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 )

U completely agree with original post. Feel so so sorry for babies, seriously ill children that die from diseases before they themselves are vaccinated/ cannot fight them off.
It's unnecessary arrogance of some parents endangering other people's children

Pointless stirring.
We all make choices for our DC based on what we believe is best.

DC is now 10 and just had his first MMR a month ago. Went OK for the first few day after, has been suffering headaches,upset tummy etc for the last month. Is it related? I don't know..

I thought that at the age of 18 month introducing 3 strong viruses in one go was totally unnatural for such young child. DC had mumps at the age of 4 - picked it up from his small class at school - it just happened that most DC in his age group were not given MMR. Mumps was not nice but he got over it and I am glad he has had it at that age.I actually do believe it made him stronger.

I happened to be in hospital many years ago with a baby who suffered a horrific allergic reaction to MMR which resulted in brain swelling.I do not care what anyone tells me about statistics etc - I just could not bring myself to risk it. How many toddlers get adverse reaction to MMR? We don't really know. The statistics are based on diagnoses following 7 days after MMR.

Any child with adverse reaction which became apparent on say day 9 is excluded from the statistics. I don't give a * about statistics.
With so many concerns about MMR, the best way forward towards the "heard immunity" wold have been to make reliable single vaccines available.

MMR connection to autism , digestive diseases etc has NOT BEEN disqualified or proven. I chose NOT to introduce measles, mumps and rubella viruses into my toddler's bloodstream in one convenient shot.
Just because you have, doesn't necessarily puts you in a high moral standing.

What if your MMR vaccinated child infected an old frail cancer ridden OAP with common flu by accidentally sneezing on a bus and the unfortunate OAP died as a result? Would you feel guilty about not vaccinating him with flu jab?

What if your perfect DC grows up and passes on an STD without even knowing he had it? Too many what ifs.

Please leave other parents to make informed decision for themselves - there is no right answer to this.

A link to an authoratitive source that compares the risks from MMR and measles: HERE

The source is from that terribly war-ravaged and malnourished country, er, Australia. It shows the strong reasons for vaccinating with MMR, by reference to risk of damage.

Wearsmink I welcome this kind of calm, considered debate. It's very interesting and I for one will always be open to learning (and changing my mind) where the health of my kids is concerned.

Unfortunately the data on the link you have provided is still questionable in my view and still provides ample room for reasonable doubt:

1. It does not state that the numbers of 'red' children provided in the simple comparison graphics (those who will suffer severe consequences) are from statistics based only on well nourished children in Australia. These statistics could well include children in developing countries.

1. It does not state whether, when it says 'children under 5' this includes babies (and then breastfeeding or not, with mothers who are immune or not

1. It does not state how many of those red children could already have been vaccinated.

1. In the risk table, it covers known, logged risks but does not seem to mention at all the recognised unknown risks that I have referred to many times.

I therefore encourage you to be careful with statistics

You see, above you have also said

The data on the damage and death caused by measles in a modern, wealthy, well-fed society like Switzerland proves your 'argument' to be nonsense

Actually, this is not true at all. If you read carefully the stats on the outbreak in Swtizerland you will find:

1. All but one of those who suffered severe consequences were adults
2. We do not know whether the one child who suffered severe consequences was well nourished, whether it was a baby, or whether it had underlying health problems that would have made it vulnerable to measles or the vaccine
3. Several of the adults who contracted the disease had been vaccinated
4. One who suffered severe consequences from the disease actually caught it from a measles vaccine

Now, all this evidence can be obtained by visiting the EU's
www.eurosurveillance.org/

It is a pro vaccine site.

According to this data, this wild epidemic in Switzerland has actually not affected children severely, and has now given them immunity for life. Meanwhile, adults who did not get the disease in childhood (including some who have been vaccinated) have got the disease and suffered serious consequences

This is entirely consistent with what I have been arguing all along and so does not prove my argument to be 'nonsense'. If anything, this example, plus the one above, suggest you might need to dig a bit deeper in your own research. I suggest there are still grounds for reasonable doubt which you are missing. I further suggest this means parents should be allowed to choose for themselves without fear of being stigmatised (by either side).

