Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

Refusing to vaccinate your child

(573 Posts)
Organic100 Thu 15-Aug-13 22:34:19

For a while now I have been researching the dangers of vaccines and all the cases of children dying or being made sick after having a vaccine, all of which is not reported in mainstream media. How do you feel about vaccines? I've heard that the medical profession encourages pregnant women to get the flu vaccine, and that babies are vaccinated at birth. I've also researched stories where parents have been reported to social services by a spiteful doctor or nurse, simply for refusing their child a vaccine. It seems parents are losing their rights. What do you think?

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 09:30:52

Finally. How hard was that.

CatherinaJTV Wed 04-Sep-13 08:38:03

of course not - vaccines do have adverse effects that are solely (for what we know) a consequence of the vaccination.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 03-Sep-13 21:59:37

Thanks LaVolcan.

LaVolcan Tue 03-Sep-13 21:58:54

Catherine - we weren't just talking about the Dravet mutation though.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 03-Sep-13 21:58:51

Would all vaccine reactions happen without a vaccine trigger?

CatherinaJTV Tue 03-Sep-13 21:56:39

Crumbled - children with the Dravet mutation will get intractable epilepsy, independent of whether their first seizure is after a vaccine or not. Bruffin is 100% right.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 03-Sep-13 21:55:21

Ooh Catherina I asked you a question but I don't think it was here.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 03-Sep-13 21:54:55

You don't understand Bruffin. All or most children who react to vaccines will probably have some kind of vulnerability. I've said that - ages ago - it's self-evidently true.

That vulnerability would not necessarily manifest itself without a vaccine trigger.

You are saying they would always manifest themselves without the vaccine trigger.

I think this is wrong.

CatherinaJTV Tue 03-Sep-13 21:53:39

thank you bruffin, very interesting (and I am glad it is GEPS not Dravet that runs in your family).

LaVolcan Tue 03-Sep-13 21:52:43

Bruffin - I think you are trying to put words into my mouth which I haven't said. Yes, I am quite happy to say that any disease puts a strain on the body, but that wasn't what was being asked.

The statement was that if you were vaccinated and had a reaction, you would have had the same reaction if you caught the disease with the implication being that you would catch the disease. You might not catch it: you might not be exposed to it, or it might be going round but you didn't catch it.

The only reason I specified mumps is because I know that at the time my children were vaccinated there was no mumps vaccine in this country. Therefore the vaccine couldn't be responsible for them not getting the disease.

I couldn't even comment on measles because I can't remember whether they had the vaccine or not.

bruffin Tue 03-Sep-13 21:24:20

Maybe it's just me but I can't conceive of how anyone would begin to prove that vaccine damage "would have happened anyway". It's one fo those phrase that strikes an instant alarm bell, and it's very dismissive to boot.

It is not dismissive, for the hundredth time. Why cant you understand that it might not be damage in the first place, but a symptom of an existing genetic disease ie Dravets Syndrome, Can i also point out that Robert Fletcher didn't have autism.

Two doctors Prf Sundara Lingam a former consultant at GoSH, ndDr Adran Allaway, and a judge on a vaccine compensation panel.

quote from Professor Sundura Lingam again

"genetically predisposed to epilepsy and that the vaccination triggered it rather than caused it. Robert would have developed epilepsy in any event, even if he had not had the vaccination.”

Now as previously linked to research has found that children previously classed as having vaccine damage from the pertussis vaccine actually had Dravet syndrome (A SCN1A-related seizure disorder)

Re my family, as said previously we have a SCN1A-related seizure disorders called GEFS+
Families with GEFS+ sometimes have a someone in the family with dravet syndrome,although i dont know anyone in mine.
We can trace GEFS+ for at least 4 generations ie my grandmother, my mother, my sister and my son. Seems ds got it in some round about way and as it avoided me. My sister who had it never had children so we dont know if her children would have inherited it. GEFS+ in my family is having more febrile convulsions than normal ie ds had 20+ and febrile convulsions up to around puberty. My mum and sister stopped at 10 and my DS last one was 13.5.
Now my gm who was born in 1912 is very unlikely to have had vaccines, but she still had the same genetic problem.
This is why the likes of Professor Lingam can say it would have happened anyway, because he obviously knows a lot more about these type of conditions than you do.

