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!!

YANBU. Personally I'd like to see the Daily Mail and the other newspapers that whipped up hysteria done for corporate manslaughter.

The last chapter of Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science' is entitled 'The MMR hoax' and details what Wakefield said and the various allegations since, and makes it clear that there was a massive overreaction on the press's part.

I don't blame most of the parents because the media coverage has been so poor and how can a non-expert know who to believe when the papers are saying 'trial X is needed''trial X has been done' 'oh no it hasn't' etc.

I do get hacked off when people say they 'know' their child was affected by X just because X happened before Y, but that faulty logic isn't restricted to MMR...

"most immigrants are immunised in their home countries "

what all those 3rd world immigrants coming to the UK - the countries where 95% of the approx 197,000 deaths each year from measles (globally) occur.

It's interesting to note from here the the confirmed death in 2006 was of a 13yr old boy. - and the foot at the bottom says the last acute Measles death was in 1992.

(still not the tables I'm looking for though)

I thought the whole point of GPs is that they are generalists who refer to specialists? So not experts on specirfic disorders as such (whilst acnowledging that they're still bloody useful of course)

I would have thought in order to obtain firm pronouncements of measles etc avirologist would be the choice of source? Unless he / she said 'in my opinin'of ocurse which would an entirely different slant on this.....

I ahd ds1-3 vaccinated; ahd I not known that we have a massively increased risk of ASD I would have vaccinated ds4. But avoidance of the MMR, as well as early commnication work, a GF CF diet, extended BF is something I feel I must do. I think most people would understand, if not agree.

CoteDAzur "I had measles when I was 9 months old, then again when I was 8. Back then, these were considered normal childhood diseases, there was no MMR, and everyone had them. Your baby will be fine. With a bit of luck, she might even have life-long immunity."

I'm sorry but your logic is screwy. No one is saying that measles kills EVERYONE who catches it. However it is a possibility. Just because you survived it (or even everyone you know) doesn't mean it's safe. The people who didn't survive it obviously aren't here to tell the tale!

We do know that if a lot of people get measles, some of them WILL die.

We are so lucky to live in a part of the world where we have these medicines available to us, and free of charge too. I'm delighted that I am able to protect my child against measles by a simple injection.

Contraindicators can be found here:
cks.library.nhs.uk/immunizations_childhood/management/prescribing_information/contraindications#

To the OP you are not being unreasonable I would be angry with the parent of the other child unless they had a valid medical reason to not get their child vaccinated

I think you'll also find that even in developing countries people get pissed off with vaccine damage. Unfortunately the original article is no longer available but this is from Times of India. There are plenty more articles like that out there>

Times of India 2006
Something is seriously wrong with India's polio eradication initiative (PEI). The Indian Medical Association (IMA) has raised doubts over why, after a decade of intensive implementation of polio vaccination, the incidence of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) is on the increase, particularly in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

The global average incidence of AFP is one in 100,000, but in India the incidence has suddenly risen to 12-13 per 100,000 since the implementation of the polio programme.

IMA, not otherwise known for making proactive interventions, suspects a connection between vaccinations and rise in AFP, but the government is in denial mode.

Incidence of AFP increased from 3,047 cases in 1997, when PEI had just begun, to 27,000 cases in 2005. There can be no denying that AFP has hit children who have been vaccinated.

Meanwhile, there are reports of polio spreading to areas considered free of the disease, such as Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

The Centre - along with UNICEF, Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organisation and Rotary International, which are spearheading the Global Polio Eradication Initiative - should go slow on propaganda and instead take stock of the situation.

By turning a blind eye to flaws in PEI, these global bodies have once again shown that their understanding of public health issues can be rather limited.

There can be no one-shot solution to controlling disease. In the case of polio, vaccination is unlikely to work in isolation of improvement in sanitation and nutritional profile of affected populations.

The pulse polio programme has diverted resources away from routine immunisation efforts. The latter, along with an improved physical environment, might have worked better at keeping polio in check.

While there can be no argument against a controlled, rationally-administered polio initiative, data on polio incidence does point to disproportionate emphasis on the disease. Did WHO paint a scare scenario in the 1980s?

On a larger point, the accent on vaccinations as a magic cure is open to question. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that excessive vaccination impacts immunity, rendering children vulnerable to asthma and strange allergies.

Some even point to the possibility of neurological disorders. In India, children are administered up to 25 doses of polio vaccine, unheard of elsewhere in the world.