It's unnecessary arrogance of some parents endangering other people's children

Citygal, I don't think you've been following any of the points raised over the last few pages. There's not much point in repeating your previously held opinion without backing up - it doesn't add to the debate.

So, could you please explain to me, in detail, how I put your children at risk if I don't vaccinate mine and you have vaccinated yours? Let's discuss this point by point. I will leave aside, for the moment, the risks that your vaccinated child may pose to my healthy, natural child - though there are some and we can come to that later.

Tens of thousands of normal, adequately -fed children suffered complications - severe and sometimes fatal ones - prior to measles vaccine being introduced in this country

Biddy, or whoever you are/were, this is an interesting one. Do you have some evidence to back this up? You see, I think there are grounds to believe that our children in the UK suffered severe and fatal consequences when the conditions in which they were living (nutrition, sanitation) were similar to those in some developing countries now. I also believe there are grounds to believe that as nutrition and sanitation was improving, so the severe consequences were falling, prior to 1968 when the vaccine was introduced. I further think that there are grounds for believing that in our country, the introduction of the vaccine did not significantly affect this trend.

Please check out this graph. It only covers deaths, so I use it by way of example, with the aim of at least providing reasonable grounds for questioning:

www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/measlesChart.jpg

Tens of thousands of normal, adequately -fed children suffered complications - severe and sometimes fatal ones - prior to measles vaccine being introduced in this country

Biddy, or whoever you are/were, this is an interesting one. Do you have some evidence to back this up? You see, I think there are grounds to believe that our children in the UK suffered severe and fatal consequences when the conditions in which they were living (nutrition, sanitation) were similar to those in some developing countries now. I also believe there are grounds to believe that as nutrition and sanitation was improving, so the severe consequences were falling, prior to 1968 when the vaccine was introduced. I further think that there are grounds for believing that in our country, the introduction of the vaccine did not significantly affect this trend.

Please check out this graph. It only covers deaths, so I use it by way of example, with the aim of at least providing reasonable grounds for questioning:

www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/measlesChart.jpg

bobbyperu, all my comments have been about MMR, as the measles outbreak was the reason for the OP. So that I can understand, though, do you believe in vaccinating against anything else?

But rather than me prove to you that measles is a disease we should be be worried about for our children - the effort doesn't seem worth it as you are unwilling to accept statistics and advice from medical authorities and you think that anything short of disablement and death is a mild effect - why don't you prove the case for avoiding the vaccine. The vaccine is highly effective, as even you seem to accept.

So, you avoided commenting on this before:

"If you want to "disprove" unknown risks before you ingest or use a thing, you will have to avoid all medicine, all food, all fluids and all activity with a potentially unwelcome physiological effect, however far-fetched. Including using computers and other electronic devices, just for example."

Could you also address biddlyoldbiddy's point that the evidence appears to be that there is no asthma benefit from having had measles?

I slightly worry that you seem to overlook things.

Snakes, if you think that believing in public health is pointless stirring that's your business. But how lucky for you that herd immunity helped to protect your child for 9 years.

Hi wearsmink

OK, I will respond to your points.

you are unwilling to accept statistics and advice from medical authorities

That's not necessarily the case wearsmink. However, the graphic you previously referred to as authoritative seems to be taking severe measles complications stats from the whole world and then implying in a very simplistic way that this risk factor applies to well-nourished young children living in Australia. If you look at the stats I referred you to for Switzerland, for example, you can see that the 'red body' graphic provided by 'the authorities' on your graphic is highly unlikely to be accurate for children living in Australia. That is what Piglet might call 'fog'. (It is as convincing as saying, as you did, that because parents in some developing countries may be prepared to take certain risks because of their truly dire situation, we should also do so.) Set against this, it fails to cover all the known and recognised unknown risks of MMR. So it may come from 'the authorities' but to my mind it is not 'authoritative'.

