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.

Go rather than goes. Apologies for typo.

From NHS Choices

Diagnosing rubella

If you suspect that you or your child has rubella, phone your GP surgery, or call NHS Direct on 0845 4647 straight away for advice.
Do not visit your GP surgery without calling them first. If you do, you will put any pregnant women who may be there at risk of catching the rubella infection.
Your GP should be able to arrange a time for you to visit that won't put other people at risk. Or they may come out to visit you or your child.
You should keep your child away from school (or yourself away from work) until you have seen your GP.
Your GP may suspect that you have rubella from your symptoms, but other viral infections often have similar symptoms, so a blood test is the only way to confirm a diagnosis.
Blood test

A sample of blood will be taken from a vein in your arm and tested for certain antibodies.
Antibodies are proteins that your body produces to destroy disease-carrying organisms and toxins. If you have rubella or you have had it in the past, your blood will test positive for certain antibodies, which are listed below.
The IgM antibody will be present if you have a new rubella infection.
The IgG antibody will be present if you have had the rubella infection in the past, or you have been immunised against it.
If neither antibody is present, you do not have rubella and you have not been immunised against it.

Although the HPA does give instructions for oral fluid testing.

For the two years I worked with a child with a compromised immune system, I was asked to have the flu jab, which I did willingly. But there would have been something very very wrong if every child in the setting I worked in was expected to have a vaccine they didn't need injected into them.

There are some risks in life that you just have to live with and guard against as best you can, without asking small children to take risks themselves.

So anti vaccinators - let's just suppose that everyone took the same view as you and nobody vaccinated their children (as they had done their extensive internet research and were obviously more intelligent and caring now that they had seen the light). What do you think would happen? Really?

Country, which vaccinations are you asking about, because obviously the consequences of each would be different.

In the case of rubella, all that would happen is if people didn't want to vaccinate their babies and pre schoolers is that women would vaccinate themselves when they became sexually active or they began TTC.

There is more than one way to achieve the same protection for pregnant women.

In the case of measles, then obviously there would be more cases of measles and more cases of complications, including death. I don't think anyone is denying that, but this isn't as simple as vaccination v non vaccination. I'm sure that as parents we are all very grateful for the choice we have to be able to vaccinate our children. But this debate was started based on MMR, for which there are valid alternatives. We make our choices for our children based on the situation we have, not a hypothetical one.

But there is only a choice in any real sense because there is such a thing as herd immunity. What if no one vaccinated for MMR? Then what? Then your choice looks a whole lot different doesn't it?

But your hypothesis is that MMR is somehow more dangerous than single vaccines or no vaccines which is based on what you think rather than evidence so you are not making any sense at all.

The other consideration is that antibiotics currently used to treat problems arising from measles such as bacterial ear infections are becoming ineffective so over the next 20-30 years and perhaps by the time we have grandchildren we could be looking at a situation where measles kills or disables a lot of children. If everyone who can be gets vaccinated now then measles could actually be eradicated.

Yes, it does, but you could say that about any parenting decision you make.

I am happy to let my children play outside the front of my house, but if I lived on a main road, my decision would be different. We make our choices based on the situation we have. There's nothing wrong with that, and there is no point in asking 'what if'? It's irrelevant.

No - what if is not irrelevant. One only needs to look at Swansea and the NE to see that.

If everyone was as selfish as the non-vaccinators we would end up with thousands of children dying in epidemics.

Thank goodness for the less selfish amongst us then eh?

No, I don't have a hypothesis. I am not a scientist, I'm a parent.

I understand the risks of measles, I want my children vaccinated against it. I was able to give my children adequate protection against measles at the same time as they would have been protected if they had been given MMR. I used a perfectly acceptable alternative, and I made the choice to do so because I am a parent who has the right to decide what is and what isn't injected into her baby.

Country, I think you and I are coming to this debate from two very different starting points.

I believe a parent has the right (within the law obviously) to decide what is right for their child. There are countless decisions that I have made for my children that I feel would be wrong for them, but that others might feel are perfectly acceptable.

