Mumsnetters aren't necessarily qualified to help if your child is unwell. If you have any serious medical concerns, we would urge you to consult your GP.

All of you who CHOOSE not to vaccinate your children

(659 Posts)

Do you realise that's the reason why there's now an epidemic of measles in Wales?

You know children with auto-immune problems, children with cancers, children with allergies that mean they can't be medicated, children who react badly to drugs?
You know them? They're suffering because of you not wanting to vaccinate your child.

You have no medical reason for not vaccinating, but plenty of reasons TO vaccinate.

You are causing a whole generation of children to be endangered from a preventable disease.

Measles can be fatal
(that means it can kill )

lljkk Sat 13-Apr-13 10:37:23

Pointless Stirring.

SoupDragon Sat 13-Apr-13 10:41:38

Gosh, is that what fatal means? I never knew hmm

I agree - pointless stirring.

Theicingontop Sat 13-Apr-13 11:51:29


It's not pointless stirring, and you know it's not.

the reason I put what fatal means is because I think a lot of people who choose not to vaccinate seem not to realize how fucking serious it is!

cause and effect

that's what this is.

It's not just "children dying in the Victorian era that doesn't happen any more"

this is proof that it does still happen, and that vaccinating your children is what protects your children and other children from diseases that are preventable.

Why should you allow children to suffer because you think that vaccinations are all a bit of mumbo jumbo?

Elibean Sat 13-Apr-13 13:43:09

U&A, I'm just wondering if you've been personally affected in some way by the measles outbreak?

Not a comment on your posts, or the responses thus far, but just wondered. I hope not, obviously.

AnyaKnowIt Sat 13-Apr-13 13:44:57

Well said OP

no, I haven't.
I just feel strongly about it.

Mainly because I don't want anyone I know to suffer from it.

I think people also don't realize that you can still get measles even if you have been vaccinated, just obviously not as bad.
But that if you do, you could easily affect a tiny baby or a person who hasn't been vaccinated for medical reasons.

TaggieCampbellBlack Sat 13-Apr-13 13:58:30

Pointless stirring and bollocks.

Succubi Sat 13-Apr-13 14:05:07

YANBU. Unless their is a medical reason not to vaccinate then its just plain stupidity. The minute anyone says the name Andrew Wakefield to me I just want to scream out loud.

As far as I am concerned, it should be a pre-requisite of starting nursery/school that you are up-to-date with your vaccinations failing which that child should be refused entry. The only exemption to entry should be a medical exemption.

OP very well said.

LynetteScavo Sat 13-Apr-13 14:16:09

Every parent does what they believe is best for their own child.

I vaccinated my DC against measles because I thought it was best for them. I did not consider any one elses child in my decision.

Now, if I knew for certain everybody else on the planet was vaccinated against measles, I may not have bothered......wink

bamboostalks Sat 13-Apr-13 14:18:05

Agree with OP.

narmada Sat 13-Apr-13 14:19:58

Agree OP. Why is it ok not to consider other people's children?

LouLouH Sat 13-Apr-13 14:26:12

Agree with OP.
Both my children are up to date on all vaccines and I will not look after any child that is not up to date on all of them. (I'm a childminder).

Guitargirl Sat 13-Apr-13 14:26:33

I don't think it's pointless stirring.

Some people need things to be pointed out in words of one syllable.

I would include in that category those who rely on everyone else to vaccinate their own children so that their unvaccinated children can rely on the herd immunity. So much for the herd immunity now sad. Because of the poor uninformed choices of some parents, those children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons are now at risk.

MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 14:27:01

Generally people choose not to vaccinate NOT because they can't be arsed, but because they are afraid of the potential impact on their own child's wellbeing.

And until the authorities are a bit more transparent and a little less script led in this regard then the situation will continue.

Infighting between those of us who think vacs are the way to go and those of us who are scared of them, is not the answer


MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 14:27:47

and I do vaccinate

Succubi Sat 13-Apr-13 14:28:54

Well quite frankly those that are scared of them need to grow a pair.

MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 14:37:05

No, they need accurate, reliable reassurance and just try getting that from a GP or HV

It is possible to get the reassurance if you ask.

They also need to know why it's important that so big a percentage of children are vaccinated.

I really do think that far too many people worry too much about their own child immediately and not about how their actions not only impact on all other children, but also on their own child, should they come into contact with someone who has one of the diseases they haven't been vaccinated against - they don't know how their own child migth react to the disease.

what would happen if a deliberately-not-medical-related-non-vaccinated child was one of the ones that had complications after contracting measles? How guilty would the parent feel then?

givemeaclue Sat 13-Apr-13 15:08:48

Agree op

hermioneweasley Sat 13-Apr-13 15:12:57

Agree OP

FarelyKnuts Sat 13-Apr-13 15:27:00

Correct me if I am wrong but is the outbreak not affecting vaccinated children?

HazardLamps Sat 13-Apr-13 15:31:46

Pointless stirring.

why are so many people just coming on to say "pointless stirring" ?

I'm not stirring.
Stirring was the last thing from my mind when I posted.
If you don't have anything valuable to add to the argument, then please refrain form posting.

Farely - so far not, but vaccinated children can still get it.
They're just more likely to get a milder version and are less likely to get the complications.

HazardLamps Sat 13-Apr-13 15:39:17

Please try not to tell adults members of a public forum to refrain from posting. It doesn't work like that.

That your thread is considered by some posters to be pointless stirring is a valid response, regardless of whether or not you consider it valuable.

I agree.

I have immuno compromised family members and this worries me.

The other week before all this came out my DS had suspected measles, even with the rash etc they said it couldn't be because he is vaccinated but the panic once they realised that I am pg!

It was quite scary.

daisymama Sat 13-Apr-13 15:40:48

Please read my blog post about this - I was left deaf in one ear from measles and my immunosuppressed daughter is left at risk - please get your child vaccinated, Wakefield was wrong - end of

seeker Sat 13-Apr-13 15:43:37

Good post, OP.

rubyrubyruby Sat 13-Apr-13 15:45:16

Don't you just love MN
So far this week I have been told:

I'm letting other women down by not going back to work full time.
How I should and shouldn't spend my money
....... and now this.

HazardLamps Sat 13-Apr-13 15:47:31

Wow, rubyrubyruby. If you'd been told all that (and this) by your husband all MN would be telling you he's a control freak and advising that you leave the bastard. wink

Ruby I have no idea why you were told those other things, that doesn't seem right.

Choosing not to vaccinate should always be challenged though as it is a decision that doesn't only affect the child who isn't having the jabs, it has the potential to put others in extreme danger.

Hazard - you're right, but it just seems like such a waste of posting space, when they could back it up as to why they think I'm pointlessly stirring (especially as I had already pointed out that I am not stirring)

ruby - I don't mind whether you work or not. I personally think it's better for the family for everyone to do what's right - a miserable SAHP is just as bad as a miserable WOHP.
I think you sdhould spend your money how you see fit within your means.
I think that everybody has a responsibility to make sure their children are vaccinated, so that there is adequate protection for those who can't be. (in much the same way as the NHS provides healthcare for all, even those who don't pay into the system and it's there even when there are people that never use it)

and everything that Schro said.

seeker Sat 13-Apr-13 15:50:07

Good post, OP.

(but you should buy books. preferably from your local bookseller)

infamouspoo Sat 13-Apr-13 15:52:21

why is it your business OP? My dd cannot be vaccinated for MEDICAL reasons. I wouldnt dream of telling other people what to do regarding vaccination or insist they make their child undergo a medical procedure for the benefit of mine.

mummysmellsofsick Sat 13-Apr-13 15:56:10

What a judgemental OP. I don't think anyone takes decisions like vaccination lightly, without regard for others. After all, non vaxers are more at risk from lower herd immunity than most people are. Please remember that people have reasons for the decisions they make that you might be unaware of.

rubyrubyruby Sat 13-Apr-13 15:56:14

unique I had my 3 youngest children within 18 months of each other. This was at a time when the MMR scare was at its height and doubts and emotions were running high. I chose not to vaccinate.

Forward on 10 years and the medical evidence was scrutinised more, my children were older and stronger so they all had the MMR. I was staggered how ill 2 of them were after. Listless, stiff necks and generally very unwell. I was so glad I had decided against vaccination at 14 months tbh.

HazardLamps Sat 13-Apr-13 15:56:24

And that ^ ^ from infamouspoo is the crux of the matter, isn't it? No-one can give a convincing reason why a parent should consider the health and welfare of somebody else's child to be more important than the wellbeing of their own.

seeker Sat 13-Apr-13 15:58:16

Of course there are children who cannot, for sound medical reasons, be vaccinated. But that is all the more reason why the rest of us should vaccinate- to create the herd immunity necessary to protect them.

rubyrubyruby Sat 13-Apr-13 15:58:20

....... and I didn't even have the choice to pay for single measles jabs.

WouldBeHarrietVane Sat 13-Apr-13 16:00:20

I chose to single vax dc because I fear for my children as I think they are in a minority (family history of auto immune issues) where they more vulnerable to side effects.

It is impossible to get nuanced info on degree of risk to individual children as the NHS is not set up to do that.

If I didn't have the money to single vax then the dc might be unvaccinated now.

They should never have done away with the single vax - they have brought this on themselves.

Agree with OP.

seeker Sat 13-Apr-13 16:01:40

" No-one can give a convincing reason why a parent should consider the health and welfare of somebody else's child to be more important than the wellbeing of their own."

Because a) I consider my children feeling a bit poorly for a day or so to be worth it to protect others who might actually die if they catch whatever it is.

b) my child might be one of the few who get hideous complications from measles or mumps, and being a bit unwell for a day or so to be worth it to protect them from that risk.

mummy - the only reason I will accept as reasonable is the medical one.

The MMR scare was bollocks, unsubstantiated and very quickly denounced.
the scare the jabs lasted a lot longer than the report itself.

seeker Sat 13-Apr-13 16:03:24

Oh, and when people say they want more information from HCPs, I suspect what they mean is they want to be told that the vaccine is 100% risk free. Which it isn't- nothing is. So they won't be told it is.

infamouspoo - i think if you read my OP and all my other posts, you will find that I have actually listed that people who an't be vaccinated for medical reasons are at risk from those who choose not to do it.

FFS, I've started a whole fucking thread to support you and your family and you've just slagged my off about it.

MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 16:04:30

That's not you is it Nickel?

also, 'It is possible to get the reassurance if you ask.'

No it bloody isn't! Do you think people don't try?

rubyrubyruby Sat 13-Apr-13 16:04:35

We had the CJD scare at the same time remember.

It was a tough time to have young children and im not sure that those with younger children understand this. There was a lot of conflicting evidence and opinion. We didn't vaccinate and ate no beef.

It's easy to be wise in retrospect.

Pigsmummy Sat 13-Apr-13 16:04:47

I think that the situation is going to get much worse, the peak of the current epidemic is estimated to be a few weeks away.

I am surprised by the massive number of parents now getting their children vaccinated at the drop in clinics, if they are happy to vaccinate now then why didn't they before? Or is this a panic now that the epidemic is on their doorstep?

infamouspoo Sat 13-Apr-13 16:05:13

seeker, the levels of measles were dropping before vaccines were introduced and well before the 'magic' 95% herd immunity figure. I really dont pay it that much heed.
But as I said, I really do not expect any parent to consider my child before they make a decision. I expect them to do their own research and come to their own comclusions as they would with any drug or medical procedure. Unvacinated children are not walking wells of disease. My child isnt.
Funnily enough, people do rear back in horror when they hear she is unvaccinated but when I point out we have valid medical reasons suddenly they are fine with her unvaccinated status hmm. Whats with that? Apart from any lack of common sense.

"my children were older and stronger so they all had the MMR. I was staggered how ill 2 of them were after. Listless, stiff necks and generally very unwell."

if they'd been vaccinated at a younger age, they might not have reacted so strongly. but if they had, then they would be supported in future and might not have been able to receive other vaccines.
they would have become those exact people that the herd immunity is protecting.

Badvoc Sat 13-Apr-13 16:06:37

Your op is deeply offensive to those who have not or cannot vaccinate their children due to sn/serious illness and disability.
You know that, right?
A child who has cancer treatment cannot be vaccinated.
A child with autism is best not vaccinated.
A child with auto immune disease cannot be vaccinated.
My kids are vaccinated, but only because none of the above applies to them.
It's not a black and white situation.
I dont agree with Andrew wakefields findings but saying that ANY vaccine is 100% safe is ridiculous and untrue.

MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 16:06:45

'Oh, and when people say they want more information from HCPs, I suspect what they mean is they want to be told that the vaccine is 100% risk free.'

Do you really think that? I don't think that's near the mark tbh

TumbleWeeds Sat 13-Apr-13 16:07:17


This is something that has already being discussed at length.

Basically, people who are pro vax think that the non vaccinated children are putting others in dangers.
People who don't vaccinate say they are protecting their own children as it will be detrimental to them.

I have yet to see a thread on MN which will be able to go into all the research and do an objective analysis of all the ins and outs. More likely people repeating ad nauseum the same thing again and again and not listening to the other 'camp'.

So OP please just move on and read previous threads. Much better than stirring.

seeker Sat 13-Apr-13 16:08:04

Because people accept that there are some children who can't be vaccinated. Of course they aren't "walking wells of disease". But they are only protected if herd immunity is maintained- and are probably more likely to be very ill if they do get whatever it is.

infamouspoo Sat 13-Apr-13 16:08:40

'FFS, I've started a whole fucking thread to support you and your family and you've just slagged my off about it.'

Oh I'm sorry, I didnt realise I was meant to be grateful. I dont consider my child at risk from unvaccinated children. And I dont ask people to perform medical procedures that do have health risks, however tiny JUST for my child. They should do it for their children only.

HazardLamps Sat 13-Apr-13 16:08:42

Seeker, the possible side effects of vaccinations are not just "feeling a bit poorly for a day or so" though, are they?

They could be far, far more serious than that. To assert otherwise is either to be naïve or to be deceitful.

WouldBeHarrietVane Sat 13-Apr-13 16:09:32

If you fall into a grey area you can't get any info at all because no GP is going to tell you not to jab with mmr unless you fall into a category the DoH says should not be jabbed.

rubyrubyruby Sat 13-Apr-13 16:09:45

What age is your child OP?

