to not allow ds2 to have mmr jab?

[TheLadyEvenstar]

I don't think I am, after ds1 had it i noticed a major difference in his behaviour and don't want to go through it again,

'Why do people think that the NHS is deliberately setting out to damage and injure children?'

I don't think that, and I don't know anyone who does. But what I do think is that we live in a society where vaccination programs have become a holy cow, beyond reproach - which is apparent on this thread. This is dangerous in itself and makes little sense. Earlier, when I asked someone to post a link to evidence about measles outbreaks they directed me to a NHS site. It is nice that some of you feel you can have such faith in the government, but whenever I have tried to establish what is and what isn't I have found inconsistency and issues that give me cause for concern, and to rightly question the official line.

Cost effectiveness is always high on the agenda for the government, and as such where the health and well-being of individuals gets caught up with it there is necessarily a conflict of interests. I don't believe evil people are trying to injure my children. I think they haven't even considered the question of damage, or choose to take the view that some collateral damage is acceptable. I do not think it is.

My objections arise precisely because I have found that immunisation policy, and how decisions are made about it is profoundly unscientific!

Cote so you are arguing that the eradication of smallpox, by everyone in the world being vaccinated.

I had all childhood diseases - measles (twice), chicken pox, mumps (both sides), and rubella.

Everyone I know also had all of these diseases. And nobody had long term consequences.

On the other hand, I personally know four children who severely reacted to MMR and were never the same. Two are now diagnosed as autistic . One look at Special Needs board gives quite a few other examples.

Guess what I did with DD? She only had the measles single vaccine (cost 7 euros) only.

Sorry but nobody is convincing me that mumps, chicken pox, and rubella are killer diseases if you have attentive parents and live near a hospital.

Chukkypig, as I said previously, the 'herd immunity' argument is all very well, but only stands up if vaccination is 100% effective and if the government are willing to take responsibility for the cases where it goes wrong and agree to pay compensation. Neither of which is true in the UK.

Well maybe it would be better if we just did away with the vaccincation programs then. If there is a tiny chance that any child will react badly to a vaccine then that vaccine should never be given. We ought to catch all these diseases, and take our chances.

Cote i am very pleased that you recovered from the diseases you caught. I am sure though that you are aware that not all children who catch measles will be so lucky.

Cote that post about Game Theory makes a lot of sense.

Most parents take up the other immunisations offered, and this is perhaps because the risk is perceived to be smaller than the dangers of not vaccinating.

The MMR has always been associated with various rumours and anecdotal stuff about children 'changing' and so on. I don't think they are going to get us to comply in the same way as with the ones that don't have the attached controversy. It needs to be changed in the way it is made or administered, then they might get a reasonable uptake.

7 euros sounds fine, where was that? Can anyone tell me where I can get the single vaccines please?

Chukkypig, so if I understand your last post correctly you are saying that we have a duty to vaccinate our children- no matter what our family history and potential risk factors- to protect

"people [who] aren't interested/are recent immigrants/ are immigrants who don't speak English and don't really understand about the NHS". ?!

Now I've heard everything!

The rubella jab used to be given to girls of 11 and 12 (in what is now Y7) so the likelihood of them becoming pregnant before that is low. Everybody has the option of being tested for immunity before TTC. If they choose not to then surely that is more irresponsible than a planned, researched decision not to go ahead with a child's vax?

3 of my 4 grown up children had the MMR when it first came out 20 years ago (not 25). DS2 has ADHD and bowel problems, and caught mumps a couple of months after the MMR. My DD1 who wasn't allowed the MMR (egg allergy- GP's advice) didn't catch anything.. DS1 who is now 21 has problems we can now link back to the 3rd DTP jab. Forgive me for being less interested in the herd immunity theory than my own family history when considering not to give MMR to DD2.

electra you misunderstand herd immunity. The vaccine is not 100% effective, which is why a high take-up is needed to prevent the disease flaring up in the population.

Actually, herimmunation will work, even if vaccines are not 100% effective, as they will eradicate the chance of outbreak....if the vaccines were 100% safe herd immunity wouldn't be so important...

Chukkypig, can I ask how you have come to the conclusion that the risk of vaccine damage is 'tiny'?? It is not tiny for the child who is susceptible to triggers is it?

