To think this nurse was exaggerating the truth...

[Likeaheadlesschicken]

I have just been to take my DD (13 months) for her injections. I very politely requested to have the 12 month boosters on a separate visit to the MMR. The nurse then told me that every other child in the country has their's together. AIBU to think this isnt the case???

In the end she agreed but after trying to make me feel silly and very PFB-ish. I definately don't want to turn this into a MMR/vaccinations debate, I just feel that it should be "my baby my choice" on how things are done (obviously working within the constraints of the NHS) and that it simply isn't true that ALL children have their injections together.

You say quite a lot is flawed and you produce one study. Studies that are peer reviewed are analysed by fellow experts in the field to make sure it is valid research. The majority of this research says that the risk of vaccines is considerably less than the risk of vaccine preventable diseases in the healthy population and that vaccine overload doesn't exist. You are entitled to have your own view that isn't supported by most good research but to say that it is is simply like saying black is white.

Have a look.

That Madsen study is hailed as a piece of research disproving any MMR-autism link and it says every peer-reviewed study up to 2002 is flawed.

Studies that were used to reassure parents at the time. My trust in peer-review is somewhat limited.

Well then why even bother talking about research at all if you don't even trust the highest standard available. Just say 'I don't like vaccines' because that is basically your argument.

I think you know it isn't, but you ran out of things to say.

You say you don't trust peer reviewed research so what exactly are you basing your view on that mmr is linked with autism? Anecdote? You spoke earlier of 'reported incidents' - you really think anecdote is more reliable than peer-reviewed research?

Juat popping back

Not sure whether to laugh or cry at the idea of SF posting ahte amils: ridiculous notion!

(not that I think anyone would- just have known SF many years now)

Oh sod it I am CRAP at walking away!

I personally trust that peer reviewed research shows MMR safe for the majority: I don't think think the right research has been done for specifically identified subgroups (Could it be? what with ethics etc) and that those groups are so small as to be able to sneak beneath the scope of statistically significant in wider scale research.

Is all.

Do i think MMR is dangerous to all? No. I don't know it is to any, but i think thre might be a case to observe absed on anecdote: and ethically I don't trhink we can research that furtehr. So we either listen to the parents and say well. we would prefer you to vaccinate or have singles but in a few rare situation we can understand if not approve- or we can alienate those same people by treating them as fools and with contempt so tehy distrust us and reject all that is available to them.

(I say we , been a long time since I was in a health job!)

Bringmesunshine - which childhood illnesses were practically eradicated and are all of a sudden making a comeback?

Fwiw your 2 month old is v unlikely to contract measles due to protection from maternal antibodies. Of course, if you have been vaccinated then the maternal antibodies don't last as long as a mother who has contracted the disease naturally. So if your young child does contract measles then you should really blame the vaccine that you had for not enabling you to protect your child when they are at their most vulnerable...

How would you feel about an adult with waning immunity or an adult/child with vaccine failure passing measles on? Or do you just reserve your wrath for the unvaccinated? (which btw your daughter technically is too) Out of curiosity, ave you had your own immunity to measles tested recently?

Ta Peachy

I agree with Peachy. Although (after plenty of research) I am pro vaccine for my DS I still respect other peoples views on the topic and find the whole debate (when not silly name calling!) rather interesting. I can fully understand with the lives some on here lead why they dont feel vaccines are right for there family.

If people believe (rightly or wrongly) that vaccines caused problems then why would they take that risk again?

Peachy , I really agree with your post at 20.02. :) In fact it may have been the most balanced post i've read today.

I think it's insulting when people insinuate that if you are pro-vax, it's simply because you haven't researched it enough - as you said, the science says it is safe for the majority. Maybe, just maybe, though more research needs to be done - the problem is that I doubt there are many scientists wanting to jump into Wakefield's shoes in this country.

I always try to look at science from an evidence based approach - and I try not to be sidelined by conspiracy theories (on any subject). So, does MMR cause autism? Well, the established, accepted medical science says no - but there is obviously now a body of anecdotal evidence and possibly some unreferenced medical studies that say 'yes, maybe' - in a small subset of children. This shouldn't be ignored.

As a parent, I made the decision to vaccinate my children. I, an all my siblings were vaccinated. If evidence, in the form of referenced, peer reviewed science became available that caused me to change my mind, then I would change my mind. Having said that though, all my own experience, childhood and adult is that I have never known anyone have an adverse reaction to a jab, whereas I have known people have bad reactions to the diseases. I think Pagwatch is very correct that a lot of our opinion is based on our own experiences.

Thought I was on the 'vaccination debate' thread there

Think Pagwatch's point that I refer to is on other thread.