As I said its easy to be wise in retrospect

seeker Sat 13-Apr-13 16:10:42

"Your op is deeply offensive to those who have not or cannot vaccinate their children due to sn/serious illness and disability.
You know that, right?
A child who has cancer treatment cannot be vaccinated.
A child with autism is best not vaccinated.
A child with auto immune disease cannot be vaccinated.
My kids are vaccinated, but only because none of the above applies to them.
It's not a black and white situation.
I dont agree with Andrew wakefields findings but saying that ANY vaccine is 100% safe is ridiculous and untrue."

*No- if you read the OP, it specifically says that those who don't have those medical reasons to vaccinate are putting those that do at risk- read it properly.

And nobody is saying that any vaccine is 100% safe- as you say, that would be stupid.*

MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 16:11:00

'If you fall into a grey area you can't get any info at all because no GP is going to tell you not to jab with mmr unless you fall into a category the DoH says should not be jabbed.'

Yes. No information is forthcoming. No sensible informed discussion is available.

And asking on Mumsnet...ha.

the 95% is probably arbitrary, but I think it might be related to the percentage of children who cannot be vaccinated (y'know, this many children can't be, so let's take that then add a few more just to be safe, because there are also those who haven't yet been)

it is me Mandra
Yes, I know it can be hard to get further information, and a lot of people don't like to push it. but what seeker said is totally right - if they want 100% reassurance they'll never get it.
same as I can't guarantee that i won't be knocked over when i cross the road, but it doesn't stop me doing it.

infamouspoo Sat 13-Apr-13 16:11:23

But, you know, if you all want to do things to make my child's life better can you all stop driving (nasty chest infections exacerbated by pollution) and give me a million pounds. Ta wink

MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 16:12:36

Crikey. Bit scared to come into your shop now! smile

seeker Sat 13-Apr-13 16:13:45

"They could be far, far more serious than that. To assert otherwise is either to be naïve or to be deceitful."

Agreed. Nobody is. But that is the worst of the complications in all but a vanishingly small number of cases. As all the literature will tell you. Nobody is hiding the possible complications.


"Your op is deeply offensive to those who have not or cannot vaccinate their children due to sn/serious illness and disability.
You know that, right?
A child who has cancer treatment cannot be vaccinated.
A child with autism is best not vaccinated.
A child with auto immune disease cannot be vaccinated.
My kids are vaccinated, but only because none of the above applies to them.
It's not a black and white situation.
I dont agree with Andrew wakefields findings but saying that ANY vaccine is 100% safe is ridiculous and untrue."

read the fucking OP
you have just basically said what I have fucking said!
the whole point of my OP was to point out that those who choose not to vaccinate are putting at risk those who can't be


my op explicitly said:
"You know children with auto-immune problems, children with cancers, children with allergies that mean they can't be medicated, children who react badly to drugs?
You know them? They're suffering because of you not wanting to vaccinate your child."

triballeader Sat 13-Apr-13 16:14:48

Vaccination for those medically able to have it does provide protection. For most it provides complete protection and for those who have partial immunity or who have had the vaccine after exposure to confirmed measles before the incubation period is up will have a lesser form of measles[90% of people without vaccination will catch it as the things a tad virilent]

Last weekend my husband was fighting for his life in negative pressure isolation from 'just measles' that he had caught from my daughter who could not have MMR as she is under oncology.

Parents want the best for their child and whilst I certainly strongly advocate in favour of vaccination I also favour parents being able to arrive at an informed choice after considering the medical risks for and against in each childs case.

D0GWithAYoni Sat 13-Apr-13 16:15:48

Because its really that easy isn't it? Because those of us who choose not to vacc do it because we CBA, or are thick or selfish.

Someone said about people being afraid need to grow a pair. FFS.

I question my desicion regularly but yes because of what happened to my family I am scared. Shoot me.

I hate these threads. It's not always black and white you know.

ruby - my child is 16mo.

I'm not doing anything in retrospect. I don't want to be the reason some child goes blind or worse.

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 13-Apr-13 16:18:34

Agree OP, makes me cross as well.

MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 16:20:01

I call it the 'let's you and him fight' effect brought on by the govt hard line on info dissem Dog

Mandra - I'm having a quiet day wink

it's just something I feel very strongly about.

When I first learned about the smallpox vaccine at school, I spent a long time looking at information regarding spread of disease and vaccination. was fascinating how many lives were saved because of it.

Badvoc Sat 13-Apr-13 16:20:56

You honestly think that parents just can't be bothered then?
How do you know WHY parents aren't vaccinating their children!
Or are you omnipotent it something?

Elibean Sat 13-Apr-13 16:21:18

triballeader I hope both your dh, and your dd, are ok. It sounds like a rough time for your family sad

choosing not to vaccinate because there are medical issues in the family is the same as not being able to vaccinate.

and I think everyone should read triballeader's post there.

QueenOfCats Sat 13-Apr-13 16:22:33

I had my dd vaccinated, but not until she was 5. That was my choice.

My friends dd had the MMR at the correct age. She was a bit grizzly afterwards but I guess that's normal.

She went to bed no bother. The following day the change in that child was incredible. It was like someone had flipped a switch or swapped her in the night.

Her speech stopped. Even now she has a serious speech delay.

She has had numerous bowel problems.

She stopped interacting, making eye contact.

She was a happy healthy child until that vaccine.

My friend now has a 16 months old DS. She refuses to vaccinate him.

She puts the blame fully on the MMR and feels that if her dd had never had it, she would be "normal" (her words, not mine) now.

AmberLeaf Sat 13-Apr-13 16:22:36

They should never have done away with the single vax - they have brought this on themselves

Yes. They should have kept single vaccines available when they knew what was stopping some parents from having the triple, or when they saw that concerns were affecting take up.

hermioneweasley Sat 13-Apr-13 16:24:11

Will you read the OP?! She makes the point that people choosing not to vaccinate for airy fairy reasons reduces herd immunity and puts children who genuinely cannot be vaccinated and rely on herd immunity at risk.

I would ship anyone who chooses not to have their kids vaccinated for ridiculous reasons to a third world country And swap them with a family who actually value first world medicine and incredibly low child mortality rates.

infamouspoo Sat 13-Apr-13 16:24:29

I dont think the twain shal ever meet on threads like this.

MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 16:25:39

and why didn't they keep them available? Does anyone know?

specialsubject Sat 13-Apr-13 16:26:05

inconvenient truth, I think.

Good on you, OP.

to the rest of you - smallpox.

Queen - sad
again, that is as very valid medical reason not to vaccinate.
and you know that's not the situation I'm referring to in my OP.
it's those I mean that put your friend's kids at risk.

yes, I agree that the single vaccines should have been made available on the NHS.

Badvoc Sat 13-Apr-13 16:27:47

What do you consider airy fairy reasons?
Genuinely interested.
If a parent is concerned or scared that a vaccine may harm their child is it fair to call them Airy fairy due to their concern/worry?
As I said, my dc are vaccinated. I believe in vaccination.
I think it would have been a real eye opener for the govt if they had asked every parent attending these special clinics in Wales WHY they didn't vaccinate. Then they might have a plan to go forward and increase vax rates.
Single jabs perhaps.
Or later vax schedules.

they don't keep them available because they cost more and it's deemed there is no reason for it. (they thought they'd end up throwing loads away once the dates had past and the scare had died down)
I suppose they didn't think it would last as long.

MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 16:29:31

They cost more? I always thought the parents had to pay for them anyway?

MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 16:29:58

Sorry but having some trouble digesting those reasons as valid

homeappliance Sat 13-Apr-13 16:31:45

Completely agree with OP.

airy fairy reasons are the ones that "ooh my child might get autism even though it's been disproved"
"oh, maureen's sister's friend's brother's friend's cousin had a bad reaction"
"oh, it might cause a bad reaction (without medical history to back that up)"
"it's all a government conspiracy"
"the rest of the herd will protect me"
"feeding a child orange and lemon juice is all you need to cure/treat it"
"my child might cry at the jabs"
"i prefer natural remedies"
"measles isn't that serious, what a few spots and a temperature?"

HazardLamps Sat 13-Apr-13 16:32:40

"Queen - sad
again, that is as very valid medical reason not to vaccinate.
and you know that's not the situation I'm referring to in my OP.
it's those I mean that put your friend's kids at risk."

So what you're saying is that people should put their kids at risk of turning out like the child of Queen's friend for the sake of other kids, Unique. hmm

Having a child turn out like Queen's friend's child is precisely why some parents won't vaccinate regardless of the benefits to the kids of strangers.

Mandra - i know, but the jabs as they are have evidence to be the least risky and distressing to the child.

Hazard - it's a very small risk.
and yes, I am.

The best excuse I have heard is "the jabs don't do anything and it's the government inserting microchips".


I realise that excuse isn't the norm though...

(please refer to my comment about road crossing)

seeker Sat 13-Apr-13 16:34:36

And if they did introduce the single vaccines just imagine what the conspiracy theorists would make of it..............

Badvoc Sat 13-Apr-13 16:34:43

You actually know people who haven't vaccinated for those reasons?
Or have you been reading the daily mail!?

Me? Yes, I know 1 person who didn't for that reason.

actually, seeker's point is one of the reasons they didn't let the single vaccine out.
because they knew the DM and others would pounce and say "see, we told you there was a problem!"

Badvoc - you asked for a list. I stand by my OP, and the list of excuses I've given has been pulled from other people's comments (including a lady who gave me the natural remedy comments this morning on FB)

seeker Sat 13-Apr-13 16:38:03

I know two people, who haven't vaccinated their children against anything because they use homeopathic alternatives...........

TumbleWeeds Sat 13-Apr-13 16:38:43

But Unique how on earth are you going to know before hand that your child will react? What is saying that the sibling of one child affected is likely to react badly too? Why do you have to wait until one of your children isd affected by side effects of the vax before not vax is seen as an appropriate measure??

you don't.
that's why it can't be 100% risk-free.

It's more likely to run in families.

HazardLamps Sat 13-Apr-13 16:40:21

Unique, thank you for confirming my (fears) suspicions. You have no chance of ever getting me to put the lives or health of other people's children above my own. I'm a little puzzled by those who would tbh.

This is why I think this thread is pointless stirring. Never the twain shall meet.

MoreBeta Sat 13-Apr-13 16:41:32

We had our children vaccinated with the individual mumps, measles, rubella vaccines - not MMR.

The last Govt did everything it could to stop parents having it done. Now you cant get the mumps vaccine so you cant do it that way.

The last Govt is the cause of the problem - they should have allowed people to choose MMR or the three single jabs. The Govt wouldn't allow that though because they were trying to avoid being sued over MMR.

The last Govt disdnt really truely care about children's health. They stopped doing TB vaccination outside London. That will be the next epidemic. Mark my words.

I had the TB jab when I was a child now they say children dont need it. Well nonsense!

We had our children given the TB jab privately. They call TB the 'white death'.

The current measles scare is Govt propoganda. I had measles as a child and it is very dangerous. The Govt preferred to play politics and now children have a dreadful disease because parents were frightened. Now this Govt is frightening parents again to force them to have children given MMR.

seeker Sat 13-Apr-13 16:41:41

What fears and suspicions are those?


I put the lives of all children first.
my child is one of all children, so i vaccinate her because she is the only one I can help directly

Birdies Sat 13-Apr-13 16:43:30

Definitely agree with the OP

cansu Sat 13-Apr-13 16:43:31

i think the word 'choose' is an interesting one here. I have two dc with ASD. Ds1 received first MMR as I had no reason to question vaccination as I had no idea that he had any problems until he was around 2 and a half. This is the same kind of choice that most parents have. Round 2 with dd was a bit different. dd was born around the time ds was diagnosed. I was heartbroken and watched her for signs of asd obsessively. I didnt dare immunise her just in case this action tipped the balance somehow. I was wrong. She has ASD. It is clearly a genetic issue in our family. But can you see how my choice was not the same as the choice facing many other mothers who had no reason to fear this vaccine as the idea that it could harm their child never occurred to them. I agree that I should have vaccinated dd but my decision was significantly more complex than yours OP. By the way dd has had the measles and was very poorly. i have also had the measles and pneumonia so I do know how awful it is. I think the government should have done more for those in my position. Simply restating that it was safe obviously didnt do the trick.

MoreBeta - the TB thing really worries me.

I went to school with a girl who had TB when she was an infant (not a tiny baby)

It always worries me what could have happened to her, and the fact we're now considered not to need vaccination against it.
But it's not even completely eradicated, and with free passage from other countries, who's to say it won't cause an epidemic in the future?

Badvoc Sat 13-Apr-13 16:44:58

Well, there will always be idiots in the world op.
Nothing you can do about that.
I understand your frustration, but totally dismissing some parents very valid concerns about vaccination is not fair.
You could have 10 children and vaccinate 9 with no problems at all and the 10th child could be very badly affected.
I remember one gp telling me a heart breaking story about 2 brothers. Both healthy prior to vaccination. Both vaccinated on the same day. 1 was left brain damaged by the vaccination. 1 was fine.

claraschu Sat 13-Apr-13 16:45:09

Queen: I know three families who have similar stories, two of them first hand, one of them through my sister. Whenever I mention them on threads or in RL discussion, people ignore what I say. When you have seen a child lose all their speech after a reaction to MMR, it is hard to believe the statistics, convincing as they are.

I also know that vaccination programs are based on convenience and cost (vaccinate as much as possible when you have the baby in the surgery because it's easier than getting people to come back repeatedly). In the US, they wanted to give my son HIB when he was less than 1 day old. I don't believe that is the best possible timing.

My children have been vaccinated, though I delayed DC3 after what I witnessed. I am not an ignorant, suspicious, conspiracy theorist, but I certainly don't think this is a simple issue.

HazardLamps Sat 13-Apr-13 16:45:46

Seeker, the fear/suspicion I was speaking of are that Unique believes that a person should put their kids at risk of turning out like the child of Queen's friend for the sake of other kids.

MoreBeta Sat 13-Apr-13 16:46:09

cansu - would you have done the individual vaccinations if you had the choice?

