say?:
Before [date when rubella vaccine introduced] there were xxxx cases of CRS.
Between [introduction date to 1988] when the vaccine was offered to girls at puberty the rate dropped to xx

After 1988 when the policy was to offer rubella vaccination to boys and girls at 12 months the rate dropped to [negligible amount].

That is not difficult to say and would be more convincing that the patronising stuff that they do say.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 20:17:04

WidowWadman - re "you don't really seem to understand about risk assessment yourself"

I assure you that I do smile Not only have I studied this stuff, but I have worked many years in related fields.

"Plus you actually have not compared the risk posed by non-vaccing to the one posed by vaccing, but compared it to something totally unrelated, namely giving antibiotics"

If you cared to read just a little bit of the thread you would know that was a reply to WhenSheWas.

"The risk of non-vaccination, increases the risk of infection in two ways"

That sentence doesn't even mean anything. You mean to say something like "Non-vaccination increases the probability of infection" in at least a and b.

Anyway, have you missed the part where I repeatedly said that I want DC to get the disease they are not immune to?

"don't get me started on the stupidity of the "immunity through infection is better" argument. The whole point of immunity is not catching the disease, surely"

LOL, you are way over your head, aren't you? smile Actually, immunity through infection is better, since it doesn't wane and is lifelong. For a disease as mild as rubella, you want DC to have it as children and then be immune for life. DD doesn't need rubella immunity at 18 months, she needs it in her childbearing years. DS doesn't need rubella immunity at all (although I'm pretty sure he had it already).

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 20:18:37

seeker - there is only one anti-vac person on this thread. Everyone else does believe in vaccination as far as I can see.

From the government point of view, of course the MMR is better. It requires fewer trips to the GP, cheaper admin costs and as you say 3 vaccines are given at once. That doesn't mean it is a better vaccine than single vaccines though. Or that parents who would prefer the single vaccine are too stupid to make sure it gets completed properly.

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 20:20:40

But I don't understand why people think singles are better. The is no evidence at all that they are.......

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 20:21:40

"by only offering women the jab and only from puberty this means that the immunity of the wider population can not reach rates which stop the disease from spreading"

"Wider population" doesn't need to be immune to rubella. Only women of childbearing age need to be immune to rubella. Rubella is not dangerous for anyone else.

I can go on saying this until you get it, so let me know if it still hasn't sunk in and we will take it from the beginning.

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 20:22:19

"Actually, immunity through infection is better, since it doesn't wane and is lifelong"

Evidence, please?

WellJustCallHimDave Fri 26-Apr-13 20:22:21

I'm not anti vaccination, seeker, but neither am I a moron.

Raspberrysorbet Fri 26-Apr-13 20:22:28

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 20:23:06

Not better for all children seeker - just some.

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 20:24:08

"Because it perhaps does not overload an immature immune system quite so much?"

Fvidence, please?

Raspberrysorbet Fri 26-Apr-13 20:28:30

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 20:28:48

What is it, seeker? You are not aware that vaccine immunity is known to wane over time, now?

How many of these MMR threads have you been? How many times do you want people to post the relevant studies?

I would recommend searching jimjams past posts for the word "wane".

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 20:33:35

cote tbh I agreed with widow re you not seeming to understand risk assessment. Although you clearly understand a lot about risk you don't seem to understand that there is no evidence that the mmr vaccine causes autism. I very much doubt you have any experience interpreting medical data.

raspberry I think it's ok to be conflicted. You do seem aware that there isn't actually any evidence the mmr causes autism. I for one think its great that you have admitted your reluctance but decided to do the rational thing and vaccinate.
Personally I would vaccinate at 13 months rather than wait because I worry more about the chance of catching measles.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 20:40:15

cote there is a chance we could eliminate rubella from the planet. <this will take a huge effort and probably won't happy till I'm long gone>

It will never happen as long as people refuse to vaccinate because that infection is some other woman's problem.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 20:41:10

"CotedAzur"

"Wider population" doesn't need to be immune to rubella. Only women of childbearing age need to be immune to rubella. Rubella is not dangerous for anyone else.

The wider population needs to be immune to Rubella to protect the unborn children of those women for who the vaccine doesn't work. With a 95% uptake of the vaccine, these people would be protected.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 20:44:20

Well as the parent of three girls I see it as my responsibility to make sure my daughters are vaccinated against rubella before they are able to have a baby - I do not see it as other people's responsibility to vaccinate their babies against it so that my daughters don't catch it when pregnant.