If you want to "disprove" unknown risks before you ingest or use a thing, you will have to avoid all medicine, all food, all fluids and all activity with a potentially unwelcome physiological effect, however far-fetched. Including using computers and other electronic devices, just for example."

Yes I did avoid taking this argument too seriously. So you know though, I do think very carefully about the food my children eat, and I don't let them use mobile phones or other products which are not necessary if I think there are grounds for believing they may harm them. Sometimes though, I take necessary risks. This might include getting in a car, for example. I see no need to add unnecessary risks to this list - like, for example, the risk of getting measles as an adult because they've only been vaccinated rather than catching the disease (and all the risks possibly associated with that vaccine). Clearly though, there should be a risk/benefit approach for every person and every situation, rather than a one size fits all mandatory policy. That is my point.

Could you also address biddlyoldbiddy's point that the evidence appears to be that there is no asthma benefit from having had measles?

I like this point because I hadn't read that research, but rather research that thinks the opposite may be true. However, rather than immediately stigmatise biddy as being mad and unscientific before repeating my original comment about asthma (which, as you know, was an aside I made tentatively rather than the main thrust of my oft repeated argument ) I have decided to take a proper look at it when I have time. If I find it convincing, I will no longer think it possible that having had measles in childhood can improve your immune system in the case of asthma. However, it will not affect in any way the main point I am making. I will certainly come back to you on this.

In the meantime, have you looked again at your comment claiming that the outbreak in Switzerland makes my argument a 'nonsense'?

And while you're at it - please could you explain to me your concept of herd immunity, how it works, and how it helps those who have not vaccinated - one claim at a time so we can discuss them point by point. I've never been convinced by this claim (which is the claim most likely to lead to stigmatising of those who don't vaccinate) so I'm really hoping you can inspire me here.

On your other question - so far I have not given my children any vaccinations. But I wouldn't say I never would. It would depend on my assessment of the risks of not vaccinating in our particular context, versus my assessment of the risks of vaccinating (for each product) against the proven benefits of each individual vaccine.

By the way wearsmink, what did you think of the graph on measles deaths I linked to above, which shows the decline in measles deaths before the introduction of the first vaccine in 1968? Quite happy to have this completely rebuffed, I just think it's potentially interesting.

Asthma
OK, I've had a look at the abstract now on the link biddy provided. Not sure whether she had paid to read the whole article or not, but I haven't. So she may be able to shed more light on it. What I can see from the abstract is this:

Conclusion:
Overall, childhood infectious diseases protected against asthma persisting in later life, but pertussis and measles were associated with new-onset asthma after childhood. Measles and pertussis immunization might lead to a reduction in incident asthma in later life.

Biddy only said there was no consensus yet, so I would perhaps agree with that. However, one very important thing I cannot tell from the article is whether or not they controlled for other factors, e.g.

1. Whether or not the parents of the children being studied had asthma

2.How many siblings they had

1. Their diet

Take a look, for example, at this BBC news article from 2000 which quotes peer reviewed studies:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/718281.stm

Here are some points it quotes about asthma:

^Dr Rob Niven, a consultant chest physician from the North West Lung Unit at Wythenshawe Hospital in Manchester, said: "The genetic risk is still by far the most important.

"If both of your parents have asthma, then you have a 70% or 80% risk of developing it yourself.

"There is some evidence that early infection with measles virus very slightly reduces the risk of developing asthma.

"But it's important to stress that children should still have the MMR vaccination."

Dr Martyn Partridge, chief medical adviser to the National Asthma Campaign, said that this was simply one of several studies which suggested that early life infections offered some protection against asthma.

"However, the bulk of the other studies suggested that it is development of the bowel immune system which is most important

...Aside from a child's inherited genetic predisposition to asthma, other factors which are thought to influence whether they develop it or not include the number of brothers or sisters they have, and to a certain extent their diet in the early years^

So I think it may well be true that having childhood diseases in childhood confers additional health benefits associated with asthma, or perhaps bowel problems (I mean in addition to guaranteed immunity for life.) Plus, if it turns out that they didn't control for whether or not the parents had asthma (plus perhaps sibling numbers and diet) in biddy's study, I would say it might not be reliable - but I would welcome biddy shedding more light on this.

