to be bl**dy furious that my DD has measles because other parents won't vaccinate?

[elportodelgato]

poor DD is only 11 mo and has horrid measles all over her, full of cold, streaming eyes, diarrhea, very unhappy and sleepy and limp. I am so so for her, but more I am absolutely bloody with idiot parents who won't have the MMR!

The doctor actually told me this morning that the reason it is so prevalent in our area is because of stupid people refusing to vaccinate their children and compromising the immunity of the whole group. So now my LO, who is only 2 months off having the vaccination herself, is really really sick because of other people's stupidity. It's making my blood boil! Do people not realise how dangerous it can be in little babies? And does anyone still seriously believe the so called "research" which claimed a link between MMR and autism? It has been so completely discredited in recent years you would think people would have got over it by now and started vaccinating again

Arrgh!!

tigger - "If children can develop autism after the MMR ... then how could it not lead to an increase in the number of people with autism?"

It wouldn't lead to a statistically significant rise in autism across the general population (i.e. research papers would say there is no rise) because the numbers are so small.

So it makes sense for government to push for MMR because the couple of kids damaged for life can be written off for the greater good (read: money). It costs much less to care for these few kids than outbreaks of measles, mumps, and rubella, with associated hospital costs, work days lost (parents), etc.

It sucks when one of those few is your child, though.

novicemama - I think you must be deliberately misconstruing a lot of posters on this thread. I say that because people have explained time and time again that their decision not to vaccinate their child was a carefully thought out process based on individual circumstances. Yet you are saying that those who don't vaccinate (we're talking MMR mostly anyway - most have gone for singles)have a complete disregard for public health So I ask this question again......"what parent would genuinely sacrifice the health of their own child for the benefit of other children?" You didn't - the fact that immunising your own child benefits society is a happy coincidence.It is something that all parents can be smug about when they have taken a decision which directly effects their own child but which is considered low risk. There is no way you would have taken your child for the MMR if you thought they fitted the profile of this identified sub-group. No way in hell.

NO ONE says that the MMR is responsible for all autism. No one !

Where MMR is impicated it is usually amongst children like my son who were developing normally and then regressed and who usually have assocaited bowel problems and food allergies/intolerances. With these children often autistic symptoms are alieviated when diet is changed.
they are also usually ( like my son) at the very severe end ofthe spectrum.

I think the guestimate is that triggered ASD is about 7% of the whole ASD population - but I am only remembering that figure.

Of course it is much better to ignore what people are saying , extrpolate wildly and then abuse your widly exagerated version of what they said.

The 'improved' diagnosis does not explain a n increase in numbers of childrenm with ASD from i in 10,000 in the 80's to the current figure of 1 in 100 ( some say nearer 1 in 60)

yes just double checked it was 1998 -

MMR take-up rates started dropping in 1995

Pag I dont think the OP has the ability to empathise or take on board opposing opinions. She just wants to be rude. Trying to discuss such an important issue seems pointless with some folk.

novicemama on Thu 30-Apr-09 16:54:34

"Given the huge HUGE body of scientific evidence that MMR does not cause autism"

Actually there is no scientific evidence that MMR does not cause autism. The experts say they haven't found a link, that is completely different from proving that it doesn't cause autism.

Basically they can neither prove it or disprove it.

spokette of course it was known, it was bloody obvious, I already said that it was researched and studied,as you said, but it wasn't 'proven' in the sense it was recognised officially . There is a difference.

ladylush, well put. The op comes across to me as nasty hypocrite. Yes op let us know when you decide to knowingly risk your daughter's health and future for the greater good

Izy
its true and quite ironic really as lack of empathy is part ofthe triad of impairment
Yet DS2 is very worried about anyone who is not well and would never ever be rude to anyone. Whilst 'normal' 'loving' parents couldn't give a fuck about him and would like his sister forciably removed from us and held down and jabbed.

• who is it that has the 'issues' again

spokette - You are changing the subject. Very un-scientist of you, but as you wish...

re "ignoring the indisputable fact that Wakefield's misleading announcement has led to the low uptake of the MMR vaccine."

I'm not ignoring nor disputing that.