WearsMinkAllDayAndFoxAllNight Fri 26-Apr-13 20:45:44

WellJustCallHimDave:

"Call me what you will. I'll ignore you. Make vaccination a condition of obtaining a school place. I'll home school. Force me or my children to have any vaccination and I'll take your goddamn head off."

WellJustCallHimDave:

"I'm not anti vaccination..."

What would be an anti vaccination point of view then?

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 20:47:12

I am aware that immunity can wane over time. However, I am also aware of people with natural immunity to things who have got them again.

There are two ways of getting immunity. Both have a very small element of risk. The risk of the "natural" way is actually higher than the "artificial" way. (This is well documented).

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 20:47:13

"you don't seem to understand that there is no evidence that the mmr vaccine causes autism."

Excuse me? I haven't said "MMR causes autism". It obviously doesn't, since there are millions of kids who have had MMR and who don't have autism.

There are, however, some children who have regressed and now have permanent severe disabilities, not only after MMR but other vaccines, as well. These have been compensated for this vaccine damage, meaning there is no doubt that their problems were caused by the vaccine.

There is a risk of side effects with any vaccine, just like with any drug. If a vaccine isn't absolutely necessary, there is no need to take that small risk. I don't know why you think saying this is unreasonable.

WellJustCallHimDave Fri 26-Apr-13 20:48:57

WearsMinkAllDay, I'm pro choice.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 20:49:32

"LOL, you are way over your head, aren't you? smile Actually, immunity through infection is better, since it doesn't wane and is lifelong. "

Yep, lifelong. Especially for those whose life has been cut shot by the disease.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 20:49:59

"The wider population needs to be immune to Rubella to protect the unborn children of those women for who the vaccine doesn't work"

The vast majority of women will be immune to rubella we stop vaccinating babies against it. The tiny fraction you are not will be picked up when tested for immunity as teenagers.

Test them again a few years later and vaccinate the ones for whom the vaccine hasn't worked. Very easy.

Let me know if it still isn't clear. I can do this all night smile

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Fri 26-Apr-13 20:50:05

"I'm not calling for an advertising campaign putting it onto big fat posters, frequent jingles and TV adverts calling them antisocial morons, it's just my opinion, and I doubt they give a toss what little old widowwadman or anyone else thinks."
Well, you got the last bit right ...

WellJustCallHimDave Fri 26-Apr-13 20:51:08

Sorry, I pressed send too soon. An anti-vaccination point of view would be one where I tried to insist that your child wasn't vaccinated, either by argument or merely by being abusive.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 20:51:16

Whose life is cut short by rubella, Widow? Please share.

Have you ever seen a case of rubella? Do you have any idea how mild and short-lived it is?

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Fri 26-Apr-13 20:51:34

and by the way cote, it's pearls before swine .... but I salute your stamina

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 20:51:41

lottieandmia - and if one of your daughters would turn out to be a non-responder and she ended up losing a child or giving birth to a severely disabled one, that's just tough luck, eh?

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 20:53:15

Cotedazur, how about the lives lost through CRS? Or do they not count, because they haven't been born yet?

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 20:54:29

seeker - re "I am also aware of people with natural immunity to things who have got them again"

That by definition means that they never had natural immunity in the first place.

I had measles twice. That is because I was a baby the first time and my immune response didn't take. I had the natural immunity after the second time I had measles and now can't have it again.

Raspberrysorbet Fri 26-Apr-13 20:58:28

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 20:59:15

"The vast majority of women will be immune to rubella we stop vaccinating babies against it. The tiny fraction you are not will be picked up when tested for immunity as teenagers."

So how do you explain that cases of congenital rubella syndrome have dropped since the introduction of vaccinations? If the natural immunity for women would be so widespread as you claim, then it would not have made a difference, surely?

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 20:59:43

WidowWadman - so you are now saying vaccines don't work?

I have a severely disabled child so please don't infer that I have no idea what that actually means!

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 21:00:11

"how about the lives lost through CRS?"

Why do you feel that fetuses will die if the vast majority of the adult population have natural immunity to rubella because they have had it as children, and the few women who aren't are caught & vaccinated in their teens?

If you are so paranoid about vaccine immunity, maybe think again about your position in this debate.

