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...

PosieParker- no it hasn't been disproved. There is no point taking a random group of autistic kids and looking at measles virus in their blood, when the theory concerns only 7% of kids with ASD with measles virus in their guts.

Helen Bedford, senior research felloe
David Elliman, consultant in community child health
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, Cochrane review.....
all people who say that Wakfield research was exclusive of some facts and studies that would have meant a completely different outcome.

Posieparker, read Wakefield's paper (beware it has long words in it). Then read this thread.

The paper doesn't say what you're been told it says.

It's not been disproved as you've been told.

The 75% herd immunity you've been told about is incorrect.

The reason's you've been told that people are opposing the MMR are wrong too.

You should be really pissed off with wherever you are getting your information. I'd be furious if it were me to be put in such am embarrassing position.

Dr Fitzpatrick persuasively and eloquently demolishes the key plank of the MMR panic: claims of a link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. Indeed, any risks associated with the MMR vaccine are virtually non-existent: 'when 500million doses of a vaccine have been given in 80 countries over more than 30 years, and serious adverse reactions are found to be extremely rare, then it is fair to describe it as "safe"', he says. Meanwhile the case for immunisation is indisputable: 'Diseases that had caused devastating epidemics in living memory, and had produced a significant toll of death and disability into the post-war period, have virtually disappeared.'

my neigbours son had it although he`d been vaccinated..

Posie, do you know anyone who has NOT vaccinated just because they felt like it? Someone who just couldn't be bothered? Because all the people on here who have not vaccinated, and all the people in RL I know who have not vaccinated, have done an awful lot of research (and sometimes had some hard evidence before their eyes) before coming to their conclusion.

I am like riven - I do not blindly accept what a docotr tells me. I have had doctors tell me things that would have caused harm to dd1 - and when I point this out to them (calmy and politely), their only reply is "oh, yes, you're right". If I didn't do any research, dd1 would be harmed time and again.

GRS, however you look at it I do not think there is a conspiracy to give our children autism, in this country. I do think, even if, there is more of a risk of a very few children getting autism (incidental link at best) that it is preferable than the disease that the single vaccines/MMR prevent becoming rife.
So I'll take my long words and choose not to be patronised by you....
Perhaps Prince Philip did kill Diana and nobody has stepped foot on the moon?

bam, that's why mosr should vaccinate.

I haven't said everyone regardless of their situation should vaccinate, but the incidences where you shouldn't are rare.

See what I mean? "conspiracy to give our children autism" That line alone proves that you have no idea what this thread is about.
You won't find anyone here who thinks that.

And I still say you didn't read Wakefields paper. Just read the tabloid headlines.

Posie, did I read you right? You just said that my child being damaged, having a life long disability, not being given the help she needs (either in general life, or medically) is preferable to not vacinating?

That it is ok to accept that some chidren will be damaged as long as the majority of children are fine?

And you have the temerity to accuse me of being selfish?

Dr Fitzpatrick is your 'authority'? Dear God.

The Cochrane review concluded that safety trials on the MMR were wholly inadequate, but that it should be continued to be used because any problems were obviously not affecting large numbers.

Having measles during a pregnancy can result in an infection of the unborn child and may in the worst case result in the death of the baby.If a pregnant woman is infected with German measles there is a risk of damage to the unborn child. In some cases, the dangers are so high that an abortion is recommended.
A less rare complication of mumps is meningitis, which may appear 3 to 10 days after the onset of mumps. This is an inflammation of the membranes of the brain or spinal cord.
Vaccinations are about weighing up the risk, it is health care policy not a policy for each individual and so a very few children at risk of the adverse affects of vaccines is better than lots at risk from other disease.
I know plenty of children with autism, some vaccinated and some not.
I have yet to read a single thing that makes me believe that there is any link between autism and the MMR. I will scour the threads later and come back. I have heard too many compelling arguments from health care and reaearch professionals to think my mind can be changed, but I will check.
Silverfrog, this is obviously alittle too personal for you and I'm sorry for your child being damaged but I can't change my point of view based on the personal tragedy of a few individuals, it is about all of our children.

It's not a little too personal for me at all (well, it is obviously very close to hoem, but I can cope with talking about it thank you, and do not need patronising. FWIW, there is no outrage to my posts at all, just disbelief)

I just wanted to know whether you really stood by your comment "I do think, even if, there is more of a risk of a very few children getting autism that it is preferable than the disease that the single vaccines/MMR prevent becoming rife.", and I know the answer now.

I really did not think you could have meant it, after accusing non-vaccinators of being selfish - what is your attitude (that it's fine for my child and most people, but I don't care if others are hurt) if not selfish?