Badvoc Sat 13-Apr-13 16:46:26

Yes agree wrt TB.
I will be paying for my dc to have the TB jab privately.

^Home remedies for measles:
Drink orange or lemon juice at regular intervals during the day. The citrus flavor of these fruits can offset the loss of appetite brought on by the infection. Lemon and orange juices also help reduce dehydration and boost immunity with their vitamin C content.
Turmeric powder mixed with honey or milk can aid recovery from measles and boost immunity.
Children can be given powdered licorice mixed with honey to reduce coughs and sore throats.
Barley water can offer relief against dry, heavy coughs during measles
A barley bath can also soothe irritated skin and make the rash less itchy.
As the condition improves, the child can be placed on an all-fruit diet for a few days. After this the child can be put on to a more regular routine diet, but one that is very well balanced.

The fibrous content of fresh fruits and vegetables, along with the vitamins made available through the consumption of these fruits, plays a very important role in recovery from an illness such as measles.

Diet for Measles
A proper diet can speed up recovery from measles especially in the case of children who are infected. Try to avoid the consumption of spicy foods, and processed foods in particular because of the high sodium content. An all fruit diet is highly recommended during the first few days of the infection. Fresh fruit juices such as lemon and orange are highly beneficial due to their high vitamin C and fiber content. The patient can also be put on a soft food diet consisting of fruits such as grapefruits, cantaloupes, and grapes, bland soups, and whole grain cereals. Once the symptoms recede and the infection is on a wane, a balanced diet of fresh vegetables and fruits and foods high in vitamins and minerals is essential and a natural treatment for measles. Coffee, carbonated beverages, over-processed meals, oily and fatty foods have to be avoided both during and after the infection. Your fluid intake is crucial in a measles infection and you should make it a point to consume adequate water, as well as other fluids like fruit juices. This will help to prevent dehydration.^

I'm actually laughing at that.

yes, cansu - of course yours was valid.
the very fact she's had measles shows how important it is.

and yes, you're right, the NHS should have made allowances and provisions for your situation and others like it.

rubyrubyruby Sat 13-Apr-13 16:48:09

I wonder what your thoughts were on this 14 years ago OP? Or did you not give it a moments thought.

I had 3 babies and this was massive news. Each parent made there own decision to what they felt was best. What would be your reaction if the headlines tomorrow were something similar immediately affecting a decision you had to make about your child?

cansu Sat 13-Apr-13 16:48:26

Yes I would MoreBeta at that time. Knowing what i know now that my dc has some form of hereditary autism I would give MMR but that wasnt the case at the time.

Wishihadabs Sat 13-Apr-13 16:48:38

Well it's personal choice. I think parents who don't vaccinate their healthy dcs are misguided. I have seen measles, seen kids in intensive care from this "harmless childhood illness"( this was in a previous healthy 9 yo).Saw a 16 yo miss her GCSEs because her Mum did nt believe in vaccination.

My children are healthy and vaccinated( as is DH, I had measles) If I had a child on chemo I think I would be pretty pissed off with parents of healthy children playing Russian roulette with my dcs life.

DumSpiroSpero Sat 13-Apr-13 16:49:05

Perhaps you should have a pop at the government who provide bonuses to GP's for every MMR jab, and refuse to allow health care professionals to advise on alternative methods for vaccination. Never mind the fact that none of the previous government were willing to state how their own children were vaccinated which could have reassured the public massively.

As a result parents with genuine concerns as to whether the MMR is appropriate for their child are stuck between a rock and a hard place - having to pay hundreds of pounds for individual vaccinations (if they are even able to source them) without any qualified advice or recommendations.

And yes, my DD is vaccinated - we went private and had them done separately at considerable expense and with an uphill battle to get any kind of reliable information whatsoever.

Pinebarrens Sat 13-Apr-13 16:52:22

someone up thread said that it was a difficult time to have a small child & decide on vaccinating when wakefield made his statement (due to mad cow disease being around at the same time ).

well try having a small child now amongst this outbreak, one who is too young to vaccinate its pretty hard.


ruby - 14 years ago, I thought it was a scaremongering story.

I even checked with my mum to see if i'd had it.
she said that there were always worries around it, even without the autism "link", but that most were because it was such a new thing.

I had measles, my little sister had mumps.
I wouldn't wish rubella on anyone.

MoreBeta Sat 13-Apr-13 16:53:02

Unique - we have visited countries with our children that asked us to certify our children has TB vaccination. Our Ds1 (now 13) really needs to have a Heaf test.

I telephoned a TB nurse when he was 6 and asked for a vaccination and she insisted we didnt need the TB vaccination - I am a biochemist by training and she was very defensive.

You can get your GP to do it if you are worried. Frankly I woud not take the chance. You never know which countries you children will end up visiting in their life.

SoggySummer Sat 13-Apr-13 16:55:33

MY DC school had a big ourbreak of measles and suspected measle in the Autumn term.

We had a panicky few days after I received a standard letter from the Dept of Health telling me my youngest DC had not been vaccinated and to do so asap. I am pro vaccination and have always taken mine along for any vaccines on offer. I started to panci that because we had moved house 5 times(5 different parts of the UK) in the 1st 5 years of DC2 life that we had been missed somewhere. After checking the little book and also getting the helpful HV at the local GP surgery to check it became clear that DC2 thankfully was fully vaccinated.

However, the schools term was in tatters. So many schools trips/exchanges/matches/regional competitions/concerts and even some lessons had to be cancelled because of the links with other schools,children and specialist staff (such as music teachers) that move between schools under the rules of quarantine enforced by the Dept of Health. The Head teacher has now said full immunisation will be a requirement in order for anyone to join the school (independent boarding school) - basically no full vaccines - no entry, in order to prevent the same ever happening again.

Thankfully those who were ill with measles had only mild symptoms and recovered quickly without complications but they neednt have been ill at all nor put lots of other people at risk, had they been immunised - and those from whom ever they caught it from.

I do have massive sympathy with those who cannot be vaccinated but little for those that have a simple decision and chose no because they are ignorant to the very real risks or choose to think it wont affect them. My DC1 was late being immunised because she spent alot of her toddler years in hospital for a long term health condition. Now 14yo - she leads a normal life, fully vaccinated not a straightforward choice at the time - i admit) because she is vulnerable - if she caught something like measles the outcome with her pre existing medical condition is unlikely to be a good one.

I do think some people think that with modern medicine measles is not a worry. Even chicken pox (more common and I am not aware of a vaccination for chicken pox) can be a killer. There was a mumsnetter only a couple of months back with a very very ill son with complications from chicken pox who was hospitalised and I think he is still not fully recovered. Modern medicine is a marvellous thing but its not a simple fix for these horrible diseases. TB is another on the way back with a strain resistant to anti biotics. Thats a whole other discussion though because that had been 100% eredicated in this country a few years ago.

AmberLeaf Sat 13-Apr-13 16:56:28

The single vaccines used to be available free on the NHS though.

If parents didn't want to or couldn't have the triple, they could have the singles. Then the gov didn't renew the licence for them and they were only available privately for a fee.

The gov has had long enough to see that bringing back singles would be a good idea.

15 yrs I think it is since singles were no longer available on the NHS, maybe a bit longer.

TumbleWeeds Sat 13-Apr-13 16:58:25

Simply restating that it was safe obviously didnt do the trick.

And this is simply because NO drug are ever 100% safe.

In most cases, we always take into account the patient choice re his health and what sort of treatment to get.
When my PIL got prostate cancer he was asked if he was happy for surgery to remover the prostate or if he wanted to leave it a bit longer. he was told of the side effects of the surgery. And the risks associated with not doing anything.

But with vaxs, the only thing we hear about is heard immunity and how people not vaccinating are putting everyone else in danger.
We hear how vax are protecting so many children and how the rates of measles, TB etc.. are going down.
But do we ever hear about the risks? Are they ever officially acknowledged? No they aren't.
I believe this is because people would probably go against vax if they knew the dangers of vax. So we don't talk about it. Any side effects like the ones described before are rejected as being just 'anecdotal' or just' coincidence'.

As a side note, I talked to a paed about side effect of the MMR. I told him I though the issues ds had were linked with it. He said 'Oh but we have never been able to show a relationship between x problem and the MMR'.
I told him 'True. But we have never shown that there is NO relationship either have we'.
He did stay silent a for long while and then acknowledged it. It's not because we haven't been able to prove that there is no relationship yet that there isn't.
Just as Einstein talked about relativity but couldn't prove it for years. That didn't mean he was wrong or relativity didn't exist. We just didn't have the right tools to prove it.

Guitargirl Sat 13-Apr-13 17:02:38

Badvoc - I agree that asking the parents of those children now being vaccinated at the clinics in Wales why they may have chosen not to vaccinate earlier would be a really valuable opportunity to plan for communication strategies around future immunisation programmes.

Anyone know if that question is being asked? Would be fascinating to see the results.

yy, it would.

AmandinePoulain Sat 13-Apr-13 17:09:57

The trouble with that guitar is that a lot of the children going to those clinics aren't the ones that missed the MMR 10-15 years ago. From what I've read the majority of the children attending the clinics are babies between 6 months and a year; and 2 year olds having their booster early - ie. children that would have had the MMR anyway, just not now. There are still thousands of children and adolescents in the Swansea area who have never reviewed a measles vaccination sad

I completely agree with you Nickel, and you've put it very well! I am currently looking after my 8mo who has a temperature following her MMR, given 4 months early. I am actually extremely grateful that she has been given it, and hoping that the reaction she has had means that her little body is developing lots of lovely measles antibodies smile

MisForMumNotMaid Sat 13-Apr-13 17:10:06

My 9 year old Autistic son has an opinion on this, he has an opinion on everything for that matter. We live in North Wales but the school have issued Welsh Assembly measles guidance about being jabbed now because so many people haven't. DS is in a discussion loop every time it gets mentioned about being alive and having a brain that works differently to the majority is better than being dead. His opinion is why do people even think about it?

As the mum of a wonderful, bright, but regularly very challenging Autistic child I do understand why people think about it, long and hard. DS was different from day 1. He had the jab but in his case other than a very grizzly off colour day or so (we all react badly to jabs in this household) I don't feel there was a link to his Autism. His younger brother and recently his younger sister have also had the jab. DD's slight Autistic traits also predate the jab.

What i feel is most damaging isn't the people who are in debate here about their personal choices. Its the people, of whom I know a few, who opt out because they remember hearing something bad about MMR. The people who take the head in the sand approach. They think they are doing the best for their children because its a bit scary to actually ask anything about it. That in my opinion is what is so damaging about the original report - the stain from the fear remains even though the original report is somewhat discredited and its content was not widely understood or accessible for interpretation by the average person on the street.

rubyrubyruby Sat 13-Apr-13 17:11:03

Pinebarrens - it was me who said that. I do appreciate it must be scary.
The tricky thing was being faced with that difficult decision though.

Could you not vaccinate early?

Badvoc Sat 13-Apr-13 17:11:48

Yes, I just think they have really missed an opportunity there I'd they haven't.
The cynic in me feels its a money issue (as most issues the in NHS are it seems) and they don't want to know the answer!

Great post MisForMum

that's exactly right - a lot of people who opt out do so because they heard something.
It's those people who haven't even got the strength of conviction, they just think there "might be something wrong with it"

LottieJenkins Sat 13-Apr-13 17:18:00

When Wilf was small there was a very good medical reasons why i didnt have him vaccinated against MMR.....however in light of recent outbreaks i will be ringing the Matron at his college on Monday morning to discuss him having it now!

MisForMumNotMaid Sat 13-Apr-13 17:18:26

My non professional understanding with why the single vaccines weren't available on NHS was because of the number of visits required to get full cover. There is potential to miss some of the series of six vaccines and so not be fully protected for example if you move house, GP's etc. it was thought the combined jab would give better heard protection.

Disclaimer: I read this somewhere a few years ago but i can't quote my source.

yes, that's one of the reasons.

there were more reasons to do it together than singly.

but i don't think they should have refused the option.
maybe just not publicized it.

Pagwatch Sat 13-Apr-13 17:22:43

These threads are incredibly upsetting. I wish people could moderate how they discuss this issue. It's hard enough tbh.

ChompieMum Sat 13-Apr-13 17:23:13

OP - your post was absolutely not pointless. I think you make a very important point. Wakefield has been entirely discredited. If your child is healthy and able to be vaccinated without any increased risk factor then I believe you have a moral obligation to do so. There is a small risk associated with almost everything we do crossing the road, riding a bike etc. That does not mean we should not do those things.

Guitargirl Sat 13-Apr-13 17:25:00

Yes, when our eldest DD was due her first MMR I started reading more about it as I had heard vaguely about risks and remember reading 'stuff in the newspapers' but nothing more concrete than that. At the time I looked into the single vaccines as an option. Then after spending quite a long time reading various articles and speaking to a consultant immunologist (informally as friend of my parents) I took an informed choice to go ahead with the vaccines. I may not have made that choice if I had just relied on the 'stuff I remembered from the newspapers'.

When I was a baby (late 70s) there was a scare about the whooping cough vaccine and link to brain damage. My parents (both medics) chose not to have me vaccinated. I had whooping cough.

WinkyWinkola Sat 13-Apr-13 17:35:42

Does that mean every time a new vaccine comes out for a different disease like chicken pox, the common cold etc, parents who elect not to get them for their children are irresponsible?

Just out of interest, op, do your dcs have every vaccine against every possible illness in this country?

Measles is a nasty disease that's why my dcs have had the MMR. I think there is an awful lot of scare mongering about mumps though and would rather have not immunised them against that.

I detest this lecturing of parents as to what they should do for the good of others. It sounds very sanctimonious.

Haven't read whole thread yet but reaction to OP is basically ....
rather harsh and perhaps not as helpful as it could be, but possibly true enough.
My DC's haven't been vaccinated because the whole thing scared me when they were babies and I found it hard to make a decision (was possibly depressed, certainly rather over-whelmed by responsibility)
But now they're older I'm planning to ask for a catch-up programme of vacs, particularly as they're even more likely to need them as they start doing more traveling.
I think it's quite encouraging really how many people are coming forward now to get their DC's vaccinated. There's little benefit I feel in berating them/us for not having done it already smile

rubyrubyruby Sat 13-Apr-13 17:42:05

if they'd been vaccinated at a younger age, they might not have reacted so strongly

Or it could have triggered autism.

