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...

Qally.I know quite a few doctors who have not had their children vaccinated.And I know some who have.It is a difficult decision for parents.I haven't met anyone who hasn't thought long and hard about it.Though I am sure some parents haven't..either to or not to vaccinate.
Hope that made some sense

Reading the book by Dr J Halvorson (?sp) - would thoroughly recommend it. It is written by a doctor who used to give combined MMR and even vaccinated his own children, then researched the issue more intensively and started giving separate vaccines.

i wish people would read the thread before posting thier ill-informed rants

diplodocus-thank you for answering me.do you have any stats/figures to back up your post?i have looked but have not found anything other than patronisingly-worded NHS propaganda sites saying stuff about 'measles used to kill loads of children before it was erradicated by the vaccination programme'.

oh,and a word about conspiracy theories.some of them turn out to be true.

Okay, first off, I'm sorry to have expressed my view so irritatedly - I should have expressed myself more gently (I read & responded to the initial post and not the threads - never wise! And it's been a rotten morning due to constant throwing up, which is no excuse for going GRR all over the internet, nonetheless) but... it isn't the case that the evidence on immunisation is evenly split. Of course it's natural for parents to worry, but frankly, what's most worrying is the idea that the government and all researchers in the field are deliberately conspiring to injure the nation's health. This isn't a drug company seeking to build up profits - this is a consensus across almost all the medical research profession, that vaccination is the best choice if we want to prevent serious injury or damage to kids. There are academics who deny climate change, too, and they are clearly entitled to do so, but that doesn't alter the fact that the majority of the world's expert scientific opinion is now the other way. And what's worrying is that people take the minority view, and act on it, and that potentially damages everyone else. Choosing not to vaccinate your child is not an isolated moral decision. It impacts on a lot of other people, and their children's health, too.

Doobydoo, it makes absolute sense, but thing is, GPs are not specialists in any one field - they're generalists, by definition. And there will always be risks in vaccinating, too, completely. You can't inject someone with a dose of what is effectively a poison, however measured, without there being a chance they'll react badly to it, because it can't be precisely calibrated to them. It can only be what the average child of their age (or adult) can stand. I've had fairly nasty reactions to typhoid jabs. (That's better than typhoid, but then, I'm an adult, and my reaction was within the normal range.) But the only truly effective way to control contagious, dangerous disease is prevention, and vaccination is the best means we have.

CoteD'Azure, the triple provides protection earlier. Babies are protected at a younger age. That's safer. Obviously it's better to have separate than none at all, but it's not really optimal, either.

Stuffitllamma, herd immunity. We all depend upon it. Of course I'm getting my immunity checked out, but there'd not be the need if enough people got the jabs, because there'd be a vanishingly small risk of contagion. It's a shared responsibility. I dodged the rubella jab at school (moved schools, terrified of needles) and when I found out what it was for, at 17, I went and got it done despite being needle-phobic. I knew (rather miserably) that I had a responsibility to do so. And please don't assume I've neither read nor thought about this, just because I have a strong opinion that differs from yours (and voiced it like an eejit, I admit). I think there's a communal responsibility for public health; the individual must look after themselves, sure, but should also seek to protect the most vulnerable in society - small children, babies, and those in utero. That seems a fairly basic truth, to me. It's the basis we pay taxes, too, no?

I worked for a while (non-scientific role) at the MRC. The consensus there was, rather despairingly, that people's fear for their kids was overwhelming the majority of the reputable scientific evidence, which is consistently saying vaccination is (comparatively, always comparatively - neither option is ever going to be risk free, unless a disease is eliminated) far safer. That's frustrating, when the risks to public health of a failed mass vaccination programme are so plain.

Qally - do read the whole thread if you can, and maybe even do some archive searches on MMR - there are some very detailed and balanced posts on MMR and the vaccine debate that could shed some light on the 'other side' for you. Look up yurt's posts in particular.

Of course the government and all researches are not conspiring to damage the nation's health. Of course they are doing the best and the most cost effective thing for public health. that is not in doubt. I am not going to repeat myself all over again but there are a few handy details that need investigating. Just because we have a 'good' system, ie most children benefit from MMR, and only a small number are possibly damaged for life, doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved. That's all. And the info to back up that statement is all here on this thread and in the archives should you wish to view it.

