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.

" Now, please, reciprocate and point out exact where I was "incorrect" in my "assumptions":"

I have replied previously. See several pages back.

Remember Blair not telling the public if Leo had had the MMR jab.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1033338.ece

The Times said

"Cherie Blair, who has indulged in plastic hip-reducing therapy pants, acupuncture earrings to beat stress and a crystal pendant to promote calm, is known for her scepticism over many aspects of conventional medicine, including the benefits of vaccines.

She has also been influenced by her sister Lindsey, a lawyer turned homeopath, and her half-sister Lauren, who has fiercely criticised the bonus payments GPs receive for administering MMR, and declared that her daughter Alexandra would never receive it.

The lifestyle guru Carole Caplin, who once exerted great influence over Cherie Blair, claims today that "extremely powerful forces" consisting of "leading figures in the medical establishment, senior civil servants and government health advisers" have suppressed debate on the vaccine and "discredited anyone questioning MMR".

"At the heart of the conventional medicine system there exists a toxic mix of money, great power and arrogance," she says in The Mail on Sunday. "So, when a courageous lone voice, such as Dr Andrew Wakefield, emerges from within their own ranks, the medical and health establishment see him as a traitor who must be crushed," she says."

Here is Carole Caplin's article in the Daily Mail

is no one allowed to question MMR

Why did so many doctors and nurses refuse to take the swine flu vaccine, when they are in close contact with patients. Hadn't they heard the "irresponsible" arguments?

Are all of these educated people fruit loops?

sorry Carole Caplin article is here

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-259834/Why-allowed-question-MMR.html

Lol at sensitivity over being called names.

Go on. You were woolly with me. See if you can do better with cote.

Rubbish. You haven't responded to Cote, me, silverfrog, leonie, any of us except to keep repeating "you're wrong". Because you can't.

Just a quick one but the poster below says becuase your friends / neighbours children regressed... (sorry, typing one handed cant c and p- sleeping toddler)

Posters here are talking about their own gene pool: siblings of a child that regressed. DS4 has 2 asd siblings, grandfather, other relations....

He started own an asd path and our hearts sank

but now he seems to have a few traits and is swimming along merrily- chatty, engaged... but he does have traits and that to me suggests either a partially untriggered genetic possibility or a gene combo balancing the outcome

What it also means though is I don't just imagine likelihoods I assess every little thing: gluten free until 2, BF now, casein free (like his 2 asd siblings he has to be anyway- another flag IMO)

So far whatever we are doing, something is working. He might tiptoe around NT sometimes but this'll do for me and a chils vaccinated against measles is not going to pose a risk to your child anyway.

You want him to not spread mumps? campaign for thar jab to be reinstated then.

Peachy you are so patient and sincere.

Can we just nail this "anecdote" lie?

This is not women gossiping at a coffee morning and telling shaggy dog stories.

We are talking about clinical presentations, consultant's assessments, hospital admissions. We are talking about enough evidence on the regression of 1800 hundred children to secure extended legal aid.

So leave it with the anecdote lie. Change the record.

agree with Peachy.

we have not kept dd2 vaccine free on a whim (and I ask again - has there been anyone on here who did? on a mere whim?)

dd1 responds well to a gf/cf diet (hmm, looks like Wakefield may have been on to somehting there then!).

as per recommnedation, we kept dd2 gf/cf until 2 (and, in fact longer, since she too is doing a similar tiptoe-ing around NT as Peachy's ds4)

again, what we are doing seems to be working - she walks a fine line sometimes, but overall she is doing ok.

she too has a large family history of both ASD issues, and autoimmune diseases/gut issues.

the constant assessment of what is current thinking (in the autism world), and what we could/should be doing is exhausting. it is not a decision that is taken lightly, and I do not know anyone who has taken this decision lightly.

"We are talking about enough evidence on the regression of 1800 hundred children to secure extended legal aid."

Do you mean for MMR claims? If you do mean MMR, that was before the research was discredited. Legal Aid funding was withdrawn for all but two of the MMR claims several years ago as the causal link was not proven.

I am a lawyer and I worked with it at the time.

Silverfrog...wtf?

I don't care what you do re your children. Vaccinate them, don't vaccinate them.

That is your choice. I have said (and will say again) that you are not stupid. You are not wrong.

Apples, your experience is that vaccines damage children. That is your opinion. I respect that. I don't think you are wrong or stupid for holding that opinion.

Now, because you can't stop twisting my words, I will no longer engage with you. You are reading what you want.

