To think Andrew Wakefield has blood on his hands for causing so much distrust over the MMR?

[chicaguapa]

That's it really. He's caused so much damage with his stupid little study. It was years ago, he was struck off, the study was discredited, but people still don't get the MMR because of it.

To answer the op, no he doesn't have blood on his hands, his research was discredited and study's done in the U.K, North America, Europe, Scandinavia and Japan said MMR was safe, if some parents are to stupid to see what's staring them in the face and believe some of the rubbish printed in the papers they only have themselves to blame.

Cote has said why - She will vaccinate only when her children are at risk.

She has yet to explain, despite being asked on several occasions, what damage a rubella vaccine will do to her children.

I don't agree that Cote is coming across badly, and I don't think she is putting pregnant women at risk.

Women are perfectly capable of getting themselves vaccinated or checked for immunity. Grown adults should not need babies to protect them.

Pregnant women are no more at risk from Cotes children than they are from six month old babies, and if women protect themselves, they are not at risk at all.

StayAwayFromTheEdge - re "She has yet to explain, despite being asked on several occasions, what damage a rubella vaccine will do to her children"

I have answered this several times, most recently yesterday evening (see below). This thread would be much easier if some of you would calm down and actually read what is written:

CoteDAzur Sun 07-Apr-13 21:40:12
"what exactly do you think will happen to your children if they are vaccinated for rubella?"

Obviously, some of us are having trouble with comprehending English in full sentences, so let's try another way:

1. Cote no like unnecessary vaccines.

1. Rubella vaccine unnecessary for boys >> hence DS unvaccinated

1. Rubella immunity unnecessary for babies & little girls >> hence DD unvaccinated still at age 7

1. Lifelong immunity from having rubella = GOOD. Waning immunity from a vaccine from 10 years ago = BAD >> hence hope DD has rubella, but test her in her teens, and vaccinate at that point.

I hope it is clear now, because there are not many more ways I can explain it all.

Cote is making perfect sense to me.

Are you saying the rubella vaccine is 100% safe stay?

"Pregnant women are no more at risk from Cotes children than they are from six month old babies, and if women protect themselves, they are not at risk at all"

Six month old babies and pregnant women would benefit from herd immunity if everyone (except those advised not do) were responsible and vaccinated.

The problem with pregnant women is many do not realise that they may not be immune and do not find out until it is too late.

Show me the evidence that it isn't Saint.

Those of you with pitchforks shouting "Cote is putting pregnant women at risk" also haven't understood the post where I said that my unvaccinated DS has already had rubella at 4 months.

What exactly should I have done not to "put pregnant women at risk"? He wasn't going to nursery. He wasn't socialising with other kids. I didn't know he had rubella until I read later on that the redness I noticed behind his ears two days before the pinprick rash was a symptom of rubella.

Cote - But what damage will it do? - I am not saying that have having immunity checked before TTC is not a good thing to do, however many people do not realise that is an option or find themselves accidentally pregnant.

Sorry Cote - I assumed you had more than one unvaccinated child.

Are you actually serious stay? You can probably google the vaccine manufacturers info sheet but this link is pretty comprehensive (think it's copied from the manufacturers insert

"The problem with pregnant women is many do not realise that they may not be immune and do not find out until it is too late."

It is women of childbearing age whose immunities need to be tested. They are the ones who need to be vaccinated if they are not already immune (and the vast majority will be, if children are allowed to have this very benign childhood disease).

It is irrational to vaccinate half of the population (boys) unnecessarily for a very mild disease who is only dangerous when it infects non-immune pregnant women.

It is also irrational to vaccinate baby girls for this disease, because they will only need this immunity when they are of childbearing age. Not when they are toddlers. And vaccine immunity wanes (or seldom doesn't take at all) whereas natural immunity is lifelong.

I have been saying the above over and over and nobody can find a problem with its logic.

Stay do you genuinely not realise that every vaccination carries with it a risk of side effects ranging from mild to severe. They might be unusual but they occur - which is why it's entirely appropriate to ask whether a vaccination is necessary. And indeed decide it isn't

I for one am reading what has been written, and on that basis would describe many of your posts as aggressive, sneering and self-important.

Irrespective of your views of the impact of the Rubella virus on your own children, concerns regarding the impact of needlessly unvaccinated children upon society as a whole, particularly upon those who are vulnerable or pregnant, cannot be so cavalierly discounted. It was precisely for the protection of the latter that the vaccine was introduced in the first place. None of us lives in a vacuum.

And as to the potential damage this Rubella vaccine might do to your children - you have persistently failed to answer this question.

"Cote no like unnecessary vaccines" hardly constitutes a reasoned explanation.

"I am not saying that have having immunity checked before TTC is not a good thing to do, however many people do not realise that is an option or find themselves accidentally pregnant"

This is why I'm saying that the mass vaccination needs to be offered to girls (not boys) in their teens (not as babies).