PigletJohn
The best way to not suffer the effects and complications of the disease is to not catch it.

The best way to not catch it is to be vaccinated.

and in a separate post:

PigletJohn
you think they are not facts?

let's see you try to disprove them.

I think that anybody engaging in a debate and making assertions should be prepared to substantiate them. 'The best way' is clearly a subjective term, and therefore an opinion, not fact. Why are you asking me to disprove opinions that you are perfectly entitled to hold? My only objection is that you expect everyone else to share your views and therefore think it unnecessary to explain/support them when questioned.

WearsMink
A link to an authoratitive source that compares the risks from MMR and measles: HERE

The source is from that terribly war-ravaged and malnourished country, er, Australia. It shows the strong reasons for vaccinating with MMR, by reference to risk of damage.

WearsMink your 'authoritative source' is interesting and I like the way the information is set out. However, please can you explain why the information offered on mortality rates appears to vary so greatly from another authoritative source, the Health Protection Agency (providing mortality rates for England and Wales, sourced from the Office for National Statistics)?
www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

Your Australian source says:
3 in 1,000 children who get measles may die as a result of the disease itself

But the HPA figures equate to a 1 in 6,000 mortality rate (children and adults) for the 10 years prior to the introduction of the MMR. More pertinently, given that the mortality rate from the Australian site relates to children, and taking into account that the HPA figures go up to 2008, the footnote at the bottom of the page says:

In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in unvaccinated child with congenital immunodeficiency whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin. Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.

All other measles deaths, since 1992, shown above are in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.

(bold is mine).

WearsMink, I'm presuming you chose the Australian site because you thought the data would be similar and relevant to Measles and the MMR here (that's what your post suggested to me). How do you reconcile the differences in mortality rates?

fascicle, I linked to the Australian site as it seems to be a useful, general guide to why the MMR is much less risky than catching measles. I don't know the reason for the differences in figures given. There's a long list of references attached to the guide; I assume the answer is in there somewhere.

But the HPA link is useful. As it shows the deaths from measles over the last 70+ years in the UK, and that prior to vaccination there were many deaths from measles, it rather confirms oldbiddy's point that measles kills - and causes terrible disability - in well nourished western nations. The reasons for the few deaths in recent years is that of effective vaccines reducing the extent of measles outbreaks.

The only way to argue against this is to say that Britain in the 1940s, '50s and 60s had the sort of sanitation, health care and levels of malnutrition as would now be found in desperately poor countries in the developing world. Which would be nonsense. Obviously.

bobby, herd immunity is the effect of those vaccinated forming an obstacle to transmission of infectious disease. There's nothing controversial in it. It protects those who genuinely can't be vaccinated and may especially need protection. But it can be taken advantage of by others, sadly, who should play their part.

As for the everyday risks...sorry, but that's not good enough. Do you make your children take the stairs instead of the lift every time? And do they never eat anything new? Do you own a television? A games console? Do you ask for fire safety reports when you enter a building? Do you scout ahead and look for blocked fire exits?

Unless you avoid all these risks you plainly don't believe in minimising risks of the unknown.

WearsMink

I linked to the Australian site as it seems to be a useful, general guide to why the MMR is much less risky than catching measles. I don't know the reason for the differences in figures given.

So you linked to what you described as an 'authoritative source' to back up your argument without noticing, or subsequently understanding, a rather large discrepancy in mortality information?

But the HPA link is useful. As it shows the deaths from measles over the last 70+ years in the UK, and that prior to vaccination there were many deaths from measles, it rather confirms oldbiddy's point that measles kills - and causes terrible disability - in well nourished western nations. The reasons for the few deaths in recent years is that of effective vaccines reducing the extent of measles outbreaks.

The only way to argue against this is to say that Britain in the 1940s, '50s and 60s had the sort of sanitation, health care and levels of malnutrition as would now be found in desperately poor countries in the developing world. Which would be nonsense. Obviously.

