Measles Outbreak?

[MoaningLisa]

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?

All medicines have to undergo testing before being legally allowed to be administered. It may not be as rigorous as you would like - but your not suggesting that gps are administering vaccines illegally are you?

I guess this would be where you and I agree to differ - I have faith in the vaccination programs and legality of them and you do not. I do not believe that pharmaceuticals are able to test untried vaccines on British children.

This is where we come full circle back to conspiracy theory. Which I do not buy into.

I never mentioned anything about illegal.

but rigorous safety testing and the current UK vaccine schedule do NOT go hand in hand.

in fact, the schedule as a whole has never been tested, which is interesting.

even the much feted Cochrane reiview, commissioned ot quell doubts re: mmr once and for all concluded that the safety trials had been wholly inadepquate, and that no conclusion could be drawn wrt it's safety. and that is a gov. report...

still.

carry on in oyur nice little cosy bubble.

must be lovely and warm in there.

Do you know, I remember when the Hib/MenC was introduced and I asked the nurse about it. She said it would save on average a hundred babies' lives a year. Isn't that great - that does gives me a warm cosy bubble feeling - 100 less mothers grieving their babies each year.

Meningitis, pneumonia and measles are not mild diseases - there can be mild cases but they can, have and do kill children. That is why the vaccination program is so far reaching world wide.

It doesn't mean I don't believe in side effects - but as I keep harping on, I believe the risk of the side effects is less than the risk of the disease.

And mumps is horrible - I wouldn't wish it on anyone and thats without the dangerous secondary symptoms. There apparently were fewer than 100 cases of mumps in 2005 - we are so very close to eradicating these nasty, pointless diseases.

Nuttychic, I am sure your children have lovely immune systems - most children do. However, a few brushes with smallpox, diptheria and polio might test them to the very limit. Good job they've been eradicated by the vaccination program.

Fancy testing your child's immunity with a dose of smallpox? 80% fatality rate. Of course your children might be among the lucky 20%, but I'm glad I don't need to put that one to the test.

hahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaahhaahhaahhaahhaahhahahahahahahhahaahhahahahahahaha

ROFL at less than 100 cases of mumps, and being close to eradicating

mumps is rife in universities, and has been for years - do you not read the news?

mumps is the least effective component of the mmr, and is the reason they keep tinkering with it (was also the bit that caused all the problems re: Urabe strain etc). they have to keep revising the mumps component, as they were not achieving immunity, at all.

oh, do keep on going, curly - you are giving me a right old laugh.

Wow curly, your figures are way off. There were over 43,000 cases of mumps in the UK in 2005. Check your old friend the hpa website. :) You really didn't look into this much did you?

What about the children killed in car accidents? Are they collateral damage to us all using our cars? We must think so as a society, or we would ban cars.

Yes they are actually. But its funny how complacent "society" can be towards the issue of using cars and transporting children in them when its clearly higher risk than vaxing or not vaxing our children. Here on this thread we have pro-vaxers being alarmed at non-vaxers' complacency towards disease. But are they just as alarmed at car users' complacency towards motor accidents?? Oh no, wait. Most of them probably are car users themselves.

And don't even try to justify that a car is absolutely necessary. If there's a will there's a way. Cycle. Walk. Take the bus. Take the train. Even if its a toil. If you truly believe you don't need a car, you will find ways not to use it. Just choosing to cycle instead of drive alone would reduce the rate of casualties on the road greatly. Do you really believe that the government/authorities are going to ban cars even if its obviously no good for us? Not to mention the environmental pollution they cause, and the middle-eastern wars this has caused. No. Obviously the authorities don't always act consistently with regard to our safety, do they? Don't get me wrong... Its not about conspiracy theories. You don't need to believe in conspiracy theories to realise this is not quite right. They should ban cars. Shouldn't they? Why not? Because cars are really safe for children? How much so in comparison to vaccinations?? Come on :)

We don't need to ban cars. We just need to stop using them. Are you willing to? Because I find it very inconsistent for someone who thinks its okay for children to risk suffering from a severe reaction from a vax, but also thinks its perfectly fine to continue driving on roads with their child strapped in it. So somehow its "okay" in some people's minds to continue using cars, but not okay to not vax? Really inconsistent set of morals there.

oh, and regarding Hib/MenC - I didn't say it didn't save lives (nice side swerve, thoguh)

I said it had inadequate safety trials. and that the population was being used as a mass clinical trial.

highly unethical imo.

and I would say a 10% rate of side effects was unacceptable, tbh.

after all - the rare complications form measles, at 1 in 1000 (or higher) are unacceptable. but a 10% rate, in a vaccine? oh, yes - tha'ts fine.

I didn't say we needed to ban cars - I said society regards children victims of car accidents as collateral damage in the same way society regards anyone who has an adverse reaction to any medicine as collateral damage.

I do believe that getting into the car, or even walking down the road is a far greater risk to my children than any vaccination risk.

Which was why I have happily had all vaccinations available, and so have my children.

I have had full blown mumps, I also have bowel disease....................now THAT is something I would not wish on someone.

Curly are you protected against measles etc?