I assumed you hadn't read or thought about it because it was such an ill thought out, knee jerk reaction.

Yes, do read the thread -- almost all of your points have been addressed and you might find the responses interesting.

I absolutely stand by my point on herd immunity.

Forgive me if I have little sympathy for the "despair" suffered by the members of the MRC.

Your posts and your opinion are informed by the view that lay people, non-scientists, parents, are unable to grasp these issues and are reacting hysterically and without understanding.

Do try to lay this assumption aside.

Okay, I accepted and apologised for being rude. You could do well to do likewise. And if you really don't feel you have any responsibility to anyone unrelated to you, then forgive me if I in turn am forced to regard your views as not relevant to me.

Of course it's always necessary to do new research and make something with risks safer; that is absolutely sensible. People are frightened, understandably, by the idea their children can be damaged by vaccination, and that fear drives them to seek to avoid vaccinating. That's completely human - we all want to do the best for our kids - and it isn't hysterical to seek to avoid risk. But I don't comprehend how or why lay-people feel they can grasp the issues as well as professionals - I'd not diagnose a brain tumour, either. I'm not trained to do so. I really do find it bizarre that people think they can read a cherry-picked assortment of complex research, and formulate an opinion on that basis. Undergraduates can't do that effectively, despite years spent trying, because it takes an enormous investment of time and concentration to achieve a really masterful understanding of any area - not just scientific. The denigration of knowledge and expertise is not something I can comprehend or admire, and it frankly seems a little bizarre that people can be so proud of it.

Again, I am sorry to have been so aggressively dismissive in my initial; I should have been more polite towards those with differing opinions. But frankly no, I don't believe all opinions are equal, and I do tend to trust people who have dedicated their lives to understanding the field. That too is my opinion, and yet you order me to lay it aside - are the only opinions deserving of automatic respect your own?

Qally - The boundary you crossed with previous post was not between 'gently' and 'irritatedly', but between civil and rude & condescending, barely short of foul-mouthed.

It is incredibly presumptuous of you to assume that those of us who are wary of the MMR are somehow lacking in education and/or intelligence.

I am quite familiar with 'Biology 101' and I believe speak for everyone here when I say how vaccines work is no mystery for any of us.

Since you are at such a loss to understand why anyone would choose not to vaccinate their children, let me explain it to you through Game Theory (assuming of course, that you are vaguely familiar with Econ 101):

We are willing to vaccinate our babies if the payoff is positive. (Payoff = benefit - price)

Benefit: Increased immunity to disease
Price: Risk (real or perceived) to baby's health.

Note that we are not talking about probabilities here (probability of negative effect to child is small, but so is probability of that child catching and then developing a complication to the disease). We are talking about the risk and the benefit.

Given that a small number of children develop serious complications that turn into permanent damage following the MMR vaccine, the issue of MMR vaccinations is in a 'Nash Equilibrium' and will stay thus until there is a serious study into which children are at risk from the MMR vaccine.

This equilibrium is not socially optimal because the little benefit a single child's immunisation would bring to the society as a whole is far outweighed in the eyes of the parent by the potential permanent danger to his health.

In other words, it is understandable that people are reluctant to gravely endanger their babies (however small the probability) for an incremental benefit to the common good.

re 'triple provides protection earlier':

I can't see anything wrong with having measles shot at 1 yr and mumps several months later, and rubella can be done soon afterwards, all done by 18 months. Are we haggling over some months?

I have not been rude.

I do not believe there is such a thing as herd immunity in a vaccinated population. I believe there is such a thing as natural herd immunity.

I asked you to lay your assumption aside that people other than scientists are able to understand and analyse these issues. If you cannot do so there is no point in me addressing anything further to you: as I chose not to become a scientist.

I have not been rude.

I do not believe there is such a thing as herd immunity in a vaccinated population. I believe there is such a thing as natural herd immunity.

I asked you to lay your assumption aside that people other than scientists are able to understand and analyse these issues. If you cannot do so there is no point in me addressing anything further to you: as I chose not to become a scientist.

