Of all the anti-jab arguments it strikes me as the most-reasoned. It is quite frequently cited and alluded to on MN.
BUT, never, I mean NEVER have I heard this one of reasoning presented in mainstream media by the anti-Jab proponents. When someone from JABS or similar comes on BBC radio or gets interviewed in the newspaper or on TV, they NEVER mention it.
Is this common theory on MN only common on MN, and if not, why is it never specifically investigated or even talked about when parents of (allegedly) vaccine-damaged children get their moment in the media?
If I'm wrong about the lack of publicity, then I'm happy to be given references.
People on MN often say that if there's a history of auto-immune disorders in the family, the child is at more at-risk from vaccinations, more likely to develop autism from jabs.
Jimjams used to bang on about it. I see the theory being alluded to quite often on here, especially for first-born boys.
But I've never heard this theory -- about auto-immune disorders in family history -- spouted as a risk factor when anti-vaccination people get interviewed (live interviews where none of their words will get edited out). Why not?
Do you know what types of seizure disorders are contraindicated for vaccines as everything I have read on the not at all biased NHS website says you should have all immunisations even if you have a history of epilepsy.
Is it just children who have uncontrolled epilepsy? Or does it include those who have a history of epilepsy?
OK, I see. You're questioning why the 'received wisdom' around vaccine damage cited on mn is never quoted by so-called 'experts' in RL.
Well for a start I'm not sure it is an 'anti-jab' argument. Rather it supports an argument that there may be a risk for a very small subset of the target population. Why this isn't under intense investigation is sadly probably a financial one. In our free market health economy what would be the financial return for an organisation to invest in the studies needed to determine such a link? There may be studies ongoing in academia, I have no idea.
It absolutely should be researched further, but in the meantime should it prevent mass vaccination for the vast majority of children who will benefit from protection from life-threatening childhood illnesses? As a mum of children who have been vaccinated with no apparent detrimental effects, I would have to say no. Of course you will get a different answer from a mum who believes their child to have been vaccine damaged.
Fiona Phillips attempted to say this on Question Time the other day. She was the only person I have ever heard of hinting at this subset of people who may be more at risk than others. From memory I think she just got shot down for saying it.
I've been trying to find out what the official NHS line is on vaxes for kids with a family history of auto-immune diseases - is there an official line, or does it depend on your own paediatrician? Seems obvious to me not to run the risk of vaxing a kid already at risk.
Its the American equivalent to the NHS website I think, its the centre for disease control www.cdc.gov
It really does have more info than the NHS website, just found this on there: 'In 2008, VAERS received more than 25,000 reports of adverse events (to vaccines) in the United States. Of those, 9.5% were reported as serious events (causing disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death).'
there's not been a lot of research into ds1's condition and even less into links with relapses/mmr. I got all kinds of immunologist and nephrologist opinions before going ahead with the mmr but he did relapse. he's ok though and it was an easy relapse but I knew it would happen and know of other people whose children have had similar reactions to that and the flu vaccine. we should have organised single vaccines imo but the docs seem wary now of admitting that anyone should get them and spent lots of time assuring me he shouldn't react any differently to any other child. clearly not. I don't know why they won't offer more single vaccines just in case.