Why do think that is confined to mumps, measles and rubella. It's any fever that puts a strain on the body not just those caused by the MMR diseases

LaVolcan Tue 03-Sep-13 19:30:08

"would have happened anyway"

It might do, if you catch the disease. But, you might never catch the disease. My children didn't have MMR because it either hadn't been invented or wasn't used in the UK. Neither of them have caught Mumps since then. Or various other diseases that are now getting introduced into the vaccine schedule. One of them caught chicken pox very mildly, but I don't think the other one did.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 03-Sep-13 19:10:01

Maybe it's just me but I can't conceive of how anyone would begin to prove that vaccine damage "would have happened anyway". It's one fo those phrase that strikes an instant alarm bell, and it's very dismissive to boot.

saintlyjimjams Mon 02-Sep-13 22:25:23

I thought it was an interesting model crumbled. I remember in the talk I almost fell off my chair when the 'dreaded vaccinations' were mentioned (but there were a few moments like that at that conference - I came out surprised & reassured tbh).

The first hit bit of the model is very popular in autism research at the moment - it's attracting lots of attention and there seem to be quite a few groups working on it. I'm particularly interested in the two hits idea though as it ties in with what we saw happening to ds1 & it contributed to decisions we made for the younger siblings.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 02-Sep-13 21:52:35

that's a great link, JimJams

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 02-Sep-13 21:44:57

Bruffin I just want you to know that I didn't report you. I don't report people, I don't see the point.
Thanks Saintlyjimjams for that link.

saintlyjimjams Mon 02-Sep-13 20:48:30

Now this link is interesting

This - in the comments: As a summary, given the mounting evidence suggesting that both genetic and environmental factors play a major role in the etiology of ASD, we are most likely dealing with a scenario of multifactorial etiopathology with pathogenesis, resembling “Two-Hit Theory” first proposed earlier by Alfred G. Knudson in 1971 for retinoblastoma [5]. The model proposes that a first hit in ASD can be either a genetic susceptibility or environmental insult during the fetal period. This is followed by a second (or multiple) hit(s) during pregnancy or infancy that ultimately lead to ASD. In this model, cytokines can play a direct role in translating environmental insults into hindered neurodevelopmental trajectory or represent a biomarker for genetic susceptibility

Now this was the model suggested at a talk I attended at IMFAR a few years ago (which I paid particular attention to as it sort of potentially fitted ds1's case). Anyway the researcher presenting the talk definitely said the second hit could be - amongst other things - 'the dreaded vaccinations'. Although of course that never made it into the abstract. :rolls eyes:

OliviaMMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 02-Sep-13 20:43:31

Know that this is a contentious subject but please remember our guidelines, eh?

saintlyjimjams Mon 02-Sep-13 20:37:31

bruffin. I am curious as well. Having a mitochondrial or other genetic dysfunction of the sorts suspected to be sometimes involved in autism isn't a case of 'it would have happened anyway'. In fact there is ongoing research into identifying markers that could be tested for in the heel prick test to identify those at risk of regression/developing autism. The idea being that they could then avoid potential triggers during critical developmental periods.

If it was' going to happen anyway' there would be bugger all point in identifying such children early in life.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 02-Sep-13 20:19:22

You are SO rude! It wasn't in the IoM book btw.

It has not been backed up and you need to link to papers showing that vaccine reactions eg epilepsy and severe brain damage "would have happened anyway".

In your own time.

bruffin Mon 02-Sep-13 20:06:51

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

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 02-Sep-13 19:35:10

I am just reactivating this thread to request once again the papers and proof that for vaccine damaged children "it would have happened anyway". It's been asserted too many times without being backed up for it to let pass.

Frontdoorstep Sun 01-Sep-13 11:45:41

Icebeing, it doesn't matter to me what the risk is from measles, to me the risk from measles is something I can cope with, the risk from the mmr is not acceptable to me, considering that the child having the vaccine doesn't need two component parts of the vaccine, namely mumps and rubella.

If it was mandatory to have this vaccine purely for herd immunity then I would expect a significant amount of compensation in a timely manner since my child was damaged to help someone else.

There are huge moral and ethical issues and you raise a good point about suing someone who passes the disease on but I don't think you would know where the disease came from.

Anyway is there really a parent who would put someone else's child first, before their own child.

saintlyjimjams Sat 31-Aug-13 23:12:15

Then we made our decision after talking through with ds1's doctors. Of course as I continue to follow the research and talk to the researchers working in the field, then one day our decision may change. Or the younger children will be old enough to do their own talking to researchers and decision making. Until then I'm pretty happy that we've made the best decision on the currently available information.

saintlyjimjams Sat 31-Aug-13 23:09:47

Er no, I read research on the condition that my son has. I speak to researchers working in the field and ask their opinions and I have attended the mainstream, academic conferences.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now