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.

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.

Yes, I can see that. Which is why I said earlier that parents make a choice based on the situation they have at the time, not a hypothetical one.

So what if some parents would make a different decision if we didn't have some level of herd immunity? People acknowledging that parents might make a different decision if the situation were different doesn't really add that much to the debate IMO.

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.

Tbh lottie I have better things to do than argue with a conspiracy theorist today so I shall leave the thread for now.

countrykitten

Why can't you accept that there is risk whether you vaccinate or not? And it comes down to which risk you can live with as a parent. Particularly when children can't make their own choice.

I notice you did not answer my question about collateral damage.

I did actually - I said where is the evidence?

Anyway, as I said I am off for a while.

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?

Yes, we do. And each of those parents has to live with the decisions they have made, be they right, or wrong.

'I did actually - I said where is the evidence?'

This isn't just about a link with autism. I know of one person whose child went deaf immediately after the MMR. But this isn't just about MMR either when considering vaccinations programmes generally.

The fact that both the disease and the vaccine can cause damage is a question of common sense.

In other words, if you worry that a disease could damage someone, you should be able to see that it's also possible for the vaccine to cause damage.

You realise that the Wakefield / MMR saga is held up in text books as a good example of unethical and flawed research???

He got his research assistant to falsely report results based on a small biased group of children who were chosen because they were near him rather than any proper randomised sampling method. Yet still people believe it was a conspiracy!

Wow finally finished reading the whole thread and now I feel quite stupid.

I'm pregnant and have not had my immunity tested re rubella. I have been tcc for a while so have been under both GP and consultant care. At no point did anyone recomend I have my immunity tested.

I am kicking myself for having been so stupid and am also very thankful that Cotes kids live miles away in France (no where near me). I will just have to keep reminding myself that most parents to immunise and there should be reasonable herd immunity where I live.

You realise that any baby under 13 months old and many children under the pre school age are as much risk to you as Cotes children are right?

That was a horrible thing to say about someone else's children.

WhenShe - normally rubella immunity is tested routinely when you give bloods at 12 weeks. Are you sure this was not done? I was definitely tested in all of my three pregnancies. So probably on that point, no news is good news.

I think Cote has shown remarkable restraint on this thread tbh.

But why Hopeful, should you not be responsible for your own foetus?

How do you know who is immune and who isn't? (You will be in contact with all sorts of people who haven't been/ can't be/ don't know they should be/ have been immunised but it's worn off)

Surely it is your job as a mother to make the best choice for your own child?

I'm 11 weeks, so no bloods taken yet. Isn't it a bit late by the time you are pregnant, you can't have the vaccine when pregnant.

Ok I was a bit rude about Cotes child I wouldn't run away from them in the street screaming unclean unclean
I know there is a risk from children under 13 months. To me there is a difference between a child who is not immunised because they can't be (too young or family history of reactions to vaccines) and one whose parents didn't care about the risk to others.

I for one would feel incredibly guilty if I had exposed a pregnant woman to any disease that may harm her child. This happened during the swine flu outbreak. I spent all weekend with a pregnant woman and came down with it on the Monday.
It wasn't really avoidable but I felt so concerned for her.

When I was a child all girls were offered the rubella vaccine at around the age of 11, to try to cover them before it was possible for them to get pregnant.

The sensible thing would be for this to happen now, but oh wait, that doesn't fit in with the government's current agenda of vaccinating children at 15 months, which means it could have worn off by the time that child could have a baby themselves. It makes no sense at all.

WhenShe - if you're not immune they do give you something I think but I can't remember what action they take - anyone know?

ruby it is my job, which is why I am feeling so stupid right now. I just wanted to point out that neither my GP nor my consultant suggested I get tested (was seeing them because I was ttc).
Just wanted to point out that it isn't commonly known that women ttc should get tested.

No, there isn't a difference between a young unvaccinated child and an older unvaccinated child.

Rubella is rubella, whoever it has come from.