And can I add, from a midwife's perspective, for those who think that we only practice medical interventions that are proved safe and effective that you are living in a bloody dream world. How lovely to have such faith in our government and medical/pharmacological systems, but how naive. Every day of my life I practice non evidence based interventions on women, as do many other HCPs willingly or not. Thankfully, most of them are not dangerous but who knows, as no adequate trials are carried out and those that are taken as gospel are hopelessly flawed 'Hannah Term Breech Trial' anyone? Fundamentally changed the way women birth their babies to this day, and is now universally panned!

not going to answer the fact that the gov's own report concluded inadequate safety trials then, curly?

or what about even admitting that mumps is nowhere near being eradicated (and this is NOT down to Wakefield - uptake of the mmr was dropping before 1998, as the public lost confidence in a jab that kept ebing chopped abd changed about, and that had caused all manner of problems when introduced)

"I do believe that getting into the car, or even walking down the road is a far greater risk to my children than any vaccination risk. Which was why I have happily had all vaccinations available, and so have my children."

You know its risky to travel by car and have your children travel by car, yet you still do it. But wait. Let's vax them so it reduces their risks of dying by a little. Yes. Does the vax make you feel like you're being a good responsible mother then, despite resorting to using the car for travel??

The idiom "A drop in the ocean" springs to mind...

Beg your pardon on the mumps stats.

They were taken from the NHS choices website - but I misread- my mistake was due to trying to enjoy half term time with my family while doing this!!

I will correct:

In 1996, following the introduction of the MMR there were fewer than 100 cases. In 2005 there were over 43000 cases.

The NHS website actually attributes this to a drop in the take up of the MMR - haven't checked if these match the HPA figures, but for heaven's sake, I'm on my phone and it's tricky and time consuming!

However, if the mmr uptake increased then mumps would be eradicated - just like smallpox.

er, no. because the mumps component wears off.

there are scores of university students who contract mumps each year.

they (mostly) had the mmr.

and are no longer immune.

it is widely accepted that mmr has just pushed mumps into an older age group - where the effects will be worse, and complications more common (it has always been known that mumps is worse in adulthood)

this is NOT due to the downturn in mmr uptake. not solely, anyway.

a student today (take my dss - 20, and at uni) had mmr back when it was introduced (intro'd in 1988, iirc). so dss had it in 1992ish. he (and his friends) are all not immune - they ahve recently been tested, at my behest - dss is off ofr travelling.

what happened there, then?

immunity waned. thats what.

the vaccine does not work it provides inadequate coverage. that is why mumps is on the increase.

sorry, shoudl say *on the increase amongst adults

"I said society regards children victims of car accidents as collateral damage in the same way society regards anyone who has an adverse reaction to any medicine as collateral damage."

So what ? Who cares if "society" regards something as right or wrong? Isn't it better to have independence of mind? In the olden days "society" regarded it acceptable to stone heretics to death. Thankfully "society" changed... not thanks to the sheeple who believe that whatever "society" deems right must be right.

We don't need to ban cars. We just need to stop using them. Are you willing to? Because I find it very inconsistent for someone who thinks its okay for children to risk suffering from a severe reaction from a vax, but also thinks its perfectly fine to continue driving on roads with their child strapped in it. So somehow its "okay" in some people's minds to continue using cars, but not okay to not vax? Really inconsistent set of morals there

But tigercomestotea you could turn that argument right on its head! If you are anti-vax you are not willing to take the tiny risk that your child could be damaged but presumably you are happy to drive your children around, which has a far, far higher risk of damaging them in some way! As you said, no-one has to drive, so why is that a risk you are willing to take regarding your children's safety when vaccines inspire such fear?

I'm pretty neutral in this debate btw, just wanted to point out that that argument works both ways

I have had all mine vaccinated to protect them and the population who cant (cancer patients etc)

My dd nearly died from Chicken Pox - yes that mild childhood illness we all desparatly want our dc to catch! she caught it at 10months old and now at 4.5 has just had yet another week in hospital (lost count of times been admitted) due to the damage Chicken Pox did her she was also left mildly deaf by the complecations.

if I was to have any more dc they would not only have all those the government pays for I would pay for the chicken pox one aswell - I would not wish what my dd has been through on any body - I dread to think what measls would have done to her.

neutral is an interesting position to take - you have no opinion on vaccination?

or no opinion on collateral damage wrt the vaccine schedule?

I'm not sure that neutral is a place easily gained in this discussion, tbh.

Exactly neutralnora. Can't you see that human beings are hopelessly irrational? Name me someone who is absolutely consistent in their ethics and morals. You will find none. So why is it that the pro-vaxers here are hellbent on calling anti-vaxers selfish and immoral (for allowing children to suffer the possible consequences of non-vaxing and catching the disease)? Whereas I have not seen any of that behaviour coming from the anti-vaxers, calling the pro-vaxers selfish and immoral for allowing children to suffer the possible consequences of vaxing (and driving)? If you've read through this thread carefully you will see it was the pro-vaxers who first went into a self-righteous rage damning all the anti-vaxers as immoral, selfish people.

Oh Silverfrog, like I said, I believe they are tested and safe for the vast majority.

Anyone like to offer any children up to test their natural immunity on a dose diptheria, smallpox or polio? It didn't work too well in the past I understand, what with the child mortality figures set down in history.

Half of all Victorian infants died before they were a year old - HALF. Imagine that - 1 or 2 of my darlings gone before a year old. Would we wish away vaccination and go back to those days? Sanitation cannot account for all the reduction since then (although it played a part) - it is constantly attributed to vaccination programs.

I'll take my chances with the vaccines.

riiiight, so the governemnt's own investigation concluded that safety trials on the mmr vaccine were wholly inadequate, but you think that it was fully tested and safe?!

honestly, this beggars belief.

and it doesn't bother you at all that practically annually they tinker around with it, and change the dosage? without going back to trial, basing this only on assumption - and then release it for general use?

blimey.

Jesus, now you're comparing us to Victorian times?