To vaccinate newborn or not

You can not speed up the amount of time it was in human trails it's not possible unless they invented a time machine too. A new drug is normally tested for 6-10 years to look for possible side effects this obviously was not done. The human trails for the covid vaccine are on going in all those that took it.

@Happybunnytoday Thank you. Very interesting.

You don't have to publish to do research...

I'm a research scientist and we don't publish. We patent.

I've also done dozens of literature reviews. Definitely research, definitely unpublished.

I agree with you that looking at Google isn't really research, but you've written a nasty gotcha/put down that isn't even factually correct.

But for all people saying ‘just do your research’ WHERE can you conduct comprehensive and unbiased research @Tryingmybestadhd? it’s no good saying ‘do your research’ unless you’re able to provide reliable resources, and so far the only people who have been able to produce such resources are those in full support of vaccination

"Id like to point out i’m not ‘anti vax’ as such, but covid really opened my eyes to researching vaccines "

The problem with this starement is that you don't understand why the research was quicker. Normally they research a, then if that went well b, then after that c. With covid they did all the researches a, b and c at the same time and accepted the consequences of the possibility of pursuing a dud in hope that it wasn't and completing the research faster.

The vaccine will give primary immunity - if you come across the disease afterwards this can also act as a booster
Most mums of newborns now have no memory of diphtheria, polio, measles, rubella damaged babies either themselves or their parents.
I am 100% in favour of vaccines but still was nervous at taking my baby to have them done

@justteanbiscuits Thank you so much. I wish I could remember the epidemiologist's name. She was from Imperial and gave a number of interviews during Covid. She said, I am sure, that only vaccines provide lifetime immunity. Catching and recovering from any illness does not. Until then, I'd always thought having measles once gave life time immunity, but now I think the science must have shifted. Also, she didn't say whether boosters were required throughout life to maintain immunity, so I wonder how protected adults are, even if they followed the childhood schedule. What you say is what I thought, but she really confused me.

What kind of research did you do? How many patients were involved? Was it double blind? Was it peer reviewed? Or did you just google something and call it research?

Pubmed is where the medical researchers publish their peer reviewed work. That's the only home research that you should take seriously.

No, vaccines aren’t the only way. But the other way - the actual exposure to a virus or bacteria and subsequent illness - is much more dangerous, as vaccines contain inactive bacteria and viruses or only their parts.

Also our immune system is very complex and our ability to generate life long immunity is more impaired as we age. Importantly, there are different types of immune responses and they differ in longevity, boosters produce antibodies that are available readily on blood but they don’t persist for more than approx 6 months, while long life immunity relies on T cells that “remember” the pathogen for life and can recognise repeat attack and produce immune response (but this takes a while).

It depends entirely on the vaccine. There is no yes or no answer to your question. Some vaccines requires boosters (tetanus for example from the top of my head), some provide life long immunity. Some illnesses provide life long immunity when you catch them. Some don't. Some viruses mutate and require regular vaccination for the mutations.

If you choose not to vaccinate your child you should have to pay privately if they need icu

There seem to be experts here, so I'll ask again. Are vaccines the only way to get lifetime immunity from every disease? And is this true if you only have childhood vaccinations, or true only if you maintain boosters throughout adult life? Many thanks if anyone can answer.

Do you understand that doctors, whom you trust to save your life, wouldn’t harm you for £10?

@pinkerseal that is an out and out antivaxxer book... It's not well researched and is basically one big summary of conspiracy theories dressed up as "science".

No they really do not. This is very highly regulated in the UK. What a load of rubbish. And I don’t need to research this, it’s my job to know. What is yours?

I didn't want to wade into Covid as it's so polarising.

But... I live somewhere that was basically zero Covid until everyone had the opportunity to vaccinate (think, like New Zealand). It was also a very vaccine skeptical place so lots of people refused - as is their right of course.