WearsMinkAllDayAndFoxAllNight Fri 26-Apr-13 21:04:29

So the Taliban are the only anti-vaccinators? That's an imaginative redefinition.

cardibach Fri 26-Apr-13 21:04:41

Raspberry that is a really stupid strike out. MMR is not autism inducing. This is a fact.
We have discussed at length the people who can't have vaccinations for genuine medical reasons - how do they fit in to this rubella vac only for child bearing women scenario?

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 21:04:49

" I had the natural immunity after the second time I had measles and now can't have it again."

How do you know?

"Not only do I have to feel guilty about potentially injecting autism inducing completely safe wriggly microbes into my baby, I have to feel guilty about not having done it yet because I might be killing and/or disabling everyone else's yet to be born children."

You are joking, I presume?

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 21:04:57

cotedazur if natural immunity is so effective, why did immunisation have such an impact on the number of CRS cases?

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 21:05:12

I find it very difficult to argue with cote as she doesn't care about the health of pregnant women who aren't her or her daughter. Whereas I do.

It isn't fair to say every single woman should take responsibility for her own rubella immunity when there are a limited number of women who are not able to have the vaccine.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 21:06:01

Widow - Share your figures so we can see what you are talking about.

Logically, you should be assuming that most children naturally having the disease plus vaccination would result in more immune adults than only vaccination.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 21:06:43

lottieandmia I have never said that vaccines don't work.

Raspberrysorbet Fri 26-Apr-13 21:08:28

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 21:10:24

Widow - apparently 2 doses of MMR give 100% protection against rubella. So why would one of my daughters be a 'non responder'? The second dose should work, right?

As it is they will have them as singles and after the first dose I will get their immunity tested to make sure.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 21:11:34

Cotedazur

www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1221202948790

Before rubella vaccine became available, an estimated 200-300 babies were born each year with CRS in the UK. In the ten years between 2002 and 2011 there have been 8 cases of CRS born in England and Wales, of whom 4 were infected abroad.

www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccines/rubella

"Before a vaccine was available, there was a rubella outbreak in the U.S. (1963 to 1964), during which 12 million people developed the disease. Because many of those infected were expectant mothers, 11,000 fetuses died and 20,000 babies were born with permanent disabilities as a result of exposure to the virus. The number of cases of rubella fell very sharply once the rubella vaccine was licensed in 1969; today there are fewer than 1,000 cases of rubella reported each year in the U.S. on average and less than 10 cases of congenital rubella syndrome.

Because of intense misinformation about MMR in the United Kingdom, MMR vaccine coverage has declined across Europe, resulting in outbreaks of measles and mumps in multiple countries, including the United States and Canada, and congenital rubella in the Netherlands and Canada. There were 42 cases of rubella among pregnant women with two fetal deaths and 12 affected infants. Ironically, one of the few known causes of autism was the congenital rubella syndrome, autism having occurred in 20% of rubella-affected babies prior to the licensure of rubella vaccine. MMR vaccine, therefore, protects against autism by preventing congenital rubella syndrome."

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 21:12:13

When - That's not fair hmm

Of course, I care. I just don't feel that the onus is on my tiny baby to protect that hypothetical pregnant woman. Teenage girls should be tested for immunity and non-immune ones vaccinated at that point.

It might be a bit more expensive than the current system, but it is best for everyone. No premature vaccination for girls more than a decade before its time, no unnecessary vaccination for boys at all.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 21:14:59

Widow - Why are you talking about "before rubella vaccine was available"? Are you just not getting what I am proposing, namely that teenage girls should be tested for immunity and vaccinated if found to be non-immune to rubella.

I thought you were going to find figures from when teenage girls were offered rubella vaccine.

Seriously, I'm beginning to think that you are being deliberately obtuse to waste my time.

cardibach Fri 26-Apr-13 21:15:56

I've read it all, Raspberry. Nevertheless, continuing to link MMR and autism is stupid. Your own conflicted feelings are understandable, if irrational, but writing it down like that is stupid. Strike outs are generally used to show the real truth over a polite fiction. This is the opposite of your usage.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 21:16:06

cotedazur - what do you feel exactly is the risk for your tiny baby posed by the rubella vaccination?

And you say "it may be more expensive but is best for everyone". What healthcare services should be cut in your opinion to make up for the higher cost?

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 21:17:37

And this immature immune system thing. I would have thought that a baby would have a fantastically efficient and hard working immune system- it's in baby hood you need it most!

Lazyjaney Fri 26-Apr-13 21:18:16

Cote, I replied to your first Game Theory post before I saw your second with the link, 95% is often used as the herd immunity level for measles as it has a social network rather than random diffusion which gives a higher chance of transmission, and its very dangeous, ergo it requires a higher degree of herd immunity.