HazardLamps Sat 13-Apr-13 17:50:43

"There is a small risk associated with almost everything we do crossing the road, riding a bike etc. That does not mean we should not do those things"

ChompieMum, we all make decisions based on the risk vs the need or desire to do things. You cannot possibly compare the giving of a vaccination to a healthy person with crossing the road. We need to cross roads in order to function in UK society. We do not need to have or give to our children potentially damaging vaccinations.

infamouspoo Sat 13-Apr-13 17:59:36

why are you laughing at that diet Shrosaw? Thats pretty much the immune boosting diet my child's paediatrician recommends when they have any virus. From a cold upwards. Especially given they dont have any appetite.

ChompieMum Sat 13-Apr-13 18:15:53

Hazard. I agree with your analysis and crossing road is a bad example as there's no real choice in that. Too lazy to look up the statistical risk of vaccination versus other actions but am prepared to bet that most of us do things with our kids which carry greater risk than vaccination and without the very significant upsides for our kids and others.

MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 18:23:14

'yes, cansu - of course yours was valid.'

I am a bit perturbed that someone with no medical qualifications feels able to decide that tbh

or that millions of other people's reasons were not valid

HazardLamps Sat 13-Apr-13 18:26:25

Lazy is good, ChompieMum. I'm a big fan of it, especially at weekends. smile

TheBuskersDog Sat 13-Apr-13 18:37:03

OP you seem to be contradicting yourself regarding any link between MMR and autism, you say Wakefield has been discredited and no link has been proven therefore parents should give MMR, but you also accept that parents of children with autism should be able to opt out of it and say you understand why QueenofCats would be reluctant after her friends experience.
I have a 20 year old son with autism, he was diagnosed in late 1995, by the time I had my second son in May 1997 I was well aware of suggestions of a link between autism and MMR in some children, this was well before Andrew Wakefield's papers were published - he was not the first person to raise concerns. I have also met parents who thought MMR was linked to their child's autism.
Although we did not think there was a link in our elder son's case, we were aware that any further children we had were more susceptible to developing autism and so were obviously keen to avoid increasing the risk in any way. When my younger son had his first injections (June 1997) it was noted on the permission form that we did not require MMR and would like single injections, interestingly having a sibling with autism was an accepted contra-indication. My HV told me to contact her shortly before his first birthday to remind her so they could make sure the single vaccinations were ready for us. Of course by then the general public had been alerted by Wakefield and we were told there were no single vaccines available. I was not going to be bullied into giving him MMR and we couldn't at that time afford to pay so he remained unvaccinated, although he did eventually have the MMR when he had his boosters at 14.

Incidentally, unlike MisforMum's son, my son with autism is not able to have an opinion on this, he does not understand what autism, vaccination or even death mean, at 9 years old he was still in nappies and had limited speech.

Sorry that turned into a very long post.

MisForMumNotMaid Sat 13-Apr-13 19:35:51

I hope I haven't offended raising my experience of Autism. I wasn't intending to glamorise or give a complete view. We have continence issues at 9. I've cleaned the bathroom just after such an incident. He struggles to settle at night, he struggles to sleep if he wakes in the night, he gets very frustrated if something doesn't seam logical. He flips out in a very large toddler temper tantrum way if I need to divert on the way home from school to buy milk or similar. To name just a few of our daily bits of fun.

Autism or ASD is a spectrum disorder and every child with or without it is unique. DS has a very vast vocab but emotionally and socially he's closer in age to my two year old DD than his 7 year old brother.

AmberLeaf Sat 13-Apr-13 19:56:07

The argument against single vaccines of the repeated visits and concerns they will be missed is a bit weak really.

The pertussis, diptheria and tetanus jabs are also over repeated visits. That doesn't seem to be a concern there?

Long time since my lot have been at jabs age so if the P/D/T ones are given in combined form now too fair enough.

AmberLeaf Sat 13-Apr-13 19:58:31

Combined form and in one go I mean.

TheBuskersDog Sat 13-Apr-13 20:07:30

MisForMum, not offended at all, obviously as you say it is a spectrum. It's just a lot of people will only have experience of the milder end of the spectrum, children who attend mainstream school and although a bit 'odd', not that bad- many of them would probably not have been diagnosed as autistic 20 years ago.
I would stress that even at the time I did not think it necessary for most people to avoid MMR, just for our family it was a risk we didn't feel we could take.

lborolass Sat 13-Apr-13 20:10:50

The main thing I don't understand about this situation is why the parents who choose not to have the vaccination initially are queueing now to get it.

This suggests to me that the reasons for not having it aren't anything to do with autism worries or strongly held convictions but perhaps more mundane things like not getting round to it, children being ill and forgetting to rebook appointments, not being called for vaccinations.

If people really are truely antivac they wouldn't queue up now would they or are being offered single doses now. My children have had their MMRs so I haven't been paying attention to all the details.

MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 20:19:57

Right well for many who don't have a 'good' reason, I'd guess it's the balance of risk.

If you are offered something that is likely to make your child feel poorly - for a day or two - and at that point there appears very little risk of them contracting the disease itself, then you're going to want to give it a miss, because it's unpleasant and feels counterintuitive.

Then once the disease is on the doorstep, it becomes a bigger threat than the vaccine reaction and so you decide that on balance you'd rather a little bit poorly child than a very poorly child. And at that point you decide to do your bit for the herd - too late probably. But not too late for your child, with a bit of luck.

It's a bit like someone saying to you, I can hit you lightly on the nose, if you like, or I MIGHT punch you in the eye really hard in a few years - but I might not. And I very probably won't if you let me hit you now.

You would walk away.

But then when you see the person approaching you a few years later wielding a cricket bat, you suddenly see the little hit as the better option.

MandragoraWurzelstock Sat 13-Apr-13 20:21:09

Oh and I should have said. The light whack on the nose comes with the tiny risk that you might become unconscious and lose faculties for the rest of your life. as does the big punch...

stephrick Sat 13-Apr-13 20:28:51

My 3 dc were vaccinated for everything in the 90's, but that was before the scare, however I would have. Myself and sisters had measles when we are young(this was before a vaccination program), my mother said it was awful, and very scary. On another note my mother had scarlet fever when she was a child and very nearly died, thankfully this disease is no longer around, and with vaccination measles can be too.

AmandinePoulain Sat 13-Apr-13 20:54:42

Iboro as I said up thread, a lot of the children queuing up aren't the ones who have never had a jab - they're under 3s having their boosters early, or babies - the public health officials are actually very disappointed with the numbers turning up who are the 'missing' adolescents who were babies at the peak of the autism scare.

Steph scarlet fever is still very much around, my friend's DS had it recently confused

lborolass Sat 13-Apr-13 21:23:31

Thanks Amandine. Do records exist of which children from those years had their vaccinations? Maybe a more targetted approach is needed, writing the "missing" ones or getting their GPs to contact them.

narmada Sat 13-Apr-13 22:41:55

mandragora the risk of innoculation is less than the risk of complications following the disease itself. So the light whack/ big punch analogy doesn't realy stack up.

I agree OP.
My son is autistic. I'd still vaccinate any of my children again and again and again, because yes, he lacks social skills and communication and is academically behind but you know what? He's alive, he's healthy and to me and any one we know - he's amazing, he's funny, he's kind and I would rather the life he has now than risk any of the complications caused by measles.

In fact, even if the MMR caused his autism, (which I don't believe it did) I'd still do it all over again. To me the risk of death outweighs the possibility of any MMR side effects may give. I'd rather my child was alive.

I've seen my friends children hospitalised because of measles and it was horrible, even she said she wished she'd given the MMR when it was offered.

VilootShesCute Sat 13-Apr-13 23:14:50

Well Said, buskers.

FrickingFedUp Sat 13-Apr-13 23:17:20

Agree with op.

AmandinePoulain Sat 13-Apr-13 23:18:50

I believe they will have been contacted - we've had a few genetic get-your-child-vaccinated letters from school and the last one said that those who weren't vaccinated would be contacted. Plus I believe when the schools go back on Monday they are going to run clinics in the worst affected secondary schools. To be honest though any parent who is sitting in the middle of this with a child who remains unvaccinated is very unlikely to take it up now I'd have thought sad

FrickingFedUp Sat 13-Apr-13 23:22:03

My mum and I were just talking earlier actually about "the good old days" where women might give birth to 10 children and only half of them might make it to adulthood because of childhood diseases. Fwiw the paper that linked mmr to autism is used in medical schools as an example of the most flawed study you could ever conduct. And it has been disproved over and over.

RhondaJean Sat 13-Apr-13 23:29:48

Italian courts decided that mmr can cause autism and paid out on it.

American courts have also paid out.

There are many recognised cases, including in this country, of immunisations causing other problems including severe brain damage.

Immunisation is not without risks and no parent should criticise another parent for making what they have decided is the best decision they can for their child's wel being based on all the information they have at that time.

As op so eloquently points out, the only child she can impact on is her own. It is the same for all of us.

MandragoraWurzelstock Sun 14-Apr-13 08:02:07

Narmada, I was trying to explain why a lot of people are getting vaccinated now when they didn't before. The exact degree of risk probably isn't relevant/known to many of them.

Bibs123 Sun 14-Apr-13 08:08:56

The people who choose not to vaccinate will have to have conviction in their decision this week, especially those living in Swansea... They will be questining their choice this week.

seeker Sun 14-Apr-13 08:12:00

"Italian courts decided that mmr can cause autism and paid out on it."

No. One Italian judge decided that- and he was basing his decision on Wakefield and the decision is being appealed.

"The people who choose not to vaccinate will have to have conviction in their decision this week" Bibs

Or, like any of us with anything in life, they could re-assess the situation in the light of changing circumstances, and change their mind.

MandragoraWurzelstock Sun 14-Apr-13 08:23:36

Gosh Bibs that's almost poetic smile

ChompieMum Sun 14-Apr-13 08:32:51
Xenia Sun 14-Apr-13 09:20:42

I've always thought even if vaccinations may cause a risk to a child you have a moral and public duty to take that risk for the good of the community and had mine vaccinated mine with MMR etc etc.

It is in a sense part of the entitled, me me me culture that parents would take an individual decision which damages others.

Also if parents were against the MMR why did they not pay to have separate vaccinations of their children? Why just totally opt out?

MandragoraWurzelstock Sun 14-Apr-13 09:29:41

I see it as a bit like the private schools argument Xenia.

Xenia Sun 14-Apr-13 09:33:45

So do I. If you can afford a private school place but instead foist your children on the state system then you are morally wrong.

MandragoraWurzelstock Sun 14-Apr-13 09:35:46


seeker Sun 14-Apr-13 09:40:37

Really, Xenia? And there was me thinking it was because you didn't want them mixing with the dodgy accented "dregs".

I actually do believe that vaccination is a social responsibility. I have a duty as a parent to protect my own children, and a duty as a member of society to do what I can to protect the more vulnerable - those with good medical reasons foe not being vaccinated, like the immuno- compromised, the unborn and yes, the children of parents who aren't socially responsible. It's not the children's fault, after all.

johnworf Sun 14-Apr-13 09:54:11

I can't believe that Andrew Wakefield's discredited research is still being spouted.

Here is an interesting article about how his research is not only discredited but also fraudulent and, he had already registered a patent for the single vaccine before he published his paper.

johnworf Sun 14-Apr-13 09:54:38
Snazzynewyear Sun 14-Apr-13 09:58:26

Agree OP.

Bibs123 Sun 14-Apr-13 13:24:05

juggler... they might have left it to late to reassess uf their child is one of the many who are very sick with measles.

yes I can see that, ordinarily I say that if there is no reason to suggest that a child might get autism from the jab then you're daft not to vaccinate, but when you've had a child whose autism seemed to coincide, then what mother wouldn't think twice? the link being debunked afterwards would be enough to persuade the mum, but at the time of cansu's decision it hadn't been debunked.

those have to be over repeated visits because tgey ate cumulative vaccinations (ie they need boosters later on to be fully efficacious)
the mmr also requires a booster later on.
the fact that you already have to have so many different boosters and shots and visits means that it's better not to have to add another couple.

the last set of jabs dd had were 3 different jabs done at the same time. and each of those jabs had more than one disease in it.

Well, all we can do Bibs, if we are pro-vaccination especially in current situation, is surely encourage as many as possible to come forward to have their children vaccinated. And let's hope that any children that do have measles will make a speedy and full recovery. I'm thinking of seeking vaccination for my own DC's ASAP - if anyone wants to give me some further encouragement and info about possibilities that could be helpful. For example could they have the vaccination tomorrow at GP's before they go back to school on Tuesday and Wednesday ?

RhondaJean Sun 14-Apr-13 13:38:53

Em. The Italian case was not the judges decision.

He made the decision he had to make legally based upon the evidence of three eminent doctors.

It is also not the only case, and it happened after the Wakefield evidence was discredited.

Everyone makes their own decision, the best one they can.

AmberLeaf Sun 14-Apr-13 14:06:48

Unique. I just can't accept that as a good reason not to have singles available for M M and R vaccines.

I think withdrawing them as an option was a big mistake and those that made that decision and those who continue to stop the issuing of single vaccines are to blame for the outbreak in wales.

Not worried parents.

yes I agree.
but I do think it's a good reason along with other reasons, just not as a sole reason (which it isn't)

seeker Sun 14-Apr-13 14:20:54

"It is also not the only case, and it happened after the Wakefield evidence was discredited."

Yes- that's why it is being appealed. Because he based his decision on discredited evidence.

RhondaJean Sun 14-Apr-13 15:25:20


ChompieMum Sun 14-Apr-13 16:47:58

I think it's pretty clear now that most parents have no good reason to be worried now that Wakefield has been discredited. He has even been struck off for the unethical way he conducted his research. The NHS has limited resources. I am guessing that the single vaccines take up more of them even if the extra resource is just repeat visits to the nurse.