I totally agree with your last comment - it is about all of our children. Not just the ones who will be ok if they are vaccinated. All that most of us non-vaccinaters ask for is more research (to identify which children may be at risk form whcih jab) and more flexibility in jabs on offer (ie offer singles well spaced out, and offer singles to avoid having to give unnecessary jabs - if you need a tetanus booster for eg, you now have to have a combi jab as single tetanus not readily available)

Did anyone tell you that the rare complication of mumps is aseptic meningitis (which isn't dangerous in the way bacterial meningitis is).

"I can't change my point of view based on the personal tragedy of a few individuals, it is about all of our children."

And lack of empathy is a feature of autism????

I don't think anyone has suggested that some of the diseases vaccinated against can be dangerous (wouldn't include mumps in children in that except in very very rare cases though). But vaccination is not black and white. Mumps vaccination appears to have increased the number of adults getting it- ie has made it more dangerous for example. The same may happen to Hib (the 'one jab for life' was found not to last to the end of the second year.).

Do you think that people who suffer 'personal tragedies' should be compensated, or is it just tough luck? 'all' our children means those left damaged and disabled as well. I find the ones who shout loudest about social responsibility are the ones who suck lemons in ds1's presence as well. Social responsibility works both ways.

You didn't even think that the personal tragedy made it worthwhile reading what people were saying before disagreeing and accusing them of being conspiracy nuts, selfish etc.

Oh and although this isn't the point (and it's certainly not true) If it WERE shown to be instantly lethal to a certain group (say all green eyed babies) would you be willing to administer the injection?

This reminds me of an old Ursula le Guin story where the happiness of a whole town depends on the suffering of a single boy being kept in a dungeon.

The reader is obviously expected to come to the conclusion that this is not OK.

I guess Posie would disagree.

I'm afraid the two are the same, to vaccinate or not. By not vaccinating people are saying it's alright to put all children at risk from disease and by me thinking that all should vaccinate I feel that it okay for all to be put at risk from the vaccination, and at present I'm not sure there are any real risks for most children.
As for social responsibility I think we all have one to vaccinate where appropriate, have single vaccines of you must.
Of course if there is a case for compensation that it should be received. Why would I think tough luck???

YANBU except that yes, as people said many may have ahd single vaccines- planning that for ds4.

Will confess ds3 hasn't had booster. not out of malice or laziness- I know the chances of his ASD relating to the MMR are low, but it did develop just after he had it and I am frankly petrified. The thought of the MMR reduces me to tears but can't afford single jabs atm.

But that is the problem posie. Single jabs are not available (for some, you can get them by paying, for others they are simply not allowed anymore). Also, as yurt has repeatedly pointed out, there is no compensation for a child under 2.

So, even if I wanted to take the vaccination risk, I am not alowed to give only the jabs that I think are safe for my child, as they are all bundled in together, and then, should something go wrong and my child is damaged, this damage is either written off as a "coincidence" or not recognised altogehter.

That is why people choose not to vaccinate. If some of the risks could be alleviated, and shoud there be a guarantee of support if things went wrong, some non-vaccinaters may change their minds. as it stands, you do it the government way, or not at all (through gov dictation), not allowing for individual case histories, and if something oes go wrong you are very much on oyur own. Not really a system that one can have much faith in.

"By not vaccinating people are saying it's alright to put all children at risk from disease"

Why? If the vaccinations work, why would all children be at risk? And if they don't work (or they are altering the ages at which diseases are being caught) then that needs to be considered.

You seem to be suggesting that it's just tough luck. There are people on here who haven't vaccinated after problems with vaccinations and elder children (and no compensation) and you're calling them selfish. You are describing those children as acceptable collateral for the common good. No-one is looking after those children. And if you watch the video you will see that if your child dies before they are 2 from a vaccination you will not be allowed to claim compensation. That has to be wrong surely? Especially when so many vaccinations are given before the age of 2. That rule prevented the mother in the video from being able to take legal action. That can't be right (or in the public interest).

I guess I am utalitarian in my approach, although an accidental possible outcome is much better than a true calculated risk and likely outcome.
It is quite ridiculous to suggest if green eyed babies were going to die that I would agree with vaccinating them, this is hardly that cut and dry.
As for personal stories I think whilst they are very moving and I do have empathy for the families where autism occurs or is picked up following the MMR, but it not helpful to the debate as we can all find personal stories to support either side of the debate..the difference is measles, mumps and rubella are irrefutable.

And the risk is different for each child. Who are you to decide that it's acceptable for ds2 and ds3 to take a higher risk than your child? (Which they would be).

yurt1, you are putting the wrong words in the wrong mouth. How am I saying tough luck?
Just as you don't think tough luck to those children who die from the disease that you think we shouldn't immunise against, do you?
I think all children are at risk because the majority need to vaccinated in order to eradicate that risk.
As a mother of three I have made my informed choice and 'risked' my children with the MMR, I am not asking anyone to do something I wouldn't do myself.