to think it's not terribly helpful to keep referring to parents who haven't MMR'd as "whack jobs"...

[MsGillis]

..or morons, or unfit parents, or up there with people who drink and drive?

I appreciate that people have very strong feelings around the subject, but I think that we need to understand that there are a significant number of parents who didn't/haven't vaccinated, not because they are crystal waving nutjobs, but because they are actually scared shitless and paralysed into indecision?

Surely there are ways and means to communicate information, and arrogantly shouting about how one person is right and anyone who disagrees is all kinds of nobhead is not going to be conducive in opening up reasonable dialogue?

Why would single vaccines be be better for allergic children?

In fact I'm in favour of a US style approach - no vax, no school.

'Would you not give 'boosters' without evidence of need? And what do you fear would happen if you do?'

There is a child described on another thread who has just had a bad reaction to a booster. If the child had been found to be immune from the first vaccination, he and his mother would have been saved illness and stress and worry and a stay in hospital.

Even if the purpose of the secondary jab is misunderstood (which is doubtful in my view)

WearsMink On what basis do you make this assumption?

The need is that the vaccination doesn't take the first time, and presumably a second vaccination is relatively cheap. But if you could develop an even cheaper test to find out those who did need it, then you could dispense with the second injection for a majority which would save time and money.

'And because life is not black and white, and decisions that affect a child's health are hard, we need a health service and a media that discusses these issues rather than categorises all these people as stupid and negligent. '

Well said.

My point with the booster issue is that the media coverage (which is a major contributor to polarising the debate) is actually deliberately simplified, almost deceitful.

Of course a medic dealing with vaccines knows this but I am sick of hearing "You are not adequately covered if you have not had a booster" when this is not a fact. You may well be, and if you pay for an antibody test you can find out.

And of course, on balance it is better and easier and cheaper to give everyone a booster.

But if you have concerns about vaccines, and want to limit them but still want your dc to have immunity both for them and the herd, then you deserve to know the facts.

LaVolcan

Yes, and if we could develop a vaccine that was 100% effective in one go that would be cheapest of all. But we have neither the cheap test nor the once-only MMR.

So, we need a booster to raise coverage from 95% immunity to very nearly 100%.

Is the booster proven to be more perilous than the first jab?

WearsMink Why not aim for a cheap test which avoided a vaccination? How many parents would mind if their child only had one jab and not two, but at the same time had the peace of mind that the primary vaccination had conferred immunity?

tempnameswap (sorry got your name wrong before) told us that a second one wasn't necessary in the majority of cases. She told us her credentials and I was happy that she was giving an informed opinion.

Why is it such a crime to ask questions?

Why would single vaccines be be better for allergic children?

Depending on how the individual vaccines are made, it could be the case that an allergen present in the MMR (for example) is not present in the individual vaccines (or that one component can be left out whilst the others are still vaccinated against) example:

Vax abc is produced using egg, as such it is possible that an egg allergic child could have a serious reaction

Vax a is produced without egg - safer
Vax b is produced without egg - safer
Vac c is produced using egg - avoided on medical grounds

That would be one possible mechanism by which individual vaccines could be safer

Isn't the test for immunity a blood test, so a jab anyway?

temp re your view on mmr and autism. You said you honestly didn't know, it isn't your area of expertise. Is this your approach to medicine in general?

Would you refuse to have an opinion on the use of statins because you had not personally reviewed every single trial that has been performed? Possibly taking part in research yourself and investigating side effects. Or do you accept that statins are incredibly useful. If you feel the need to research every single treatment option to an exceptional level?

tempnameswap - can you be my doctor please. Your way of thinking sounds the same as mine (and my old GP's and ds1's current paed and neurologists - I have been lucky). You're what I call a thinking doctor (I know it sounds patronising but amongst the good we have had some bad experiences)- wish there were more of you - (esp some like you working in the public health field!)

Blimey whenshewas - not the best example- a lot of GP's I know do not think statins are quite the wonderful thing they're meant to be. (Have been working with GP's quite a bit recently).

Isn't the test for immunity a blood test, so a jab anyway?

Slight difference between taking blood and injecting something into the blood stream that's designed to elicit an immune response?!

"And because life is not black and white, and decisions that affect a child's health are hard, we need a health service and a media that discusses these issues rather than categorises all these people as stupid and negligent"

The inoculation rate falling below herd immunity level, and the current measles epidemic, and the high probability of future ones are very black and white.

