Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Measles Outbreak?

1003 replies

MoaningLisa · 27/05/2011 13:56

I am sure you have all heard on the news that there has been an outbreak of measles.

Papers, Schools, Hv, Drs are saying if you or your child haven't had the vaccine(s) now would be a good time to get it done.

I cant help but think though that the parents who haven't and wont get their child vaccinated are putting their children at risk.

Aibu to think that its just bloody selfish and very daring to play with their own childs life?

OP posts:
silverfrog · 27/05/2011 22:03

the US government has paid out ot far more children than people realise.

there are the oft quoted cases (Hannah Poling, Bailey Banks), but they have paid out to over 80 other children too - all with vaccine induced autism.

bubblecoral · 27/05/2011 22:05

LooktoWindward How can you be so sure? Why would a number of parents report major differences in the behaviour of their children within days of the MMR if it hadn't happened?

Your certainty is riding on one hell of a coincidence.

Joolyjoolyjoo · 27/05/2011 22:07

The problem with a lot of studies is that they don't take in sufficient numbers and aren't well designed above to provide good scientific evidence. You could do a "study" on anything and draw an (incorrect) conclusiuon if the methods and numbers were not correct to start with. this is the reason why, in all studies published in proper scientific studies, the method and criteria are published as well as the "conclusions" You need to look at the whole study and not just the results.

I have discounted many studies (including Wakefield's) for this reason. I am trained to examine medical studies in this way. Much of the media is not.

trixymalixy · 27/05/2011 22:08

Yes, they recommend the MMR, but it is clear that some children can be damaged by it, so every parent has to weigh up the risks and make their own decision. No one has the right to insist that parents should vaccinate their children.

And agreeing with bubblymummy only a fool would not accept that children can be damaged by the MMR.

Saying that my DS has had the MMR and booster albeit late and I intend DD to have hers soon.

bubbleymummy · 27/05/2011 22:08

That link actually supports what I said bruffin - that maternal antibodies from mothers with naturally acquired immunity last longer than those from vaccinated mothers.

silverfrog · 27/05/2011 22:12

jooly, since you are trained to read studies, you will perhaps have noticed that the 1998 paper was no such thing.

it was a report - a case series, laying out the facts of some patients which Wakefield et al had seen, and presenting a hypothesis as to why/how ther symptoms came about.

it was not a study. it was never intended to be a study. Wakefiled never claimed it was a study.

numbers only mean something if you are looking at the right groups. which none of the studies which claim to have "disproved" the hypothesis have done - in fact, most go out of their way to specifically exclude the right sub-group.

exoticfruits · 27/05/2011 22:12

I for one would be interested to know IF you decided to to visit a country such as India where vaccincations are recommended, would you and your children have them?

I would like to know that too. They seem to be ducking out of it by saying they wouldn't go-BUT if they had to-what would they do?

MurphyWasAnOptimist · 27/05/2011 22:15

sure, trixy, nothing is risk-free, I don't think anyone has said that. If only we lived in a disease free world. but we don't.

of course every parent weighs up the risks. no-one living here in the UK would demand that our children be immunised against yellow fever for example. but specifically for measles, because of all the misinformation there are lots of children for whom it's safer to be immunised who won't be immunised and will be unecessarily at risk - as well as exposing others. i can't believe the bullshit that you read on these threads, people who've fooled themselves into thinking that measles isn't lethal. if i had a little baby and i was living in London, i'd be concerned and very angry as well.

silverfrog · 27/05/2011 22:16

why would I have to, exotic?

it is not ducking out to say that I would not go. I used ot live in Africa - I can no longer visit there as I cannot adequately protect my children.

we have turned down relocations via dh's work, on the basis that we cannot live where they want us to go. and we have had to reconsider several other plans due to the fact that dd1 is vaccine damaged anyway - not so easy to relocate once you have a disabled person in the family. you tend not to be welcomed with open arms.