It may sound harsh but in circumstances where there is no credible evidence to support the theory that MMR poses an unacceptable risk (of course all vaccines carry some risk, single or otherwise), I would rather see the money spent where it is actually needed, rather than on single vaccines.

I don't think there is any way we can blame the state removing single vaccines for this epidemic. No-one actually likes vaccinating their children (as parents we are pre-programmed to worry, rationally or otherwise) but most of us do it (thankfully for those that dont). Those that refuse the offer of MMR without any higher level of risk than the normal population are to blame for this epidemic. They have gambled that the fact that the rest of us are prepared to vaccinate (despite as i have said, not enjoying doing so) will protect their children. In Swansea, we see the result of that gamble.

As regards the Italian judge, I know nothing about him or her but judges can and do often make mistakes. I don't think the views of one presumably non medically qualified judge in Italy prove anything.


Xenia Sun 14-Apr-13 16:51:30

Perhaps those wanting the jab now should be paying the costs of all the local measles cases to the NHS caused by their selfish decisions and be made to pay for private jabs now>?

(I paid about £400 in the summer to get my children the BCG)

No, they should be encouraged in every possible way to come forward and have their children immunised, if that is now their decision and choice.
(Not punished for their earlier very understandable concerns)

D0GWithAYoni Sun 14-Apr-13 19:41:00

That's a twattish thing to say Xenia

QOD Sun 14-Apr-13 20:36:18

Surely it's the children aged 18 to, I dunno, 10 ish that where mostly un vaccinated due to the autism link? My dd is 14 and the furore was ongoing then.

Didn't it all settle down within the last 5 to 10 yrs?

(My dd had singles as my dn had the mmr and then was intentionally exposed to chicken pox within the week. Her body couldn't cope and the cp almost killed her and left her severely brain damaged. Hence our concerns that too many diseases in one go could be bad. It wasn't all about the autism link)

Snazzynewyear Sun 14-Apr-13 20:39:36

People demanding single vaccines be provided - can anyone explain with reference to medical research and evidence why they are any better?

it's never been a good idea to intentionally expose chicken.pox, especially when they're already usinv their immune systems to build up resistqnce to something else

very dangerous to expose to cp.

QOD Sun 14-Apr-13 21:02:25

Thing is, she still COULD have been exposed to it unknowingly and they same would have happened

The worst thing is the guilt my two sils have

But back to my point, I'm out of touch now as dd is 14, but don't most people vaccinate in some way? What's the age group and ethnic mix of the children who are unvaccinated and catching it?
Is it travelers? Is it immigrants? The town I work is has a high amount of temporary housed immigrants, we are near to Dover ish.
Or is it just folks like me and you, but who didn't know what to do so did nothing?

Whereas you did mmr and we did single.

olivertheoctopus Sun 14-Apr-13 21:07:05

Agree with OP altho with caveat that discrediting Wakefield after the event does make it quite difficult.

racmun Sun 14-Apr-13 21:15:39

In America there is a fund for vaccine damaged children. Your GP or Health visitor will not give a written undertaking that your child will not be adversely affected by the vaccines offered because they do carry risks. The pamphlets they provide in surgeries do not provide any figures or real data it is just badly written dumbed down one sided crap.

I spent months agonising over the right decision for my ds. i didn't give my ds the cocktail of jabs given when babies are 8 weeks old because I, after hours if research, didn't think it right for my son.

He has had each vaccine done separately every other month so as to not overload his system. This is what we felt was right for OUR son.

It is for each parent to decide. I am not actually convinced the vaccines even work surely if you did you wouldn't catch the illness. Coincidentally my GP confirmed that saying the vaccine results in a weaker case of the illness is a person who is vaccinated is actually rubbish.

lottieandmia Sun 14-Apr-13 21:15:48


I assume you personally have flu jabs every year, and your entire family because people with compromised immunity are at risk from that as much as they are from measles. So you have a duty to protect the community.

If not, how selfish hmm

lottieandmia Sun 14-Apr-13 21:19:40

'Your GP or Health visitor will not give a written undertaking that your child will not be adversely affected by the vaccines offered because they do carry risks. The pamphlets they provide in surgeries do not provide any figures or real data it is just badly written dumbed down one sided crap.'

Exactly. It is the responsibility of the authorities to be more honest about the risks. If they had been to start with and had given the choice of single vaccines and not treated people like idiots, maybe the outbreaks that are happening now wouldn't have.

lottie not the same thing at all.
the nhs gives flu jabs to those at risk from flu.
not everybody because it's unlikely to help.

my dh has a flu jab because he is asthmatic

at least you did the vaccines

lottieandmia Sun 14-Apr-13 21:42:48

I think it is the same thing actually. That's why people who work in a hospital are expected to have flu vaccines - so that the vulnerable people they work with will be less at risk.

This argument that you have to vaccinate children to protect others just doesn't stand up to scrutiny because

1. Vaccination carries an unquantified risk to the person having it

2. it's not 100% effective

If it was 100% safe and effective then there would be more of an argument wrt the herd immunity concept. Children are more at risk from neurological changes than adults. That's why it ends up being a hard decision for parents to make because on one hand you have the risk of the disease and on the other the risk of the vaccination.

Most people in favour of vaccination will now say 'oh but the risk of the vaccine is minute' For some children maybe. And for others, not so. So how do we know who those children are? We don't.

And because we don't, at this point the herd immunity and social responsibility argument falls down.

it's not the same thing because they don't recommend you have it unless you are at risk or are working with those at risk.

lottieandmia Sun 14-Apr-13 21:51:37

Well yes, that illustrates my point. They don't recommend it and they don't encourage people to call each other selfish for not having it because they don't have a mass vaccination programme for flu.

ChompieMum Sun 14-Apr-13 21:55:09

I don't think anyone would deny there is a risk attached to single and mmr vaccine so of course no-one is going to give you a written undertaking. You won't get an undertaking for a single vaccine either.

Why would the NHS/govt attempt some kind of ongoing MMR cover up? They would inevitably be caught out in the end through research here or elsewhere and the cost of the resulting litigation would be huge. The saving they make by offering the MMR rather than the single vaccine would pale by comparison. It would make no sense at all.

lottieandmia Sun 14-Apr-13 21:57:22

It's not an ongoing cover up - it's a failure to consider that some children do react badly to some vaccines.

Xenia Sun 14-Apr-13 22:00:50

There is a small risk with all vaccines which I think parents ought to take to protect other children so you build up that total herd immunity and diseases die out. We kind of owe it to others to accept our child may be damaged by vaccines.

pansyflimflam Sun 14-Apr-13 22:01:33

I don't vaccinate my children. It s my choice and I should not be compelled to do so. I do have a child with a serious illness and actually she has had measles (way before she would have had the MMR anyway) and I will still not randomly give them to her. She and her sister will have German Measles jab when they are older.

The reason MMR is given is because it is cheaper than single vaccines given over a longer period and certainly cheaper than treating the diseases themselves. IT IS NOT BECAUSE GIVING THEM ALL TOGETHER IS BETTER, IT IS JUST CHEAPER.

TreeLuLa Sun 14-Apr-13 22:02:45

Agree with the OP.

lottieandmia Sun 14-Apr-13 22:04:05

Well, actually I disagree Xenia. Particularly as we take the decision on our child's behalf - the child does not have a say. You mean to tell me that you would vaccinate your child if you knew in advance that they would become disabled as a result? Of course not.

Whose responsibility is it when a child is brain damaged by a vaccine?

ChompieMum Sun 14-Apr-13 22:06:30

I am not a doctor but I expect the reason why there is no mass vaccination programme for flu is that there are a large no of viruses that can cause it and so the vaccine only provides v limited protection. I believe the flu virus also mutates quickly. MMR is not 100% effective but I suspect very strongly that it is far more effective than the flu vaccine which as I understand it probably would not provide herd immunity.

WinkyWinkola Sun 14-Apr-13 22:07:21

"We kind of owe it to others to accept that our child may be damaged by vaccines?"

I haven't read such utter crap in a long time.

I vax'd my dcs because I don't want them to get the measles and because I believe they wouldn't be damaged by the vaccine.

I didn't do it for anyone else's children. That is the truth.

All those claiming they acted through social responsibility are dubious imo. And I very much doubt that ANY parent would vax their child for the sake of others if they truly believed their child would be damaged.

MisForMumNotMaid Sun 14-Apr-13 22:09:16

I'm not denying its cheaper for an all in one vaccine given twice than six individual vaccines, with i guess six associated appointments? But there is more risk of people missing appointments or some of the series with more vaccines and if each injection has a risk then doesn't it tally that with three times more injections, having them singularly, there is a different set of risks over having them as two combined?

I do wish that the NHS would plug the double but have the singles available for those who have done their due diligence as parents and feel more comfortable with that. But then I'm also prepared to pay a little more towards the NHS and more choice would have cost associated with it.

but you can never be sure there will be no reaction.
but that's the risk you take as a responsible human being.

Agree op.

WinkyWinkola Sun 14-Apr-13 22:14:39

If I thought the risk of a reaction was too big, then I simply wouldn't vax my children.

There is no way I would sacrifice my dcs on the altar of social responsibility.

I'm not a martyr and neither are my children.

yy. but it's not too big a risk.
the benefits far far far far far far outweigh the risks
(they wouldn't do it if it weren't so, because people would sue in great swathes)

lottieandmia Sun 14-Apr-13 22:26:54

'yy. but it's not too big a risk.'

As I said - the risk is not uniform for all children. And there is no way to identify those at risk Why can't you understand that?

Whose responsibility is it when a child is brain damaged by a vaccine?

Being 'responsible' is about looking after the interests of your child first because they don't get to give their consent.

lottieandmia Sun 14-Apr-13 22:29:10

The authorities will deny and deny that a vaccine could have caused, for example brain damage. It's very difficult to make them take responsibility. And parents who have tried to bring a case for damage have had their legal aid withdrawn.

MisForMumNotMaid Sun 14-Apr-13 22:29:57

Wales Report has just started on BBC1 Wales. They're talking about should MMR be mandatory.

lottieandmia Sun 14-Apr-13 22:33:34

Nobody is saying that vast numbers of people suffer brain damage from vaccinations.

But for those that do, the consequences are terrible. We don't live in a world where it is easy to get the resources that a mentally impaired person will need. To suggest that some collateral damage is ok is totally unethical imo.

WinkyWinkola Sun 14-Apr-13 22:36:03

Hear hear, Lottieandmia.

AmberLeaf Sun 14-Apr-13 23:08:31

People demanding single vaccines be provided - can anyone explain with reference to medical research and evidence why they are any better?

Its not about whether they are better.

The issue is since that option has been removed, the uptake of those vaccinations has lowered.

The reasons why that is a bad thing are obvious.

If the solution to that is to still have the option of singles then, to me, it is a no brainer.

narmada Sun 14-Apr-13 23:21:06

But no-one sensible denies that vaccines can cause brain damage and other terrible consequences. It's an accepted fact, accepted even by the drug companies themselves (I am NOT a supporter of big pharma) and one for which we have compensation schemes.

"to suggest that some collateral damage is OK is unethical in my view" just does not make sense to me. Unvaccinated populations = significant risk of measles, mumps, rubella = significant risk of collateral damage from measles, mumps, rubella, meningitis, HiB, Polio, etc. etc.

In an unvaccinated population, more people would suffer 'collateral damage' from naturally occuring infections than would suffer collateral vaccine-related damage in that same population, were that population vaccinated. Collateral damage doesn't only come from intervention, it can also result from from studied inaction!

There is a risk to taking paracetamol; Ibuprofen, too (stroke, asthma attack, cardiac events, gastritis, bleeding disorders) but generally people do not think twice about giving them for teething or other minor ailments. The assessment of risk is something humans are notoriously bad at. Usually I am all for parents' instinct and 'doing what seems right at the time'. In this case, however, I am all for statistics forming the basis of action.

narmada Sun 14-Apr-13 23:28:46

Should the Government also routinely provide trepanning or, erm homeopathy (yes, yes, I know they do already re the latter), because some people feel they're effective, despite the absence of any evidence to suggest this is true? Of course they bloody shouldn't. The NHS should fund evidence-based medicine, cost-effective medicine. I don't want choice in medicine. I just want value for the public purse, and the best outcome for the highest number of people possible.

lottieandmia Sun 14-Apr-13 23:32:05

So you think collateral damage is ok narmada?

I take your point about medicines generally. But children don't normally need anything more than Calpol and if they do require a medicine it's because they're already ill whereas vaccination is pre-emptive.

narmada Sun 14-Apr-13 23:40:20

No, I think collateral damage sucks. Who would honestly think people are expendable for the greater good?!

But there is going to be 'collateral damage' - and more of it - in an unvaccinated population. So what that the collateral damage comes from inaction (not vaccinating), rather than pre-emptive action? It's still collateral damage.

Given the choice, I would vote for less collateral damage and a vaccinated population. To me that seems the humane and sensible thing to do.

ChompieMum Sun 14-Apr-13 23:50:48

It's pretty straightforward to get a no win no fee lawyer to act for you generally even without legal aid. They would be queuing up to act in class litigation on this if they thought there was a reasonable prospect of winning.

Doesn't the argument about collateral damage work both ways? Those that don't vaccinate are implying that the possibility of collateral damage caused to others in part by their decision is acceptable.

At the end of the day, the generally accepted medical view is that the vaccine is many times more likely to benefit both the individual vaccinated and society as a whole than it is to damage either. It is not a case of sacrificing some children for the greater good. In this case we have the opportunity to help our own kids and others. Yes, parents will worry about the decision - it is natural to do so. My concern is though that people (especially those in South Wales) will read this and decide not to vaccinate. And that the children of one of those people will become seriously ill or worse as a result. I appreciate that those who worry about vaccination also have concerns about harming children. But unless someone can show that the risk of vaccinating is greater than the risk of not (which on any argument is most certainly not the case in S Wales right now) then we should be encouraging people to do it for their own kids' sake and for the sake of others.

lottieandmia Sun 14-Apr-13 23:51:44

Yes, there are risks on both sides which is why it's a difficult decision to make as a parent and is also why nobody has the right to attack a parent who is trying to do the right thing for their child, and post a thread like this, insulting people directly.