You want me to tell you that I think all these mums on here, saying that vaccines damage their children are wrong ,& stupid don't you? Well I won't, because I don't believe that are!

Of course I mean MMR. There was enough evidence to secure extended legal aid. I wrote about this earlier up the thread. Legal aid funding was withdrawn when the claimants were given a deadline to come up with more evidence. It seems the Commission wanted the case "proved" before it even came before a judge. Which is not quite the point of legal action, civil or criminal.

I have never said it's proof. It is, however, evidence. It certainly wasn't discredited. Perhaps you are referring to the Wakefield study -- but then, that wasn't discredited either. It was great evidence to suggest more research would be a good thing. Which is what Wakefield wanted.

"your experience is that vaccines damage children...I don't think you are wrong"

excellent.. a convert

different, you just can't see that

"there is no link between vaccines and asd"

and

"those thousands of parents are not wrong"

are just plain self-contradictory statements

But you said: "We are talking about enough evidence on the regression of 1800 hundred children to secure extended legal aid."

Legal Aid was withdrawn and I was doing my training at that point so it must have been 6-7 years ago. You didn't say it was secured and then withdrawn years ago.

So from your post alot of people who don't know the legal chronology of it may have thought that there was still ongoing litigation with extended legal aid. But that isn't the case. Just so people are clear.

Withdrawing to sit on the fence again. No stongly held views in either camp as said earlier

different, you just can't see that

"there is no link between vaccines and asd"

and

"those thousands of parents are not wrong"

are just plain self-contradictory statements

Where have I said any of that!

I did say that, earlier up the thread. This is an ongoing conversation. Of course it was withdrawn, or there would have been a case.

It was, however, secured for an extended period. By large amounts of evidence. As a lawyer, I'm sure you know they don't hand out thousands of pounds for "anecdote".

"It seems the Commission wanted the case "proved" before it even came before a judge. Which is not quite the point of legal action, civil or criminal."

It's not normally the point with most cases, but it is the case with medical scientific cases. To be fair it would be very hard for a Judge to make a ruling on a medical claim without hard evidence. In fact they probably can't. That's why they needed to prove a causal link first. Judges and lawyers are not scientists.

To cite example imagine a clinical negligence case that is nothing to do with vaccines. Say, an operation went wrong and some was harmed or killed. You cannot go to court without hard medical evidence to support or dispute the facts. The Judge is not medically qualified and without evidence he can't decide the case. Medicine and medical practices are not his specaility, he doesn't know what's negligent and waht's not.

The only point i make from this is that it wasn't a conspiracy to make them prove it first. They have to have hard evidence before going to trial first as a judge can't decide without it.

That's all.

But the legal aid chronology is interesting is it not?

That the case had cost substantial amounts of money, nit least because of the behaviour of the lawyers acting for various of the defending companies, sufficiently to cause their behaviour to be admonished in court by the presiding judge. And then, just as trial was approaching, the funding was pulled.
After all that time and money a relatively small amount would have allowed the cases to proceed and yet poof, suddenly it was over.

Then the lawyers for various of the pharmacy companies wrote to the parents of the litigants, almost all of them the impoverished parents of severly disabled children and asked for confirmation that they would never attempt to resurrect the cases or they would individually be per sued for the horrendous and extravagant fees that the pharmacy companies had run up.

Not a day that made me terribly proud of the British judicial system

Sorry appletrees! It's a LONG thread and I haven't read 100% of it.

well you've said they're not wrong

you've also said you have a different opinion to me, which is that there is a link between vaccines and asd

so which isn't true...

that's ok

am posting to two different people

erk

legal aid used to a hell of alot more easy to secure several years ago than it is now. LA used to be available for all sorts, personal injury claims and the like.
Now legal aid has been clobbered.

So at the time the funding was granted it was in an era where it was easier to get funding so I don't think there was much in it to get extended legal aid over a decade ago.

A1980 ..interesting post. Which side were you on?

ps pag quite. was going to mention those home-delivered threats

So you are saying, as a lawyer involved, tht the claimants secured legal aid on the grounds of "anecdote"?

I highly doubt that.

Actually it was still pretty difficult. You hadcto detail cause of action and the likelihood of success plus the vulnerability of the claimants were weighed.
It was not a free for all and the substantial number of claimants had made the legal aid board consider carefully which would be accepted.

To qualify you had to have some reasonable 'proof' or evidence of regression and that should be supported by a third party preferably.

The public interest in the case made the desire to have the evidence explored in court compelling. So the decision to pull funds was not expected by many