Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Article in the Times health supplement about parents who put their children forward for vaccine trials

58 replies

Socci · 04/10/2005 12:42

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
ruty · 04/10/2005 12:48

i couldn't access the page socci. i live in oxford and am forever getting mail asking my ds to take part in new meningitis xyz vaccine trial. Funily enough i haven't put him forward..

Original poster
Socci · 04/10/2005 13:03

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
QueenOfQuotes · 04/10/2005 13:13

the bit about "solidarity" with her husband worries me the most about that quote you've taken. Fine, if she's happy to put her child foward for vaccine trials that's her choice - but I'm afraid I don't see her "reason" as being a very strong one - would she do it if her DH didn't work in medical research???

Jimjams · 04/10/2005 14:50

public opinion is hugely in favour of vaccination - not sure where the need for "solidarity" comes in.

Mind you might have more chance of a compensation payment in these cases than if you were vaccine damaged from a regular vaccine (because you have no chance in those cases).

flamebat · 04/10/2005 14:52

Are there many parents out there who risk their children in hope of compensation??

Jimjams · 04/10/2005 14:53

you're missing the point flamebat. that's not what I'm saying and if you think it is then forget it.

flamebat · 04/10/2005 14:56

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Jimjams · 04/10/2005 14:57

no - I have a vaccine damaged son with no chance of compensation- that's why I said it.

flamebat · 04/10/2005 14:58

Ahhh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise. I understand why you would get upset by my post now .

Jimjams · 04/10/2005 15:08

tbh flamebat I think people presume that there can't possibly be side effects, not that they're out for compensation! I have friends whose children have had very long, first ever seizures within 24 hours of their first jabs- then followed by a lifetime of SN and they have no chance of compensation (and their "case" for vaccine damage is far stronger than ours). I have a friend whose consultant has told her 'off the record' that the dtps were almpst certianly responsible for her son's severe autism (age 6 non-verbal, in nappies) but that she has no chance of compensation.

I do genuinely think until the jabs are passed as safe people are more open to the option that they may cause problems, but once passed the view is that they never cause problems (rather than rarely).

flamebat · 04/10/2005 15:12

Completely agree

Original poster
Socci · 04/10/2005 15:12

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
staceym11 · 04/10/2005 15:38

i probably wouldnt put my dd fwd for something like this yet i have let her have all of her vaccinations up to date (nearly1) because they very rarely do harm (im not saying never just rarely) and the risk of her contracting meningitis/whopping cough/mumps are far greater than the risk of her having an adverse reaction to the vaccine. my other opinion is that it never did me or her father any harm.

people will probably think that my way of thinking about this subject is wrong but i cant see how it would have helped her for her not to have the vaccines.

anyway back to the subject of the trials. i dont think i could put her fwd but obv these drugs have to be tested on children at some point, surely they should test them on older kids first seeing as babies deteriorate more rapidly than anyone else?

ruty · 04/10/2005 16:09

the problem with assessing vaccine damage staceym11 is`that doctor usually put any severe reaction down to 'coincidence'. And then there may be long term problems which develop, which again can be ignored in terms of vaccine relation. Difficult then to weigh up the risks for and against when there are no clear figures either way.

ruty · 04/10/2005 16:10

i do find it odd that most parents don't know that no vaccine has ever been tested for carcinogenic or fertility impairment potential. This is stated on every vaccine insert. i'm not saying that all vaccines are bad, I'm just saying it makes me uncomfortable that they don't test for carcinogenic potential. Why not?

Original poster
Socci · 04/10/2005 16:18

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
freakyzebra · 05/10/2005 10:12

But you are putting other children at risk by choosing not to vaccinate, Socci. I don't think that's unfair to say as a general thing at all.

You may decide that you have other prioties (like what you think is in the best interests of your own child), but can't deny that herd immunity is what protects most of us from being severely damaged by many of these diseases.

Look at the experience of Anniebear's dd and the damage that complications from measles did to her.

flamebat · 05/10/2005 10:14

But you can say equally - Look at Jimjams and her's, and that was BECAUSE of vaccinating.

Things can go horribly wrong with both methods unfortunately. Our children will not be 100% safe with either option

freakyzebra · 05/10/2005 10:18

I'm not talking about what risks we choose for our own children, I'm talking about what risks we may subject other children to.

Jimjams may choose not to vaccinate because of what's in the best interest of her children, but by doing so she may be putting other children at risk. I can understand why she thinks she has to not dare vaccinate -- & think of her children first, but it's still a risk she creates for others.

Socci thought it was unfair to point that out; it's not unfair. It's just a fact.

Jimjams · 05/10/2005 12:02

not quite so black and white though it is zebra. My children have - so far - caught one disease that can be vaccinated against- rubella- caught from a vaccinated child. The best protection to an indvidiual (not population- individual) is not from herd immunity - it is from carrying the antibodies yourself. Persumably if vaccinations are as good as they are meant to be then the best way someone can guarantee protection from specific diseases is to vaccinate their children. They can make that choice. The herd immunity is to protect people who can't be vaccinated- presumably carrying a greater risk of becoming autistic from a vaccination is a fair enough reason to avoid it- so the herd immunity should be there to protect my family- rather than have me "sacrificing" my children for the greater common good.

Anniebear's dd had meningitis - not measles- I don't know which form. If it was a type C or hib then presumably very bad luck. Type C isn't really transmissable in the way measles is - plenty of people carry it without getting it (so no need to feel guilty if your don't jab- you really are only putting your own child at risk- and different countries vary on whether they think type C is worth giving). If another form- nothing anyway. I'm not trying to downplay anything that Anniebear has gone through- I probably understand better than most people on this site- but I'm just saying it's not black and white and not really fair (or true) to protray me as putting all the children out there at risk

Jimjams · 05/10/2005 12:03

sorry if another form- no jab available anyway.

flamebat · 05/10/2005 12:21

To my mind, if you think that not immunising is hurting other children, then you will have immunised your child. If you have not immunised your child, then you will have all the various reasons for not doing it that have been stated, and will not blame others for your child contracting it.

Herd immunisation (imo) can never completely wipe out a disease, there will still be different parts of the world that it can be contracted in and brought back, and not all children will take to the immunisations (I've had the hep B vaccine 3 or 4 times now, and I'm still not immune).

I have no idea if any of that made sense... it did in my head.

Jimjams · 05/10/2005 12:28

also flamebat you are sensible, and keep away if you suspect they may be sickening for one of the infectious diseases.

flamebat · 05/10/2005 12:31

YES! Its not like you look at them and think "Oooh, we have mumps coming here... who's up for toddlers and a trip to the park?"

Jimjams · 05/10/2005 13:07

Exactly- most of the communicable diseases start with cold like symptoms- and I always avoid vulnerable groups (eg newborns) if my children have colds.

In the summer someone I know's 8 year old had suspected measles (she was told by a doctor it was probably measles and that the jab must not have worked in her case- she had received MMR- both doses). She took her dd to a petting farm!!!!!! It was me who told her that she was out of order and should be quarantining her until they found out what it was (it wasn't measles in the end- just some viral thing- still don't think she should have been out and about with her). So vaccinating your children doesn;t automatically make you less likely to put others at risk. I would never have done what she did, because contrary to some people'sopinion of me I do my best to ensure that children do not pass on their illnesses (not always possible I know),

My personal bugbear is people who send their kids back to nursery without leaving a clear 24 hours after D and V. It really pisses me off. Usually it just means extra washing but my friend's son died from a D and V virus (not anything that could be vaccinated against). Horrific.

Swipe left for the next trending thread