Nobody disputes that measles can be fatal (as can many diseases and incidents that receive much less attention), but we're looking at relative risks.

I missed the reference to disability figures that you mention - where is that on the HPA site?

If you didn't calculate the mortality rate per 1,000 from the figures previously shown, have a look at this graph from he HPA, again using the stats from the Office of National Statistics. Follow the broken line (mortality rate) in relation to the unbroken line (notifications) until 1968 when the first (single) measles vaccine was introduced:

www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733756107

Having done that, how can you attribute a declining rate of measles deaths only to vaccination?

fascicle

Do you think there are any upsides to the vaccination process?

Yes, PigletJohn, I do. I think it has value where mortality rates are extremely high, and for anyone who believes it is the best option for protecting their child.

fascicle, I will have to leave the sources for complications of measles to others. Personally, I find the health authorities of countries like the UK, US and Australia sound and persuasive when they recommend vaccination against these and other terrible outcomes.

We don't seem to disagree that measles kills. Which brings me to your last post...

Mortality rates will be high anywhere that measles takes hold - 16 children died in the UK in 1988 from an epidemic of measles. IThe death rate is higher in poorer nations. What stops it anywhere is vaccination. Which is why you have the luxury of saying that measles doesn't worry you...because others vaccinate.

And, from your post to me: "Nobody disputes that measles can be fatal (as can many diseases and incidents that receive much less attention), but we're looking at relative risks." So what is the risk from MMR, say?

If your answer includes anything about unknown risks, suppression of data or sinister cabals of powerful people, we'll know where we stand.

"value where mortality rates are extremely high"

so not where mortality rates are low, average, or fairly high, then? Not where it can prevent suffering from, for example, sores over the skin, including the mouth, eyes, scalp and genitals; not where it can prevent a bit of pneumonia, sight and hearing damage, and a bit of brain damage?

wearsmink since you want to labour the point about unknown risks, let me say what I was going to say earlier, before I decided on a more charitable route: Like Ragusa, you have repeatedly misrepresented what I say. Now I don't know whether you do this deliberately to try to make me look stupid, whether you subconsciously fashion what I say to equate to your notion of what 'anti vax' people think, or whether you simply do not grasp my points. Either way, it creates an unhelpful fog - because rather than engaging with you on the issues, I am having to remind you what my original argument is. So, rather unhelpfully, the point becomes to demonstrate to you that my argument is not the made up one you're scoring easy points against. Here are some examples:

As for the everyday risks...sorry, but that's not good enough. Do you make your children take the stairs instead of the lift every time? And do they never eat anything new? Do you own a television? A games console? Do you ask for fire safety reports when you enter a building? Do you scout ahead and look for blocked fire exits?

Unless you avoid all these risks you plainly don't believe in minimising risks of the unknown

I have said: when you vaccinate, you take known and recognised unknown risks 'Recognised unknown' means there are many claims that these risks exist, and there is often officially logged correlation. But, the causation has not been proven or disproved because we don't have the capacity to research it (cf the gaps in our knowledge re the brain or cancer) or the research has not been funded (cf the evidence of bias against 'negative' research in peer reviewed journals). On the HRSA website which I have referenced before, it logs these claimed injuries relating to vaccines which have been proven and which have neither been proven nor disproven (and these are arguably not even representative of the injured population). This is a 'recognised unknown'. You are not addressing this issue by parodying what I say with irrelevant examples. Please, stick to the examples we are talking about.

If you must see this important issue in terms of a television set though, know this: If people had already been compensated because a model had demonstrably harmed their children, if others had made correlation based claims against the same set, which had been officially logged and not disproved, and if the manufacturer had been caught falsifying data to make it look better, then yes, I would not choose to buy that model. And if they then tried to mandate that all people 'must' use this set whether they liked it or not, I might conclude they were not confident it could sell on its own merits.

Could you also address biddlyoldbiddy's point that the evidence appears to be that there is no asthma benefit from having had measles?