The government has not chosen to inform people about the contraindications. Vaccination is all very well, but to the extent that it is driven by commercial interests it should not be seen as panacea for all ills.

Taken from FAQ's post -

in the UK - "the last acute Measles death was in 1992."

but worldwide there are 197,000 deaths each year.

That'll be the vaccines at work then! (alongside better general heath).

How about the possibility that the Ops DD caught it from vaccinated child? Surely she should feel angry that they'd not had their immunity checked.

My son caught rubella from a vaccinated child - should I be calling her an idiot for being stupid enough to think that vaccination meant her child couldn't get rubella?

MmeLindt, you are right - I should not have started this thread feeling as involved and emotional as I do. My LO is wailing upstairs, absolutely desperate to sleep but unable to because she has such a temperature and every time she coughs or sneezes her whole body shakes. We are quarantined in the house for a week.

It's all well and good some people doing their so-called research and deciding what's best for their LOs, but do spare a thought for the rest of us who have a social conscience and are still the ones suffering for other's thoughtlessness.

ahh - got it

yes - as I remembered highest number of case in areas which are "known" to have large number of immigrants and aslyum seekers, particularly from 3rd world countries.

Or perhaps only London and the South East have "neurotic" parents who choose not to vaccinate and everywhere else in the country does.

cross posted with SD

novicemama - It is surprising how ignorant you are re reasons why some parents refuse MMR. There have been numerous threads on this very subject in the last year alone, and some very knowledgeable MNers like yurt have explained in no uncertain terms and with references that MMR is safe for majority but there is a minority at risk. That no research has been done to identify this subgroup so the rest can vaccinate their children with no worries.

So the rational choice for many parents is to refuse to take the chance that their babies might be in this minority that will quite possibly be irreversibly damaged by the MMR.

As xfabba said, if government wants a higher uptake of the vaccine, they need to license singles and make them available on the NHS.

Maybe that is where your anger would be better directed, rather than the parents who are only trying to protect their babies in the absence of good information.

novicemama - I hope your DD makes a swift recovery.

well according to the WHO information on Measles the lower death rates and severe damage from measles in down to the better health care facilities and care while having it

For example

"All children in developing countries diagnosed with measles should receive two doses of vitamin A supplements, given 24 hours apart. This can help prevent eye damage and blindness. Vitamin A supplements have been shown to reduce the number of deaths from measles by 50%."

Interestingly they actually recommend all children should receive a measles vaccination before their 1st birthday.

A social conscience?

So would you vaccinate your child regardless if you felt it wasn't the right thing for her - because of other peoples kids?

""It's all well and good some people doing their so-called research and deciding what's best for their LOs, but do spare a thought for the rest of us who have a social conscience and are still the ones suffering for other's thoughtlessness.""

please don;t assume that all us mums who either wait for the MMR, or take the option not to have it, don;t have a social conscience.

My DD2 had to have caught her measles from somewhere, and when she was confirmed to have had measles, most likely passed it on while I was unaware that she was contagious, and SHE HAD HAD THE MMR........ergo, I had the so-called 'social conscience' you mentioned.

it is not so cut and dried as you might like to think!!!

also taken from WHO

"In countries where measles has been largely eliminated, cases imported from other countries remain an important source of infection."

Perfectly put, stitchtime.

There are rather too many posts here with anecdotes, but what is important is proper statistics comparing the risks of each option both nationally and worldwide. Only with such facts can we make a proper balanced judgement.

And agree there are some small groups at increased risk from vaccines, but most of the unvaccinated children do not fall into these groups.

interesting FAQ, when the top immunologist in vaccine research I spoke to [pro MMR] said MMR should be given at between 15 and 18 months, before that it has less chance of creating immunity.

Will not comment on rest of revolting thread except to say very sorry your dc is unwell OP.

lowrib - My point wasn't that I survived. It was that everyone I've ever known in the same age group and their parents and their relatives have all survived.

That is because surviving measles isn't a biggie when you have access to modern medicine and, in worst case scenario, access to a hospital.

Get off your high horses and consider the possibility that not everyone who hasn't bought into government propaganda on MMR are "idiots".

FAQinglovely I don't really understand your point.

When people are deciding whether to vaccinate their own child if it's known that there are lots of unvaccinated children in the area (for whatever reason) surely that means the risks of NOT vaccinating your own child are higher?