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...

10 minute video that seems relevant to this thread.

I checked yesterday, and yes it's true. If your child dies from a vaccination before the age of 2 then you can't claim compensation. Of course the money doesn't matter as such, but it does prevent legal action being taken.

That doesn't seem very socially responsible of the State.

Mitochondrial disorders and MMR again.

The reason they 'herd' vaccinate is because at least 75% of the population need to have had it. You are right to be annoyed, I think other parents are very arrogant and selfish for not vaccinating their children.

Posie - let me just get htis straight - I am selfish because I did not want to damage my child? (a probability if I had let dd2 have any jabs given family medical history)

Can I add I have not read other posts, just answering the OP. The reason we are a low risk country is because we have, historically, immunised our children. The only link to autism I thought had now been disproved and so i do wonder who these people are that think they know better than decent medical advice.

I'm still not understanding the logic of saying "You are selfish for putting my child at risk by not putting your child at risk"

Maybe you have a specific family history that means you can't, that is fairly unusual and I don't think those cases make up the 25% that we can allow for, right?

"I think other parents are very arrogant and selfish for not vaccinating their children."

Really? The vast majority of people I know who haven't vaccinated have chosen not to either because of health issues in their child (there was one mum on here for example who came under enormous pressure from her GP to vaccinate her sick baby- when she finally saw an immunologist she was told that the polio jab would have killed her baby) or because of things that have happened to older siblings.

I don't think they could be described as 'arrogant and selfish'. BUggered if I'm going to watch another child of mine lose all his speech to protect little Johnny down the road from something as mild as mumps.

Sue, how are you putting your child at risk?

Actually you need much higher than 75% for herd immunity for most diseases. The department of health told me they have enough people vaccinated for herd immunity and I was wrong to think otherwise (remember all the shock horror measles outbreak is due figures never include the number of children who have had singles).

Posie - " so i do wonder who these people are that think they know better than decent medical advice"

you talk of other people being arrogant, and then come out with a statemnet like that. "these people" are people who have watched their child become ill following vaccinations. Who have then been told they are making it up. who have been lied to at every turn, by medical professionals. who are then expected to belive the same medical professionals when it comes to the next set of jabs.

I argued against my dd1 having a hepB jab (we lived abroad at the time). Such was the state of the hospital, that even as I was arguing against her having it, the nurse jabbed her anyway and then turned round and said "there, its done now, and she didn't even notice". Dd1 was 3 days old. How are you supposed to trust medical professionals if they won't even enter into debate about whether something is necessary or not?

There have been plenty of stories in this thread about doctors insisting a jab is right for a child, and the parents telling the doctor (rightly) that is is actually contra-indicated for their child's condition.

PosieP, I refer you to the thread. It's all been discussed at length.

"The only link to autism I thought had now been disproved"

Has it? where? No paper published to date has even tested Wakefield's hypothesis.

It's one thing to have a very good reason of not giving your child particular doses of disease/vaccine because there are clear risks associated with their condition, it is quite another to prevent a healthy child having one because you are not well informed.

Wakefield had a ridiculous hypothesis that he didn't even test.

And who has done that? Everyone I've met who has chosen not to vaccinate has been very well informed.

Most for example know that the potential autism-MMR link has not been disproved,

I have a friend who works on an intensive care ward for children, the risks of measles is very real. One child left blind and brain damaged, vaccinated too.... I would hate to tell their parents that I chose not to because of some crap Wakefield wrote.

Er he didn't PosieParker- he described a new condition - autistic enterocilitis which is agreed to exist. No on has suggested that it doesn't. The original paper has been described at the current GMC trial, by the editor of the Lancet as 'excellent Science' that still stands.

Some people think that regression and bowel changes occuring within weeks of the MMR can not in any way implicate the MMR. Wakefield suggests that it might do.

Nothing ridiculous about that.

yurt, it been disproved over and over again. More than that better tests and trials have discounted claims by Wakefield by looking at the measle and MMR antibodies in sufferers of autism and those without and there is no difference.

"because of some crap Wakefield wrote."

Have you actually read anything he wrote?

This is what Ridchard Horton (editor of the Lancet) said about the paper. (Perhaps you know more than him).

"When Horton moved to talking about the paper published in the Lancet, it became clear that he had the highest regard for the method which the ?case series? used and the way in which it was presented. If the prosecution was expecting him to say that the paper was full of poor science, they must have been surprised when he said the absolute opposite.

Horton said that the Lancet paper was an excellent example of a ?case series?. That this was a standard and entirely reputable way of reporting on a possible new syndrome. He likened it to how the first cases of HIV/AIDS were reported in the early 80s and how the new variant CJD issue broke more recently. He said unequivocally that the science reported in the 1998 Lancet paper ?still stands? and that he 'wished, wished, wished' that the clock could be turned back and the paper be considered in the light it was first presented, without everything that followed."