in thinking Measles can't be more dangerous now than it was 15 years ago ?

[Onajourney]

Hi

Wondering if there are any GP's out there that can tell me this ?

My eldest child is 15 and I still have his baby books and they say Measles is a mild disease and just to keep their temperature down etc, they liken it to chickenpox. I remember not being worried about it at all when he and his 11 year old brother were small.

Fast forward 14 years and we have a 1 year old who is at "huge risk from this killer disease" according our GP, but I can't understand how it can have changed so much.

Can anyone tell me, is Measles worse now than it was 15 years ago and if so why ?

Thanks

Some of us have been around long enough to hear about polio-damaged children. Personally, I'm from a time when everyone had mumps, measles, and rubella, so finding it a bit hard to get all scared and worked up about these "killer" diseases.

I think you are incorrect in your assumption that parents who don't vaccinate their DC with MMR hope they won't catch these diseases because of herd immunity. Quite the contrary. We hope they will catch them soon and have life-long immunity. Mine are/will be vaccinated against measles. They will be tested for mumps & rubella immunity pre-puberty and vaccinated then if necessary.

You also seem to assume that a parent cares equally for every child in the world, but that is simply not true. Our primary responsibility is to our own babies. This is entirely normal, and your hopes of some feeling of altruism trumping this primal instinct is simply unrealistic.

Cote - that is what we are also doing - vaccinating against measles and then against the others when approriate.

Again, you cannot speak for everyone cote.

You are keen for your children to catch mumps and rubella and will test and vaccinate later. You are giving a single vac for measles. You presumably have had all teh other recommended vaccines administered.

You cannot assume that all other people who are not vaccinating are excluding the same illnesses as you, or that they are taking alternative precautions.

I admit that I find it hard to get worked up about mumps as well, as that was somethihg that we all got when we were young. But if they want to vaccinate, and can show that the numbers of children adversely affected when there is a vaccine is lower than the numbers adversely affected when there is not a vaccine, well why not.

Re the altruism thing - well that is just depressing really. A huge part of human society is caring for others, looking out for the vulnerable, acting together for the benefit of all. If this basic tenet has gone, then that is uttery depressing.

Is our primary duty not to the society that we live in?

I have always thought so. All of the people who do vaccinate, do so understanding that there are assocaited risks, but they vaccinate anyway. Partly for the child, and partly to benefit society as a whole. I thought that was quite a normal way of thinking.

That depends on your view of benefitting society. I'm not really convinced that not getting mumps as a young child is of benefit to society actually.

My friend had it as an adult - she'd been vaccinated in the '90's - and it was the worst thing that happened to her, she said. She was ill for six weeks and so wishes she'd had it as a child. As a child it's very often symptomless.

And, my kids come first in my world. As yours should in yours. If I don't want them exposed to something, then I'm going to look out for them first.

And anyone who thinks they're really putting the care and benefit of other people's children ahead of their own isn't really telling the truth or doesn't care about their children. I'm not sure vaccination falls into this circumstance, mind.

I'm just uncertain about the whole issue.

My DH had mumps as an adult, he had not been vaccinated.

You will be able to find anecdotes for and against, whatever you are talking about.

As for the idea that people don't care about their children, if they understand that sometimes the needs of society need to be put before the needs of individuals, what a preposterous thing to say.

i can think of loads of situations where people put society first, and it is the right and proper thing to do.

What I find hard to understand, personally, is the converse, where people say "well I'm not going to take this small risk, which results in a large risk for others, and tough shit to them". That is not the sort of approach that a coherent society can function with.

So when do people put society before their children? I don't believe they do. I can't think of an example especially when it comes to real risk and benefit.

With regards vaccination, I think most people think there is no risk or at least no risk of death that's why they're prepared to vaccinate.

It's simply not a case of putting society before their children at all.

And vaccinating does not mean immunity.

It doesn't matter though does it, any of this.

People are wary of vaccinations, some more than others. Uptakes of vaccines are dropping off, some are very low. Outbreaks are happening. Diseases will get back into the community and then we will see what the results are.

I don't know really why I bother, the battle is lost, we are regressing, and there is no solution.

People will (as cote says) always decide that a minimal risk to a healthy child is never a risk worth taking, and now that the public perception is that vaccines are "iffy", there can be no going back. Trust has been eroded, people think that the NHS are deliberately using cheap, dangerous or contaminated vaccines, they are suspicious of their motives. So that's that.

ISNT I'm going to have a go at answering your questions.

Some of the things that I would like to see change are as a direct result of my family's personal experience with vaccines - which has not been a good one.

As you have said vaccines do obviously have side effects and it is unrealistic to think otherwise. I would like there to be an active monitoring system to count the real numbers of adverse events so that we can have a more realistic picture of the extent of side effects and try to use that as a basis for developing screening processes so that at risk children are protected. The current system picks up less than 10% of reactions - this is hugely inadequate and irresponsible and means that current safety data is flawed and incomplete.