It is difficult to balance the risk of disease with the risk of the vaccination because the government makes it so difficult for people to be able to make truly balanced decisions. The debate is obscured generally, and misinfomation perpetuated.

Of course it is your own choice whether to vaccinate or not. It should also be my choice to sue you if my (vaccinated) child nonetheless contracts MMorR from yours and suffers damage as a result.

The comment about immigrants is dreadful How patronising.

What is wrong with saying that there are groups in this country who don't access and benefit from the full range of things that most people access through the NHS? It is true.

Or should only people who understand about the NHS and immunisations etc benefit from it?

Very sensible and not at all emotive suggestion subtlemouse

Masarla, it was an emotive post on an emotive subject. I was not referring to you regarding instinct. Rather to the OP who continually reverts back to the issue of her instincts when challenged on her decision making process.

I simply think it is wrong for a parent to expose their child to viruses that are proven to cause major problems for some children, lifelong, and even life threatening, on the strength of an 'instinct' that there could be a link to autism.

Having said that, I am not trivialising the impact of changes in personality on a family, and I know that there are posters out there that have experienced this first hand.

I personally would rather take that risk than live with the knowledge that I could have prevented my child's serious illness if I had been brave enough.

Vaccinated children catch the diseases too subtlemouse, and pass them on too.

??????

I'm really stunned at some of the arguments on this thread - esp the "we survived all the childhood diseases and so did our parents and grandparents so they can't be that serious"!!!

I'm guessing those children who have died of all these childhood diseases over the last 100 years are not posting on MN as adults cos they're, um, dead?

Unbelievable.

The thing is, people who are at risk or who cannot have the vaccine (babies especially)would not be at risk of catching it if there was nobody to catch it from.

The fact that people who are able to have the vaccine and are not doing so, means there are more people with the illness or vulnerable to it, and therefore the people who are at risk are more likely to catch it.

Measles is very, very contagious - I think ds picked it up from the GP surgery as we had been there recently. The infection can hang about in the air for up to 3 hours after the infected person has left the room. Seriously.

Look my parents are both hospital doctors and have had many situations where people, especially women, don't really get the NHS and how to access it's services. When they don't speak English and spend all their time at home for example. Women don't present at the hospital until in the late stages of pregnancy for example, having missed all the ante-natal checks because they didn't know what was available and that was what they were supposed to do. I think we should help people in that situation rather than saying as another poster suggested that we should call them irresponsible.

How is that patronising?

Or maybe I have been brainwashed and so have my parents by the NHS.

Although two people with medical degrees and one with a physics degree are probably in a reasonable position to consider scientific research and understand how vaccinations work.

i am at a loss to understand how people can agrue against immunisations when the evidence on here is they don't really understand how they work.

I don't agree with the assumption that immigrants are generally ignorant and cannot speak English, or that people who don't vaccinate have not done so because they are either ignorant, selfish, or irresponsible. It gives people no credit for being able to think for themselves.

I understand how they are supposed to work. The issue is not really whether vaccinations work, but whether collateral damage is acceptable, and I do not think that it is - do you chukkypig?

I'm not generally anti-vaccination but I'm very anti the way that the programs are scheduled, policies made and the total refusal of the authorities to take responsibility when it goes wrong.

That's where I'm going wrong then. I only have a History degree and not a Physics one so I'm clearly not in a position to be able to understand my own experience and make an informed decision

I am not saying all immigrants. I am saying that some are in this situation - which they are. How is that wrong? And not just immigrants - there are many groups who for various reasons do not access services.

Are we really saying that these people only have themselves to blame? That is a bit hard.

Incidentally the infant mortality for women preseting late is higher than for the general population due to the lack of ante-natal care. I would say this means we need to work harder to reach these people and give them the care and advice they need. Howver I understand that people may well disagree with me on this point, given the arguments presented in this thread.

Electra you don't as you previously didn't understand how mass immunity works.

I am going to leave this thread now as I am really really upset.

If people don't want to get their children vaccinated then OK then, do what you like, the outbreaks in London recently are irrelevent and the effects of the disease are overstated anyway.

Incidentally I can point you in the direction of research which shows that condoms don't reduce the risk of contracting HIV, and in fact can make it more likely that you catch it, I'm sure that may be of interest to you.