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...

Message withdrawn

i was thinking that re.qally.when i read the jabs forums,reading about people who have lost children to vacciantions,its so .

i am getting quite wound up with these 'parents who dont have their children vaccinated are selfish and putting my child at risk' type posts.my dd2 ended up in icu becuase she caught a cold.so should i go round saying that people who's children have got colds should keep them locked away from every other child?the truth is that all illnesses carry a risk of serious complications.i am interested in finding out more about what effect the MMR has on a childs immune system,wrt fighting off other illnesses.

Hi again everybody.

First of all, huge thanks to stuffitllama (sorry I know you don't want thanks!), Greyriverside, Winky, Quintessential and others for their kind words.

The fact is though that my DD and my family got off relatively lightly (although it didn't feel like that at the time). My DD is not autistic and although she has been very ill she is in OKish health now and we are repairing the damage that has been done to her. I regularly correspond with people who are in a much worse position and can only count our blessings that we are not worse off.

Stuffitllama as it happens I have had a very nice day, buying plants at the local market and planting them in our allotment with the kids. Hope you had a good day too.

Don't want to dwell on the attitude displayed by Suey2 but suffice to say that I have encountered this sort of hostility many times before and have developed a thick skin. You have to when you are going against the tide. That said, it is great to see how many people on this thread are asking questions, analysing research and taking control of things. It is the only way forward out of this mess.

There have been numerous posts on this thread which accuse parents of vaccine damaged children of 'looking for someone/something to blame'. My experience is that such parents blame themselves for having blindly followed medical advice without question. Our primary task is not to assign blame but to attempt to save others from finding out the hard way that vaccines (MMR and DPT in particular) can be dangerous and should not be administered without a thorough individual analysis of risk versus benefit. The offical line is that adverse events are rare but the reality is that no one is counting and no one knows the extent of the damage to date. The government itself admits that only about 10% of adverse reactions are reported. Shame on them that they still haven't taken action to rectify such an inadmissable situation.

There are many posts on this thread that I would like to respond to, and many points have been raised. This whole issue is bizzarely complex and simple at the same time. Sorry for not mentioning posters by name but here are some of my thoughts on recent posts.

1. There have been lots of posts testifying to the serious sequlles of measles infection in particular. Measles can be dangerous (why and how is another debate altogether) however the fact that wild measles can be dangerous does not in any way make MMR safe. We do not need MMR to safeguard our children. The monovalent vaccine performs better than the combined vaccine both in terms of efficacy and safety. We are only in the situation of 'MMR or nothing' because the government has put us there.

1. There have been a few posters on this thread who adhere to the idea of mandatory vaccination for nursery/school entry. To accept this is to relinquish the democratic right of informed consent to a medical act on one's child, a medical act which carries a currently unknown level of risk. We only have to look at the US experience, where vaccination is mandatory, to understand that the consequences of this is a handing over of power to the pharmaceuticals whose principal goal is to lobby to have as many vaccines as possible made mandatory in order to guarantee a sure market. For anyone interested in the politics of such a situation, I direct you to Barbara Loe Fisher's excellent blog. See here.

1. Let us just remind ourselves that given the serious nature of the diseases in question, vaccination does not offer lifetime immunity even in the people who respond well. Vaccination alters the age distribution for disease resulting in leaving key populations at risk for infection at the very period that the are most vulnerable to long term consequences. Vaccination of infants for rubella is a key example of this. See here for an interesting summary of the debate to date and some good points about CRS.

1. Can people please stop trashing Dr Wakefield's work through frankly shaky and lame arguments such as 'I don't think the Lancet paper was well written' and 'I think he mentioned MMR too often' or 'I don't have a farkin clue but I've read some over simplified crap in a newspaper'. See above link, repeated here for a bit of perspective. Wakefield's hypothesis is well documented and doesn't only come down to the 1998 Lancet paper.