I hate the way certain people seem to assume that people who haven't vaccinated are just selfish people thinking 'I'm alright Jack' with not a care in the world when nothing could actually be further from the truth.

I have a child who is severely disabled - she's 11. I won't be giving her more vaccines because I don't dare mess with her tbh - she has a very complex profile. She's not vaccinated against measles but of course I worry about her catching the disease as I feel she may also react badly to that. So it's not like I can go to bed thinking everything's fine.

Equally, my mum wanted to vaccinate me for my own safety when I was young but came up against rudeness and judgment from members of the family who felt it was ok to tell her they would blame her if I was damaged.

None of this is acceptable.

lottieandmia Sun 14-Apr-13 23:54:01

I think more people would vaccinate if single vaccines were available. Unfortunately the government's wish to shut down debate and remove choice has only made people more suspicious.

lottieandmia Sun 14-Apr-13 23:56:01

The problem is that there is no way to tell which risk is greater. It differs from individual to individual.

ChompieMum Mon 15-Apr-13 00:05:43

Lottieandmia. Very sorry to hear about your daughter. I understand why you feel strongly about this and your decision not to vaccinate.

narmada Mon 15-Apr-13 00:06:08

I don't think most people who don't vaccinate think 'I'm all right Jack'.

Lottie you clearly have medical grounds for not vaccinating your daughter. It is entirely your choice.

However, some people choose not to vaccinate because they are scientifically ill-informed and have no inclination or ability to see pseudoscientific claptrap for what it is. If the Govt said they would fund singles but would also spend an equsl amount of money improving the public understanding of science, including evidence-based medicine, that would be a good compromise.

The 'there are risks on both sides' things is not the whole story. The risks of not vaccinating are higher.

narmada Mon 15-Apr-13 00:07:51

In the individual there is no way to tell if the risk is greater. In population terms there is clear and conclusive evidence that the risks are greater from not vaccinating.

lottieandmia Mon 15-Apr-13 00:24:02

Well yes, the government will look at what's best for the population as a whole, of course. Parents tend to look at what's best for their child as an individual. I don't see that that is wrong.

brettgirl2 Mon 15-Apr-13 07:06:58

Everything in life is a risk, some things like vaccinations tiny tiny risk.

I am shocked that people don't think that we all have collective responsibility for ensuring herd immunity. With that level of selfishness no wonder society is in the state it is.

Tbh though I don't know anyone who hasnt had their children vaccinated in the real world.

Its often touted that its the middle classes who do the reasearch and are frightened unnecessarily. I watched a programme recently where they were trying to catch up on some children who hadnt had mmr. One mother didnt even know what it was hmm

ChompieMum Mon 15-Apr-13 07:48:06

The point here is really that what is best for the child as an individual is likely to be what is best for society. Risk is inherent in everything. I am prepared to bet that the risk of being injured in a car crash is greater than the risk of being vaccinated but it doesn't stop us travelling by car. None of us can predict if a crazed driver about to smash into us is around the corner.

Lottieandmia, your choice not to vaccinate is understandable. In your case the analogy is more like taking your child out in a car with no seatbelt/car seat. But you need the rest of us to be prepared to take the tiny, tiny risk that goes with vaccination as that is what keeps the risk of not vaccinating lower for your DD and other more vulnerable children. Most of us are not saints and don't want our kids to be sacrificial lambs taking great risks with their health to benefit all. The point here is that we don't have to.

MisForMumNotMaid Mon 15-Apr-13 08:35:01

What is frustrating is that there aren't risk statistics that can be associated with the vaccine to allow us to judge the risk. When you have an operation, like for me a c-section, they give you statistics for the percentage that go wrong and have complications and a list of risk factors that are more likely for complications to occur. You sign your consent.

There is so much speculation about risks and various people in the media and on this thread quote they have seen effect from vaccine or have heard of it. I have no right or ability to judge their conviction on this. If all such cases were documented, even not medically proven to be linked, we could make a better judgement.

I'm completely guessing that the risk would appear to be something like a 1:100,000 chance of side effect (if you think 60,000,000ish UK population). I would be glad to be corrected with an evidence based answer, if its more like 1:10,000 or 1: 1,000,000 but there appears to be no statistics available.

I completely support parents who make an educated choice for their child and personal circumstance. I really struggle with those who have heard something bad so just avoid without actually looking into it and making a concious choice.

HazardLamps Mon 15-Apr-13 08:50:57

"I've always thought even if vaccinations may cause a risk to a child you have a moral and public duty to take that risk for the good of the community"


I'm sure that all the posters who are criticising those who choose not to vaccinate their children or be vaccinated themselves have titer tests regularly, to prove to the community that the jabs have worked and continue to work.

Hands up who does?

WinkyWinkola Mon 15-Apr-13 09:59:17

But if you can't properly assess the risk how does anyone make an "educated choice"?

Tailtwister Mon 15-Apr-13 10:01:24

Of course it's every parent's choice whether to vaccinate or not. However, I do find it very interesting that the very people who didn't vaccinate for whatever reason are now queuing for hours to get it done.

babySophieRose Mon 15-Apr-13 10:35:20

I can not agree more with UniqueAndAmazing. Thank you for this tread. I personally think immunizations should be compulsory for everyone.

MandragoraWurzelstock Mon 15-Apr-13 10:35:22

'Well yes, the government will look at what's best for the population as a whole, of course.'

If you believe that you'll believe anything.

Andro Mon 15-Apr-13 10:36:48

They're talking about should MMR be mandatory.

Oh hell no!

DS had individual measles and mumps vaccines (his GP's recommendation at the time) and was fine. DD reacted badly to the second dose of MMR and ended up in ICU...take a guess what my response was when someone suggested DS ought to have the MMR to cover him against rubella? There's not a chance that I'll consent to either of my DC having an MMR vaccine.

Compulsion is a bad idea wrt anything medical, it damages trust and makes medicine too prescriptive - people are different.

MandragoraWurzelstock Mon 15-Apr-13 10:37:05

'I can not agree more with UniqueAndAmazing. Thank you for this tread. I personally think immunizations should be compulsory for everyone.'

Therein we have the simplistic, knee-jerk reaction to the current epidemic

Startail Mon 15-Apr-13 10:57:53

The totally unscientific, selfish non vaccination sheep cannot admit that they were wrong.

South Wales was always going to happen somewhere sad angry

Startail Mon 15-Apr-13 11:09:30

And no I don't think vaccination should be compulsory.

However, shaky the science pushing a parent of an autistic child to vaccinate a sibling at the hight of the controversy would have be wrong. Strongly encouraging them now would not be.

DSIS reacted very strongly to her BCG, had my parents chosen not to vaccinate a younger child I would have understood.

It's not people with a direct family reason not to vaccinate that make me furious. It's the educated MC mums of 100% healthy DCs who have to find threats to their precious little darlings even where there are non. They don't have enough real dangers to worry about so they have to invent them.

MandragoraWurzelstock Mon 15-Apr-13 11:17:04

I do take issue with your last para there Startail. It doesn't sound like you have thought it through.

HazardLamps Mon 15-Apr-13 11:19:52

Thank goodness you don't run the country, babySophieRose.

Startail, clearly this poster has aroused neither your understanding nor your fury. wink

HazardLamps Mon 15-Apr-13 11:21:03

Neither? I meant either, of course. blush

HazardLamps Mon 15-Apr-13 11:22:30

Either/or. Neither/nor. Hell, you know what I meant!

WouldBeHarrietVane Mon 15-Apr-13 11:23:13

So everyone saying vaccines should be compulsory, shall we make other medical things compulsory too?

Inductions eg?

I think there is a vital patient/parent choice issue here.

Personally I think you have to understand that some people may be more anxious than others. I agree with Mandragora about Startail's post.
I guess everyone does what they feel is for the best, or what they feel able or most inclined to do, in any given situation. I'm sure most/ all ? will be thinking of their DC's well-being.

narmada Mon 15-Apr-13 11:29:33

I am not saying that vax should be compulsory, but vaxes are different to induction. Your choice has the potential to affect large numbers of people aside from your own child.

MandragoraWurzelstock Mon 15-Apr-13 11:32:07

We're going round in circles Harriet because there is no information forthcoming on which to base an educated, informed, community centred decision let alone one based on the individual circumstance of ones own child

this is the government's fault - the more they try and direct our decisions by limiting dissemination of info, the less they are trusted and really, they ought to know better.

MrsDeVere Mon 15-Apr-13 11:36:40

I WISH everyone would vaccinate their children.
I am the parent of a child whose death was made very much more traumatic by the catching of a preventable disease. It isnt vaccinated for in the UK so it may not seem relevant but it could just have easily have been Measles.

BUT I do not think people should be forced into it. The people I know who don't vaccinate have thought long and hard about it.

I still really wish they would do it but I am not going to call them names and invent motivations for their not doing so.

I have a child with ASD and personally I do NOT believe the MMR causes it. The parents I know who do believe it are not idiots. Their beliefs are as sincerely held as mine.

I will call someone names and give them hell if they have a child with an infectious disease (that can be vaccinated against or not) who takes their child out and exposes others to that disease.

I wonder if any of the people screaming at the non vaccers ever turn up the chicken pox threads telling people like me we are being hysterical for telling people to keep their kids indoors?

<not an accusation, a genuine musing>

seeker Mon 15-Apr-13 11:42:57

People often seem ot say that there is not enough information available- and this puzzles me. What do people want to know that's hard to find out?

MrsDeVere Mon 15-Apr-13 11:45:20

I think they want absolute reassurance Seeker.
No one is going to do that.

I come across it a lot at work. I can't tell parents YES or NO to so many questions. So they just keep asking different people.

Sometimes its a process they need to work though to get to their own answer. Sometimes it goes on for ever.

WouldBeHarrietVane Mon 15-Apr-13 11:45:23

Seeker, I think you do know, as you are always on these threads!

We know that certain groups are more vulnerable to serious side effects (eg people with certain auto immune conditions). Because these reactions are still relatively low risk NHS still advises immunisation for these groups.

Parents like me want hard facts about exactly what disorders predispose to adverse reactions and what the % risk is.

seeker Mon 15-Apr-13 11:49:28

"Parents like me want hard facts about exactly what disorders predispose to adverse reactions and what the % risk is."

Is that actually possible to provide?

MandragoraWurzelstock Mon 15-Apr-13 12:00:18

If it's not possible to provide us with the same info the government uses to make its decisions as to the risk vs benefit, then I want to know why that is

WouldBeHarrietVane Mon 15-Apr-13 12:15:11

Exactly, Mandragora.

Seeker, I think it must be, because Saintly has been to conferences where immunologists have spoken about predisposition.

Thing is, my son has had a bad vaccine reaction already. The reaction wasn't bad enough for the NHS to advise no further jabs, but it was bad enough to worry us a lot. We have a huge family history of auto immune problems and this together with the reaction made me worried about further vax.

So, I have given him single measles (at 18 months) and will give him mmr just before school.

All I can do is what I think is best for him.

ChompieMum Mon 15-Apr-13 13:20:45

I don't agree with mandatory vaccination. I also think people need to be given as much information as possible to make the right decision.

As regards the suggestions of an autism link, my understanding is that there is no medical evidence of it, so the only risk level that can be given is zero/so small that it cannot be quantified. I am not medically qualified so I can't judge the merits of the various studies but that logically has to be the answer given on the basis of current medical opinion.

"I hate the way certain people seem to assume that people who haven't vaccinated are just selfish people thinking 'I'm alright Jack' with not a care in the world when nothing could actually be further from the truth.

I have a child who is severely disabled - she's 11. I won't be giving her more vaccines because I don't dare mess with her tbh - she has a very complex profile. She's not vaccinated against measles but of course I worry about her catching the disease as I feel she may also react badly to that. So it's not like I can go to bed thinking everything's fine."

are you another one that didn't read the OP properly then?

the fact that your child could be more at risk from being vaccinated than not being, is why it's soooooooooooooooooooo very important that those who can be vaccinated ARE.
So that you don't have to be put in a position where you have to risk your child's health when it's already so fragile just because other people who don't have such concerns are too fucking selfish to do so.


WouldBeHarrietVane Mon 15-Apr-13 13:35:42

Unique, you just don't get it, do you?

Lottie may well not have got any clear 'no' from medical personnel. The NHS may have said its ok for her to go ahead. SHE has to decide.

I definitely do not think that vaccinations should be compulsory.

Because then you will end up with cases where children that really, really should not be vaccinated being villified for it.

It really, really should be down to the personal health of that child.
(not the personal whims of a parent deciding that the herd will protect them or that leaves will help their child if they get it. Ir that they'll stay at om if someone they know has it hmm )

MandragoraWurzelstock Mon 15-Apr-13 13:43:48

you have a point but many parents find themselves in the not knowing what to do group, and they shouldn't be vilified for being unsure.

your gun is pointing the wrong way iyswim

Mrs DeVere
"I will call someone names and give them hell if they have a child with an infectious disease (that can be vaccinated against or not) who takes their child out and exposes others to that disease.

I wonder if any of the people screaming at the non vaccers ever turn up the chicken pox threads telling people like me we are being hysterical for telling people to keep their kids indoors?"

completely and utterly - I think it's ridiculously hypocritical to vaccinate your child so that they and the whole community can be protected, and then send your infectious child around the community, endangering it wholesale!
I really cannot understand people who are determined to deliberately infect anyone with a disease. (being as vaccinations are not the full-blown disease, and therefore are an entirely different thing. Some vaccinations are a very mild form of the disease and some aren't a form of the disease at all, but something known to create the same immunity to it)
Especially something like chicken pox, which if contracted by a pregnant woman can be very dangerous

yy WouldbeHarrietVane - it's situations like yours that are so difficult to decide what's best to do.

sorry Harriet - was replying to your first post.

No, you obviously don't get it - I'm saying that lottie is one of the people that has an understandable medical cause/reason not to vaccinate if she chooses.
I'm not talking about people who believe that because of medical history, there is an increased risk to their child. I'm talking about people who have NO SUCH REASON TO DOUBT.

