Debate on Vaccines

[Emsyboo]

I have seen a few threads where mums have an opinion pro or con vaccine and asking for more information I would like to know your reasons for being one or the other.
My MIL is very anti vaccine and told me 4 out of 30 children die from vaccinations - I don't believe this to be true think their may be a decimal point missing although I have seen some posts from people who seem to have backed up information about vaccines.

I am pro vaccine but like to see both sides before I make a decision so if anyone has any information pro or con and more importantly has info to back up I would be really interested.

Thanks

"That is because, when making this difficult decision, readers and parents deserve to be able to make the decision free from emotional blackmail or scorn or emotionally charged opinion."

And that is what I truly believe is missing from the doctors' surgeries when we go for that advice. I wanted to hear both sides. All I got was the usual "political" line. I think parents need to be told the following before they vaccinate:

1. Risks of catching the disease (assuming a vaccination rate of nil, rather than 90% which I realise would be daft).
2. Risks from the disease.
3. All the ingredients in the vaccine.
4. Risks from each ingredient.

How about a leaflet in baby packs for parents to read for starters?

Tabs, a totally reasonable suggestion

the thing is PIMS, you haven't answered anyhting at all (a key feature of discussion and debate, I find)

you have stated several things.

some of them have been shown to be untrue. no answer to any of those from you, not even an acknowledgement, just moving on to your next "point" which then also gets rebutted - yet more deafening silence.

I am not at all sure why you brought up circus teams wrt the team at the Royal Free - but it illustrates the point I have made above. you say one thing, were shown it was not true, move on to the next spurious point, get shown it isn't true, then all of a sudden claim that therefore Wakefield coudl have been working in a circus team - muddled thinking par excellence.

gooseberry wrote out quite a good post on your illogical statemnts re: parents opinions and investigation. you have decided to not anser that too, just as you didn't properly answer the fact that the invasive tests carried out were in fact clinically indicated, and therefore no ethical approval was needed as such. I expect you will hide yet again behind "well, the gmc said it, so it must be true" - again, a number of the things the gmc said have been shown to be untrue over the years, yet everyone ignores the elephant in the room.

I can understand why, to a point - it is horrifying to even begin to think otherwise. to come out of your cosy little world, whre parents are mistaken, and get carried along by the media hype.

but please, read something other than Deer and goldacre on this. thin about why the Cochrane report found as it did, and ponder over why on earht the uk health dept introduced a known dangerous vaccine strain into the uk, and then denied there were any problems for years afterwards - even after the vaccine was withdrawn.

this is not a subject where you can easily hide behind "well, I don't know what I think, but it must all be for the best". the lies and the smear campaign alone shoudl have you wondering why on earth people woudl be saying these things.

I am not at all being sensationalist. I am untangling the knots from your arguments and laying them out in nice clean straight lines and asking you to pick one. Instead of you jumbling them all up and then complaining about other people twisting your words.

"I am suggesting that their concerns be dealt with as per the normal structure and format for investigating concerns in the the NHS.
The last time I checked this didnt mean jumping in head first with invasive procedures. It involved investigations and recommendations for system changes and reserach made by a panel of experts. I would never make such ridiculous assumptions on a public forum."

What on EARTH do you mean by this. Do you have any idea? Do you think these parents did not bring their concerns to the NHS and report adverse reactions -- only to be dismissed? what do you think has been happening for the last fifteen years?

You said "parental opinion should be investigated". Am I supposed to assume you mean something completely different? How do you want parental opinion investigated? The last time I checked the gut was inside the body and the choice is either bringing it outside the body to have a look or sending something inside to have a look. Now I'm not sure how a "panel of experts" is going to get round this rather obvious problem without resorting to an invasive procedure but yknow, why don't you write and explain it to them.

The wider debate of vaccines has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not MMR triggers an autistic regression. Why on earth have you brought it up - except as a distraction?

The facts of the matter - is there a trigger or not - are simply the facts. Nothing to do with a risk-benefit decision. That follows after we have established the facts - ie established the risks.

I think some people find this very hard indeed to process.

"People should be free to express what they think with fear of ridicule or scorn."

really? why don't you tell the rest of your pro-vaccine pals on the next thread when they start talking about "vaxaloons"

Methinks that the gov't won't be at all interested in my suggestion and that is the problem.

By the way, how many dangerous vaccines have there been in the UK?
Now, let me think.
Ah yes. Whooping cough gave some children brain damage.
The OPV gave some people polio. (Please tell me that the WHO are no longer using this).
That's before we get to the Urabe Mumps....

Hmm. The WHO website is still talking about the OPV........

cripes yes the who use opv in developing countries, I'm sure of it

I think it's a nightmare

live virus + slum areas + no sanitation + no clean water + diarrhoea + virus shedding

you couldn't make it up

Sorry, cross posts. Oh deary me.........
Why? Cheaper? Their lives are worth less than ours?

dd1 had OPV as a baby. she is only 6.

You said "parental opinion should be investigated". Am I supposed to assume you mean something completely different? How do you want parental opinion investigated? The last time I checked the gut was inside the body and the choice is either bringing it outside the body to have a look or sending something inside to have a look. Now I'm not sure how a "panel of experts" is going to get round this rather obvious problem without resorting to an invasive procedure but yknow, why don't you write and explain it to them.

