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.

WhenSheWasBad,
Your point is one that I keep coming back to, too. If my child was unable to be vaccinated I'd be out actively trying to persuade others to vaccinate (by the cunning use of facts, obviously), because herd immunity would be very, very important to me.
The idea that people unable to vaccinate would be trying to persuade others not to vaccinate is something I find it hard to understand.

Cheers.

magdalan some really interesting articles there. I've only skim read so far, thanks for posting them.

WhenSheWasBad,
I am (in other places) known for my links...
Cheers.

Can I just point out there's a difference between not taking responsibility for other people by injecting your child and not taking responsibility by taking out a clearly sick child? I won't be vaccinating to keep other people safe but I kept my daughter inside when she had slapped cheek. I wouldn't take her out and about if she clearly had some other infectious disease either. There's different levels of social responsibility. Keeping dd inside when she's ill doesn't really affect her. Vaccinating could. There's a difference there.

Well said Sneezing

that someone could imply that a loving parent who doesn't want to take the risk of injecting a substance that could harm their child into their body when they don't even need it is likely to be so callous as to take an infectious child out in public.

That's a disgusting, and very small minded attitude.

There are a lot of older children who aren't vaccinated. This is Tony Blair's fault. There was a scandal to do with the MMR and autism about 14 years ago. Tony Blair refused to say whether his DC had the MMR, so everyone assumed that he didn't and he must have been in on something that the public didn't know about.

Its all very well saying i keep my child indoors when they have an illness. The damage is done by then. Most viruses are at their most infectious just before the symptoms come out.

The idea that people unable to vaccinate would be trying to persuade others not to vaccinate is something I find it hard to understand.

As the dreadful DR Sears said, if you chose not to vaccinate dont tell your friends and family as you need to be protected by the herd immunity they create.

I have said this time and time again. Those that moan their child can't be vaccinate, spend an inordinate amount of time tell everyone else why vaccination is wrong, doesn't work, full of poison etc etc Its the same posters over and over again who say they are not "antivaccine " just "pro vaccine safety" ) but then only post negative things about vaccination and most of that doesnt stand up to any scrutiny.

There are also a lot of children that are vaccinated, but are not recorded to have been vaccinated on their medical records. Tony Blair is to blame for that as well.

sneezing yes there is a difference but that doesn't make one right and one wrong. IMO (it is just an opinion) both are wrong.

There's any number of things that could harm your child, travel in a car, crossing the road, choking are all very real dangers and are far more risky than a vaccine.

There are a number of things that could harm our children, but we do what we can to lessen those risks don't we?

We teach out children to wear seat belts, to look both ways before crossing the road, we cut up grapes for them when they are still small. The difference with vaccination is that we are told by the NHS that we should just do as we are told and are given no opportunity to ask questions and get informed answers. We don't get the chance to lessen the risk, we have to do it their way or we are told we haven't done it at all. That's just not right, and it's not going to do anything to help convince worried parents that MMR is the best thing for their child.

Sneezing,
I was just wondering how you knew your daughter had slapped cheek? Because if she actually had the rash that means she was no longer contagious. Well, that's what the NHS page says:
www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1112.aspx?CategoryID=54&SubCategoryID=137
It's also the advice given out by the school and nursery my daughter attends/has attended.
Cheers.

Clouds - have you read any of the links magdalan posted?

Yes we lower the risks but a child elwesr

I don't think anyone is telling others not to vaccinate tbh.

The point I was making about the slapped cheek, is once I knew she had it, she didnt leave the house so I could be sure we didn't run the risk of her infecting any pregnant women. I wasn't sure if the rash meant she was no longer infectious so didnt want to risk it. That's the most anybody can do with illnesses like that other than never leaving the house ever just in case the child may be brewing something that we can't see.

Yes we lower the risks but a child wearing a seatbelt is still far far more likely to come to harm than one having a vaccine (and people drive their kids almost everyday).

Small minded attitude indeed, re:taking infected children out in public.

There are things we can all to in the interests of others which protect the interests of others but which don't involve subjecting your own child to an unquantified risk.

My mum is pro-vaccination. She was also pro taking one of my chicken poxy children out to the park, to which I told her 'no way'.

How do you know what the risk:benefit ratio is WhenShe? The point is that none of us do know. And it differs from person to person.

I do agree about Tony Blair. He refused to comment because he said his child's medical records were private. Fair enough, but people are bound to draw their own conclusions from that aren't they?

I had a quick look at the links, but as I made my decision on MMR many years ago, and I'm happy with my decision, I have no desire to go back to doing what I did then to try and make sense of countless research papers.

And as I've said earlier in the thread, the only study I'd really be interested in is one that investigates a link by focusing on children whose parents claim they have been damaged by MMR.

I accept the risk of damage from MMR is tiny, and my children have been vaccinated. I'm not on this thread to argue about whether MMR is or isn't safe. I came on to the thread to point out reasons other than Wakefield that made parents like myself reject the MMR, and since then have felt the need to defend parents who are just trying to do the best they can for their children.

Anyone who is thinking about the MMR and doesn't want to "try and make sense of countless research papers" (it's just people like me that do that for fun, then?), this decision aid is rather good and user friendly:
www.leedsmmr.co.uk/welcome2.php?caseid=&relation=
Clouds, I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.
Cheers.

PS for those who do like reading papers the decision aid above is fully referenced.

The risk of dying in a car is 1 in 20,000 every year. This rises to 1 in 240 over the course of a lifetime.

Risk of a severe reaction due to vaccination is 1 in 100,000 (that's not death but it is a reaction that if untreated can cause death)

By the way pencillin has a similar risk of severe reaction a (around 1 in 100,000).

Oh they was for lottie

Oh they was for lottie ????

I'm so embarrassed, must proofread before posting

WhenShe - wrt vaccinations, that doesn't make sense as different vaccines carry different risks and also some vaccines are more effective than others, which obviously alters the risk:benefit ratio.

Not to mention that some children will be far more at risk than others, which is a point that many people on this thread have decided to ignore.