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?

I'm not talking about social responsibility Cote - although I don't think it particularly covers anybody in glory if they haven't considered that. I'm talking specifically about the fact that people often justify their decision not to vaccinate with a statement about having 'researched' their decision, which imo shows a lack of appreciation of how skilled and knowledgeable scientific researchers are, and how difficult it is to acquire that skill.

Now you can access a lot of quality research via the internet - but by no means all of it. I expect those of you who so confidently claim you have done the research all have access to databases of all the relevant journals. I expect you all attend the relevant conferences every year. I expect you all have a network of friends dating back decades in labs who work on the same problems and whose results you usually see before they are published.

It's not good enough to read the abstract and understand the claim that a paper is making - any intelligent person can do that. You have to be able to contextualise the research. You need to be able to evaluate research design. You need years of FT research and background knowledge of the field to be able to do that properly.

It's not good enough to say look at the reputation of the journal - I can trust it! (even if you know enough about the field to be able to 'rank' journals) I've read papers in Nature from my field that have made me laugh like a drain. Stuff gets published in journals only to be superseded later all the time. That's how science works.

It's not good enough to be an intelligent, well-educated, sincerely-motivated person, which I'm sure many anti vaccine people are. I know that I myself couldn't confidently assess the quality of a paper in a different subfield of my own discipline, because I am not an expert outside my own subfield. I see no reason that someone without advanced training in the relevant area would be able to properly evaluate a piece of research on vaccines, and I include myself in that number.

I have no idea why you Cote haven't vaccinated your DD for rubella as I am not aware of your story. I hope it was on the advice of your doctor though.

Andro that sounds terrifying. I doubt there us anyone who would want you to risk that again. Hope that herd immunity does protect her as it should do.

As for measles being an unpleasant disease, a reminder of the numbers. 1 in every 10 who have it are admitted to hospital. 1 in every 1000 die. I don't have the figures to hand for those blinded etc. This is with the benefit of modern medicine and sanitation.

Seems to me reading this thread that anti vaxxers not only deny the efficacy of the MMR but also deny the effects of the diseases. Measles is not inoculated against because it makes you spotty and causes discomfort for a few days, it's a killer. Or are those facts also a conspiracy?

"I am not anti vax, I am a highly trained scientist who values good quality research and who openly acknowledges that in the majority of cases the risk of vax is minute in comparison to the risk of the illnesses. I'm also intelligent enough to know that giving a child a vax to which she has been proven severely allergic is as 'responsible' as giving peanuts to an allergic person!"

I don't understand your logic then Andro.

Given that you know the risks, and given that your child reacted badLy to the MMR, I'd have thought you'd be very keen on ramping the herd immunity rate up. Yet here you are attacking those arguing FOR vaccination?

Maybe because andro doesn't want people to go through what she has?

I get slightly fed up being told what to do by people who know absolutely nothing about autism (to the point where they don't even know what it is) & am happy with the decisions we made after reading the research (yes can understand it cheers), attending (& presenting) at international autism conferences & talking to researchers about their current research. With a quick chat with ds1's paed & neurologist along the way. I think the people who think they know better are whack jobs tbh.

What I find odd about this debate is that the "anti -vaxxers" (hate the term but not sure what else to say) persist in talking as if then"pro-vaxxers" want to force everyone to vaccinate regardless. While the "pro-vaxxers" say in practically every post that of course there are some that shouldn't be, and that is one of the reasons why everybody who can be should be- to protect the few that can't.

Jimjams, may I suggest that instead of going to conferences talking about autism, you go to help in hospitals in developing countries so you can see what measles looks like. You may begin to get a glimmer of understanding why countries do inoculate.

To think that Autism is a bigger risk than measles is true whack job thinking, as it is the triumph of hysterical belief over scientific fact.

Lazyjane - I am well aware of the damage that measles can do - my mum is deaf in one ear from measles. But I find severe brain damage quite life stopping as well - and with our family history severe autism is a risk. Your comment about autism sounds like you're exactly the sort of person I'm talking about who doesn't actually know what it is.

I didn't say 'countries' shouldn't inoculate - I am talking about taking into account individual risk factors.

I struggle with the logical sequence of the anti-vaccs. if exposure to small amounts of virus in the vaccine causes effects like autism, why wouldn't there be an even more cataclysmic response to actual infection, when huge numbers of viruses are replicating in and bursting out of your cells.

Because the 'pro-vaxxers' seem to lack an understanding that there are grey areas seeker. Something that senior doctors incidentally seem very aware of (junior ones not so much). If you inhabit a grey area no-one can tell you which is the 'correct' decision for your child.

As I said on another thread - roll on the heel prick test at birth for immune deficiencies that are associated with autism. If ds2 & ds3 have children they may not have to make best guesses as we have - they may have better information.

"crashdoll - for most people vaccination is safe but for a few people the effects are devastating. Perhaps if you had experienced that yourself you might have a bit more empathy with parents who are when all said and done trying to protect their children."

That is really bloody unfair lottieandmia. On these threads, I have never once criticised parents who have been through the tradedy of their child severely regressing and have acknowledge that for some children, the MMR will affect them in a devastating way. Of course I have empathy and I won't pretend for a second that I know what it feels like. What I did say was that it is a measure of risk and in most cases, I would veer towards thinking vaccinating is the right decision. What I won't do is make an assumption that I would or wouldn't vax subsequent children if one of mine suffered badly as a result of a vaccination. How can I make a judgement when I have never walked in those shoes and hopefully, never will? So, your comment was out of order. I said I was measuring risk and for me, I believe the risk of not vaxing (in MOST cases) is a bigger risk than vaxing.

