to be cross my ds has measles because other parents didn't vaccinate their children

[snickersnack]

He's 11 months old, poor little thing . Fortunately he's going to be ok - he got off quite lightly, I think - but it was scary and he was really poorly for a day or so. Spent 10 hours in A&E yesterday while he had chest x-rays, blood tests, IV fluids etc. Now we're just waiting to see if his sister,who's 2, gets it - she's had one dose of MMR already so fingers crossed she's immune.

We live in an area where immunisation rates are among the lowest in the country. Now I have to go and tell all parents of the other babies he's met recently that their children might be at risk as well...

We do not have ourselves to blame for poor reporting of adverse events. Many parents of children who reacted have tried and failed to get their reactions reported. The yellow card system has been introduced only recently, you know that.

Want to do something on maths of herd immunity later. gtg right now.

ITA = in total agreement

Fleximum why do you think doctors are so unwilling to report adverse events?

I belong to a support group for vaccine damaged children and most of the parents had to work hard to get their child's reaction reported. Why do you think there is so little funding available for studies to identify who is at risk from vaccine damage?

sugar

I've just has a look in this weeks British Medical Journal as there is a study there looking at vaccination rates but no mention of funding. Usually studies only have to declare funding when it might influence outcomes such as drug company studies.

thought it might mean "in the arse" as in PITA
thank fanny it doesn't

i don't know why doctors would be unwilling to report adverse events. Perhaps it is the reams of paperwork it can generate or just that they genuinely believe that the event is not related to the jab.

Wow, all I mentioned was one person I know. Is it inconceivable to think that there are quite a few people with that attitude??

How exactly was I judging people by that comment??

I said the tax comparison was a bad one. Just tyring to show that sometimes we have to do things that we don't personally gain from but that society does.
I think the funding for studies is not there because of the enormous fuss made after AAndrew Wakefield. I would imagine most researchers and funding bodies would not touch this area with a bargepole for fear of it damaging their career.

The tax comparison would be fairer if you said it would that it would be more beneficial to you to not pay tax if it meant you had to steal to buy food becasue you paid tax. It wouldn't be better for sociaty then. It seems, certainly on MN, that most people don't have vaccines if they feel it will be detrimental to them to do so, rather than beneficial not to.

Fleximum have you been following the GMC trial of Dr Wakefield and his collegues? I agree that it would have to be a brave researcher who tried to do similar work after the witchunt that Dr Wakefield and many of his collegues have been victim of. This is a shameful state of affairs.

I agree with you that it would be difficult to get funding for proper investigation into MMR as those who hold the purse strings have a vested interest in the outcome. This is also a shameful state of affairs.

Not too sure how you are managing to place the blame for the government's woeful reporting system on the public, because we voted for them perhaps? What is so difficult about introducing a routine follow up system where all children are monitored following vaccination? Currently the system is passive and suggests that the government isn't keen to have too much information.

Sorry, find your tax example irrelevant. I am quite happy to pay tax and use the services my taxes pay for. I do not put my loved ones health on the line by doing so.

I know of people who attribute their child's autism to DTP injection not MMR. DTP is given before MMR. There has been a case where someone was awarded compensation after developing autism after DTP, I believe it was in the US. IIRC it was called the Latimer case.

Gotta go and feed my kids, am in France and it is lunchtime here.

See you all later.

Wasn't Wakefield discreditted (sp)AGES ago??
Conflict of interest etc?

I'm not blaming us for the poor reporting system, just saying the I would guess that a lot of reactions to jabs and drugs in general aren't reported because no one mentions them to the doctor. I work in hospitals rather than community so don't see vaccine reactions but I have to admit I have never reported an adverse reaction to a medication. It goes in the patients notes and on their drug chart but unless there is an adverse reaction that has not been documented before, I've never seen a reason to report it.
With the case in the US,I might be wrong, but was that the one with the girl with a mitochondrial disease? I know there was a case like that recently. Mitochondrial diseases are extremely rare.
I've only been following the headlines with the GMC hearing for AAndrew Wakefield. The bit I've read seems to suggest it is less about the actual research, more about how it was funded and how he went about it.

About the good of society thing.

If the choice was:

1. Harm 50 kids
2. Harm 5000 kids

Then I could see the logic, but still wouldn't expect anyone to want to risk their child.

But surely the choice is

1. Harm 50 kids
2. allow single vaccines which cost more.

The numbers are made up, but you see what I mean

Also I understood that at one point (maybe still) the government were preventing people even paying for their own. So they were saying "If you're not having the MMR then we'd rather you didn't vaccinate for anything" which can't be right

It would seem a little silly to prevent parents paying for single jabs unless the government had really good evidence that single jabs are either not as good or do increase the risk of catching the diseases in the interval between jabs. I don't know if this evidence is there but I'm guessing that, like the evidence for removal of watches in hospital to prevent MRSA, it isn't.

Answering a previous comment, the yellow card system has actually been around for years. We are just crap at using it.

Latimer case was a long time ago. It was for DTP/autism link.

Mitochondrial case (Poling) was recently in the US as part of the Autism Omnibus (thousands of cases waiting to be heard). There is a lot to this case. Those who support vaccines claiming that rare underlying mito disease was to blame. Those against making the case that elements of vaccines are factors in developing mito dysfunction (thimerosal again).

OK really gotta go don't want to burn the lunch!

You ought to be able to make some kind of official complaint - perhaps to the GMC about a GP that tells you to ignore the advice from the drug company. Surely HE is liable in some way for that?
I'm amazed that they don't feel they can be held responsible

KerryMum - DD is allergic to egg too and our GP said the same. She wanted me to take DD to the hospital and let her have the MMR knowing it was likely to make her ill. Luckily I live in London where there are variou sprivate clinics within easy reach that do the single jabs.

IMO they are pushing MMR too hard. Because of the scares they are not unwilling to admit there are any dangers associated with it at all. I have a friend whose DS had a terrible reaction to MMR - very strange rash, fever, all sorts. The GP refused to even consider it was MMR related and so refused to fill out the yellow card that records adverse drug reactions so that the medical profession can build up a knowledge base. The fact the doctor would not fill in the card made me wonder who many MMR related complications go unreported. It was another driver for us getting the singles.

There was a woman in our local paper, saying that she hadn't immunised and that that was her business, and nobody elses.
I took offence at that. I do know that many people who choose not to immunise, have researched extrensively, in order to come to their conclusions. And that of course is their perogative.
But I do feel it is my business, because that persons choice, could directly affect my ds.

It is a little worrying that GPs are suggesting giving MMR to children with anaphylaxis to egg. Or is it that the GP did not realise that your child had anaphylaxis and thought that it was a more mild response to egg? If this is the case, it would be reasonable to suggest giving the jab in hospital as the risk of anaphylaxis is relatively small if only ever previously had a mild reaction.
Odd that the GP would refuse to fill out the yellow card if requested. I wonder what his/her reasoning was?

YANBU, every child who can be vaccinated should be to protect those who really can't be for medical reasons.
I haven't read all the posts about single MMR choice and I wish this was available on NHS, but really I don't see any reason other than medical not to immunise. As other posters have said, people don't seem to know how serious these diseases can be, because most of us have escaped them, thanks to immunisation and improved health care.

Message withdrawn