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.

How many of you would take your DC to be vaccinated against rubella as babies if it were offered as a single vaccine, knowing that it carries a small risk and has absolutely no benefit whatsoever to your babies?

The only way to confirm of Rubella diagnosis is via a blood test.

That is not enough to diagnose Rubella. You also need the swollen glands behind the ears and a lab confirmation. As i said numerous times on this thread well over 90% of cases don't test positive for Rubella.
What about women who can't have Rubella vaccine for whatever reason. How are they supposed to be protected. That's what herd immunity is for. But vaccinating everyone early we have the present situation where there are a few handful of cases a year.

currentbuns - I told the paediatrician and she said "Sounds like Rubella but we can't know without a blood test". I then went and looked up the symptoms of rubella and that is how I was convinced.

Is there anything else I can do for you, any other question you would like me to answer, to facilitate your attack on me for having chosen differently than you in what is not a mandatory vaccine?

X-posts with both of you.

Stay away - yes all medicines come with potential side effects which some people suffer. In the case of vaccinations you are asking healthy people to take the risk - in most (not all) cases the risk from the vaccination is less than the risk of the disease. In the case of rubella for boys you are asking a healthy boy to take a risk for a mild disease. This does have ethical issues.

I told the paediatrician and she said "Sounds like Rubella but we can't know without a blood test". I then went and looked up the symptoms of rubella and that is how I was convinced.

So, in a nutshell - you diagnosed the rubella yourself, ably assisted by Dr. Google.

I am very confused by this.

Why aren't these pregnant women responsible for their own immunity? Babies might not be planned but why can't it be something people look into when they become sexually active as the potential for baby making is there? Why does it become other peoples' responsibility to protect them above their own children?

YADNBU

"Why does it become other peoples' responsibility to protect them above their own children?"

Thank you, Sneezing. My point exactly.

They will now say that they expect parents to vaccinate their children unnecessarily because there is no risk for these children from the vaccine. Which of course is not true.

Once they realise that there is a risk, however small, it becomes ethically indefensible as Jimjams said.

Cote, your posts make perfect sense to me. So much so that I have realised it is the vaccination programme that needs to be changed, and I am wondering why I allowed my children to have the singe rubella vaccine instead of getting myself tested.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the decision you made for your own children.

The fact that many people do not realise that testing women for immunity is an option (myself included) or the fact that people get pregnant unexpectedly (myself included) is not a good enough reason to make a parent inject their child with something they don't need and that they have valid concerns about.

The thing is if everyone decides not to vaccinate because of the very low risk of an adverse reaction then these diseases become very prevalent. Then children with weaker immune systems for whatever reason will be even more at risk so vaccination is a collective responsibility!

No one is saying that some people don't have adverse reactions. People have adverse reactions to lots of things in the environment. That doesn't mean that MMR causes regression into Autism. There is no evidence to link the two variables.

Thank you Clouds

The only way to confirm of Rubella diagnosis is via a blood test.

When my ds was suspected to have rubella (after being vaccinated), I was sent a swap kit in the post and I had to rub the inside of his mouth with a stick then send it off. This was well after his minor rash had disappeared, but the surgery insisted that I did it, because rubella is a notifiable illness. But they never bothered to tell me the results either way afterwards.

Cote not sure where you have been called names but I still await your apology for your inference that I am a 'moron'.

"if everyone decides not to vaccinate because of the very low risk of an adverse reaction then these diseases become very prevalent"

That is a good thing. It means the proverbial non-immune pregnant woman will be a thing of the past.

"children with weaker immune systems for whatever reason will be even more at risk"

Children are not at risk from rubella, unless you are talking about those with no immune system whatsoever and have to live in a bubble. If you knew what a mild disease it is, and how most people even don't know they have had it, you would realise that there are far worse diseases out there that threaten people with compromised immune systems. Like flu, for example.

I didn't call you a moron. I said that post makes you look like one.

There is a difference, and I'm sure MNHQ would be happy to educate you on it if you were to report it like I'm sure you already did.

So whose responsibility is it to protect children with compromised immune systems who can't be vaccinated? Should their parents keep them isolated from other children?

What annoys me is that people seem to feel (though they won't say it directly) that collateral damage is ok, while conveniently ignoring the fact that for that family, whoever they are, and for that child the result is devastating.

The main argument on this thread seems to be that we should assume there is no risk. Someone on another thread was saying the risk is 1 in million I'd like to know how they arrived at that but surely even 1 child damaged is not acceptable. Yes there is also the possibility of damage from a disease but since there are risks on both sides then parents should be able to make their own minds up without coming up against a torrent of abuse.

There is a GP at our surgery who has not vaccinated her child - she must have a reason for arriving at that choice.

I had measles aged 8. I suffered mild brain damage and as a result I am blind in one eye and deaf in one ear. During the same "epidemic" in my area, a boy in another class at my school died.

We all have different DNA, so one vaccine isn't necessarily going to have exactly the same effect on one person as it does on another. Same goes with illnesses - everyone reacts differently.

As a result of my "disabilities" (they aren't really - I lead a perfectly normal life), I had my 3 DCs vaccinated. The eldest has a digestive disorder, the middle one MH issues. Whether or not they are as a result of having had the MMR I will never know.

Cote. I think it's disgusting the way you are being made to justify perfectly rational decisions you have made for your own children because people are too small minded to see that there might be another way to achieve the same outcome.

As my post above shows, practice is different according to different doctors.

'So whose responsibility is it to protect children with compromised immune systems who can't be vaccinated? Should their parents keep them isolated from other children?'

seeker, children with compromised immune systems (or indeed anyone ill woth something like HIV say) could be as much at risk from flu as from measles. So why is it we are not all pressured to have flu vaccinations?

Cote your rudeness is breathtaking. Two things - I did use the word 'inference' which I would have expected you to understand but clearly you did not. Never mind.

The other thing is that I did not report your post as I thought it helpful for other posters to see what you had posted and the kind of offensive language you used. I presume that you see no issue with the word 'moron' then? That is a great shame but unsurprising I suppose.

As apologies goes it was underwhelming btw.

Cote. I was talking about the MMR not solely about rubella.