To not give my children the swine flu vaccine?

[wintersnow]

I decided not to last year as I wanted to wait and see how safe it was but am reconsidering this year after several people have died. Did you give it to your children and what were your reasons to give/not give it?

Its your choice- do what you think is right. Simple as that.

And you are not projecting with your description of Brian Deer as slimy etc .

Yes I saw him on the after show of the a ducmentary a few years back I wasn't that impressed. You need to take off your rose coloured glasses.

Sorry - just popping in quickly here..

I'm slightly confused bruffin - you say the research was condcuted in '98 after the patent was filed in '97 but he mentions that research in his patent application - see pages 9 and 10 on your link. The lancet paper was published in 98 - is that where you're getting mixed up?

There is nothing to be confused about. He published a patent then created a scare story publishing his "research" in the lancet. It was unheard of for a doctor to call a press conference for such a small study.
I cannot blelive a doctor who invents a vaccine that has the potential to sell in 100 of millions a year doesn't realise that there are huge profits to be made.

It was your earlier post that I was confused about:

'Patent was 1997 scare story and research 1998'

Research was clearly carried out before the patent was filed in 97 because it is mentioned in the patent application.

I don't really know too much about this whole Wakefield thing - I know there are others who know a lot more than me but perhaps he saw the need for this 'safer vaccine' based on his experience with these children and their parents? Rather than, as you seem to be suggesting, filing a patent for a new vaccine randomly and then doing a study the following year to support the need for this new vaccine...

NO I merant to say published the research in 98. It was clear that there was a patent pending when the research was published.

Wakefield tried to sue Deer for libel, the prevaricatred and stalled using the existance libel case to silence anyone who tried to print anything against him. After 2 years the judge had enough and told him to get a move on and get on with the case, then he strangely withdrew. There was no monitary issue as the case was funded by his professional body.

IIRC bruffin the single measles vaccine was still available in 1998 when Wakefield suggested that more research should be done into the MMR - so there was an alternative at the time. I don't see any problem with suggesting an existing alternative if a concern arises with a particular product. If the patent was pending for this new vaccine and his sole aim was, as you are suggesting to make a lot of money then why not wait to call a press conference until the patent had been passed and/or this vaccine was the only available alternative to the MMR?

That doesn't mean anything, Leonie he had every opportunity to sue, he chose not to persue his own legal case against deer, that speaks volumes. The judge wrote a very damming indictent of his behaviour , which basically that Wakefield was not acting like a man who was trying to prove his own innocence, that he was just using the courts to silence his detractors.

stata - I found this as well. Outbreaks of measles in Saudi Arabia despite vaccine coverage over 95%.

My point in all this is just to show that vaccines aren't a guarantee of immunity - outbreaks still occur and the concept of herd immunity is questionable if outbreaks are occurring in populations with vaccination rates above the herd immunity of 95%.

herd immunity target of 95%

'Babies start getting immunised at 8 weeks as their maternal antibodies wear off.'

Sorry, that is not correct. Where is your evidence for this being the reason? I was never able to find a clinical reason and was told by a GP that it was to catch babies before their mothers go back to work.....