I think you have used Game Theory quite cavalierly on this thread, but to simplify, the biggest differential in any game theory payoff is the probability of catching measles, as it is much, much, much, much, much, much, much more dangerous than vaccination.

If there is high herd immunity, there is little risk of catching measles and it is rational to not vaccinate. Problem is as more people therefore choose not to vaccinate, the herd immunity diminishes, and the chance of catching measles rises. And it's not linear, as herd immunity reduces below a threshold risk rises very fast.

The bit of game theory I don't understand is the strategy of the anti-vaxers, I'd have thought if you don't want to vaccinate you're better off persuading everyone else to vaccinate like mad, to keep that herd immunity up.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 21:18:21

seeker - How do I know that I can't have measles again? hmm

Um.. because I already had it. I have the antibodies. I'm immune. I can't have it again.

Do we have to talk about the basics here? (Please say "no")

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 21:19:07

cotedazur have a look at the graph of the HPA link

"n 1970 a schoolgirl rubella immunisation programme was introduced in the UK. This selective policy was effective in reducing the number of children born with CRS (see graph) but rubella continued to circulate and any remaining non-immune women were often exposed via their own or other young children. Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine was introduced in 1988 for all children in the second year of life, with the aim of interrupting circulating rubella.

In 1994, a national measles/rubella vaccine campaign targeted all school aged children (5 to 16 years) in 1994 and the schoolgirl vaccination programme was discontinued. A routine second MMR immunisation at 4 years of age was subsequently introduced in 1996,"

You can see the really quite sharp drop of CRS cases once the MMR was introduced compared to the schoolgirl vaccination program.

Raspberrysorbet Fri 26-Apr-13 21:19:39

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 21:23:33

cote sorry you don't think it's fair but all you trot out is rubella isn't serious unless you are pregnant. You make no allowances for (the thankfully few) women who are not able able to be vaccinated.
I guess those women should just not breed.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 21:23:44

LazyJane - I think your problem is that you just don't read posts well enough before you reply to them. My children have had measles vaccination and my posts were never about avoiding the measles vaccine nor have I ever questioned its necessity.

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 21:26:45

"all you trot out is rubella isn't serious unless you are pregnant"

... which is correct, as we all know by now [hopeful]

"You make no allowances for (the thankfully few) women who are not able able to be vaccinated. "

Ah, those hypothetical creatures again smile I asked you who those women are and you didn't answer. Here:

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 15:16:07
Who are these women who can't be allowed to have such a mild and brief disease as rubella as children, cannot possibly have the rubella vaccination, presumably have a very weak immune system but can socialise with children and are perfectly capable of being pregnant and having babies? I'm genuinely curious.
And how many of them are there in the UK at any given time?

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 21:27:12

cardi to be fair to raspberry I think she means that mmr has been falsely linked to autism and that is why she is nervous of it inspite of knowing there isn't actually any risk.

ExRatty Fri 26-Apr-13 21:28:33

So to recap for the dumb <ME>

Getting the vaccination does not necessarily mean that you will not get measles?
We don't know how many of those now with measles were vaccinated
Getting the vaccination does not necessarily protect you against rubella?
You can test for rubella immunity and if you don't have it vaccinate at that point?
We can't buy a single vaccine for reasons unexplained

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 21:29:38

Is the rubella a particularly side effect prone element of the MMR?

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 21:29:58

"rubella continued to circulate and any remaining non-immune women were often exposed via their own or other young children"

Wasn't there a policy of testing for rubella immunity during pregnancy at that time?

I answered this. Here:

CoteDAzur Fri 26-Apr-13 17:02:06
"...vaccinating children against rubbella, the main outcome was that it protected the vaccinated children's own younger siblings more than any other group."

"Younger siblings" as in DC2 in the womb? This doesn't even make sense. When you were pregnant with DC1, you would be tested for rubella immunity. If found non-immune, you would surely get the vaccine yourself after DC1 was born. So by the time your are pregnant with DC2, you would be immune so there would be no need to vaccinate DC1 against rubella to protect the fetus.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 21:32:49

They don't have to have a weak immune system, just a hypersensitivity to the components of the vaccine. These women (no idea how many but I grant you it's not many) are perfectly able to lead normal lives maybe best to avoid eggs though

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 21:33:39

so do you think the HPA just made the figures up, which showed that the school girl vaccination program wasn't as effective? Why would they?