Or is your preference to allow people to keep on getting measles while all these (provably statistically miniscule) grey areas are debated ad infinitum..

Mind you, seems like there is nothing like a good epidemic to get all these anti-vax people to get their jabs, so maybe there is a method in this hand-wringing madness. Pity about these lost on the way to ensure no delicate feelings were hurt, though.

'The inoculation rate falling below herd immunity level, and the current measles epidemic, and the high probability of future ones are very black and white.'

This is not likely to be true. Mainly because most people do vaccinate, if not with the MMR they pay for singles. But singles are not included in data collected by the government. So the uptake looks lower than it actually is.

Isn't the test for immunity a blood test, so a jab anyway?

It is at the moment, but I was sort of thinking out loud and said, what if a simple test could be developed e.g. imagine if there was some dipstick type test for your wee? How many parents would think that this was a good idea, if it saved an injection?

Actually even the herd immunity thing is not black and white as the only figures they have are MMR ones. The only research looking into measles vaccination rate (MMR + singles) (published in the BMJ) showed a measles vaccination rate of 94%. If that is accurate then they need to re-think why the outbreak is occurring (and without accurate figures lets face it no-one knows). Actually that paper did look at reasons for not vaccinating and sibling reaction was a common reason.

saintly there isn't any drug that doesn't have side effects and risks attached. Side effect profile for placebos would make some people wince.

Yes there are risks with statins, vaccines, antibiotics, analgesics but you need to be aware of the risks of treatment and the risks of not treating. There isn't a treatment option free of risk.

"Mind you, seems like there is nothing like a good epidemic to get all these anti-vax people to get their jabs"

Yup. Grim, but true.

I found my blood tests during pregnancy worse than the vaccinations, tbh.

Yes wheshewas - which is why I'm listening to an immunologist who is an expert in my son's condition and his own doctors. I'm always amazed that people on here think they know better, when most of them don't even know what autism is, let alone its many causes. Someone said the other day they'd rather have autism than a severe lifelong disability from measles :face palm: which rather suggests their opinion isn't really one worth listening to.

I don't refuse to have an opinion WhenSheWasBad or need a PhD in the subject to comment, but in that my 'credentials' have become a bit too prominent (!) I wouldn't like to speculate on autism. It would be wrong to imply that my knowledge of autism was greater than a parent with a child with the condition. There are so many 'experts' on other people's lives, there doesn't need to be another.

And thank you, others, for the nice comments. I admit it would be harder to be 'thinking' if I was dishing out the vaccines and do sort of wish I hadn't mentioned my background - it wasn't to suggest I knew more, rather that once you become a parent, your own child rather than the herd will always be a priority. That's certainly what I found.

And on allergies, an allergen in the vaccines is one issue although you can pay privately for an egg-free measles vaccine (or have the eggy one done in a hospital setting, although you have to had a recorded anaphylactic reaction to egg first; this rules out those who may well have a worse reaction second time around, a common occurrence with allergies).

But there is also the issue of an immature, 'allergic' immune system that is liable to 'overreact', to put it unscientifically. There isn't much research to suggest either way, but vaccines are deliberately designed to stimulate a significant immune reaction from very small doses of antigen. There is a view held by some (although people are wary of voicing this) that the current immunisation schedule is pretty full on. So you are attempting to stimulate a major response to multiple viruses at once - something that would not be the case with the wild forms. It is possible that those with a family history of auto-immune disease or anaphylaxis might benefit from a more cautious, single-vaccine approach. In these children the immune system is possibly more easily over-stimulated.

That is my instinct with my very allergic family - and what I would want my GP to acknowledge was that this makes the decision harder. It is not stupidity or negligence that leads me to be cautious. And I may be completely wrong but as the research stands, actually nobody knows.

Sorry tempnameswap I am probably one who is guilty with the credentials. I thought it was worth re-iterating them, because otherwise what I found to be a sensible, well thought out post, from someone who clearly had expertise in one area of medicine, would have been dismissed as 'five minutes worth of googling' otherwise.

saintly hope you get some good advice from your sins doctors.

The trouble is as far as I am aware there really isn't very much that has been established about the causes of autism (spectrum disorders). It sees that having an older father increases your risk, having a family history increases risk. So there is a reason why the general public doesn't understand autism well (I've already said I don't have much knowledge re autism).

I personally think the public in general are very poor when it comes to risk assessment, massively inflating the risks of some things (vaccines) while down playing other risks (injuries at home, such as burns and scalds).