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?

no the libel case was running before the gmc council he had plenty of time to finish the case before the gmc hearing, if he had acted properly.
The PCC case against Deer is actually still pending and was not upheld pcc complaint
The Judge was a Justice Eady not Kumar .

indeed Leonie, and people on this thread are banging on about 'junk science'.

Conveneience and finances are important considerations. If you spend money on something you can't spend it on something else, and the NHS is getting increasingly stretched as it is.

Deciding to do x because it is cheaper than y and that then means you can do z is perfectly sensible, and possibly medical decision.

electra - catching mothers before they go back to work is a perfectly good medical reason for doing it at eight weeks.

Leonie - But Health and Safety applies at a wider level than the individual. There are many, many cases where because it is cheaper or easier the NHS will use a less effective/riskier treatment - this then allows that time/money to be spent doing something else.

This is as much a clinical/medical decision as it is a financial one.

Money = treatment. The NHS has to look at the broadest possible picture.

We could insist that only the best treatments be used - but we would then have to make even more choices about who would receive no treatment at all.

'electra - catching mothers before they go back to work is a perfectly good medical reason for doing it at eight weeks.'

Not a scientific basis though is it coalition? Where is the evidence that it's safe for babies this young to be vaccinated? You're missing my point.

The younger a person is, the more susceptible they are to neurological changes.

'Health and Safety applies at a wider level than the individual.'

Exactly. So in that case, since the government takes this position it is down to me to consider the needs and safety of my children as individuals.

Electra - It's a perfectly scientific basis.

The question that health care authorities are asking is "When is the best time to vaccinate?"

If by waiting until past 8 weeks you get a drop off of uptake and the disadvantages of this outweigh any advantages of waiting that's a perfectly 'scientific' reason to do it at eight weeks.

Medical Science - particularly public health - isn't just about what goes on inside peoples skins.

'If by waiting until past 8 weeks you get a drop off of uptake and the disadvantages of this outweigh any advantages of waiting that's a perfectly 'scientific' reason to do it at eight weeks.'

Evidence of safety, please - or are you saying the safety of individuals isn't important? As far as I'm aware, zero research has been done about the age vaccines are now given.

PS, why is it that people always use 'perfectly' as an adjective when they're trying to peddle nonsense?

Leonie - You would have to demonstrate that it does cause harm. The point is that you do not have to have a 'clinical' (in the sense of Involving or based on direct observation of the patient) reason to intervene at a particular age. Reasons around resources and behavior are just as scientific and valid.

There is no point insisting on the 'best' treatment/behaviour, if doing so means it is never taken up or that it costs so much you can't give it (or something else) to all those who need it.

So that fact that there is no 'clinical' reason to vaccinate at 8 weeks is a red herring.

Electra - I'm sorry if my adjectival style offends you. I'm not taking extra time to craft these posts into timeless prose.

I haven't read all of this thread because these threads are always a bit predictable really. But I'll say this:

The scaremongering over swine flu last year was unbelieveable, with every case of flue (regardless of testing) being diagnosed as swine flu and tamiflu being prescribed on mass followed by a rush of the vaccination and a further scaremongering campaign in order to ensure the highest possible take-up.

The reality is that there were no more deaths from swine flu than from seasonal flu each year, and of those deaths the vast majority had underlying health conditions which meant they were far more suceptable, which again, happens in the case of seasonal flu.

Ultimately, if a child has an underlying health condition that means you would vaccinate them against seasonal flu, then of course you would be inclined to vaccinate them against swine flu. But there is no more reason to vaccinate otherwise completely healthy people against swine flu - contrary to what the media would have had us believe last year, otherwise totally healthy people were not dropping dead in droves, and this year there has been a small number of cases of swine flu diagnosed, we are nowhere near the pandemic proportions that we were last year so there is really no need to panic.

Viral infection != vaccination.

Most doctors will agree that a live virus, for example can sometimes cause a regression in development but will not accept that a vaccination could do the same thing. There is no sense in how vaccinations are regarded both by medically trained and 'lay' people alike.

With such an obvious lack of common sense and inconsistent thought processes (due, imo to vaccination having a 'holy cow' status), is it any wonder some of us are mistrustful of the principles behind it?