Low uptake is a very normal and rational response to the following:

• it seems SOME kids are at risk
• we don't know WHO these kids are
• therefore, I'd rather not give MMR to my precious baby and risk irreversible damage

"there are many parents out there who believe that if they give their children the MMR vaccine, they will end up autistic"

Not will, but might.

Yes, so what? I am one of those parents.

Unless further studies are done to identify the minority at risk, no child of mine will take that risk, no matter how minute.

In comparison, childhood diseases are not that dangerous at all. DD had measles vaccine but won't have the rest. At about age 10, I will test her for rubella immunity and vaccinate then if necessary. If you are indeed a scientist, you would know (or should be able to find out) that mumps is only really dangerous to men and rubella is only really dangerous to non-immune pregnant women.

And ROFL at "screeching" Is that all you can say? How about answering what I said, if you can?

Kitty - I get soooo exasperated. I don't know how beachcomber et al can be so dignified, I really don't. But I admire them so much for it.

I did not mean to be flippant in my last post, but having read it back I see that I was and so I am very sorry for offending people.

Please note that I have stated more than once that I do accept that there may be a very very tiny sub-group of children for whom MMR is not advisable and I have also stated more than once that of course I have every sympathy for these children and their families. This is not the majority of people who refuse MMR, and that majority is who I am talking about.

So I stick by my analogy - there may be evidence that autism rates are rising but there is not evidence that this is down to MMR, so why not choose something else to blame it on? and in the meantime why not protect your child and everyone else's from a known set of potentially deadly illnesses by vaccinating them?

But novicemama what is "tiny tiny". Do you know how many there are? No. You don't. Furthermore "tiny tiny" is still a real percentage. Real children. Don't be so sure that a lot of the parents refusing MMR for their kids/opting for singles don't fall into this percentage. How would you know? Interrogate them? No, much better to make assumptions.

novivemama, why would anyone want to take the risk that their child isn't in the at risk group?

I call that dicing with a child's health

Havent read the whole thread but just thought to add my experience. My children havent had MMR and it was nothing to do with Wakefield. My nephew and cousins ds's both ended up in hospital within 24 hours of having MMR with severe reaction - thankfully no long lasting effects that are known but for a year, there were more flare ups for my nephew (severe hives type reactions). Off the record the doctors admitted it was likely the MMR, but nothing (nothing!!!) was recorded for the future. Therefore I am totally cyncical when anybody says any statistic re any vaccine as unless there is a definitive proven link (i.e. immediate reaction) it appears its not recorded. The nurse at our surgery admitted she and one of our GPs kids havent had it (but had singles) and the consultant at the hospital recommended that my children have the MMR in hospital so they 'can be on hand if there is a severe reaction'. Obviously I didnt go for it. Who would? My children have all had singles but there are no records of that except in their red books, therefore gov. statistics would put them as not vaccinated. As others have said the percentage of children vaccinated is probably far higher than recorded and anyway, you can still catch it after MMR.

novice - re "I do accept that there may be a very very tiny sub-group of children for whom MMR is not advisable... This is not the majority of people who refuse MMR"

We Don't Know Who Is In This Tiny Sub-group, Because There Has Been No Research Into Defining It.

Therefore, it is entirely rational for LOTS of people to refuse MMR, not willing to take the small chance that their DC might be in this tiny sub-group.

Please say you understand.

Kitty

"of course it was known, it was bloody obvious, I already said that it was researched and studied,as you said, but it wasn't 'proven' in the sense it was recognised officially . There is a difference. "

It wasnt officially recognised that smoking was harmful until 1999 or later? By who?

Good luck Cote

Novicemama - sorry, I misquoted you. Meant "very very tiny" rather than "tiny tiny".

It would appear from your experience with the fast recovery from measles that it is preferrable to having a child damaged by vaccinations. That's a black and white way of viewing things but that is the way you understand things isnt it Novice? No shades of grey or difficult decisions based on circumstances for you are there?.

Philip Morris finally admitted smoking causes cancer in 1999, iirc.

And the Catholic Church finally admitted that Galileo was right in 1990, if anyone is interested

Wow, so it was only 19 years ago that it was proven that the earth goes round the sun. Amazing

thanks for that cote, I couldn't find the info. There you go spokette.