I am intrigued as to what scenario there woudl be where I would have to visit one of these countries?

exoticfruits · 27/05/2011 22:19

Therefore you are sticking to countries that have herd immunity.

exoticfruits · 27/05/2011 22:19

You would have problems if UK was like Africa.

trixymalixy · 27/05/2011 22:21

The OP said that parents who didn't give their kids the MMR are putting them at risk. I was just pointing out that there are risks to the vaccines too. Everyone assesses risk differently and saying that parents are wrong to have assessed the risk of vaccination as greater is not valid as it's the OPs opinion and risk assessment is subjective.

bruffin · 27/05/2011 22:23

No you said mothers don't pass on immunity if they are vaccinated. If you actually read the paper the immunity last slightly less longer but it still exists.

It seems that most babies immunity will have gone by 6 months whether there mothers immunity was natural or vaccinated immunity gap

MurphyWasAnOptimist · 27/05/2011 22:23

sorry disagree with that one trixy.

perception of risk is subjective. actual risk isn't. parents are NBU in not vaccinating (as they perceive the risk from vaccines to be higher than it is and the risk from disease to be lower) I guess but they are mistaken.

silverfrog · 27/05/2011 22:24

I am sticking to the Uk because 1) that is where we are now, 2) did you not read my post? it is almost impossible to emigrate with a disabled person. we do not have the funds to prove to just about anywhere that we can take care of dd1 for life, 3) dd1 was vaccine damaged in Africa.

I am not here because it is a country with herd immunity. I am here because we returned form Africa for a few years, and now cannot move anywhere else - thanks to the damage done by vaccines.

now, you haven't answered my question, exotic - what bizarre situation are you envisaging where I woudl have to go to India/Africa/wherever?

silverfrog · 27/05/2011 22:25

Murphy: don't be silly.

the risks are higher for some people than others. can you not accept that?

bubbleymummy · 27/05/2011 22:27

Personally, I don't rely on herd immunity to protect my children because, as I've said before, vaccine induced immunity isn't reliable. They could easily catch mumps from the student next to us in the checkout line who thinks he's immune because he had his vaccine when he was younger and doesn't realise that he no longer has that immunity- he may not even realise he has mumps either because approx 35% of cases are asymptomatic so he could be spreading it all over the place while the unvaxed child gets the blame for it.

trixymalixy · 27/05/2011 22:28

The assessment of risk perceived or actual depends on the individual child though. In my case with two multi allergic kids the perceived risk was higher, whether the actual risk is will never be known so I disagree with you. The actual risk as a population of not vaccinating is higher than vaccinating, parents are making decisions based on individuals.

bubbleymummy · 27/05/2011 22:30

Nope bruffin - if you read my post you'll see that I said -

' mothers with naturally acquired immunity are able to pass maternal antibodies on to their children that last longer than vaccine induced antibodies. '

Thanks for the link to back it up.

MurphyWasAnOptimist · 27/05/2011 22:30

Yep and some kids will end up dead from mealses. the risk to them is extremely high I'd say. That's the far far far more likely scenario compared to tiny risk from vaccines. It's like saying that you won't wear a seat belt or strap your kids in the car seat because you live next to a lake (ie you're higher risk) and you might not be able to get them out the car if you drive into it. Ignore the fact that slightly increased tiny risk is still tiny and you're still just as likely to crash the car.

MurphyWasAnOptimist · 27/05/2011 22:32

bubbly

course you rely on herd immunity. every day. just convenient to pretend you don't and that it's 'unreliable'.

silverfrog · 27/05/2011 22:34

no, Murphy. for some children, the risk from vaccines is unacceptably high.

if you cannot acknowledge this, then you have clearly never even read a package insert from any vaccine.

trixymalixy · 27/05/2011 22:34

But the actual risk of first of all catching measles and secondly dying from it are statistically very low.

MurphyWasAnOptimist · 27/05/2011 22:35

trixy - people here have all said that kids with severe allergies and compromised immune systems (a teeny tiny percentage of the pop) shouldn't be vaccinated so v small exception to a blanket statement. Still think most are completely misinformed and read the too much of the DM (as in bubbly's link above) THe thing is that people with compromised immune systems really really need herd immunity because the exact same reason that they can't have vaccines, they certainly can't handle a live measles or whopping cough virus.

trixymalixy · 27/05/2011 22:36

And agree with silverfrog that for some children the risk of vaccine damage is high.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.