Cote I liked your post. It is a different way of thinking out the risk benefit analysis to mine, and very interesting.

And Qally, before you start harping on at the word "believe": I've looked at the maths.

Continuing on the application of Game Theory to the MMR vaccine controversy, here is why the government is pushing for the MMR vaccine:

Government has a different payoff analysis than parents, which is entirely financial. Herd immunity is of topmost importance to the government because that is the way to minimize outbreaks, which cost the government not only for medication, hospitalisation, doctor's fees etc but also in terms of days of work lost when people or their children are ill.

For the government, the benefit of herd immunity far outweighs the price of several hundred children who are scarred for life.

Nowhere is the difference between parent's and government's payoff analyses more obvious than Blair not divulging whether or not he gave MMR to his son.

Agree with cote.

Lay people can often be experts when they put their mind to researching a topic. Some of the parents on mumsnet are very well informed on vaccinations and I would trust their information more than I would a doctor's - unless I knew that the doctor had researched the matter fully.

In the book I am reading on vaccinations the author wrote that dangerously high levels of mercury was still being used in vaccinations until 2004 despite their being absolutely no clinical need for it. Why? The doctor researching could find no explanation for it. That year my son was born and I waited til the jab withour mercury came out (in October). I had negative attitudes from the health visitor and the doctor but I stood my ground and waited a couple of months.

Yes excellent point about Blair and his refusal to disclose whether his son had the MMR.

stuffit - Game Theory is widely applied to vaccination issues (as well as war games, 'prisoners' dilemma' etc). It has been more than a decade since I studied it as part of a graduate course in Economics, but it makes such good sense that it is hard to forget .

If you watched the film "A Beautiful Mind", it was about the guy ('Nash') who thought it up and won a Nobel for it.

I just found this through Google. It's a bit complicated, but the Result is quite clear:

"This finding formalizes an argument that has previously been made qualitatively; namely, it is impossible to eradicate a disease through voluntary vaccination when individuals act according to their own interests. In situations where vaccination is perceived to be more risky than contracting the disease (r > 1), one would expect, even without the aid of a model, that no parents would vaccinate their children."

I'm still not sure if totally unvaccinating your child is the best option, TBH. and it does feel like a choice we have because most people vaccinate. I want vaccines to be safer, but find that subject very difficult.

The only two vaccines I refused for DD are Hep B and MMR.

She had the single measles vaccine and its booster. We will do the mumps at some point but will have to travel to the UK for it (no single mumps vaccine available in France).

If she isn't immune to rubella by the time she is in her teens, she will have the rubella vaccine then.

I just wanted to thank Beachcomber for the excellent posts on this subject and CoteDAzur for the game theory point.

There's been a lot of good stuff on here. I can't comment on the technical stuff, but I notice some important differences between the two camps.

We seem to have one side saying:
"MMR may be dangerous - we should be careful and check it out"

And then the other side saying "There's no proof it's dangerous and we should do what the government says"

If there's no one saying that there's proof that MMR is safe then that means all those in that camp admit it could be dangerous, but agree with the government that everyone should have it anyway and there's no need to check.

Also those in the Pro MMR camp don't seem to have responded to the "so why don't we have singles in the meantime" point. It's all "MMR or nothing"

It reminds me of Pro Life arguments where Pro Life people seem to think the other side want compulsory abortions for all when what they want is choice based on the individual circumstances.

Greyriverside, I don't understand the technical stuff either but gather from what has been said above that the response on the Pro MMR side to the singles point is that the singles have not been tested nearly as much as the MMR has and therefore may have risks of which we are unaware. I also understand (from my consultant) that there is something in the way the three work together in the combined jab that makes them far more effective?

This whole issue is a nightmare for parents and I for one will be rereading this thread carefully in order to work out what I will be doing for my DS. So a big thank you to both sides for laying out their case - it has been very informative and a real eye-opener.

It seems to me that given the controversy more studies do need to be done if only to allay parents' fears but in the meantime it is hard to know what to do and it is worth bearing in mind Ruty's last post which is very honest and I think important to consider in this, i.e. that the luxury of being able to choose whether or not to have the jabs is afforded to us because most people do choose to have them ....

