All of you who CHOOSE not to vaccinate your children

[UniqueAndAmazing]

Do you realise that's the reason why there's now an epidemic of measles in Wales?

You know children with auto-immune problems, children with cancers, children with allergies that mean they can't be medicated, children who react badly to drugs?
You know them? They're suffering because of you not wanting to vaccinate your child.

You have no medical reason for not vaccinating, but plenty of reasons TO vaccinate.

You are causing a whole generation of children to be endangered from a preventable disease.

Measles can be fatal
(that means it can kill )

'yy. but it's not too big a risk.'

As I said - the risk is not uniform for all children. And there is no way to identify those at risk Why can't you understand that?

Whose responsibility is it when a child is brain damaged by a vaccine?

Being 'responsible' is about looking after the interests of your child first because they don't get to give their consent.

The authorities will deny and deny that a vaccine could have caused, for example brain damage. It's very difficult to make them take responsibility. And parents who have tried to bring a case for damage have had their legal aid withdrawn.

Wales Report has just started on BBC1 Wales. They're talking about should MMR be mandatory.

Nobody is saying that vast numbers of people suffer brain damage from vaccinations.

But for those that do, the consequences are terrible. We don't live in a world where it is easy to get the resources that a mentally impaired person will need. To suggest that some collateral damage is ok is totally unethical imo.

Hear hear, Lottieandmia.

People demanding single vaccines be provided - can anyone explain with reference to medical research and evidence why they are any better?

Its not about whether they are better.

The issue is since that option has been removed, the uptake of those vaccinations has lowered.

The reasons why that is a bad thing are obvious.

If the solution to that is to still have the option of singles then, to me, it is a no brainer.

But no-one sensible denies that vaccines can cause brain damage and other terrible consequences. It's an accepted fact, accepted even by the drug companies themselves (I am NOT a supporter of big pharma) and one for which we have compensation schemes.

"to suggest that some collateral damage is OK is unethical in my view" just does not make sense to me. Unvaccinated populations = significant risk of measles, mumps, rubella = significant risk of collateral damage from measles, mumps, rubella, meningitis, HiB, Polio, etc. etc.

In an unvaccinated population, more people would suffer 'collateral damage' from naturally occuring infections than would suffer collateral vaccine-related damage in that same population, were that population vaccinated. Collateral damage doesn't only come from intervention, it can also result from from studied inaction!

There is a risk to taking paracetamol; Ibuprofen, too (stroke, asthma attack, cardiac events, gastritis, bleeding disorders) but generally people do not think twice about giving them for teething or other minor ailments. The assessment of risk is something humans are notoriously bad at. Usually I am all for parents' instinct and 'doing what seems right at the time'. In this case, however, I am all for statistics forming the basis of action.

Should the Government also routinely provide trepanning or, erm homeopathy (yes, yes, I know they do already re the latter), because some people feel they're effective, despite the absence of any evidence to suggest this is true? Of course they bloody shouldn't. The NHS should fund evidence-based medicine, cost-effective medicine. I don't want choice in medicine. I just want value for the public purse, and the best outcome for the highest number of people possible.

So you think collateral damage is ok narmada?

I take your point about medicines generally. But children don't normally need anything more than Calpol and if they do require a medicine it's because they're already ill whereas vaccination is pre-emptive.

No, I think collateral damage sucks. Who would honestly think people are expendable for the greater good?!

But there is going to be 'collateral damage' - and more of it - in an unvaccinated population. So what that the collateral damage comes from inaction (not vaccinating), rather than pre-emptive action? It's still collateral damage.

Given the choice, I would vote for less collateral damage and a vaccinated population. To me that seems the humane and sensible thing to do.

It's pretty straightforward to get a no win no fee lawyer to act for you generally even without legal aid. They would be queuing up to act in class litigation on this if they thought there was a reasonable prospect of winning.

Doesn't the argument about collateral damage work both ways? Those that don't vaccinate are implying that the possibility of collateral damage caused to others in part by their decision is acceptable.

At the end of the day, the generally accepted medical view is that the vaccine is many times more likely to benefit both the individual vaccinated and society as a whole than it is to damage either. It is not a case of sacrificing some children for the greater good. In this case we have the opportunity to help our own kids and others. Yes, parents will worry about the decision - it is natural to do so. My concern is though that people (especially those in South Wales) will read this and decide not to vaccinate. And that the children of one of those people will become seriously ill or worse as a result. I appreciate that those who worry about vaccination also have concerns about harming children. But unless someone can show that the risk of vaccinating is greater than the risk of not (which on any argument is most certainly not the case in S Wales right now) then we should be encouraging people to do it for their own kids' sake and for the sake of others.