I would like vaccines to be administered to the individuals on a basis of personal need only. I don't think parents should be pressured into vaccinating infants in order to protect others (particularly in the light of our inadequate safety data and absent screening process).

I would like the vaccine compensation system to be less adversarial and fairer.

I would like more studies to be done on how the timing of vaccination affects children. For example delaying DTP vaccine has been shown to reduce the risk of developing asthma.

I would like single vaccines to be available and an impartial investigation into MMR safety. Ditto for HPV vaccines (plus an impartial assessment of their efficacy).

I would like to see a primate study done which looks at the safety on the vaccine schedule as a whole and not just the individual elements of it - it is unbelievable that this has never been done. The current vaccine schedule has never been tested for safety - this is inexcusable and reckless. I would also like to see a study on health outcomes for vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations (concentrating on atopy, autoimmunity, behavioural problems and seizure disorders).

I would like us to stop pretending that combined vaccines do not pose a different and more challenging stimulation of the immune system to single vaccines. I think we also need a serious study looking into the influence wild chicken pox virus infection has when in close temporal association with measles and mumps vaccination and develop protocols for timing vaccination on the child's recent health.

I would like us to investigate ways of protecting children who are screened out of the vaccination programme such as the use of vitamin A to treat measles as was mentioned above.

I would like us to stop this pretence that vaccines have not been linked with any cases of autism ever.

Then there is a whole load of political stuff that needs to happen with regards to the independence and impartiality of regulatory bodies but that is probably a whole thread of its own!

I'm not sure that there are any vaccines that I would like dropped altogether as such although I'm sceptical of the usefulness of flu vaccines.

I don't want much do I!

People put society before their children all the time

By sticking to the basic laws, most people do not go out and rob and steal to improve the quality of life for their children

Many report to the police when their child has done something which impacts adversely on society eg rape or murder

In teaching them the basics of socialising and manners, these are things which put the needs of society before the desires of the children

In condemning/punishing them if they behave in a manner which is likely to cause hurt or upset to someone more vulnerable than themselves

People who break these rules are considered by society to be either criminals or bad people/parents.

Like it or not, we live in a society and we all follow rules.

Most people would not deliberately cause harm to another person, by when they choose to vaccinate there is the possibility that they do so by omission. The difference is that in the case of vacciantion, they just don't care.

I don't know how many people, if they had a child with a life-threatening contagious illness, and the child desperately wanted to stay at home, would refuse to allow the child into quarantine in a hospital. Maybe many of them. I would put them in the hospital. Even if my child was strong and likely to survive, but I knew that the illness would probably kill all my elderly neuigbours and the local babies. I would put them in the hospital.

Now a load of people will come and annouce that the analogy is flawed. But that's how I see it. It is as simple as that. And that's why I get upset.

Would I take a small risk with my children to stop others suffering? Of course. it goes without saying.

What you said here got me thinking ISNT;

"So what people are saying is that their current risk assessment is that the side effects do not outweigh the risk of the disease, I think? And different people have different vaccines for which they feel personally that the benefit does not outweigh the risk for their children"

I think people have the right to make their risk assessment an informed choice. Current lack of safety data, transparency and willingness to recognise vaccine damage means at the moment that is impossible.

"I would like vaccines to be administered to the individuals on a basis of personal need only."

That says it all TBH. Some people can't have the vaccines that they need, for various reasons, but so what eh. Vaccines do not have a 100% effective rate, but so what, eh. Let's let the diseases back into the popuation and it's every man (woman and child) for themselves.

I think I am going to leave this now as that is an intracable and fundamental difference ie we will never find a middle ground.

When take-up rates are dropping and infections are starting to come back into the population, it doens't matter what people say, the damage is done. Diptheria take-up in some areas has dropped to levels below which general protection is attained. I really hope that there won;t be consequences of all of this, but I have a horrible feeling that there will be.

Every time there is one of these threads, I am sure that another tranche of lurkers is persuaded not to vaccinate against various things. Reasons for not giving most of the vaccinations in the current programme have been put forward on this thread. And people wavering will read it and think, well then, I'm not risking my child.

It is a huge step backwards and one that I find just utterly dismaying to witness.

If we want people to accept the idea of taking an unknown risk with their children's health for the sake of the greater good then we need to at least make some attempt to screen vulnerable children out of the process and compensate all of those who pay the price of vaccine damage.

It is just unethical and inhumane to do otherwise.

