What on earth is wrong with vaccinating children ffs?

[poshsinglemum]

I'm sure this has been done before a million times.

A friend of mine who has gone all woo recently isn't vaccinating her dd because some quack gave a lecture on the evils of vaccinating. My ex boyfriends mum was a complete quack/chrystal healer and begged me not to vaccinate against typhoid, encaphalitus, rabies etc when I went to the third world. She gave me a homeopathic kit. Needless to say I got the jabs anyway.

I think that the ''evidence'' not to vaccinate is coming from the woo crew and is fuelled by paranoid conspiracy theories concerning the pharmeceutical industry. I am not completely convinced by the industry myself but I'd rather take a chance on them than my dd getting polio etc.

I just read the MIL thread but I have been meaning to discuss this for ages.

statalover: I do not encourage anyone to immunise, or not to immunise.

I suggest that people may want ot read deeply arund the subject, and come to a conclusion which suits them and their family.

I do resent the implication that i have come to the conclusions I have because I live in a nice risk-free situation which has allowed me to do so.

I ahven't always. I lived abroad, and dd1 was born abroad. the vaccines which caused her damage were administered abroad, and were ones which dh & I had not consented to, and were trying to stop the nurse administering. this was a htird world country.

if we lived somewhere with lower vaccination rates, my decision for my children woudl be the same, because I haven't taken it lightly. they are safer not having jabs, than they are having them.

I do not rely on the rest of society to keep them safe, and would have come to the same conclusions for them (and I stress for them) if the general vaccination rates were lower.

nice to see you won't actually answer questions based on the facts of what happened, statalover (rather than those based on the general farcicial reporting and non-sensical decisions reached by the gmc)

Good post LookToWindward

my thoughts exactly

So the GMC committee (including 2 laypeople) struck Wakefield off in order to increase the value of their shares.

Just wondering if maybe the same people spread the rumours about the polio vaccine in Nigeria since if that wouldn't have happened, polio would have been eliminated and then no more polio vaccines would have been sold. Now, there's a conspiracy for you.

silverfrog

"I do resent the implication that i have come to the conclusions I have because I live in a nice risk-free situation which has allowed me to do so"

Then you're clearly not carrying out a fully informed risk analysis

And nothing's risk free btw

As I said quite a few times, I have belief in the professional integrity of the GMC. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

So the fact that murch also recommends the mmr? Is that also due to a wish for more cash?

jesus, statlover, do you have even an ounce of sensitivity.

do you tihnk I don't know that nothing is risk free?

you stated "ANd the reason the risk is low is because you like in a highly immunised society so you should be out there encouraging all others to immunise so that your child is protected"

I explained that this is not, actually the case.

that I took decisions on which jabs dd1 should have when I lived in a third world country.

that do not, and have never relied on herd immunity as the reason why my children can remain unvaccinated.

that even if we lived in a situation where herd immunity did not exist, I would take the same decision.

so, care to retract your wild accusation tha ti have not vaccinated my children (in particular dd2, since dd1 has had some jabs) because I live in a low risk environment

Yes, you know that because he publicly declared it himself in the published register of members' interests. If one of the panel had a significant secret share holding you might have a point, but your evidence of a conspiracy is the information Kumar has himself supplied which is in the public domain.

And banging on about the libel case again, not only was Wakefield fully funded by the MPS, if he'd not chickened out and taken it to court, Deer would have been the one on trial, and the onus would have been on him to prove every one of his serious allegations against Wakefield. The fact that Wakefield dropped the action after 2 years when it faced going to trial, would indicate that he was 'doing a Robert Maxwell' and using threats of libel to scare critics off. It didn't work.

I curious to know the answer to this one. Please answer truthfully anti vac ladies. If you and your family were going to visit a high risk rabies area would you get the vaccination. Rabies is (quoting the WHO) nearly always fatal and kills 55,000 Worldwide per year
I'm very interested to know what risks would be taken in this case not having herd immunity to rely on.

boo -I lived in a high risk rabies area for several years.

and no, I didn't ahve the vaccination (I am not anti-vax, btw. I just haven't given anymore ot my daughters after one suffered a serious reaction)

so, I lived htere, I didn't have the rabies vax,neither did dh.

and dd1 didn't have it, neither would she have done if we had continued ot live there (we moved away when she was a baby)

I do however agree that the email sent by deer in Leonids video I'd hideous and think that the letter from the parents to the gmc is very moving and should not just be dismissed. Anecdotal evidence is not no evidence and parents experiences should be taken seriously.

However none of thar means that the mmr is more risky than the illnesses it protects against. And I ask again do you think that the fact that Murch recommends it is just to line his pockets?

Sorry for autocorrect

silverfrog

I don't understnad why you have to bring it down to the personal level. As I said, I don't know the details of any one person's case.

However, IF when you decided not to vaccinate, you didn't take into account the risk of contacting the disease then how could you perform a proper risk analysis?

in any case, not all third world countries are the same so it's meaningless to just refer to a third world country as though they are a homogeneous entity - some have higher vaccination uptake than we do because parents know they don't have the same fall back on a developed health system if things go wrong. Unfortunately, conspiracy theories took hold in Nigeria and meant that worldwide elimination of polio did not happen.

statalover, why would you think I didn't take into accoutn the risk of contracting the disease?

sorry, jus tto make it clear - you were the one making assumptions about why I had come to the conclusion I had come to (wrt living in a low-risk environment)

you then have assumed that i have not undertaken a full risk analysis (I am not sure why you would assume that one)

if these assumptions are not bringing it to a personal level, I am not sure what would be.\

I am answering those posts, made by you, about my situation.

I do not mind you making these assumptions (ie I am not taking it personally), but I am correcting the assumptions as they arise.

because you said that you'd not have vaccinated regardless of the the vaccine uptake rate.

How do you know that the same reasons that lead you to believe that you are at higher risk of vaccine damage aren't the same ones that would put you at higher risk of damage from the disease? Since many of the physiological and immunological responses are similar, it's be a highly plausible theory.

oh, and fyi, the third world country I was living in was one with high rates of diseases which can genrally be vaccinated against.

some of these I was happy for dd1 to have jabs against.

some of them I wasn't.

some of the jabs we refused dd1 was given anyway, without our consent.

yes, I did look into likelihood of dd1 contracting these diseases (why wouldn't I?) and likelihood of her having complications if she did indeed contract them.

OK, that's fine. You're the one who insists on using your own personal example as some kind of clinching argument.

And no, for the record, I don't think you did an accurate risk analysis based on the full evidence available. I think that's a reasonable assumption but I understand that you will disagree with me on that point.

yes, I would not have given dd2 any jabs at all, regardless of vaccination uptake rate.

herd immunity (or lack thereof) makes no difference ot her mitochondrial disorder.

so, if we lived in a country with a high measles rate, she would be as at risk form the jab, as she is living here in a country with a relatively low measles rate.

her risk of reaction to the jab does not change, regarldess of the disease prevalence.

the only tie my situatin is a clinching argument, is, err, for my situation.

our family circumstances are such that there is pretty incontrovertible evidence that dd2 would be damaged by vaccinating her.

so why would I vaccinate her?

< I have never used this as evidence that anyone else should not vaccinate, btw. as I said earlier, my argument is always that one should read as much as possible, take into account family circumstances and history, and come to a conclusion that is right for you as an individual and as a family>