1. Sorry this post is very long!

Forgot to say last night that I think it is unacceptable that the government has never suspended MMR use pending investigation. In 1998 Dr Wakefield and his collegues suggested that there might be a previously undetectd, unknown, unexamined side effect to MMR. It took a certain amount of time for the government to act on this information and to carry out (now discredited) studies to examine the issue. Surely during that time when MMR was under question, the ONLY responsible action was to offer single vaccines and withdraw MMR. But this is not the action that was taken. I find this inexplicable. That MMR still hasn't been withdrawn and properly examined 10 years down the line is a scandal.

For anyone interested in reading the extremely informative words of a parent of a vaccine damaged child as opposed to just believing what we read in the newpapers about these people I recommend the measured words of Jackie Fletcher. Anyone who accuses concerned parents of amusing themselves by concocting a 'conspiracy theory' (WTF?) would also do well to dig a little deeper and read her words.

Have a nice day, all. Tis the first day of spring here in France, the sun is shining and we are going out to a goat's cheese festival. Hope you're all doing something fun.

just to put it into proportion though [and you make some very valid points beachcomber] Wakefield was suggesting only a very small subset of children were at risk from MMR [something like 7% of all autism cases] Children with existing gut problems and a family history of auto immune illnesses are more likely to be at risk. So MMR is likely to be safe for most children, however it is vital that more research is done to investigate if some children are at risk.

Many thanks Beach for all the information. I tend to go with the "as few as possible" camp -- for example I won't be allowing the HPV for my daughter. But I struggle with the polio, even though I know about all its problems. I find it extremely hard to trust official advice now. I find it interesting how on the "doubtful" side of the argument we can take different positions but seek to understand each others' stances: so different from the other side.

stuffit - Why are you against the HPV vaccination?

As someone who had the bad smear test result scare and had to be operated on to prevent the dysplasia developing into full blown cervical cancer, I intend to vaccinate DD against it.

Hi Cote, busy afternoon!

One of the ingredients of the Gardasil HPV vaccine is 225 mcg of aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate as an adjuvant. It's supposed to stimulate the immune response. The toxicity of aluminium is quite well known although as with mercury the amount is meant to be so small we're told it's not damaging. It's linked (though not officially or proven) with Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

A number of deaths of girls after vaccination have been reported in the US. I will check the details.

I think GSK have developed a vaccine without aluminium.

In addition the idea of vaccinating at 12 for a disease that usually emerges in the late forties is surprising to me, when it is so easy to be checked, even every year if you need to. It's not really a vaccine against cancer, which is what it's been sold as: and it's a vaccine against only one strain of HPV anyway I think.

I'm writing all this without checking (just because I've got the pc for ten minutes!) so I'll have a check later to see if I've got my facts together properly.

stuffit - Thanks for the heads up. Hopefully, in another ten years the vaccine without aluminum will be commonplace.

re "vaccinating at 12 for a disease that usually emerges in the late forties is surprising to me"

I don't know where you got the idea that cervical dysplasia emerges in late forties. I was barely 30 when diagnosed with CIN III and had to have an operation cutting a chunk off my cervix. I know several others who had this operation in late twenties.

"when it is so easy to be checked, even every year if you need to."

It's not the same. Once you have HPV you have it forever and there is little knowing if it will come back to haunt you elsewhere - ex: throat cancer (use your imagination).

And the operation is not fun, either. I'd rather have kept my cervix intact, tbh.

"It's not really a vaccine against cancer, which is what it's been sold as: and it's a vaccine against only one strain of HPV anyway I think."

Virtually all cervical cancers are caused by HPV, so yes, this is a de facto vaccine against cervical cancer.

It is against several strains of HPV, the ones that cause cellular changes which lead to cancer. The others cause only warts.

Thanks back to you Cote.. the info about cervical dysplasia is new to me. .I haven't done enough homework on this one. I'm really sorry to hear about your operation.

Maybe Gardasil is the one used in the US and they'll use GSK here. I know for a fact GSK are not using aluminium.