When the government opened the borders (after everyone had been offered a vaccine), Covid ran through the population like wildfire. Many of vaccine refusers very sadly died (the health authority initially published whether those that died had been vaccinated or not). Vaccine take up then improved quite a lot.

Of course correlation is not causation and other factors may have been at play - those with less trust in the medical profession may have had other risk factors. But the difference was stark.

Merely anecdotal so probably just as useless a contribution as other ill-informed posters, but my own experience living here has made me confident that the Covid vaccines saved many many lives. And we haven't all died of blood clots or turned into robots

I also wanted more information about vaccines so I have now read plenty on this subject. I made my decisions based on books such as thismost recent, this, this, and many more. I would say do as much research as you can, i don't believe the decision is as clear-cut as people say it should be.

Then you'll be aware that usually wouldn't be enough to get you an MSC, let alone anywhere near a PhD.

I'm not questioning your research skills, but you won't have had access to even the resources fully funded departmental research has.

Childhood diseases kill
I can't imagine why you'd want to put your baby at risk, when these are readily available
Personally I think it should be mandatory before school admission unless there is a very good reason, but that's my opinion

There are no studies showing general health of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Why not?

You might what to read up about polio vaccines they are not all good!
www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/nov/28/polio-outbreaks-in-four-african-countries-caused-by-mutation-of-

This.

exactly. or even better, get a job as a doctor in the NHS so you can see first hand what happens when people decide not to give vaccines. I am also happy to fund one way tickets to countries with less access to vaccines for some brutal eye opening.

WAKEFIELDS RESEARCH WAS ON 12 (TWELVE) CHILDREN

Serious Professional MisconductSoon after The Sunday Times published another damning investigative report by UK journalist Brian Deer on December 31, 20069, the UK General Medical Council (GMC) launched what would be the longest Fitness to Practice hearing in its history. Announcing its findings on January 28, 2010, the GMC found more than a few biases in Wakefield’s study and research practices:10

• Wakefield did not conduct the 1998 study according to ethical standards for research.
• Wakefield lied in the Lancet paper when he wrote that the participating children were referred independently after being diagnosed with IBD or other major gastrointestinal issues. In fact, many of the children were chosen specifically by Wakefield, and others were recruited with the help of the same lawyer who was paying him to conduct the study.
• Wakefield subjected vulnerable autistic and other developmentally challenged children to a variety of difficult GI tests, including colonoscopy and lumbar puncture (i.e., spinal tap), without any medical indication to benefit the children.
• Even before publication of the study, Wakefield was working on patenting his own version of a measles vaccine, which he would sell at a great profit as a supposedly “safe” alternative to the MMR vaccine. The father of one of the children in Wakefield’s study was a cofounder of the planned business that would market this product.
• Unrelated to the particular paper in question, the GMC panel also found that Wakefield had paid children at his own son’s birthday party £5 each so he could draw their blood for use in his research. He later joked about this during a lecture.

My sons were very happy to receive the HPV vaccine (well, one will get it next month). The rise in penile, anal and mouth / throat cancers caused by the strains of HPV covered by the vaccine far outweighed the risks in their, and my, opinion. It would have also saved me from having dodgy cells removed three times.

Because yes. I have had sex. With more than one partner who has also had sex with more than one partner. I am still at risk of mouth and throat cancers though.

It’s simply factually inaccurate to state that chickenpox and measles are the equivalent of one another.

Chickenpox is a mild disease. Complications are not common. The fatality rate is around 1 per 100,000 cases in children, with most deaths occurring in immunocompromised children. Very few children who catch chickenpox will need hospitalisation.

The fatality rate for measles is about 2 per 1000 cases. That’s 0.20% compared to 0.001% for chickenpox. That is an enormous difference in risk. It’s 1 in every 500 children dying of measles vs 1 in every million children dying of chickenpox. They are orders of magnitude apart.

And that’s before you consider the other complications associated with measles - meningitis, blindness, seizures etc.