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...

YANBU . Poor little thing.

Glad your DS is going to be OK.

Please can we remember that despite all the stories here about possible reactions to vaccinations, the vast majority of children have absolutely no problem. I appreciate that we all have concerns about if our own child will react to the jabs but it is better for society as a whole if children are vaccinated as it reduces the pool of disease in the community.

2point4kids one of the concerns with MMR is that it is combined, another is that it is a live vaccine. Single measles vaccine does seem to be safer but it then it isn't very hard to be safer than the MMR!

Why do you think the government is so unwilling to offer single vaccines? Surely if people are worried about measles epidemics it is the most responsible action to take.

I should imagine combined jabs are used because it is cheaper.

GP's have targets (ie financial gain) to meet for vaccinating thier patients.

The 5 in 1 jabs are given at 8, 12 & 16 weeks to make sure they catch woman while they are still on maternity leave, not because it is the optimum time to give the babies those jabs.

The immunity you are given from the rubella jab diminishes over time. Therefore if the trend towards 'older mothers' (sorry, I do hate that phrase but can't think of anything pc) continues, the r part of the mmr won't be so effective. Most pg woman at the moment had rubella in their early teens so their immunity is higher.

There are so many things that don't sit comfortably with me about mass vaccinating.

Flexi it's not really better for society as a whole. It's really not. Nobody has any right to force parents to inject their children. One of the reasons there are so many home-edders in the US is because it's mandatory in so many schools to have completed the schedule. Unless you've read a lot more it's hard to understand why it's not better, and how you can't trust everything that comes from health officials, but many many children have been damaged and it really should be a personal choice, with no blame attached.

I would guess that the government has 2 reasons for not offering single vaccines. Firstly, it is much more logistically complicated to arrange multiple extra jabs and would greatly increase the number of children who miss jabs. Second, spacing them out increases the length of time children are not covered for the individual diseases. Thirdly, the reality is that despite the huge numbers of concerned parents on here, nearly 90% of children do have the standard vaccinations so in society as a whole, there is not the demand for single jabs.

Sorry, said 2 reasons when it's more like 4. Add cost to the list above.

I would guess it is down to cost.

Fleximum do you have figures that back up your claim about the vast majority? Vaccine reactions are known to be very undereported, the government thinks only about 10% of reactions get recorded as the follow up is a passive system.

I have trouble with the idea of the welfare 'society as a whole' being an excuse for the current system. Why so many vaccines, why no attempt to identify at risk children, why so little help and support for those who do have a bad reaction, why no single vaccines?

Do you honestly think that it is ok to put children at risk for the greater good? As a parent how would you feel if one of your children ended up as one of the unlucky ones so that 'society' benefits? Society is made up of individuals, real people.

I'm sorry, I come from a medical background so I see the medical press. There is study after study, and large ones at that which keep failing to show any good evidence of damage in the vast, vast majority of cases. I again appreciate the stories of problems told on here but I have to disagree with the idea that society is not better off to be protected from these viruses. Also, you have to remember that the NHS has limited resources and has to try to get the best result for the most people for the least money. Clearly most of you on here are well educated and can consider the risks in a rational manner but a lot of people do not have the knowledge or understanding to do that and would probably opt for the default of no jabs. I am sure you can see that this would be a bad idea as it would lead us back to the situation of disease epidemics and deaths.

Yes Flexi that's the argument. But really they have dug themselves into a corner and can't get out. They cannot under any circumstances admit that there may/could/possibly be any kind of a problem with MMR as it would open the floodgates of litigation and complaint. The effect for the government, governments everywhere, would be catastrophic. Allowing singles would be that concession, that admittance. That is why, even when there are measles outbreaks, they won't concede that singles are a good idea. The argument they have attached to it is just fancy dress.

Many people come from a medical background and have come to a different conclusion from you Flexi. Many doctors don't vaccinate.

ITA with stuffitllama.

Fleximum, where does the funding come for all the studies you mention?

My niece had her first asthma attack on the day after her first MMR jab.
She was hospitalised for five days.

The hospital categorically stated that there was no link between the jab and the illness.
So nothing is written in her records to link the two incidents.

I am sure there are many, many reactions that are not noted, and therefore do not appear in any studies.

New one on me beach. ITA?

And Quite. On Funding.

Every doctor i consulted with does vaccinate. Also, re. immunisation not being 100% and not working for every person who is immunised - that's as may be, but as long as every is responsible enough to immunise, then the minority for whom immunisation doesn't work will still be safe.

I had to insist that my doctor reported by daughter's swollen leg as an adverse event. In the beginning he said it wasn't a big deal. He crapped himself once she started having gut problems and all the rest of it though.

Well that doesn't really mean every doctor sugar

I understand what you are saying, beachcomber and I would obviously be devastated if my children were to be affected by the jabs. My cousin has autism and my aunt felt under a lot of pressure not to vaccinate her younger son despite the fact that her elder boy clearly had symptoms of autism well before his MMR. Both my boys have been vaccinated but I would be lying if I were to say that I didn't have a little worry before the MMR despite my strong belief that it does no harm. To use a not very good example but the best I could think of: it might be better for me if I didn't have to pay tax but I can see how it is better for society. If there is poor reporting of side effects of vaccinations we only have ourselves to blame. After all th mess with research into the MMR it would be a very brave researcher who looked into it further and I can't see anyone funding it I'm afraid.

But you don't know if your child is one of the ones who will be damaged by immunisation until after the fact.

Stuffit, i consulted well over 85 million doctors - i take these things very seriously