To suggest immunisations should be a legal requirement?

[rednailsredheart]

Look at it like this:

Wearing seatbelts it purely a safety issue. It's also a legal requirement in the UK to protect car passengers.

So why is immunisation not a legal requirement?

Likewise, drinking and driving is a criminal offence, due to the danger to the passengers and other drivers/people around you.

But deliberately choosing to let your child become a carrier of a totally preventable disease, infecting people around them (including those too young for immunisations), is totally fine? If someone doesn't vaccinate their child, then the child subsequently becomes gravely ill, why aren't the parents charged with neglect?

Makes me think of this article

ONION

Booboostoo, I took an acceptable risk with my first child.

She ended up vaccine damaged (for information purposes, as it was asked about earlier, she too was vaccinated without my consent. Not as a teenager, but as a baby). I don't blame myself for it - as you rightly point out, I took an acceptable risk, based on the best information I had at the time.

Given her reaction, and other reactions in close family, plus health conditions within close family (and the way dd's vaccine damage presented, highlighting links with these health conditions) the conclusion we have come to, for our family, in our circumstances, is that the risk is no longer an acceptable risk for our subsequent children. The stakes have risen exponentially, and the risk/benefit ratio is no longer what it was.

As Pagwatch said, I (and all of the people I know who either do not vaccinate some/all of their children, or who vaccinate using a differentiated schedule) happily lined up for vaccinations when dd was a baby. Even at that point, when I was clearly happily lining up for the majority of jabs, I (and dh) queried the necessity of one jab, as we didn't think it was as necessary as was being made out, and rather than talking to us and engaging on whether it was necessary or not, the nurse just went ahead and administered and then turned to is and said 'there, it's done now, so no need for the discussion'.

Post dd's vaccine damage, the information available to me was different. There was a whole lot more stuff added in. The best decision now, on the information dh and I have available to us is now very different, because we have to take into account the higher risk of reaction.

"the nurse just went ahead and administered and then turned to is and said 'there, it's done now, so no need for the discussion'."

I presume you at least reported her to her professional body? What happened?

Given her reaction, and other reactions in close family, plus health conditions within close family (and the way dd's vaccine damage presented, highlighting links with these health conditions) the conclusion we have come to, for our family, in our circumstances, is that the risk is no longer an acceptable risk for our subsequent children. The stakes have risen exponentially, and the risk/benefit ratio is no longer what it was. "

Absolutely. There will always be people whose medical history means they should not be vaccinated. All the more reason for everyone else to vaccinate to protect others as well as themselves.

Hakluyt
Earlier on you scorned a poster who had decided against the HPV vaccine for her daughter, who had been hospitalised following the MMR. You said:

It's like saying "my child had an allergic reaction to strawberries when she was 4 so I'm not going to let her eat prawns at 13"

There is absolutely no link between MMR and the HPV vaccine. So not ludicrous at all.

Now, you say:
There will always be people whose medical history means they should not be vaccinated.

A volte-face on your part, but a welcome one nethertheless. You now acknowledge that vaccines may present more of a risk to some people than others. You now acknowledge the relevance of medical history, which you previously dismissed as irrelevant.

"volte-face on your part, but a welcome one nethertheless. You now acknowledge that vaccines may present more of a risk to some people than others. You now acknowledge the relevance of medical history, which you previously dismissed as irrelevant."

I obviously didn't make myself clear. I do not think, and there is no evidence to suggest, that if a person has a medical history to suggest that one vaccine is contra indicated that the same is true of all vaccines.

And yet, the most common contraindication is an allergic reaction to a previous vaccine that is so severe it results in anaphylactic shock.

Nothing even so basic as a routine pre-administration skin prick test is given or offered (as is possible with both strawberries and prawns before either are eaten). So really the only way to find out is to roll the dice with an otherwise healthy child.

This is good medicine? And such good medicine that it produces a climate of coercion?

If the same logic were applied to enforced - or at least coercive - blanket administration of penicillin there would be riots in the streets. Even if forgoing that penicillin meant a communicable disease stayed in circulation, potentially endangering 'the herd.'

There is something about vaccines that set these drugs outside of normal conversational parameters: informed consent, safety, individual autonomy, individual health profiles, duty of care, accountability... or even common sense. It's unnerving how close this comes to hysteria.