We must also try to think long terms and be scientifically coherent. For example if I vaccinate my girls for rubella as infants I am not doing it to protect them - I am doing it to protect herd immunity and pregnant women. However rubella vaccination does not confer lifelong immunity so my children will be dependant on booster vaccinations in order to protect themselves in the future. This changes the risk assessment dramatically from one jab to several jabs over a lifetime plus the risk of not being immune whilst pregnant. Boy children get practically no benefit from rubella vaccination - yet we know that there is the risk of developing arthritis as a result of this vaccine.

The concept of the greater good may appear altruistic but it is on rather dubious ethical ground for some vaccines.

Vaccines are not 100% effective.

Some people are not able to receive vaccines for various reasons.

If the illnesses are in the population then the successfully vaccinated / people with immunity from previous infections will be OK, everyone else will be at risk. The elderly and babies and people who are unwell will be succeptible.

If most people are vaccinated then infection finds it hard to get a grip and spread. It peters out.

But you know all that riven.

If people don't want to have tetanus jabs then that's fine by me as it's not passed person to person.

I must go though, before I get really upset.

ISNT my children cannot be vaccinated any more.

I do not wish anybody to put their own children at unknown risk in order to protect my children.

Like this rubella thing.

The current idea is to give the vaccinaton to babies to stop rubella being at large/able to take hold in the population.

The preferred idea that I have seen against this is

Test all girls at age 15 and if they are not immune, give them a jab

So for the girls who fall pregnant before 15 and catch rubella, tough. And the ones for whom the vaccine is not effective, tough.

That is a very callous approach IMO, but one that I see a lot of support for. The gist seems to be "I've got a boy, so why should I? I'm immune, so what do I care?" which is a response i find quite chilling TBH.

Really am going to go now.

Rubella is a complex subject.

My eldest daughter caught rubella from a child who had just had his MMR and who developed a rash and temperature and, as it turned out, was able to infect others.

I was pregnant with DD2 at the time.

I am in a similar position to beachcomber. Dd1 has already reacted badly to jabs, so will not be getting anymore. Dd2 has a suspected mitochondrial dysfunction, and so will not be getting jabs until proper screening is available, and until decent safety studies have been done.

I do not expect anyone else to have vaccination in order to protect her.

Some.of your other arguments are spurious to say the least. You have EP often extrapolated thoughts and reasons that have not been stated, but some of the ones in your recent posts really do take the biscuit.

I also do not agree that, if more single vaccines were available, that what you fear - that people wild really cherry pick to a huge degree would happen.

The majority (as already happens) would have them all.

I would-be very happy to give jabs under the circumstances described above - proper safety and screening trials.

I do not think, that given that situation, many people would hold back at.all.

I al not anti vaccination. I am just not prepared to vaccinate my children when there is a high chance of damage to them.

It is totally disingenous, this 'I vaccinate my child for the greater good of society' thing. Totally. If you actually thought your child may be at harm from a vaccination, you would not give it to them, regardless of your social duty. If you actually witnessed your child suffering severe harm from a jab, even m more so. you vaccinate your child because you think the risks are minimal and the advantages great. Not because you are doing it for the greater good of the vulnerable in society. That is a lovely side effect. Not your main motivation, and to say so is smug and disingenous.

And I find it chilling that parents who have happily vaccinated their children and then subsequently witnessed their children having a severe side effect are told repeatedly that it is coincidence or they just didn't notice it before. Calling for more research is not irresponsible, it is actually very important for the whole of society.

And while we're on the subject of social responsiblity, if my children are ill I keep t hem away from school or from younger children until they are not contagious any more. An awful lot of people who have followed the vaccine schedule don't bother to do that. And by doing so they put vulnerable people, old and young, at risk. And my children are vaccinated, just not on the NHS schedule.

Yes, I found it on Whale: but the journal is prestigious and it is around other areas of the web. Is there a problem with that?

Musukebba: basically you seem to be saying, once again, it's just fresh diagnosis. For all the dressing up, that's what you're saying.

It's very tiresome to have this repeated over, and over, and over, again, as if it's a complete explanation of what has happened to children, to populations, to move a disorder from being so rare that numbers of those affected were between one in five thousand and one in ten thousand: to a situation where they are counted as around one in two hundred or so.

You are not objective, I'm afraid. You see yourself as objective, while I am subjective, but you are not.

Isnt, I don't believe you read a single word of what Beachcomber wrote.

Why on earth are you getting upset when there are grown women on here who have seen and experienced the pain of watching their children be damaged by vaccines -- and they seem to manage to discuss it calmly without resorting to running from the room almost in tears?

Quite Po.

Social responsibilty is rather one-sided it seems: where was the social responsibility towards the parents of George Fisher?

Once parents have done the socially responsible thing, and as a result seen their children suffer, they are cast out, scorned as emotional and ignored -- just as is happening to some on this thread, in a small way, right now.

"People put society before their children all the time

By sticking to the basic laws, most people do not go out and rob and steal to improve the quality of life for their children"

Bizarre argument about how people put society before their children.