"I struggle with the logical sequence of the anti-vaccs. if exposure to small amounts of virus in the vaccine causes effects like autism, why wouldn't there be an even more cataclysmic response to actual infection, when huge numbers of viruses are replicating in and bursting out of your cells."

This is what I have asked in previous threads but I've not had a straight answer and I am genuinely curious (not in a snarky way) to see if there is an answer.

And we need to do away with the straw man of 'my child can't be vaccinated because 'inserts valid reason' therefore you are all wrong'.

'Don't throw your children out of the window'
'That's a ridiculous thing to say, I saved my baby's life by throwing her out of a burning building
'Well, obviously that's a rare but valid exception'
HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST I SHOULD HAVE LEFT HER TO BURN?
'Errr, never mind'

Heebiejeebie - it depends on the immune response. Plain English summary from one of the most respected researchers in this field (note she is suggesting separating them which is a perfectly reasonable suggestion and easy to organise in the States - not so easy here)

Judy Van de Water, Ph.D., is an immunologist at the University of California, Davis, who is directing an investigation, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), into the potential environmental risk factors that may be behind the rise in autism. "A healthy child should do fine with our current vaccination schedule," she says, "but you can't always know how robust a child's immune system will be prior to vaccination." Some experts suggest that some children who develop autism have faulty immune systems. A 2008 study published in the journal Autism Research compared levels of immunoglobulin (antibodies that play a role in immunity) in normally developing children with the levels in children with autism. It showed that children with autism had lower levels of immunoglobulin, suggesting "an underlying defect in immune function." A 2009 study published in the journal Brain, Behavior and Immunity did a similar comparison and found abnormalities in the "natural killer cells" (the big guns of the immune system) of children with autism spectrum disorders, which "may predispose them to the development of autoimmunity and/or adverse neuroimmune interactions during critical periods of development." "Since some vaccines are designed to mimic infections," Van de Water says, "you can imagine how sick you could be if you get nine at once and your immune system is not working optimally for any number of reasons." She and her team are developing a heel-stick test that will determine the health of a child's immune system before immunization, but it's still years away from FDA approval. In the meantime, if your child has a bad response to an early vaccine acting very lethargic for more than 24 hours and running a fever of 100 degrees Fahrenheit or higher -- Van de Water suggests that it may sound a warning about future vaccinations. For other signs of how the state of a patient's immune system impacts immunization, visit the CDC website (cdc.gov).

The research in this area is in it's infancy but for someone with at-risk children, siblings of a child who regressed severely following an immune event, it seems wise to listen to it - even if a lot of this is just opinion at the moment.

crashdoll - answer above - as much of an answer as can be given at the moment. Ds1's doctors have told us to wait 10-20 years and we'll get a much more accurate answer (like I said, hopefully in time for ds2 and ds3's children if they have any).

The NHS recommends caution with vaccines where the child's immune system is dodgy. If there is a test being developed so that we can better tell before vaccination who these children are, then that's brilliant.

No one wants children to suffer. That's why we vaccinate in the first place!

What I did say was that it is a measure of risk and in most cases, I would veer towards thinking vaccinating is the right decision.

crashdoll I do know what you mean with the above (and it's why ds1 was vaccinated) but a point that the above research group make sometimes is that at the moment we often don't really know what the risk for each child is until we give them a vaccination. It's why that heel prick test is so important imo. I also found it interesting that she mentions lethargy & a high fever as warning signs, as that was exactly how ds1 reacted to his baby jabs, & I thought it was normal (I'm sure I was told it was normal) & we just carried on with the regular vaccination programme. We're years away from a heel prick test but there could be more notice paid to red flags already imo.

saintly I'm certainly not adverse to a heel prick test at all and anything that protects children is obviously worth fighting for. The trouble with warning signs is this they are subjective and some children will have those warning signs but not be at risk at all.

Saintly, thank you for the link, but it doesn't answer the question. If yo r immune system is not functioning well, then you are more not less at risk if you catch the infection that you haven't vaccinated against.

Yes crashdoll - but at the moment they are not discussed at all (and currently in the UK it is very difficult to follow her advice on how to vaccinate whilst reducing the risk from the vaccination - even when your doctor agrees with you incidentally - btdtgtts)

yes heebiejeebie - rock and a hard place, welcome to my world. At that stage if you are thinking about the child as an individual you have to look at their risk from each disease (including whether or not they're likely to get it - for example if you have a child who you strongly suspect has an immune disorder and you know they're never going to be able to travel on a plane - are you (or their doctor) going to worry about polio for them - remember we're thinking individually?). Unfortunately over the last decade the UK system is very much all or nothing at which stage you start to have to toss coins really.

*the UK system has become very much

I think you're reading the wrong things TBH.

Given that you know the risks, and given that your child reacted badLy to the MMR, I'd have thought you'd be very keen on ramping the herd immunity rate up. Yet here you are attacking those arguing FOR vaccination?

I'm not attacking pro vax people at all, I'm agreeing with OP that dismissing all those who haven't given any/full program of MMR (for example) as 'whack jobs' etc is very unhelpful...and pretty insulting to those of us who have reason not to go ahead.

You yourself dismissed me as 'hiding behind herd immunity' when I was only responding to another comment suggesting that a bit more empathy would be a good thing. Quite honestly, your response read like a dismissal of my DD's life threatening allergic reaction...as if you assumed the reaction was less dangerous to her than measles.

See? Andro- that's the sort of thing I mean. I don't think there's a "pro-vaxxer" anywhere who doesn't agree that there are some children who shouldn't be vaccinated. And a child who is anaphylacticly allergic is obviously one of those. But somehow that's how people are reading the words that are actually being written. Very odd.