Mandra - the ones who really aren't sure can think long and hard about it. My main "gun pointing" is at those who choose not to because they don't want to, because of airy-fairy reasons mentioned earlier and because they don't want to risk their own child's health because who knows whether they'll be the 0.1% that has a bad reaction.

Responsible people will look at that 0.1% and say that everyone has the same risk, all things being equal and choose to vaccinate.
But that only works if that child hasn't already got problems or had reactions.

eg: my DD has eczema. I looked at the information about the jabs she was going for before she went to see if there was anything that might cause a bad reaction due to the predisposition for manky skin (and not knowing what has caused it)
I decided that I prefer my child not to get a really nasty disease instead, and prefer that she isn't the reason why a child like Mrs DeVere's could be fatally infected with that disease.
Thinking both of my child and others.
that's what modern human beings are designed to do.

MandragoraWurzelstock Mon 15-Apr-13 13:56:51

There may be some parents who choose not to vax for airy fairy reasons but I'd wager they are in a very small minority.

WouldBeHarrietVane Mon 15-Apr-13 14:00:47

I agree Mandragora.

The thing is, Unique, if you didn't know my medical history - I have been diagnosed with rare auto immune neck tumour which can be genetic - you would think I had NO REASON.

Hcp do know my medical history and still say I have no reason. NHS have a small list of criteria where they say no vax.

People like me are left in a horrible gray area - HV says I should have given mmr.

My parental instincts say no to multiple vax given my medical history and dc possible genetic inheritance.

no, the point is Harriet - i am not pointing fingers at people and demanding they give me reasons for their choice.

I'm telling those people who choose not to vaccinate without good reason that they should feel guilty and ashamed for doing so. and that they should vaccinate their children.

I'm not being a vigilante about it - I'm telling people to think carefully about the choices they have made and how they affect other people.

The very fact that you feel like you need to justify it to me, means that you care a heck of a lot more than they do.

(and actually, in your circumstance I would vote No too)

MisForMumNotMaid Mon 15-Apr-13 14:19:08

I think it needs discussion and isn't pointless stiring.

There was an epedemic in France in 2011 they mentioned on the Welsh Report last night. 6 children died. 5 were teenagers.

If this thread being in active conversations prompts a few families to get vaccinated then thats fantastic.

thank you MisMaid - that's all I was hoping for too.

AmberLeaf Mon 15-Apr-13 14:44:58

I think you should take note OP that there have been posts from people who's children have medical issues that mean either they have been advised not to or have chosen not to have MMR. Yet even they have said they can understand why some parents are/were concern and don't judge them for it.

Also you have sais in relation to some that you get why they made their choices due to theoir childrens medical history. However they are in the grey area where no HCP would officially say 'don't have MMR' so it was down to those parents to make that choice. Some would I suppose call them airy fairy too because in the absence of any medical document or solid research papers it just comes down to parental choice doesn't it?

Point is, it isn't that black and white and I really don't think it comes from a care less or selfish angle. This is about worried parents and a gov that doesn't give a shit.

i think you're splitting hairs rather too far here.

I said that people who choose not to vaccinate are putting lives at risk.
I said that people who believe they have medical reasons not to vaccinate should feel they are protected by those who don't have those reasons.
and i said that those without medical reasons should morally see it as their duty to make sure their children's vaccinations (and their own) are up-to-date, so that those who cannot protect themselves can be protected.

that's pretty black and white.

Pagwatch Mon 15-Apr-13 15:15:56

But that is the problem. It's not a black and white issue.
I have many Drs who believe DD should not be vaccinated yet i could easily find some who would say I could go ahead.

Telling parents what to do, the hectoring and name calling changes no ones mind. It's just sanctemonious hectoring mostly.
If you want to change minds you discuss and persuade. All the threads on here are 1 part social concern and 9 parts gleeful superiority.
The 'justify your reasons to my satisfaction' tone on here is awful.

I can't understand this argument. I live in a country where vaccinations are reported by GPs to the ministry of health and anyone not vaccinating is chased up by the government. Children without the required vaccination history can be excluded form starting school. Vaccinations include bcg at birth and hep a and b as well as mmr.

I am moving to another country halfway round the planet that has exactly the same system.

Neither of these countries has any backlash or fear about mmr and where we live at the moment, there is a 6 in 1 vaccination. The uk seems very behind in vaccinating in comparison and choosing to allow children to die from an illness when there is a simple vaccine to give immunity seems positively medieval.

Tailtwister Mon 15-Apr-13 15:22:26

If people aren't vaccinating for valid reasons (e.g fragile health of child, affected sibling), then why are the numbers of unvaccinated children in Wales so huge? If people really, truly do believe that their child is at risk from the vaccination why are they now queuing for hours to receive it? Surely if they really thought the vaccine would cause harm they still wouldn't want it, despite the epidemic.

Badvoc Mon 15-Apr-13 15:23:47

That's an integration point tail twister.
Why Wales?
Where next?

seeker Mon 15-Apr-13 15:27:31

Good point, tailtwister.

And people who don't believe people don't vaccinate for airy fairy reasons, you should try living in a trendy middle class area. I suggest Brighton, or Whitstable or Islington........<dons sound wester to avoid the hail of organic hummus>

Pagwatch Mon 15-Apr-13 15:32:02

Seeker, I perfectly believe that some have airy fairy reasons. I just think talking to everyone as if they only have airy fairy reasons is unhelpful and often unkind.

If people are wafty you won't change thir mind.if they are not you are just making an awful situation worse.

Pagwatch Mon 15-Apr-13 15:35:44

Sorry.i am going to disappear.
These threads are always upsetting so I should bugger off.

Excuse my interruption.


MisForMumNotMaid Mon 15-Apr-13 15:40:24

They're hoping to vaccinate 70,000 in Wales. From recollection 30,000 fall into the over 5 category. The population isn't that large so thats a high number.

15% of 11-16 year olds in Monmouthshire haven'thad both doses of MMR. Thats a shocking statistic. The wales by agefigures have really surprised me as being so high too.

seeker Mon 15-Apr-13 15:43:56

But nobodynis saying that everybody has wafty reasons. Nobody from the OP onwards.

It does make me a bit cross- sorry, Pagwatch- that there seems to be a view that you can't even talk about this without being accused of disrespect.

Some people obviously have excellent reasons for not having their children vaccinated. That's what is so very annoying about the people who have crap reasons. They are putting the children with good reasons at risk. And they deserve to have their ideas challenged.

HazardLamps Mon 15-Apr-13 15:45:06

Unique, how long ago did you get your children vaccinated? And how long ago were you jabbed?

seeker Mon 15-Apr-13 15:46:51

Sorry, posted too soon, and it's very difficult to challenge the people with crap reasons if the people with good reasons are going to get upset and offended and think they are being tqrgettted, when practically every post from the OP onward has made a point of saying that they are not.

seeker Mon 15-Apr-13 15:48:23

Interesting- if trivial linguistic point. The anti vaccination people always say "jab" and "jabbed". A constant drip of negative language.

HazardLamps Mon 15-Apr-13 15:51:45

Actually seeker, I smiled to myself when I re-read my last post because I realised how aggressive "jabbed" sounds. I don't normally use the term, if I'm not saying "vaccinated" I usually say "vaxed". smile

AmandinePoulain Mon 15-Apr-13 16:05:46

Pag I'm certainly not gleefully smug, what I am is concerned. I've got an 8mo who until 2 weeks ago was too young for the MMR. She's had it now, but I was warned by the GP that her age means that there is a good chance it won't work. I don't want my baby to suffer because other people haven't vaccinated their children if there is no medical reason not to.

Startail Mon 15-Apr-13 16:08:05

Im I'm a scientist to me the evidence for vacation is a no brainer. However, I also believe in freedom for the individual. I think making anything compulsory has to be thought very careful

It's not the very small number of people with personal experiences that anger me.

It's the educated mothers who should know better, who jump on the bandwagon and the journalists who encourage them.

MandragoraWurzelstock Mon 15-Apr-13 16:19:17

I attempted to answer Tailtwister's question on Saturday at 8.20pm if anyone's interested

AmberLeaf Mon 15-Apr-13 16:19:28

and i said that those without medical reasons should morally see it as their duty to make sure their children's vaccinations (and their own) are up-to-date, so that those who cannot protect themselves can be protected

My point about grey areas is that some people don't officially have a medical reason. But as far as they are concerned they do.

Provide the option of single vaccines and then it will only be those who are totally against vaxination that won't get their children vaccinated.

Seeker. 'Jabs' was the general terminology used when my children were at the age of getting them. I do know that the correct medical terminology is vaccination.

lottieandmia Mon 15-Apr-13 16:24:24

Mandragora - I don't necessarily believe the government has the best interests of the population at heart at all times but what I actually meant was that the government is more concerned about disease control overall than it is about individual cases of vaccine damage.

MandragoraWurzelstock Mon 15-Apr-13 16:29:34

Yes sorry Lottie, my comment was a bit facetious, you're clearly not daft.

I do wonder what their main motivation is and often I think it comes down to cost.

15% of 11-16 year olds may not have had MMR, but how many have had singles? The figures are a nonsense without that information. It may be that teenagers aren't rushing forwards to get immunised because they already have been - just with monovalents.

And what a pity David Salisbury wasn't able to confirm of deny the report I saw (either on bbc or broadsheet) saying 25% getting measles in this outbreak had been vaccinated (it was presented as a positive for vaccination '75% have not been') but that figure seems high to me and I would like to get a look at the actual figures broken down by age group & vaccination status really - proper vaccination status, not MMR status.

Amandine - the GP should also have explained to you that if the vaccination doesn't work it will be because you dd has antibodies to measles still (from you). If she doesn't it should work. The issue with doing it early is that you have to get it done again - at 15 months - and then pre-school.

Oh to be certain that vaccination was definitely the right thing to do, oh yes I remember those days :goes back to trying to teach teenage son the meaning of the words neck, shoulder, thumb and chest it's only been 3 weeks of trying so far: (he got ankle & elbow straight away so not quite sure what's so hard about neck)

ChompieMum Mon 15-Apr-13 17:42:31

I am not sure that there is a big difference of opinion here. The pro vaccination people say that the default position should be vaccination both for the benefit of your own DC and to protect others. They are generally against mandatory vaccination.

Those whose DC have a medical issue or a potential predisposition to one which means that they have been advised not to vaccinate or they are more worried about it than they would be if their child was healthy and had no such predisposition have a difficult choice. But the OP and others support that choice whatever it is. No-one is judging them and nor should they.

"But that is the problem. It's not a black and white issue.
I have many Drs who believe DD should not be vaccinated yet i could easily find some who would say I could go ahead."

but that's when you exercise your decision brain. you can only make the final decision based on what's best for you and your family.
If there are medical reasons not to, then you make the final decision.
That's the black and white bit, not the thinking about it, not the actual reasons.
But I stand by I cannot accept people who have no medical worries not doing it - they believe the herd will offer the protection without realizing that they are the herd.

"The 'justify your reasons to my satisfaction' tone on here is awful."

and that was expressly what I said I wasn't doing.

i'm 36, so a long time ago, although i did have a tetanus booster in 2000.

DD is 16 months and had her MMR etc about 2 months ago.

"My point about grey areas is that some people don't officially have a medical reason. But as far as they are concerned they do. "

like someone else said, the list of official reasons is very very narrow, probably precisely to avoid this.
But I am including anyone who has actual, proper worries about it, not just CBA or debunked theories (unless at the time of the report and siblings), or drinking lemon juice or rolling in herbs.

Like I said, my DD having eczema was a medical worry. In my case I decided it was worth the risk. Others might not have agreed, in which case, fine.

Chompie - exactly.
perfectly put.

sassy34264 Mon 15-Apr-13 17:56:22

Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread.

So apologies if these have been mulled over and discussed.

I read the GMC findings on Andrew wakefield (twice) and i know i haven't got a scientific brain, but i only found ethical reasons for him being discredited.

I have researched this long and hard, having 4 children and one being born in the middle of all the furore.

Will post some links. Food for thought maybe.



dr singh

dr singh again

negative findings

independent article

I could go on, as there is more. But as long as i can research and find these things out for myself, i will not believe the mmr hype, iie, it's safe.

I choose single vaccinations which i pay for.

HazardLamps Mon 15-Apr-13 18:06:08

"i'm 36, so a long time ago, although i did have a tetanus booster in 2000."

And when did you last have a titer test to ensure that your vaccination had actually worked and/or that you were still immune?

Or are you just relying on luck that your vaccination worked and is still working and that you're not potentially just as "fucking selfish" as those who decide not to vaccinate for any reason other than those which meet your approval?

lottieandmia Mon 15-Apr-13 18:09:54

UniqueAndAmazing - do you personally know people who have admitted they decided not to vaccinate just because? Because I really don't think many people like that exist. I appreciate you may know some - I'm asking because I myself don't. I would think that people who don't vaccinate mostly do have a good reason for not doing so.

I don't know the background to the situation in Swansea. But is it really the case that many parents there just decided not to vaccinate without any thought? It seems to me that most people who decide not to use MMR seek singles themselves - this won't be included in the statistics so it will look as if fewer people have had the vaccinations.

So surely it is possible that a outbreak has occured in Swansea in spite of the fact that most people are vaccinated?

infamouspoo Mon 15-Apr-13 18:13:06

where did the outbreak come from?

monkeysbignuts Mon 15-Apr-13 18:19:47

I agree with the op.
700 cases of measles since November in Swansea alone!
People need to start vaccinating their kids now to stop it getting worse!
My baby is 6 months old (too young for his mmr) & everyone who hasn't vaccinated is putting him at risk.

seeker Mon 15-Apr-13 18:24:09

I know 6 families who have not vaccinated. One has been advised not to for medical reasons- I won't go into details. One has an older sibling with autism and have not vaccinated the younger ones. The other 4 are just bonkers. One family doesn't believe vaccination works at all, one have religious reasons, and two believe believe that homeopathy is a more effective method of protecting their children against illness.

WouldBeHarrietVane Mon 15-Apr-13 18:33:40

So would you force JW to have blood transfusions, seeker? Religious reasons will feel valid to the people concerned.

seeker Mon 15-Apr-13 18:37:18

No, I wouldn't force a JW to have a blood transfusion. But I sure as hell would stop them denying their child one.