"There is something about vaccines that set these drugs outside of normal conversational parameters: informed consent, safety, individual autonomy, individual health profiles, duty of care, accountability... or even common sense. It's unnerving how close this comes to hysteria"

Most people accept a prescription from the doctor without doing any research. The same applies to most people and vaccines. People like me, and I presume you, read the small print.

In reply to a couple of posters, yes of course thee are circumstances that increase the risk in individual cases and of course this must be taken into account.

Possible risks include the following groups:

1. a likely risk of minor side-effects like fever, tiredness, etc.

1. a very rare risk of very serious side-effects which cause long term damage for non-identifiable individuals (non-identifiable in advance of vaccination).

1. a risk of serious side-effects for identifiable individuals, e.g. children with a known allergy to vaccine components, immuno suppressed children, etc. I have not attempted to quantify the risk in this category as it depends on individual circumstances, e.g. some children may be able to take the vaccine in a hospital others should not attempt it at all.

1. the risk of the disease itself in cases where the vaccine has not been effective.

Non-vaccinated individuals run the risk of the disease plus the risk of passing the disease to others.

The reasoning faults in the vaccine debate include the following:
A. Fearing type 1 risks so much that one chooses not to vaccinate. This is fallacious because these types of harms even when they do actuate are tiny in relation to the alternative which are the harms of the disease.

B. Fearing 2. These harms should be feared, but are highly improbable in comparison to the chance of contracting the disease especially in a population with falling numbers of vaccinated children. The correct response to this risk is to have in place immediate and substantial compensation for those affected; they have paid the price for keeping the rest of us safe.

C. Fearing 3 is also entirely reasonable as long as the risk assessment is within medical recommendations. Believing that one's child will be harmed by a vaccine because it was revealed in the tea leaves is not a reasonable argument as it does not fall within accepted medical practice for identifying those individuals at risk from vaccines. This is the most contentious area with people believing that their specific children are more at risk from developing autism, for example, if they vaccinate without any medical evidence to back them up. I am not commenting on the individual circumstances of people on this thread who have had DCs harmed by vaccines and therefore believe their other DCs are at risk because I know nothing about them so all I would say is I am sincerely sorry for your DCs, I hope you have received support and help and made the best decision with your doctors for your other DCs.

D. Fearing 4 is also reasonable but pointless. All we can do in this case is hope that others vaccinate.

Vaccinated people transmit diseases for which they have been fully vaccinated and show antibodies for. Vaccination does not confer lifelong immunity.

Live vaccines including the MMR and the nasal flu vaccine shed their viruses and transmit them to others.

Vaccine damage does happen.

Immunodeficient diseases are on the increase.

I am not joining any dots but no, it should not be the law.

Gosh, so I wasn't supposed to go with the whole tea leaf reading research?

I used the tea leaf example as it is not something that anyone would have used and therefore did not insult anyone's actual reasoning process. I thought that was pretty self-evident.

I'm sorry. The whole of your post was just so deeply patronising that I couldn't really raise the energy for anything more. But the numbered paragraphs are nice.

Booboostoo Are the thought processes in your post yesterday intended as some sort of blueprint you expect others to follow? It's very poorly thought out and simplistic.

Patronising? It certainly was not intended to be patronising.

Neither was it supposed to be a blueprint, where did I say I expected others to think like me? I am a philosopher, I am trained to think like this. I don't know how it comes across, for me this is fairly basic critical thinking and analysing of possibilities. As for being poorly thought out and simplistic it may well be but merely calling it so does not constitute an argument. You would need to show so better thinking as well as where the missed complications lie.

Re Aluminium that someone mentioned yesterday. The 'safe' levels of Aluminium were determined by using the MLA for orally administered from the ATSDR toxicological profile for Aluminium. Ingested Aluminium is eliminated quickly from the body. There are very limited studies into the effect of injected Aluminium - a study into a single adult male and one involving rabbits(Flarend et al). It's not exactly reassuring when you look into it.

bumbleymummy agreed.

When I hear "but gee, you ingest more Aluminium in a few shellfish than in all the childhood vaccines" I kind of wonder "well ok, but if I injected a sandwich into your arm would you be well-fed and healthy?

I have looked HARD for reputable studies that assess the effects of intramuscular injection of Aluminium salts (of any type really, as long as they are used as an adjuvant in vaccines). All I could find was one that said Al was excreted quickly and almost-completely (which to me suggested that its use as a vaccine adjuvant was ineffective as an adjuvant needs to hang around for while to make the vaccine work), and two that were a bit more worrisome. One basically pinned Gulf War Syndrome on intramuscular Al injections and another wasn't specifically studying Al salts but was instead using them to induce pain in order to study pain relief. And it was taken for granted that pain is a normal consequence of IM injection of Al.