What biddly actually said:

There is (as far as I am aware) no research consensus that measles infection confers protection against asthma

She did then give an example of research which suggests no benefit. I then provided more which suggests there might be. That is what 'no consensus' means, and why she used it. It's actually not far from 'grounds for reasonable doubt' which is my point about vaccines.

By the way,I may disagree profoundly with biddly, but I like her style, she is measured, does not stigmatise, and references her points. I might learn something from her through this discussion. If I do, that can only help my kids.

you think that anything short of disablement and death is a mild effect - why don't you prove the case for avoiding the vaccine. The vaccine is highly effective, as even you seem to accept.

I have said there are severe complications and there are unpleasant symptoms - two different things. Severe complications are severe complications - horrible. Unpleasant symptoms which you recover from, gaining lifetime immunity and other benefits as a result? A different story. I have said also that catching the disease at the right stage of childhood if you are healthy and well-nourished will mean you will avoid severe complications (WHO), you will have guaranteed immunity for life (and quite possibly other health benefits) and, if you're breastfeeding, you'll pass important antibodies to your baby. This, for me, is a good cae for avoiding the vaccine if this is your context.

I have also shown repeatedly why there are reasonable grounds to doubt the effectiveness of vaccines, as you well know. These relate to false claims of efficacy by the manufacturer, the non foolproof way of establishing the efficacy in the first place, the admission by the manufacturer that the effectiveness even as measured is not guaranteed in the short or long term, and the questionable claims that vaccines were responsible for disease eradication (see the graph I linked to above, which you still haven't commented on).

Now on to herd immunity. I asked for a detailed analysis, point by point, of how this supposedly works, how vaccines create it, and how natural kids pose a threat to injected ones. What you have provided is an unsubstantiated opinion:

bobby, herd immunity is the effect of those vaccinated forming an obstacle to transmission of infectious disease. There's nothing controversial in it. It protects those who genuinely can't be vaccinated and may especially need protection. But it can be taken advantage of by others, sadly, who should play their part.

I invite you to remember the following:

1. When vaccines first came out it was claimed they would provide guaranteed immunity for life
2. It was later claimed the guaranteed 'immunity' they provided was not guaranteed for life, so boosters would be necessary.
3. It was later claimed the guaranteed 'immunity' was not in fact guaranteed, even before time had 'waned' it - so your 'protected' child is still in fact in danger from 'unprotected' children and your 'genuinely can't be vaccinated' child is still in danger from your vaccinated child or from a natural child.
4. It was later claimed that 95% of the population has to have this unguaranteed immunity which can wane at different times for different people, in order to provide 'herd immunity' (are you seeing any problems with this argument so far?)
5. When outbreaks (eg of measles) have happened in communities with 95% coverage (eg Finland) and where vaccinated kids have passed it to their vaccinated siblings (ie it is not 'outsiders' spreading it) various claims have been made. One is that their 'immunity' must have waned more quickly than usual. Another is that, in addition to an increasing number of boosters, one will need to have extra measles jabs for different strains of measles. Either way, it is recognised that 'the effect of those vaccinated forming an obstacle to the transmission of infectious disease' is demonstrably questionable.

By the way, Wearsmink, I think one thing seems likely in this scenario - more and more vaccines will be needed because the more they prove not to work as advertised, the more we will be told that this proves the case for purchasing greater quantities of them

But actually, wearsmink, I think there are reasonable grounds for believing the following:

1. Even if 100% of the human population had been vaccinated with MMR, the measles virus (for example) would not just pack up and leave the planet. It is a virus, it lives on this planet and it is scary.
2. Because of the unguaranteed immediate 'immunity', the unguaranteed duration of the 'immunity' and the fact that a vaccine apparently does not protect against different strains, outbreaks of measles will continue to happen even amongst 100% 'protected' human populations. And these 'immune' and 'protected' people will keep passing it to other immune and protected people, as they have done so in various countries recently. And because many of them will not have had measles in childhood, they will get it as adults and stand a high chance of suffering severe consequences - as has happened in Swtizerland. Is the answer then, more and more vaccines and boosters?