I think parents have probably made the wrong decision for their children if they decide to let them drink juice out of a bottle, or if they let their children run around restaurants, or if they let them drink coke at 4 years old, or if they have their boys circumcised, or indeed if they choose not to vaccinate their healthy children at all when there is no evidence to suggest they shouldn't. But my opinion that these things might be wrong are just that. They are only my opinion. I don't have the right to decide what happens to other people's children, nor do I have the right to pass judgement on their choices. They are none of my business.

Now I can see that you may say that when it comes to vaccination, the decision a parent makes does have an effect on the wider population. But my belief in a parents right to choose what is best for their own child comes above that. You simply cannot force vaccination on people, so it has to be their choice. There is no other way.

So your decision was based on the distrust caused by Andrew Wakfields flawed and unethical research which rather proves the position stated by the OP's original post!

I rest my case, m'laud!

Just re read my third sentence, and it doesn't make sense. But I'm sure you can see what I meant

countrykitten - your style of posting is rude and goady. What are you trying to achieve exactly?

I am not particularly anti-vaccination fwiw. Your attitude reminds me of George Bush 'Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists'

It's not a black and white situation as there is risk on both sides.

MMR is not more effective than having singles either.

Is that aimed at me Cherries? Because if it is, you are wrong.

My decision was based on many things, AW was just one of them. I was also influenced by the fact that I could not get straight information and answers to my questions out of the NHS. I was influenced by the fact that the then prime minister was telling us to vaccinate our babies with MMR when he wouldn't say whether he had done so himself. I was influenced by the fact that I knew the NHS were screwing the statistics about unvaccinated children by recoding children who had been vaccinated by singles as completely unvaccinated, which was in my view and attempt to scare people into choosing MMR. I was influenced by parents who believe their child was severely damaged by MMR.

I was influenced partly by AW, but that could have so easily been changed if more studies actually looked at the children who had regressed after the MMR, but that didn't happen, and still hasn't happened. Studies at children who have had the MMR and been unaffected, or looking at children who have some form of autism just wasn't enough for me to feel confident about what I was expected to inject into my child. You wouldn't go about proving that strawberries are red by looking at potatoes, would you?

I think that you are deliberately misunderstanding my point and making this all about your 'right' to do what you want with your children which is not in dispute.

What I am saying is that the 'choice' that non-vaccinators bleat on about is only in truth available to them because others DO vaccinate. Because they know that statistically their children in all likelihood will be protected as enough others are immunised.

I find that morally and ethically questionable. I also think that wilful disregard of science and its findings in favour of internet nonsense and hearsay very worrying - it also exposes the 'we are more intelligent and informed' argument put forward upthread to be a non starter as this is patently not the case.

If enough people make the 'choice' not to vaccinate and rely on others doing so for their child's protection then we end up with Swansea don't we?

Thanks for your 'rude and goady' comment lottie. That has really added to the debate.

AW was never anti-vaccination, he merely thought that more research was needed and that it would be in everyone's interests to make vaccination programmes safer.

What happened after that was a deliberate attempt by the government to bring him down spectacularly, and shut down debate so that everyone would do as they are told. They had to make him look bad because they are not prepared to offer anyone an alternative to MMR. The whole situation has been misrepresented.

countrykitten - your posts read that way.

'So anti-vaccinators'...........etc 'if everyone was as selfish as anti-vaccinators'

People aren't going to be won over by those kinds of insults.

countrykitten

Do you think it's ok for some children to be damaged by a vaccination in the interests of herd immunity?

'What I am saying is that the 'choice' that non-vaccinators bleat on about is only in truth available to them because others DO vaccinate.'

This is not true evidently as even in places where there is currently an outbreak of measles there are some people who still don't want to vaccinate their children for whatever reason.

Your understanding of the AW situation is seriously flawed lottie.

I would like to see concrete evidence that the MMR causes autism....but there is none.

How is it flawed?

lottie well any parent withholding vaccine for measles from their child in a measles epidemic area could well end up being instrumental in their child's serious impairment or even death.

I could not have that on my conscience - could you?