To expect the Doctor to respect my wishes?

[loumum3]

I have not vaccinated my youngest child. I have done this after much research and made an informed decision. The Doctor's surgery has phoned me several times now and written requesting I go in for a discussion about this. I haven't got time for a visit to discuss this, nor do I want to so I said if I had to, I could talk about it on the phone....I have had the Doctor on the phone this afternoon grilling me about my choices, really trying to scare me into having the jabs done and trying to make me feel bad. She cannot see my point of view at all and has been very rude.

Is is really too much to expect a Doctor to respect the decisions I make about my own children ?

Has anyone else experienced this ?

I don't think you are irresponsible - I think you are lucky in that the majority of kids are vaccinated so allowing you to take a decision on yours knowing full well that they are not at great risk of getting these illnesses.

You do, however, need ethical approval to do what AW said was done in his article.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60175-4/fulltext# shows that it was retracted due to misreporting of the sample (and the lack of ethical approval):

"In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were ?consecutively referred? and that investigations were ?approved? by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record."

Ethical approval is needed for the types of investigation done, as they were not necessary for treatment (else ethical approval would not have been needed, and it could have been reported as a case series of 12 children).

It is significant the AW felt the need to say that the investigations had been approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust in the retracted paper, suggesting that the investigations were not clinically necessary.

Unless you are saying that a brain MRI under sedation, EEG (including visual, brain stem auditory, and sensory evoked potentials (where compliance made these possible), and lumbar puncture are necessary to treat gastro disorders?

You're missing the point - my decision would be the same regardless at the age they currently are although I will review things as they get older. We also live in a country where the passage of a disease like measles means that we are less likely to have deaths from it than in some other countries where it is more likely to cause fatalities. It comes down to whether for your child, you are more concerned about the illness or the vaccination. That will be different for everyone because not every child is the same.

Like I said earlier in the thread, it is widely accepted that viruses can cause regressions or neurological problems so why is it not accepted that a live vaccine could do the same?

Snowmash: I do know quite a lot about it actually.

"The investigation was due to highly unethical behaviour, including not gaining ethical approval, dishonesty and consent issues."

The investigation was about money and vested interest, from beginning to end, written through the case like Brighton through a stick of rock.

"highly unethical behaviour, including not gaining ethical approval, dishonesty and consent issues."

I'll give you an example of why this is misleading, not to say mendacious. The children presented with autism, bowel and gut symptoms that under all normal circumstances would require a colonoscopy and other tests. On the note requiring the reason for the tests, regressive autism was given and not bowel and gut conditions. (Note that it would have been unethical not to investigate the children's conditions.)

This is an example of fallacy behind the complaint (obviously as we all know, not made by parents of the children).

If you want more, I'll trawl through the vaccination threads. SaintlyDameMrsTurnip, I can guarantee you, knows more about this than you probably ever will, and I'd have to refer back to her posts and links.

In addition, however, I stand by my original statement: the finding was made before the investigation began. And ethics had very little to do with it.

backtotalkaboutthis, if you mean you know a lot about the conduct of medical research, then I am very surprised at how you are twisting my words (odd how you only question very short parts).

Interesting assumptions you make about my background too, but as this is the internet you are entitled to assume whatever you wish...

"They were very clear, and showed the irresponsibility of not getting immunised."

They didn't show anything of the kind.

This take people have, that parents who claim vaccine damage are just looking for evidence to support it.

How's this?

Nobody likes to think they made the wrong choice. Many parents now think twice about MMR before they go for it. Once they've made that choice they don't want to hear statistics saying it may have been a far riskier choice than they ever imagined. They cleave to any claim, any straw of "evidence", any study, that confirms them in their view that they made the right choice.

Just as convincing isn't it? If you don't like it, stop with the crap about parents just having false memories or other such bollocky bolleaux.

I can question a lot more and give you more if you want it. If you really really want it, you'd look for it yourself, but I jolly well suspect you don't .

backtotalkaboutthis , you have just shown very clearly, your lack of understanding of clinical trials, public health research and the responsibilities of journal editors as distinct from the GMC.

Once you do know more about this than me, and can express it coherently, please feel free to criticise...

I haven't shown any such thing

back with more soon

here you go

Lots of links there which will take some time to trawl through. But interesting stuff, including material about continuing research into the relationship between autism and the gut.

Enjoy

LeonieDelt, that is why I was raising the Lancet's actions; if you look, you will find that other papers of struck-off doctors (AW and others) are not generally withdrawn by international journals because to remain respected, journals need to be apolitical.

Others have stated on the linked threads the reasons behind this, just as I have here.

It was very small sample research, that was conducted in a flawed manner. If the assertions regarding causation had not been made, no doubt it would be much easier to get funding for decent studies.

I think that people on the SN forum are right: stay out of AIBU, no chance of having informed discussion in there.

For the really good stuff on vaccinations, you need to look in the appropriate topic.

also full of interesting material, including links from a research scientist

Snowmash I do hope you read, and look at the links.

(Mso, who features heavily, was a troll from Bad Science by the way)

I am still working my way through this extensive and interesting thread.

I don't understand:"However, I had my son vaccinated against everything and he might still get measles as some people have been swayed by the media and haven't vaccinated their kids. If they had then my son and others like him are less likely to catch the possible fatal illness"

I must be dense. Surely if you can get the disease even after having the vaccination there is no point in having it? or have I muisunderstood?

Bride, your post in the middle to tokenfemale was really horrible and childish.

stressed No I believe the person you've quoted is the dense one. You can still catch the diseases you are vaccinated against, for example 83% off Hib meningitis cases are in children who have received the vaccine. Some vaccines even cause the diseases on quite a frequent basis- as admitted on the vaccine inserts.

tokenfemale I'm so sorry to hear of your loss, the worse loss of all. I wish people would wake up and do their research, so so sorry, and I'm quite appalled by the comments here. If you're still around there is a thread on MN for bereaved mummies which would welcome you very warmly if you ever want to talk.

if anyone's interested have a read of some of the articles on the left in this link

support site for anyone directly affected

other reading

and these side effects which were linked to before are only those reported by the manufacturers themselves, none are made up and for whoever asked about anorexia, don't be thick- anorexia is a medical term for loss of appetite and weight loss, anorexia nervosa is the eating disorder.

link

Anyway I'm off now, but please, to anyone who hasn't yet made the decision to vaccinate their child- er, do your research. Dig and dig and dig for the suppressed science and you will be amazed and disturbed by what you uncover. Don't do it.

I have a genunine question as Im always a bit puzzled by these non-vaccination threads.

Why do you think the government would advise for babies/children to be vaccinated if it was unsafe to do so?

"He died a week later from meningitis(encephalitus)sp ?? acquired from mumps/measles???" from several years earlier?

Really can this happen?

Even my GP has said that the risks from mumphs are not large and that the risk of infertility which is perhaps most widely known is VERY small. Seems like he may have been underplaying it.

for massive profit from pharmaceutical companies involved and to avoid a sudden mass hysteria in the population who would be f*ing furious to discover the truth about vaccines

by the way, just before I turn off the PC, no vaccines are mercury free, it's a lie. hey've been independently tested and found to all contain mercury. Many vaccines are still made using mercury even if it's not used as the preservative and then the mercury is 'removed' before the vaccine is finished, but thimerosal becomes ethylmercury which binds to the antigenic protein in the vaccine making it completely impossible to remove it. It's a dreadful neurotoxin and children are still being exposed to it.

What makes you think this?

Do you have a medical background?

I just can't see why the government would want people to have a drug for no reason, especially if it could cause problems which would then cost the NHS (ie; them) money...