Yes, there are risks on both sides which is why it's a difficult decision to make as a parent and is also why nobody has the right to attack a parent who is trying to do the right thing for their child, and post a thread like this, insulting people directly.

I hate the way certain people seem to assume that people who haven't vaccinated are just selfish people thinking 'I'm alright Jack' with not a care in the world when nothing could actually be further from the truth.

I have a child who is severely disabled - she's 11. I won't be giving her more vaccines because I don't dare mess with her tbh - she has a very complex profile. She's not vaccinated against measles but of course I worry about her catching the disease as I feel she may also react badly to that. So it's not like I can go to bed thinking everything's fine.

Equally, my mum wanted to vaccinate me for my own safety when I was young but came up against rudeness and judgment from members of the family who felt it was ok to tell her they would blame her if I was damaged.

None of this is acceptable.

I think more people would vaccinate if single vaccines were available. Unfortunately the government's wish to shut down debate and remove choice has only made people more suspicious.

The problem is that there is no way to tell which risk is greater. It differs from individual to individual.

Lottieandmia. Very sorry to hear about your daughter. I understand why you feel strongly about this and your decision not to vaccinate.

I don't think most people who don't vaccinate think 'I'm all right Jack'.

Lottie you clearly have medical grounds for not vaccinating your daughter. It is entirely your choice.

However, some people choose not to vaccinate because they are scientifically ill-informed and have no inclination or ability to see pseudoscientific claptrap for what it is. If the Govt said they would fund singles but would also spend an equsl amount of money improving the public understanding of science, including evidence-based medicine, that would be a good compromise.

The 'there are risks on both sides' things is not the whole story. The risks of not vaccinating are higher.

In the individual there is no way to tell if the risk is greater. In population terms there is clear and conclusive evidence that the risks are greater from not vaccinating.

Well yes, the government will look at what's best for the population as a whole, of course. Parents tend to look at what's best for their child as an individual. I don't see that that is wrong.

Everything in life is a risk, some things like vaccinations tiny tiny risk.

I am shocked that people don't think that we all have collective responsibility for ensuring herd immunity. With that level of selfishness no wonder society is in the state it is.

Tbh though I don't know anyone who hasnt had their children vaccinated in the real world.

Its often touted that its the middle classes who do the reasearch and are frightened unnecessarily. I watched a programme recently where they were trying to catch up on some children who hadnt had mmr. One mother didnt even know what it was

The point here is really that what is best for the child as an individual is likely to be what is best for society. Risk is inherent in everything. I am prepared to bet that the risk of being injured in a car crash is greater than the risk of being vaccinated but it doesn't stop us travelling by car. None of us can predict if a crazed driver about to smash into us is around the corner.

Lottieandmia, your choice not to vaccinate is understandable. In your case the analogy is more like taking your child out in a car with no seatbelt/car seat. But you need the rest of us to be prepared to take the tiny, tiny risk that goes with vaccination as that is what keeps the risk of not vaccinating lower for your DD and other more vulnerable children. Most of us are not saints and don't want our kids to be sacrificial lambs taking great risks with their health to benefit all. The point here is that we don't have to.

What is frustrating is that there aren't risk statistics that can be associated with the vaccine to allow us to judge the risk. When you have an operation, like for me a c-section, they give you statistics for the percentage that go wrong and have complications and a list of risk factors that are more likely for complications to occur. You sign your consent.

There is so much speculation about risks and various people in the media and on this thread quote they have seen effect from vaccine or have heard of it. I have no right or ability to judge their conviction on this. If all such cases were documented, even not medically proven to be linked, we could make a better judgement.

I'm completely guessing that the risk would appear to be something like a 1:100,000 chance of side effect (if you think 60,000,000ish UK population). I would be glad to be corrected with an evidence based answer, if its more like 1:10,000 or 1: 1,000,000 but there appears to be no statistics available.

I completely support parents who make an educated choice for their child and personal circumstance. I really struggle with those who have heard something bad so just avoid without actually looking into it and making a concious choice.

"I've always thought even if vaccinations may cause a risk to a child you have a moral and public duty to take that risk for the good of the community"

:O

I'm sure that all the posters who are criticising those who choose not to vaccinate their children or be vaccinated themselves have titer tests regularly, to prove to the community that the jabs have worked and continue to work.

Hands up who does?

But if you can't properly assess the risk how does anyone make an "educated choice"?

Of course it's every parent's choice whether to vaccinate or not. However, I do find it very interesting that the very people who didn't vaccinate for whatever reason are now queuing for hours to get it done.

I can not agree more with UniqueAndAmazing. Thank you for this tread. I personally think immunizations should be compulsory for everyone.