You know, you accused me of lacking knowledge and expertise, alleging I'd not read about the issue as widely as you or studied it as carefully as you, and therefore my opinions were worthless. But at the same time, you dismiss the expertise of research scientists who've dedicated years of their professional lives solely to this subject, based upon at least a decade of earlier study to reach the point where they were qualified to do so, as also worthless. Either expertise and study privileges opinions, or it does not. You seem to feel the only opinions thus privileged are your own. There is a massive internal contradiction in your position.

Not believing in herd immunity provided by vaccination... I'm not even going to bother. Presumably you believe smallpox just died out naturally.

Very familiar with Game Theory, thank you. The difficulty is that you've missed a salient factor; Game Theory can be applied to co-operative actions, with each party calculating that they can rely on the benefit they're conferring being conferred upon them in turn by others. (In fact, it's arguably the basis of the rule of law.) In that light, the argument goes: everyone vaccinates, diseases can't gain a foothold, everyone benefits. (Of course, you could just argue that the nice thing to do is worry about other people's kids, too.) And if measles etc. were as harmless, and the vaccinations as dangerous, as you allege, then the government's own grasp of Game Theory would be fairly poor, no? A lifetime of caring for an autistic child and adult trumps a fortnight of caring for a poorly child, surely, and places far greater strain on government resources. So your point is, exactly?

"It reminds me of Pro Life arguments where Pro Life people seem to think the other side want compulsory abortions for all when what they want is choice based on the individual circumstances."

But, unlike abortion, the choice not to vaccinate directly and adversely affects other people's kids: high levels of immunisation are necessary to stop diseases gaining a foothold, because not all vaccinations succeed (and it's impractical to think all parents will be aware enough of that, or concerned enough, to demand their children get checked - not to mention the huge extra costs to the NHS of such mass checking). I don't think there is any reputable evidence at all that MMR is inherently dangerous, more than any vaccination carries a risk. And given I volunteered on a vaccine trial a few years back (we were the first people to get the shots - had to be optimally healthy for obvious reasons) you can hardly say I am not educated on the evidence on risk in the area. Unless of course you believe I cheerfully allowed people to inject deactivated HIV DNA into me, unpaid (that's how they got ethics permission, I believe) with an immune boost primer involving some other fun diseases, for fun, without thought. Vaccinations save lives. That's pretty much their raison d'etre. We live in an era where terrible illnesses are rare, or easily treated with antibiotics. That doesn't make those diseases inherently harmless.

The mercury scare was dismissed by most reputable scientists as well, if you mean the notion it was linked to autism. No peer-reviewed study demonstrating any such link has ever been published. Clearly it's better if mercury isn't used in any way where it isn't absolutely necessary, but precaution does not equal actual risk.

I'm not going to check this thread again, because it's clearly pointless. I'll just have to console myself with the fact that my opinion is that held by the vast majority of the medical profession and the scientific community. Suffice it to say that my kids will get every recommended jab, and I'll just have to hope the children they play with have mothers who do likewise.

Goodness Qally you are cross aren't you.

"Very familiar with Game Theory, thank you. Game Theory can be applied to co-operative actions, with each party calculating that they can rely on the benefit they're conferring being conferred upon them in turn by others. In that light, the argument goes: everyone vaccinates, diseases can't gain a foothold, everyone benefits."

Uh, no, you are obviously not familiar with Game Theory, if you think that is what it says. Game Theory is based on (I dare say) the fact that each player's goal is to maximise his own payoff, even though that may lead to a result where he is worse off than if he had cooperated with other players.

Example: If you have ever studied/read/even heard of Game Theory, you would have noticedPrisoner's Dilemma:

Two suspects are in custody, in separate interrogation rooms. There is insufficient proof against them, so if neither confesses, they both get 6 months on a minor charge. If one testifies against the other, he goes free and the other gets 10 years. If both betray the other, they each get 5 years.

The rational strategy for both is to confess and betray the other, although their individual reward would be greater if they cooperated.

Moral of the story: You are wrong.

I have to go now but if you are interested, we can continue your education at your leisure.

I really wonder, Qally, what your attitude would be if one of your kids is damaged for life (god forbid) by one of the vaccines....