MandragoraWurzelstock Mon 15-Apr-13 18:40:32

'but that's when you exercise your decision brain. you can only make the final decision based on what's best for you and your family.
If there are medical reasons not to, then you make the final decision.'

You're being very patronising assuming that none of us have thought of that, OP.

And very facile about the whole thing imo

and very aggressive with it.

AmberLeaf Mon 15-Apr-13 18:52:08

You're being very patronising assuming that none of us have thought of that, OP

And very facile about the whole thing imo

and very aggressive with it


seeker Mon 15-Apr-13 19:00:37

As I said, obviously there are people who think about it properly and make proper decisions based on the facts. I don't think anyone is talking about those people.

Well, I'm certainly not. I'm talking about the "ooh,I don't know- I heard something bad once so I'm not going to risk it" the "these aren't serious illnesses" and "I'd rather rely on carrot juice and homeopathy" brigade. Among others.

WouldBeHarrietVane Mon 15-Apr-13 19:03:47

I also agree with patronising and facile.

WouldBeHarrietVane Mon 15-Apr-13 19:03:56

And aggressive

wtf?! how am I being agreesive and patronizing?

I'm being accused of telling people that they're wrong not to vaccinate whrn they have real concerns. I'm being accused of telling people who have medical issues that they should vaccinate or feel gyilty.
I'm being accused of not understandin even though I've stated a very clear case over and over again.

you're both now being deliberately obtuse because you have no holes to pick and no case to answer.

I had chicken pox immunity test whenni was pg.
I asked the mw if I needed any other immunity testd and she said I didn't.

sassy and the fundamental difference is that you gave the single vaccination which you paid for. you didn't just go "ooh, I'm not sure so I won't vaccinate at all"

lottie no I don't know any of those people. but if I did, I would let them know how I felt

anyway you two calling me patronising etc.I was replying directly to pag who was worried that I was judging her for maling her decisions.

and since when did a jw not having a blood tranfusion impact on the wider society? I agree with seeker about fighting against them making that decision for someone else.

Bowlersarm Mon 15-Apr-13 19:25:36

You are being patronising. Who are you to say what people should chose for their own children?

MandragoraWurzelstock Mon 15-Apr-13 19:28:18

But you just don't know enough about it to adjudicate OP.

Expressing an opinion is one thing but your tone is very belligerent and I don't think you have the knowledge or the authority to speak to people like that

is what I'm trying to say.

MandragoraWurzelstock Mon 15-Apr-13 19:33:08

though I am sure you mean well.

sassy34264 Mon 15-Apr-13 19:41:21

unique that's because i'm just as scared of them catching measles as i am of them having the mmr jab. smile

I'm just one big freaked out mother!

But some may not have the money.

I have 2 friends who have children with autism. One has had her younger child done despite this, and the other one has not.

I have another friend who has really bad allergies (wasn't allowed vaccines for herself when she was little) and they won't test her daughter, so she won't have her done until they do.

It's not black and white.

Zara1984 Mon 15-Apr-13 19:41:29

Agree with the OP, it is really fucking irresponsible not to vaccinate your children. Thank god I don't live in the affected area because my baby DS (who is too young for MMR yet) would be at risk.

Here's a good example of why you need to vaccinate. Relates to tetanus rather than measles. This case was in the news in New Zealand when I was at home over Christmas. A 7 year old nearly DIED when he contracted the disease, and had to put into a coma on life support. It will take 12 months of rehabilitation for him to recover and to learn how to eat and walk again.

His father said:

"It was me that put my son in this situation," Mr Williams said.

"Parents like us make the decision to not vaccinate on very little factual information about the actual consequences of the diseases - massive pain, disability and death - and a lot of non-factual, emotive information from the internet stating inflated figures on the frequency and severity of adverse reactions and conspiracy theories about 'evil' doctors, governments and drug companies."

The parents of the boy immediately had their other children vaccinated.

There's a nice debunking of classic anti-vas myths at the bottom of the article too.

but I'm not fucking adjudicating!

what I gave done is point out that we now have evidence why it's so important to vaccinate and those who can have a moral responsibilty to.

MandragoraWurzelstock Mon 15-Apr-13 19:47:22

Oh stop fucking swearing! Adjudicating is exactly what you're doing.

and my tone is exasperated at having repeat myself over and over and over.

HazardLamps Mon 15-Apr-13 19:55:14

"I had chicken pox immunity test whenni was pg. I asked the mw if I needed any other immunity testd and she said I didn't."

But at the beginning of this thread you said that you know that it's possible for the vaccination not to work or for it to stop working after a period of time UniqueAndAmazing !

In anotherwords, you're wandering around the community with no idea whether or not you're still covered by the MMR jab or indeed if you ever were. You don't know if you're any more taking part in the "modern" society any more than I am.

Yet you're judging and pontificating to the rest of us. Pot? Kettle? Black?

You have been patronising. You told me to refrain from posting! And telling people that they're "fucking selfish" strikes me as pretty aggressive too.

Go make sure you have those chemicals and viruses correctly working in your body before you start telling me that I'm fucking selfish before not putting them into mine!

HazardLamps Mon 15-Apr-13 19:57:14

Sorry for the extra "before" in that last sentence. (Child distraction syndrome).

I'm not remotely worried about what you think about me not vaccinating

I have one vaccinated brain damaged child who will need 24 hour care for the rest of his life. And two unvaccinated children who are NT and are currently on track (god willing) to grow up & live independent lives. And in the process doing all sorts of things their brother can't do & won't ever be able to do. Trip to pizza hut anyone? Oh the things he misses out on. I couldn't give a monkey's bottom whether you (or anyone else) thinks my reasons are good enough.

Nor would I presume to be arrogant enough to tell anyone else what they should do - they're the ones who have to live with the consequences of any decision - enough 'friends' bugger off never to be seen again once your child is severely autistic.

Oh and yes yes I know measles can be nasty - my mum spent months in hospital with measles & was left deaf in one ear from it. (I had an uncomplicated case that was over in about 4 days + quarantine). She agrees that the younger siblings should not be vaccinated - hmmm wonder why.

babySophieRose Mon 15-Apr-13 20:05:04

Well, it is a case of the well-being of everyone. Why some parents should risk the life of their child I do not know. It is a disease, look better when reading online crap and do the jabs. I surely do not want my child getting ill because someone choose to live in denial. Somewhere in the world people do not have a choice, they just don't have vaccines and the result is very often fatal. Make the right choice for your kids, don't be stubborn. There is NO REAL evidence that MMR leads to autism, just people that believe single jabs are better, but we are in recession, so that is what you get for free.

I didn't say that.
I said that certain vaccines have to be topped up in order to get full immunity.

I didn't tell you to refrain from posting. that's being very simplistic. I said if you had nothing valuable to say then you shouldn't post.

and I also said that I HAD measles as a child. I wasn't vaccinated against measles, because I gad the disease. in august 1978, according to my imms record.
I had to have my rubella topup when I was 13 at the gps because I had been off school when they did the jabs at school.

I was told to count the balloons on a poster to distract me, but I had already counted the balloons while I was waiting.

I've had all my polio, tetanus and "triple vaccine" whatever that is.
I had bcg at school.

I don't know anything else.

saintly read the thread!
you haven't vaccinated because of medical reasons! you?re exactly the people who the vaccinations are there to protect!

Well one good thing about you having had measles is that any baby you have should have protective antibodies for 6 months plus. Babies born to vaccinated mothers sometimes have NO antibodies from birth. And they're often gone by 3 months. Where did I find out this information? Initially from the health protection agency then from a paper in pubmed. Easily searchable if you think I'm mistaken. Not an anti-vax publication in sight.

Another reason why I'd want to see the raw figures for this outbreak defined by age groups.

I had measles in 1979 & was pleased my babies were protected during early infancy by super duper naturally acquired antibodies.

HazardLamps Mon 15-Apr-13 20:14:37


babySophieRose, you do know that not all non-vaccinators take that stance because of the alleged autism link, don't you?

Moreover I think it's been pointed out more than once that not everyone believes it's acceptable to put their own children's health at risk for the sake of "the wellbeing of everyone", but I'll say it again.

My children are the most important to me, not yours, not the man down the road's, but mine.

WouldBeHarrietVane Mon 15-Apr-13 20:14:45

My point about JWs and transfusions is that the law recognises their right not to have transfusions, due to religious beliefs. it also recognises their young people have the right not to have them either, once they have capacity to make an informed choice, which can be in their teens.

This was in response to seeker describing religiously motivated anti vax views as nonsense.

WouldBeHarrietVane Mon 15-Apr-13 20:15:50

I'm not worried about autism, I'm worried about all sorts of reactions, including brain damage and fits.

that's fine hazard. until yours becomes one of the ones that gets ill because cases crop up where there's no need.

I have read the thread - I fall in the grey area. When life was black & white I vaccinated. I never assumed it was my place to tell people what they should do & I don't now.

seeker doesn't believe in religion anyway.
but I agree with her that no religion should require a child's health to be at risk.

babySophieRose Mon 15-Apr-13 20:23:46

WouldBeHarrietVane, you know that all drugs are dangerous, will you let your child have a fit from high temperature? Will you refuse an operation or blood transfusion?

HazardLamps Mon 15-Apr-13 20:24:22

Yes you did say that! You did say that you know it's possible for the vaccinations not to work. See, here's where you acknowledged it:

UniqueAndAmazing, Sat 13th April, 13.55:

"I think people also don't realize that you can still get measles even if you have been vaccinated, just obviously not as bad."

So you do acknowledge that vaccines sometimes don't work and sometimes wear off. And at your own admission you haven't found out whether those which you had as a child or young woman worked to start with or whether they're still working now.

Pot? Kettle? Black?

As I said at the very beginning, pointless stirring.

sassy34264 Mon 15-Apr-13 20:24:47

babysophierose perhaps you should sit in on the court cases and tell the judge not to bother paying out for mmr and autistic cases. Save them a fortune.

JoulesM Mon 15-Apr-13 20:25:49

For anyone who wants to read some peer reviewed evidence from the CDC

So many misconceptions exist regarding vaccinations as its an emotive subject, however if you weight up the relative risk of harm from vaccination to the relative risk of harm from measles it's a bit of a no-brainier!

I have seen what measles can do, as well as chicken pox (which by the way can be vaccinated against and is on the routine vaccination schedule in Oz, US and several other countries just not in the uk mostly due to economic reasons) so I'm VERY pro-vaccination!

Just my two cents worth...

monkeysbignuts Mon 15-Apr-13 20:27:35

Saintlywas you're child's autism directly linked to the mmr? & if so how have you proven this?
I am asking because I am very interested to see if the nhs have taken responsibility/blame for it.

Every time I had my eldest vaccinated he had a bad reaction. He had a febrile convulsion because his temperature got very high really quickly. Yet I was told it was just coincidence. ...

HazardLamps Mon 15-Apr-13 20:29:25

"that's fine hazard. until yours becomes one of the ones that gets ill because cases crop up where there's no need"

That's fine beyond that point, actually. I won't be complaining, I made my own decisions. I only complain when some little Hitler comes along and tries to tell me that I should put this stuff into my or my children's bodies.

babySophieRose Mon 15-Apr-13 20:31:38

sassy34264, there are some cases when for a medical reasons child can not have the jab, the will not have it. Autism is very difficult to diagnose at such an early age, how do you know that the jab caused it?

sassy34264 Mon 15-Apr-13 20:35:10

I don't personally. But i would imagine if an american court is paying out vast amounts of money and thereby admitting the link, then someone cleverer than me and you, as managed to prove it.

sassy34264 Mon 15-Apr-13 20:37:17

Vaccine Court: CA Boy has Autism from MMR
This in’t supposed to happen.

It happened again. The federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has awarded Ryan Mojabi and his family a multi-million dollar settlement for autism as the result of an injury from the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine. Ryan’s family joins Hannah Poling and at least 85 others who have received judgments for vaccine-induced autism from the VICP. These people aren’t supposed to exist. We are told again and again that vaccines cannot cause autism, vaccines have never caused autism, and vaccines never will cause autism. Except when they do.

Here is the link to the settlement document.…

WouldBeHarrietVane Mon 15-Apr-13 20:40:02

Sorry, Sophie, I don't understand your questions. I have had all vax and major surgery on medical advice. My dc has had all vax except mmr. He has had single measles. I am an atheist and do generally believe in vax, just don't want to overload my dc with them all at once.

monkeysbignuts Mon 15-Apr-13 20:42:22

I don't know why the health authority can't just offer single vax to parents that would rather have it that way. At least more people would uptake the vaccines if offered them separately

HazardLamps Mon 15-Apr-13 20:45:59

I think that Joules has highlighted an important issue. As she rightly says, there is a chicken pox vaccination available in the UK - privately. It isn't available on the NHS. Why's that, do you think? Because chicken pox can't be serious? Nope. Because chicken pox vaccine isn't licensed as safe in the UK? Nope. Because of the cost to the government?

Now you're getting there.

And yet we're supposed to believe that the government has the best interests of our health, and not economics, at heart regarding the vaccination of ourselves and our children.

ChompieMum Mon 15-Apr-13 20:56:15

I strongly disagree that this thread is pointless stirring. I am very pleased indeed it is here because:

1. If it causes even a few people to think again about vaccinating it just might save a life or save someone from disability (the anti vaccinators might say that it could cause a serious health problem but there's very little doubt that there is a greater chance that it will save a life or avoid a life changing disability)
2. It seems pretty clear that most of those who choose not to vaccinate are doing so for reasons relating to heightened risk for their DC which is sensible and encouraging to know.

AmandinePoulain Mon 15-Apr-13 20:58:25

The reason that chicken pox isn't on the vaccine schedule is because it doesn't provide as long a period of protection as natural immunity. There is concern that if we routinely vaccinated all children against chicken pox they would be vulnerable as adults if the immunity wore off, and chicken pox is far worse as an adult. There are also fears that without repeated exposure following initial infection elderly people would be at risk of shingles, as it's thought that each time we come into contact with it our immunity gets a boost. That's my understanding anyway, I'm sure someone more qualified could put it better!