Raspberrysorbet Fri 26-Apr-13 21:35:11

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

cardibach Fri 26-Apr-13 21:39:14

Raspberry it is too important to pander to spurious sensitivity. It is stupid to think MMR and measles are linked. I live near Swansea, if that adds any context for you.

Honsandrevels Fri 26-Apr-13 21:41:16

Transplant patients are one group who can't have mmr but have lowered immunity. I'm not sure of the numbers of childbearing age transplant patients but I'm sure you could look them up.

ExRatty Fri 26-Apr-13 21:42:42

can you have a child whilst awaiting a transplant?

LaVolcan Fri 26-Apr-13 21:43:56

My irritation around the policy of the rubella vaccination is that they don't tell you that the immunity can wane. Yes, they test you when you are pregnant, but it could be too late then. Where is the public health policy to tell women to check their rubella status? I have asked this once before and no-one seems to have an answer.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 21:44:41

'so do you think the HPA just made the figures up, which showed that the school girl vaccination program wasn't as effective? Why would they?'

Could you link to this study please? Surely people who have the vaccine at puberty will have longer immunity time than those vaccinated as toddlers 10 years earlier?

It seems to me that since the MMR is cheaper then that will be the main reason for change in policy.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Fri 26-Apr-13 21:44:42

The problem (as always) with this discussion is that the those in the "accept MMR or you are a mental scumbag who would burn babies given half a chance" contingent (I accept I exaggerate slightly) will at no stage confront - or even acknowledge - the ethical problem inherent in giving babies a vaccination which is at that stage, or only marginal (if any) benefit to them in the interests of persons wholy unconnected with them and to whom they cannot possibly be said to owe any positive moral duties.
Until they do this, they are forced to revert to arguments of the "of course I fell one must do this because I care about society" nature. Which is merely advertising what a wonderful person you believe yourself to be. Who cares?

Honsandrevels Fri 26-Apr-13 21:46:27

Post transplant.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Apr-13 21:46:35

lottieandmia

www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1221202948790

I've linked to this earlier.

bruffin Fri 26-Apr-13 21:54:05

sense info on Congenital Rubella syndrome
There were just 6 cases of Rubella in th un in 2011 and 65 in 2012

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 26-Apr-13 21:54:37

cardi I don't think raspberry is trying to upset you/anyone. She is just highlighting why some people still feel nervous (even though they know they shouldn't). What she has to say is relevant otherwise there wouldn't be any fuss about this at all.

Yes the fears about mmr are not justified but some people are still frightened (IMO they need reassuring).

Raspberrysorbet Fri 26-Apr-13 21:56:53

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GreenEggsAndNichts Fri 26-Apr-13 22:11:55

ilove my son is ASD, he's 4, he's never said "I love you mummy" and I've no idea if that will ever happen. Yes, of course I'd still get him vaccinated, if given another chance. I can see the whole picture; a grandfather who is obsessed with counting spoons in the house, his entire paternal line is full of scientists and mathematicians.

The problem with the MMR and how people perceive the before-and-after change is that it's given right at a time when children are achieving different developmental changes, such as talking (or not, in DS's case). They're making that change from babyhood to toddlerhood. It's when we notice that hey, they're responding to things differently from the other toddlers.

FairPhylis's posts are spot on.

seeker Fri 26-Apr-13 22:14:24

Of course people are nervous! It's natural and normal to be nervous when somebody is doing something to your baby that might upset it, and might make it feel a bit crap. And of course at the back of your mind there's the worry about side effects. The real, recorded,proved side effects. It's just a shame that people have to worry about side effects that don't happen as well as ones that do.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 22:15:54

'it's given right at a time when children are achieving different developmental changes, such as talking (or not, in DS's case). They're making that change from babyhood to toddlerhood. It's when we notice that hey, they're responding to things differently from the other toddlers. '

But this is also a time when a developing brain could be knocked off course so to speak, which is why some parents report that their child changes after a vaccination or the onset of a virus.

There is peer reviewed evidence which shows that the developing brain is predisposed to environmental changes which could affect development.

lottieandmia Fri 26-Apr-13 22:17:39

You know, I'd love to be able to believe that it's impossible for a child to regress as a result of a vaccination. I can't tell you how much easier my life would be if that were the case.

Raspberrysorbet Fri 26-Apr-13 22:17:41

Message withdrawn at poster's request.