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 ?

Hang on a moment runnybotton - let us get back to the OP - she has an opportunity to get her child immunised - she is NOT taking it - that is the point. We are not saying that the parents of infants who are too young for the MMR are to blame. Please point me to the post which states this ... grrrrr.

There is an argument for social responsibility though regarding vaccinations.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying that backtotalk is wrong in assuming that we are concerned about our immunised children being in danger from theirs, when the real danger they pose is to those too young, immunocompromised or whatever to be vaccinated.

I don't think there is much to laugh it about babies dying because people panic unecessarily about the mmr.

Well I think the government are the irresponsible ones. It doesn't take much scratching of the surface to find inconsistency wrt immunisation policy. They should be doing something to make the system a more transparent, safer one.

Can anyone point me in the direction of clinical evidence which supports children as young as 2 months having vaccinations? Because since my oldest were little I haven't been able to find any.

I used to be pro-vaccination but changed my mind after a few things happened that made me realise there is a lot that simply doesn't add up. My mother was horrified when I told her I was not going to vaccinate dd2, but shortly afterwards all the stuff came out in the media about the removal of thimerosal from the infant vaccines and government officials making statements that it was all to do with oral polio and trying to cover it up. At that point she could see that something we were told was safe one week had been discontinued the next (in a manner of speaking) and since then she has not rebuked me for my decision.

Can you prove there is any problem with infants as young as 2 months having vaccinations? Or younger, 2 of my 3 children had the bcg vaccine at 3 days old, as is the norm here. This is so they don't get TB, which is on the rise, and drug resistant too.
Its a no brainer really.

'imho, as they are very healthy children (BFed extended, decent diet, as much as is possible with autism, etc) i'm not worried at all.'

See, this is a point of confusion to me.

In the not too distant past, the vast majority of babies were BFd, often extended, due to lack of availability of formula/expense and contraceptive properties of it.

Many had a diet considered very healthy by today's standards due to no processed foods available and not too much meat due to expense.

Yet they still caught childhood diseases and died.

My dad was BFd for 2 years, just like all his siblings.

They all still caught measles, mumps, rubella, scarlet fever, etc.

His mother has also been BFd in that fashion. She got diphtheria, MMR, etc.

They had an excellent diet - couldn't afford sweets so mostly had fruit, plenty of fresh veg and fruit grown in their own garden, meat only one a week but loads of pulses, etc.

oh doh, I am with you now runnybottom... apologies.

Yes protecting the vulnerable is so important - that is why I really feel it is outrageous that someone would put their child who has not been vaccinated in a nursery... and surely spending day to day in a nursery is different than spending a day at a theme park.

A 'no brainer'?? I disagree. I really don't understand how you cannot see that there should be sound evidence to support invasive procedures at such a young age. The younger a child is, the more predisposed they are to neurological changes. And as I said earlier in the thread, my GP told me the reason they are now started at 2 months is to 'catch' children before their mothers go back to work. That's not a very scientific basis for vaccinating at that age is it?

When I was a baby vaccination schedules were not started until the age of 1. In the US, a lot of parents don't have the MMR for their child until they are over 18 months old because it is more effective then.

one for Leonie and Electra to read

So Leonie and Electra what is your opinion on the article above about the reappearance of measles?

There is plenty of sound evidence! Do you think someone just woke up one day and said, I have a great plan, lets give all children loads of vaccinations just for a laugh, without thoroughly testing them!.

Er, no. There is decades of research and information and trials to support the best practice in vax schedules. Its not a whim. Its not some bizarre conspiracy either just to make money. Oddly enough, the idea is to protect children and eradicate serious diseases. Unfortunately we are further away from eradicating things like measles than we've ever been, becuase of the armies of armchair scientists and whackjobs with websites have convinced vast swathes of mainly middle class mothers that vaccines do more damage than good.

And before you jump all over me, I am not saying that vaccines never cause any damage. They do, like everything we do every day there are risks attached. There are risks of surgery, but we still go into theatre when we need an operation. There are risks with medicine, but we still give our children medications when they need them. Thats life, risks are everywhere. But IMO, our job as parents is to minimise risks where possible, and I firmly believe that vaccination on a very large scale does exactly that.

pinkfizzle - there are outbreaks of diseases even where there is a high uptake of the vaccination offered. There are still measles outbreaks in the US in places where nearly everyone has had their child vaccinated.

As an aside, I also think that when there are media reports of measles being on the increase in areas of the UK where MMR uptake is very low, these reports are founded upon misinformation. For example, in some affluent areas of London where people can afford to pay for single vaccines, the uptake of MMR may only be 60% but most of those who don't take it pay for singles instead. Officially these children would be regarded by the government as unvaccinated when they have actually had singles instead.

but they are smaller outbreaks, fairly obviously.

No virus is more contagious than measles, one of the outbreaks caused was found to be from a 7 year old boy who was not vaccinated.

How would you feel if your son or daughter had not been vaccinated for measles and caught it and spread it to others, causing damage?

unnybottom - vaccines are not tested. People assume they are but they are not - it wouldn't be a possible for a start. There was no research done before vaccines were given to 2 month old babies to make sure that it would be safe none.

'But IMO, our job as parents is to minimise risks where possible, and I firmly believe that vaccination on a very large scale does exactly that.'

The problem is that the risk to one child from vaccination will be much higher than the risk to another. At the moment the government is making no attempt to find out who those children are. This is unethical.

vaccines are not tested? Are you quite sure about that? The animal testing, then the clinical trials in test populations, the entire process prior to the licensing of vaccines, thats all a myth is it?

I know that vaccines were introduced for 2 month old babies with no previous research to inform that decision.

I am not a conspiracy theorist or a nut job as you so kindly put it while making generalisations about people who choose not to vaccinate.

I haven't come across as hysterical in any of my posts about this issue, but feel it is reasonable and sensible of me to question a system that has obvious flaws......and I want answers to those concerns before I agree to sign my children up.

runntbottom- vaccines are made by pharmaceutical companies. They are businesses whose raison d'etre is to MAKE MONEY. They do this by whatever means possible. They divert spending away from malaria drugs, for example, to cancer drugs and vaccines. This is beacuse there is more money to be made selling these drugs to rich people in the West than to poor people in Africa. If it was about saving lives they would have 'cured' tropical diseases by now.

The outputs of these companies make up a considerable proportion of UK exports, thus giving them a very powerful position to influence government policy.

I said conspiracy theorist and nutjobs had persuaded others..I was generously putting you in the Others category.

I just don't understand the mentality, to be honest. I have researched it, and there is such an overhwelming massive amount of evidence to support mass vaccination and such little decent evidence against. To me it is a no brainer, its simple.

What evidence? Where? Sounds like a pretty dodgy conclusion there....

I haven't been following this thread too closly but have the general gist.

Just thought it worth while mentioning that a relative (24 yrs old) has just had mumps even tho she has had MMR. Dr said it is on the rise again.

One does wonder whether thats why GP trying to get your child/ren vacinated and whther it links to the fact that lot's of children are going unvacinated since MMR jab scare??

OP if you make that discision then I agree it should be respected (altho DS has had them all). I just wondered if this is why you home school too - do you worry about children being around others who may be ill ??? You've obviously thought about this a lot and wish you luck in the future.