The late forties thing was the average age for cervical cancer being diagnosed by the way. I know that doesn't mean no one will get it until then. I had abnormal cells removed in my mid-twenties (by cryo) after a wart. (tmi? sorry) But they gave me the all-clear after 3 years of 6 month check ups. Does this mean they shouldn't have done? Haven't had problems since but due to many changes of doctors I have not been as careful as I should have been about smears.

Some interesting points from the "Vaccines: What they don't want you to know" (Halvorsen): 1

1)MMR less tested than single vaccines.
2)GPs get peformance related pay and giving vaccines is lucrative
3)A senior doctor was made to sign the Official Secrets Act because of info he had on Vaccines that the goverment didn't want the public to know about. Even when retired, he still would not disclose as he feared for the safety of his family.
4)The vaccines containing mercury were never safe because the level of mercury was dangerously high - putting children at unnecessary risk.
5)There are several Men C vaccines which contain varying percentages of aluminium. If the public were aware of this they would be likely to request the one with the least aluminium.

Ds had the DTP 5 in 1 minus mercury and will have the booster. Other than that, he will have the Measles Vaccine and booster. When he is older he will have the mumps vaccine.

We have a family history of auto-immune disease (thyroid and diabetes) and ds has constant colds/coughs and eczema (albeit mild eczema) which means he is at greater risk of adverse reaction to the MMR - most notably autism.

beachcomber - very sorry to hear your dd had an adverse reaction to a vaccination . You are very informed on the topic and I found your posts illuminating.

This senior doctor etc...
What are you suggesting,ladylush? That the vaccination is dangerous and that the government knows that and has a pro MMR policy anyway. Why? Because of powerful influences from drug companies? Or what? And the majority of the medical/scientific establishment think there is no link, that the rise is due to increased diagnosis. But they are what? Deluded? Lying? Bribed? And only Wakefield knows the truth and he's been hounded for it etc....
We're always hearing about doctors who think the vaccines are wicked but are keeping silent.

I'm not suggesting anything other than the fact that there is censorship on the topic - and there shouldn't be.

Most of that information isn't censored though. It's in a book I could buy off Amazon right now.

Most isn't good enough imo

That stuff you quoted is in a book. It's not censored.

Cote your posts have really made me think.

Huh? I haven't quoted censored information ....erm because it's censored. I am referring to info that the public does not know about.

Oh, I see. The secret information that confirms a link but only a few doctors know about it and they've changed their names and grown beards in order not to be recognised by the dangerous MMR lobby who, with government backing, are determined to damage as many childen as possible. That censored information. We don't know what it is but it's there and it's very very explosive. Got it now.

don't think you have quite got it actually.........but entertaining theory.

"Abnormal cells" is another way of saying "cells that will turn to cancer in 5-10 years". This is not the same thing as a "wart", which is another manifestation of the HPV virus but is not cancerous.

So... I'm not sure I understand what you had - was it a wart or abnormal cells (dysplasia)? Both can be treated with cryo.

I am inclined to think you had abnormal cells, because you had frequent smears afterwards.

In that case, I would advise you to be extra vigilant about a possible return of the dysplasia, because it was not cut out but was treated with cryo. This means, doctors were not able to determine with certainty whether the whole area (depth) affected has been frozen. When the area is cut out, it is then sent to biopsy which determines (by determining that the whole outside area is made up of normal cells) that the dysplasia has been taken out in its entirety.

Sorry for the long explanation. All this to say I think you should remember to have annual smear tests.

Thanks Cote.. I had abnormal cells which the doctor told me had resulted from having a wart. The wart went but the abnormal cells didn't: hence the cryo. No problems in the 15 years since. But you know, it's a good reminder.

(It was awful actually -- he wanted to give me an HIV test which in those days was absolutely horrifying, like a death sentence.)

Oops, I didn't realize the thread moved on.

That last post was for stuffitllama.