Then I apologise if you did not intend it to be patronising. It was however, incredibly so. It explained the very obvious thought processes most of us have gone through without ever having listed them in because they are indeed so bloody obvious. And did do as if they were revelatory.

Your tone is unfortunate. Unless you intend to post as if none of us have ever considered these thing and made decisions critical to our children's based on mindless panic and over reaction.
But as you say you did not intend it to be patronising I must have mistaken your tone.

If my posts state the obvious feel free to ignore them. It's kind of difficult for me to know what goes on in your head in order to pitch my posts accordingly and my post was not even directed at you in the first place.

I do not deny that a small number of individuals will suffer adverse effects from a vaccine, it's the same as any drug.

But, I do not think that unvaccinated individuals should be allowed to place others at risk. I would take this to mean not being allowed close contact with others either too young to vaccinate so barred from children's centres etc. I think school is ok as the other children are part way through their routine vaccinations but if a child in the class say developed cancer and required chemo I would expect the unvaccinated child to be moved. I would put a slight caveat on this that children with absolute contra indications to vaccination would be exempt. This is for those who chose not to vaccinate for more dubious reasons. Clearly this would be unworkable but ideal world and all that.

This may be a deeply unpopular view but why should one unvaccinated child place others at risk?

FWIW we have a friend who hadn't vaccinated her children for dubious reasons (unlike some posters above) we go on a joint holiday with 6 other couples and the consensus is that when there are young babies present in the group that family is not welcome.

well that kind of works both ways doesn't it - if I am wrong you can ignore me too.
I tend to response to whatever draws my attention from the incisive to the amusing or the superior and the thick. Chat boards work like that.
Perhaps you would be happier with a blog?

really bad idea.

Dutch1e. This is from a paper: Updated Aluminium Pharmacokinetics following infant exposure through diet and vaccination (Mitkus 2011) re. The Flarend study:

"Flarend et al. [27] investigated the absorption into the blood of aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate following intramuscular injection into New Zealand White rabbits. Two important observations were made in their experiments: (1) only a fraction of the injected aluminum was taken up from the site of injection into blood over the 28-day experimental period, and (2) absorption of neither adjuvant was instantaneous. Specifically, blood concentrations of aluminum hydroxide decreased to a minimum by the end of the experiment (reached a terminal phase), where as aluminum phosphate blood concentrations were relatively constant over the 28-day period and did not reach a terminal phase. These results likely reflected differences in the rate of absorption of each adjuvant from the site of injection and not differences in excretion, since all other experimental conditions were equivalent in each group. By comparing with the area under the curve of the blood concentration–time curve for an intravenous administration of 0.85 mg aluminum citrate, the authors determined that only 17% and 51% of injected aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate, respectively, was absorbed into the blood over 28 days. "

They also state: "Ideally, the results of that study should be confirmed using a larger number of animals, in order to increase our confidence in the results."

There is also mention of the Priest study with the one adult male. That is what they used to derive their retention function:

"Although based on the most recent data available, there are several uncertainties in our analysis. First, the published retention function for aluminum (Eq. (1)) is based on results for only one person, albeit data have been acquired from this adult for twelve years [5]. Ideally, the retention function would have been derived from pharmacokinetic data in infants or in more than one adult; however, an expansion of this analysis is unlikely."

pagwatch no need for a blog! PM me for a link to my books and articles.

toobreathless as it's been more than a year since good science showed that recipients of the pertussis vaccine can become silent carriers of the disease for up to 30 days after the jab... I'm sure that all 6 of those families also took time off work and school for a full month after the DTap or TDap shot to quarantine themselves and make sure they were protecting the herd. Or at least protecting those daft vaccine refusers, bless 'em.

"FWIW we have a friend who hadn't vaccinated her children for dubious reasons (unlike some posters above) we go on a joint holiday with 6 other couples and the consensus is that when there are young babies present in the group that family is not welcome."

That would be a non-issue. Hypothetically we could be that family. You would lay down your conditions and we would accept them with grace. Denial of state education, as has been suggested on here, would be no problem. Ditto a refusal to accept our family into nursery. Enforced vaccination is another thing altogether.

We've barely covered how to identify the non vaccinated. Shall we address how those in favor of the OP's ideal world plan to physically force this vaccination upon the unwilling?