Now onto this comment you've made to fasicle:

If your answer includes anything about unknown risks, suppression of data or sinister cabals of powerful people, we'll know where we stand

This looks like a lazy attempt to stigmatise people who question vaccines. There are known risks. There are possible, as yet unproven risks which, as recognised by 'the authorities', we don't have the capacity and/or funding to research. As for sinister cabals, well, I don't see things such simplistic terms. I do, however, believe (and know from personal experience, in fact) that pharmaceutical executives are under enormous pressure to improve margins each quarter. They probably would prefer to have a 100% effective, 100% safe product to help them achieve this - that would make their lives much easier. Alas, they do not have that. And there is ample opportunity to exaggerate the benefits of their product and underplay the risks to increase sales. Moreover, there is ample opportunity to use statistics which apply in one part of the world as if they are relevant in another, as we have seen above.

Also:

Personally, I find the health authorities of countries like the UK, US and Australia sound and persuasive when they recommend vaccination against these and other terrible outcomes

I think there are probably lots of good people making up 'the authorities' who are trying to do their best, and I would not instinctively distrust what they say any more than I would trust it. But I urge you not to let them do your thinking for you. These are the same 'authorities' that said there was no danger of BSE in humans, said Vioxx and Thalidomide were safe, previously said it was safe to x-ray pregnant women, have caused children to be paralysed by the Polio vaccine, etc. At the very least, they may make mistakes. But also, it is possible to find many examples of conflict of interest where drug company money and people are intertwined with research and researchers, university departments, and executive committees, whether in government or organisations like the WHO. Now, I know the lazy response to this assertion would be to dismiss me as a 'conspiracy theorist', but I'm hopeful that you won't do that. Instead, you can look back through my posts for sound, reliable references which support these claims.

My apologies: my response will just have to look like a note to the milkman compared with your monograph.

I don't misrepresent you. You simply hide behind verbosity and don't like it when people answer in straightforward terms.

There is no such thing as a "recognised unknown risk" by reference to what people claim as effects. That is a misleading term got up to sound substantial. It's meaningless. Unless the risks can be demonstrated properly they are merely unknown and wholly speculative. All the risks I outlined are more real than the unknown ones you claim for vaccines. You are simply scaremongering or have a very poor understanding of risk.

All in all, the known risks of MMR are miniscule and much, much less than measles. Unless you can come up with good evidence of risk from MMR your argument is all a bit pointless.

Why should I demonstrate herd immunity to you? It's not controversial as I said. Look it up. As it happens, I gave a very simple explanation which lets you know what I understand it to be. Why should I go through it point by point?

I can't believe you're trying to argue that a disease cannot be protected against by herd immunity or that smallpox wasn't eradicated - because it had no hosts - by vaccine. And that the same could happen with polio. Or measles.

But, sadly, herd immunity can be hidden behind. Which is why in my opinion we should at least follow the US and have vaccination as a condition of school entry.

The rest will have to go unanswered.

Thanks Bobby for your posts. So clear and to the point, not at all obscure. (wearsmink, a little more verbosity on your part to explain why you hold your point of view could have been helpful to be honest)

Excellent, excellent posts bobbyperu and fascicle. Most educational.

I am amazed that anyone refuses to accept that the best way not to suffer the effects of a disease is not to catch it.

Is there a reason for refusing to accept that vaccinartion is the best way not to catch measles? Or is it just that admitting these two facts would make the antivaccination stance look so weak?

IMO my points are so simple and clear that they do not need to be cloaked in fog and verbosity.

if only the same could be said for those who disagree....

"the best way not to suffer the effects of a disease is not to catch it."

Who refuses to accept that? Surely the vaccination issue is a bit more complicated. I wouldn't listen to anyone who thought that was the beginning and end of the argument.

You could say "the best way not to suffer the effects of vaccination is not to have any". It's just as true.

"Who refuses to accept that?"

fascicle

"I wouldn't listen to anyone who thought that was the beginning and end of the argument"

it is certainly a good beginning.