PandaPop, I didn't think you were rude :)

"Fwiw your 2 month old is v unlikely to contract measles due to protection from maternal antibodies. Of course, if you have been vaccinated then the maternal antibodies don't last as long as a mother who has contracted the disease naturally. So if your young child does contract measles then you should really blame the vaccine that you had for not enabling you to protect your child when they are at their most vulnerable..."

you know that is unture as it has been explained to you bere. The difference is a matter of a few weeks. There is still about a 6 month gap between when maternal immunity wears off and when the mmr is given, whether it is the mothers natural or virus induced immunity.
Measles was irradicated into the states until it was imported back in by unvaccinated travellers who then infected the vulnerable such as small babies.

There is another unfortunate side effect of measles still circulating in that younger babies who catch measles are often asymptomatic but this leaves them more vulnerable to SSPE. Every case of SSPE that has been investigated has turned out to be caused by wild measles. SO the best way of protecting babies is to irradicate measles by vaccination, not allow it to carry on circulating.

Bruffin, does the fact that it may be only a 'matter of a few weeks' in some cases make what I am saying untrue? Immunity from a vaccinated mother doesn't last as long as immunity from a mother who has contracted the disease - the studies show that.

There are still outbreaks going on in the states and many of them are in adults too. In fact, there have been a few articles discussing how it is spreading because adults have been walking around, going to work etc not realising they have measles.

Also, you are well aware that SSPE is a very rare complication of measles. Yes, it is more of risk in younger children, as are most illnesses but it is still very rare.

But the exta protection is very little and still leaves the child open to measles.

The risk of sspe in a baby is 1 in 8000 the risk of a life changing side effect to a vaccination is 1 in a million.
The only way of preventing babies from getting the disease is by irradicating it.
All of the current epidemics are traced back to pockets of unvaccinated, they are spreading it to those who are unable to be vaccinated ie babies and those with immunities problemss. The death rate of measles is 1- 1000 in the europe, not the third world.

Oh I see. Someone's got a little pro-vaccine vendetta going and is getting a lot of posts deleted.

hmm. I see my post was deleted. that would be the one where I was so offended by another poster saying that my dd being collateral damage was ok that I told them to 'fuck off'? funny that the post saying that it is 'for the greater good' that children are damaged by vaccines still stands - now that I would call an offensive post, tbh.

FWIW, I don't think telling someone to 'fuck off' is a personal attack. it is swearing (but then I thought we were allowed ot do that?), and it is heated, arguably. but personal attack? not imo. obviously it is in MNHQ's.

if I had said "bog off" woudl that have been a personal attack? or "on your way", or "get away with you"? because the only difference is the swear word...

but hey. if posters can't take some swearing (and I assume someone can't as it was reported - would be interested to see what that report message said), then maybe MN is not the site for them? after all, Blueberties is being repeatedly told onthe other thread that "swearing is allowed here" - obviously only by some.

well I know

I said someone was rude for swearing - and my post saying that the person was being rude for swearing was deleted because swearing is allowed

but plainly not from someone talking about vaccine damage

sorry silver but i have a lot of timeon my hands today which is lovely and you are going to get deleted again so ...

hmm. I see my post was deleted. that would be the one where I was so offended by another poster saying that my dd being collateral damage was ok that I told them to xxxxxx? funny that the post saying that it is 'for the greater good' that children are damaged by vaccines still stands - now that I would call an offensive post, tbh.

FWIW, I don't think telling someone to 'zxxxxxxx is a personal attack. it is swearing (but then I thought we were allowed ot do that?), and it is heated, arguably. but personal attack? not imo. obviously it is in MNHQ's.

if I had said "bog off" woudl that have been a personal attack? or "on your way", or "get away with you"? because the only difference is the swear word...

but hey. if posters can't take some swearing (and I assume someone can't as it was reported - would be interested to see what that report message said), then maybe MN is not the site for them? after all, Blueberties is being repeatedly told onthe other thread that "swearing is allowed here" - obviously only by some.

do you reckon? I think MNHQ will come down on the side of saying "fuck off" to someone is a personal attack... which is odd, if you ask me. it isn't calling htem names, saying anything about them as a person, etc. it is swearing.

after all, you can tell someone to 'fuck off' in jest too...

I don't know, I've had a very nice email from hq today explaining why they deleted my list of the abuse from people who, whatever, are more in favour of vaccines but while they deleted that, they left up the original abuse.

However what with all the family being off doing things I have addressed this problem . And by teh way hq also said report it all so we can get rid of it, instead of just leaving up the abuse in a sort of eye-rolling way.

I thought I was being so mild, I can't believe so much got deleted. I didn't say anything abusive and all croc could come up with - as "venom" from me was "go to your rooms" so I have no idea what or why they deleted off this thread.

but there's definitely someone with a weird vendetta thing I'm sure, mn wouldn't do this off their own bat