They manage to do it with Gardasil (HPV vaccine) and can easily add Rubella vaccine to the program. After testing for immunity, of course, to avoid unnecessary vaccination.

' didn't know he had rubella until I read later on that the redness I noticed behind his ears two days before the pinprick rash was a symptom of rubella.' - as rubella is infectious before the rash appears your son may have infected other people without you even knowing it. Nothing you can do about that - he was too young for vaccination and you didn't know he'd been exposed. However if vaccination rates were higher and the disease rarer then you would never have been in the position of carrying an infectious child around with you for a week. By not vaccinating your other child you've contributed to the situation further.

I didn't know he had rubella until I read later on that the redness I noticed behind his ears two days before the pinprick rash was a symptom of rubella.

So this rubella, am I to take it you "diagnosed" it yourself? Are you medically trained, then?

"would describe many of your posts as aggressive, sneering and self-important."

... but not wrong.

I was much more patient in the beginning of the thread, but after about 500 posts of being called names, my patience is wearing thin.

I don't care that you don't like the tone of my posts. If you can't find an error in them, then you will just have to accept that I am right in doing what I do, whether or not it fits in with what you think I should do.

4.8 Undesirable effects
Gastrointestinal: the most commonly-observed adverse events are gastrointestinal in nature. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, dyspepsia, abdominal pain, melaena, haematemesis, ulcerative stomatitis and gastrointestinal haemorrhage have been reported following ibuprofen administration. Less frequently, gastritis, duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer and gastrointestinal perforation have been observed. Epidemiological data indicate that of the seven most widely used oral, non-aspirin NSAIDs; ibuprofen presents the lowest risk of upper gastrointestinal toxicity.
Hypersensitivity: hypersensitivity reactions have been reported following treatment with ibuprofen. These may consist of (a) non-specific allergic reaction and anaphylaxis, (b) respiratory tract reactivity comprising asthma, aggravated asthma, bronchospasm or dyspnoea, or (c) assorted skin disorders, including rashes of various types, pruritus, urticaria, purpura, angioedema and, less commonly, bullous dermatoses (including epidermal necrolysis and erythema multiforme).
Cardiovascular: Oedema, hypertension and cardiac failure have been reported in association with NSAID treatment. Clinical trial and epidemiological data suggest that use of ibuprofen, particularly at high dose (2400 mg/ daily), and in long term treatment may be associated with a small increased risk of arterial thrombotic events (for example myocardial infarction or stroke) (see section 4.4).
Other adverse events reported less commonly and for which causality has not necessarily been established include:
Renal: nephrotoxicity in various forms, including interstitial nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and renal failure.
Hepatic: abnormal liver function, hepatitis and jaundice.
Neurological and special senses: visual disturbances, optic neuritis, headaches, paraesthesia, depression, confusion, hallucinations, tinnitus, vertigo, dizziness, malaise, fatigue and drowsiness.
Haematological: thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, agranulocytosis, aplastic anaemia and haemolytic anaemia.
Dermatological: photosensitivity (see 'hypersensitivity' for other skin reactions)

Ibuprofen - Undesirable effect far worse, but I imagine that many of you use it (including me).

Most drugs have a similar profile - Unless you refuse all medication, printing a list of possible side-effects is a pretty poor argument.

currentbuns - Here in France, children are closely followed by their paediatricians from birth. I took DS to his paediatrician when I noticed during a nappy change that his body was covered with a pinprick rash. She asked me about the previous days and I told her about:

• very slight 37.5 C fever several days before that lasted for a day or so
• red behind the ears at this time, which I thought was just him rubbing his ears
• red patch on his forehead that morning
• and now this rash

She said that all of the above are symtoms of rubella.

So no, I didn't diagnose him myself

*"would describe many of your posts as aggressive, sneering and self-important."

... but not wrong.*

On the contrary, very wrong indeed. For the reasons I mention in the very same post. Don't cherry pick the stylistic argument and ignore the rest. In truth, your aggressive tone is largely immaterial - it is the arrogance and social irresponsibility behind it which is more troubling.

Well arthritis has been associated with rubella vaccination. Certainly it was listed as a potential side effect when ds1 was due his & had been reported as an adverse reactuon since the 70's.

Please inform me about what is "wrong" in my decision re the best interests of my children:

Is it that I am not vaccinating DS for rubella, ever?

Is it that I am not vaccinating DD until she is tested for immunity in her teens?

Is it my conviction that it is best if DD has rubella by then, so she will be immune for life?

I didn't know he had rubella until I read later on that the redness I noticed behind his ears two days before the pinprick rash was a symptom of rubella.

I took DS to his paediatrician...She said that all of the above are symtoms of rubella.

So which was it then? One minute you read that these were the symptoms and realised that dc had had rubella - the next, you report the symptoms to a doctor and are told it corresponds with rubella.

Re social responsibility. What about your social responsibility to your own child? Who is responsible if your child reacts to a vaccination?