Well, I read the whole thread too. To chicaguapa:
Andrew Wakefield needs to take a lot of the blame, he is still playing the martyr and currently (you couldn't make it up) touting a reality show about autism treatment. I think others have used appropriate adjectives, I think it's kind to say he is a fraud, and a liar and all round not very nice guy. Paying parents of children at a birthday party to give blood samples, wow! This is not Mr Ethical (and that's not even going into the other invasive stuff he did).
Regarding the rest of the discussion. I find it amazing how the whole MMR causes autism idea seems to have such staying power. It seems no matter how many studies are done that some people have a deep emotional investment in there being a link. The idea (expressed earlier on the thread) that no one has looked into a link between vaccination and regressive autism? I mean, just a quick search immediately provides:
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-006-0157-3
"Among the proportion and incidence of regression across the three MMR-program-related periods (before, during and after MMR usage), no significant difference was found between those who had received MMR and those who had not. Moreover, the incidence of regression did not change significantly across the three periods."
www.expert-reviews.com/doi/abs/10.1586/14760584.3.1.19
"The vaccine also has not been found to be associated with a unique syndrome of developmental regression and gastrointestinal disorders. The evidence now is convincing that the measles?mumps?rubella vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autistic spectrum disorder.
www.bmj.com/content/324/7334/393
"Conclusions: These findings provide no support for an MMR associated ?new variant? form of autism with developmental regression and bowel problems, and further evidence against involvement of MMR vaccine in the initiation of autism."
I could go on (and I hope those links work, I am new here!).
My daughter didn't actually have the standard vaccination programme. She was instead involved in a vaccine trial. She was injected with a trial vaccine and had regular blood tests taken. I enrolled her up for the trial because it was for the best for other children and society as a whole to have an improved vaccine schedule. Hard though it seems for some of the antivaxers to get their heads around, some of us will act altruistically.
I really enjoyed this thread, thank you everyone for an entertaining morning's read.
Cheers.

Wheshe - a friend of mine was exposed to chicken pox in early pregnancy. As she hadn't had it and was not immune, I think she was given gamma globulin. Her baby was fine btw. I think they may do this for pregnant women not immune to rubella too but not completely sure. Are you sure you didn't have the vaccine at some point?

I have an immune compromised child who cannot have MMR.

She cannot have MMR because her immune system is compromised due to the near fatal reaction she had to DTP. We struggle daily with her health, in fact we are off to the hospital again tomorrow for another battery of tests (story of our life for the last 9 years).

And I think Cote talks perfect sense.

I'm surprised that no-one else can remember when rubella vaccine was only given to teenage girls after them being tested for immunity (most of us didn't need it). What you are all calling irresponsible/selfish and all sorts of other names used to be government policy and it only changed when the MMR was developed and needed to make a profit.

'I'm surprised that no-one else can remember when rubella vaccine was only given to teenage girls after them being tested for immunity (most of us didn't need it). What you are all calling irresponsible/selfish and all sorts of other names used to be government policy and it only changed when the MMR was developed and needed to make a profit.'

Me too - most of us will have had the old style of vaccination programme.

And nobody chooses not to vaccinate because they 'don't care' about other people. If you read the thread you would see that.

beachcomber I would have thought you would be greatful most people do have their children vaccinated. As you can't vaccinate your daughter you rely on herd immunity.

I think I have more of society bend to my thinking than others. In my mind if you are lucky enough to have a healthy child and there is no family history of adverse reactions to immunisation you do have a responsibility towards society to protect those children who can't be immunised (obviously measles is more of an issue than rubella in this case).

Others have a very individualised mindset which because it is different from my own I am struggling to get my head around.

Greatful = grateful massive spelling fail

lottie I said as much a few pages ago with regard to the single programme.

I had my rubella jab at 11. I was tested when I got pregnant to see if I was immune?

My single measles jab in 1973 ( was about 2)
I caught mumps.

Cote "Why on earth would I take responsibility for people who are not my responsibility?"

Are you on of those parents who takes their still infectious chicken poxy children to the supermarket?