I was talking about parents concern between MMR and autistic regression. It is much safer to take a history first and then confirm diagnosis with investigation. As most medical textbooks will tell you clinical history is 80% or the diagnosis.

"People should be free to express what they think with fear of ridicule or scorn."

really? why don't you tell the rest of your pro-vaccine pals on the next thread when they start talking about "vaxaloons"

Im not sure who you are talking about, but I would appreciate it if you took me as an individual at face value and stopped pulling faces

PIMS - are you seriously suggesting that the team at the Royal Free did not take a history before carrying out any investigations?

not sure what your point would be otherwise.

given that they did, exhaustively, and then, ahving reviewed the notes and examined the symptoms, they carried out the tests that they did - the tests that were clinically indicated - do you accept that they may have done the right thing?

Silverfrog, please give me succinct questions and Ill give you succinct answers. ITs difficult to dredge through your post to find what you want to know from me

If you would like me to do some further reading, I am happy to take citations or references and will read them fully

silverfrog, of course Im not suggesting that, that statement was in relation to how the NHS would conduct an investigation of parents concerns GENERALLY. not by wakefield

nice sidestep, PIMS.

bt no cigar.

the citations you want me to give you are far longer, but since you do not have the necessary concentration, why woudl I bother?

the questions are the same ones they ahve always been.

read the thread.

answer some of them.

simple, really.

Silver I see. It looks at though the UK only switched to the IPV in 2004. I find that incredible.

yes - cheaper - the buggers

Pims - are you suggesting that Andrew Wakefield did not take a history (go on - seriously tell me you're suggesting that ) and then did not attempt to establish a diagnosis by investigation?

in what sense did he not do that?

is it not the case that the bulk of the complaints against him seem to centre on the fact that he did try to establish a diagnosis by investigation -- and the GMS seem to think that he shouldn't have tried to do that at all?

in what way do you think parental opinion should be investigated in a child with a gut issue without looking at the gut?

so Andrew Wakefield should do things differently to the NHS?

but he did what you think shoudl be done

how did he not do what you think he should have done?

and for the last time Silverfrog, Wakefields work has been withdrawn following extensive review by the GMC, THEY have declared it unethical and withdrawn it, not me. I can overturn their decision, and I find their report convincing reading.
Please take your concerns up with them if you think they have it wrong. It doesnt matter what I think

ok.

so, that is nhs protocol (except of course, in the case of the lancet 12 and others, where parental concerns were dismissed, and investigations were not carried out)

then, the parents finally got referred to the Royal Free.

and the doctors there listened, took case histories (again!), and then carried out some tests, based on the histories and examination of the patients.

the test results showed severe gut damage. such that it coudl not possibly have been overlooked in previous examinations/histories etc. but it was ignored, several times in most cases.

but anyway.

the doctors carried out their tests, which found roughly what they expected them to - severe gut damage.

and then, several years later, a journalist lies about what they did, and the doctors are found guilty of misconduct because the tests were not clinically indicated, apparently. except, the tests showed up severe damage. so in fact, they were clinically indicated.

are you with me so far?

the water then gets muddied because actually, the tests were not ethically approved, apparently. except, for clinical treatment, they did not need to be. but the ruling stands. why?

why do people believe this shit?

what part of a doctor ptreating a patient with full and informed consent form the person acting on behalf of the patient is so difficult to understand?

^so Andrew Wakefield should do things differently to the NHS?

but he did what you think shoudl be done

how did he not do what you think he should have done?^

What on earth are you on about GB

^nice sidestep, PIMS.

bt no cigar.

the citations you want me to give you are far longer, but since you do not have the necessary concentration, why woudl I bother?

the questions are the same ones they ahve always been.

read the thread.

answer some of them.

simple, really.^

I have said it before and Ill say it again, I find it difficult to trawl through the emotionally fuelled posts to find the objective questions. If you want an answer, tell me what the question is. Please be succinct.

Silverfrog, take it up with the GMC, that is really not my take on events.

Furthermore, the crux of my argument is about weighing up risk versus benefit, not about the the intricacies of Andrew Wakfields rise and political downfall.

His evidence IS VOID.

tabitha - we were not in the Uk at the time (but really? only withdrawn in the uk in 2004? )

dd1 also had the old diphtheria jabs - god, there's been so many I can't rememebr which one. but they had deffo changed in the uk at that point, as i asked why she wasn't having the newer one (although given my reading since, maybe that was a good thing!)

but then she got given most of them again when we returned ot the uk, as it was easier and cheaper to give her the UK schedule, rather than working out what she actually needed and give her single top ups. so she had loads of repeats when she was about 5 months old.

but PIMS, as pointed ut earlier, n a post you chose to ignore, his evidence is not void. his own detractors describe the 1998 paper as good science, which still stands. and think it shoudl still be considered on its own merit.

you really can't answer any of this can you?

you are trying to hide behind "the gmc said it was so and so it is"

what is your reading of the whole clinical investigation scenario, then?