IMMUNISATIONS - V STRESSED

[ilovearnold]

AT THE TIME OUR CHILDREN WERE BABIES THERE WERE SCARES RE MMR ETC AND LOTS INFO V IMMUNISATIONS.WE DECIDED NOT TO HAVE THEM DONE,I DO KNOW THAT SOMETIMES THEY DONT WORK AS A FRIEND HAS IMMUNISAED AND HER CHILD HAS THE ILLNESS AT PRESESNT.IT SEEMS THAT THE STUDY AROUND THE MMR S WERE DISCREDITED.

NOW OUR CHILDREN ARE OLDER I THINK THAT THE DANGERS LINKED TO IMMUNISATIONS- IN MY VIEW - IE TOO MUCH FOR A LITTLE ONE/BABY SYSTEM ARE NOT AS HIGH.THIS IS JUST A PERSONAL VIEW.

BOTH EARLY TEENS NOW WANT TO HAVE THE JABS. THEY ARE CONCERNED THO AS THEY SAW MEDIA REPORT RE A GIRL WHO DIED AFTER CERVICAL SMEAR TEST DUE TO UNDERLYING CONDITION AND ARE CONCEREND- THO I DO TELL THEM THE RISK IS LOWER THAN CROSSING A ROAD

.MY QUESTIONS ARE I GUESS - IN MY ANGST!! - ARE- HAS ANYONE HAD CHILDREN WHO ARE OLDER WHO HAD THE JABS ?- IVE HEARD VIA GP THAT LATE IMMUNISATIONS CAN MAKE CHILD MORE ILL AT TIME OF JAB AS HAVE STRONGER RESPONSE TO IT..aLSO CAN YOU JUST PAY TO HAVE THE ONES THAT ARE LINKED TO LIFE TREATENING ILLNESS.
CAN I TRUST GP TO GIVE ME A BALANCED VIEW- ARE THEY REALLY PAID TOSUPPORT IMMUNISATIONS PROGRAMME OR IS THAT PROPOGANDA.

COULD WE THEY BE TESTED TO SEE IF THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXPOSED TO SOME ILLNESSESS SUCH AS MEASELS- LIKE YOU GET TESTED IN PREG TO SEE IF YOU ARE RUBELLA IMMUNE.

ANY INFO WOULD BE MUCH APPRICIATED AND SORRY FOR TERRIBLE SPELLINGS IM IN A RUSH BUT WANTED TO POSTX

GPs will support the standard immunisation programme as a default position because a mountain of evidence says that it is highly beneficial to the vast majority of all children. They will take your individual children's circumstances into consideration though as some people can't have certain vaccines on medical grounds. They will not recommend a vaccine that is contraindicated for your child.

It is worth getting them vaccinated even if they have already had the same or a related disease as there are several different strains. E.g. DS had pneumonia as a baby but still had his PCV shot at 13 months because that protects against 7 different strains of the virus.

Most anti-vaccination campaigns are poorly supported by credible scientific evidence, which is picked up by the media and blown out of all proportion. They really make me cross TBH because people with normal, healthy children refusing to get them vaccinated puts children who really can't have the vaccine at risk. Thousands of children in the third world die every week because they don't have access to these basic vaccines that people here turn their noses up at.

Yes, the stories around MMR were entirely discredited. I can't remember if the 'researcher' responsible for them was imprisoned but he was certainly struck off by the GMC. The story of the girl who died after receiveing the cervical cancer jab was very sad but it had nothing to do with the vaccine. She would have died anyway :(

BTW, it's rude to type in capitals on the internet. It's the forum equivalent of shouting. Just so you know :)

Well said AKMD.

I had the MMR as an adult although I had already had all the jabs as a baby (separate then). There was an outbreak of mumps across UK universities and they advised us all to have it done anyway. I had no adverse reaction and felt fine, but everyone is different.

I had German Measles (Rubella) as a baby but still had the vaccination at high school.

The cost of testing for immunity would probably be more than the vaccines themselves. The reason it is done in pregnancy is because of the serious risk to the foetus if the mother has Rubella.

I would research some facts about the girl who died and talk to your teens about it. She did not die from having a smear test, and she did not die from having the cervical cancer jab. See here.

The researcher who published the MMR "study" had already patented the single measles vaccine, meaning that parents who were worried about the combined jab and paid for a single vaccine made him lots of money. AKMD is right he was struck off.

I think in most cases the complications of the diseases are more risky than the chance of there being a reaction to the vaccination?