I have to put in writing that I am taking responsibility for the risk that my baby might die from not vaccination

[StarlightMcKenzie]

The exact words the nurse spoke!?

I'll put something in writing if that is what they want but not that.

Apparently they have a duty to inform the HV of the risks that I am taking and have I heard the recent news oday of all the babies dying?

I'm bloody cross with this nurse tbh.

I'm not trawling through all of this but hope someone has said that the entire issue of vaccination is a complex one and on the basis of the information about the risks and the advantages for a variety of people with a variety of potential or pre-existing medical conditions that is made available by health authorities on a public wide basis combined with the grave lack of knowledge by the majority of health visitors and practice nurses who are able only to quote the leaflet then no, the present system is not satisfactory.

I am pro vaccination by the way but I think those responsible for it would achieve higher overall rates if they improved the manner or their communication with the public and with mothers in particular.

isabel you post makes no sense in the context of this thread.

But Leoine, you give no reasons for this belief

People should make up their own minds, of course. But they should also avoid posting misleading and potentially dangerous anti-vaccine nonsense like this:

"i believe MMR vaccinations do cause some autism - because it has been proven to be so"

and this:

"...especially when there are parents who have living proof of the link between vaccination and autism in their child."

Nobody 'squares up' to people who live with autism, or with any other disability. They simply want hard-won and hugely beneficial medical advances - particularly ones whose benefits multiply when as many as possible are included - not to be undermined by scaremongering anecdote.

If the MMR has never caused autism, then why have families been paid compensation?

If you say you have proof, and then refuse to divulge it, people will assume you have something you're calling proof, but that you know isn't. They will assume you know people who have had MMR and have developed ASD, and who believe the two to be linked, and that you believe them. Because it relies on belief, it's an article of faith, not a proof.

Now you understand why I too am sometimes rude pagwatch. BTW, I'm not thick, but then you knew that. You were just consumed with spite, and wrote any old vindictive crap.

If I were to say that eating McDonalds caused my Ds' autism then do you think a judge would rule that they award us financial compensation based on this 'belief'?

Leoine you said that severe reaction to vaccines weren't rare and that it had been proved that MMR causes autism and I just asking why you believe this.

Yes yes. I am the spiteful one.
I often rock up on threads where people are talking about the difficult life choices they face whilst living with their profoundly disabled child in order to post mocking, snide and goading posts.

That is indeed thick and cuntish behaviour. If done by someone who also thinks they have a high IQit just makes it even scummier.

So I can be better informed

To be clear, I respect star lights' decision not to immunise. I think it sucks that she can't access information to help her make a more informed decision. She has obviously been through a lot and is now being failed by HCPs again.

However this doesn't negate the safety and importance of vaccination for the vast majority of the population (which Leonie appears to be questioning).

You'd don't know that. People don't know if their child is a at higher risk until they have a "damaged" child. So you can't say that you accept "not vaccinating" when people have a child at higher risk (but not otherwise) because you don't know, you can't always tell. People are just supposed to offer up their firstborns as a living experiment. And quite often when things do go wrong they're then disagreed with (by people who don't even know them or their child!), laughed at, sneered at, sometimes even called hysterical or stupid and so on. So you aren't really in a position to judge or to give your respect or withdraw it.

Well you can asses some risks obviously. So firefighters would you advocate vaccinating no one in case they had some phenomenally rare reaction to it.

Starlight
I appreciate you have a lot of things on your plate. I'm also sorry that you've been let down.
But you're taking a decision, for more than one child, to leave them exposed to potentially harmful diseases. You have received medical advice - that your children are at increased risk of death and disability from not being vaccinated.
You are going against this advice for whatever reasons you have, don't you agree that it's therefore your responsibility to seek out the appropriate professional advice. Even if you later disregard that advice, at least youll be better informed.

The MMR (for example) has been around since at least the 70s (dh had it born in 1974 in Canada). Since the Wakefield appear it has had loads of research done on it. I would hardly describe it as experimental !

Wakefield paper

LeonieDelt Sat 01-Dec-12 21:53:10
i believe MMR vaccinations do cause some autism - because it has been proven to be so

Oooh, cite for that, please?

No ones goaded you leonie! You always come on to these threads, spout some unsubstantiated rubbish and when people call you on it, insist that you are under no obligation to back up your comments and that you're being goaded, picked on, bullied, whatever.

And pagwatch, that was mean and uncalled for. I don't know what being the parent of a disabled child has to do with it. Starlights op made no mention of a disabled child and jo certainly didn't mock anyone's experience of having a disabled child. I personally don't know which posters have disabled children and which don't. And I don't think that's an excuse for calling someone a cunt and a wanker. Very unpleasant.

You won't get one, onemorechap, it's not based on any scientific evidence, it's a belief system.

Not read all of this yet but just wanted to respond to one of your points Starlight, re vaccinations being safe at 2 months but not at 1 month - it's actually not because of safety but because of response to the vaccination.

When babies are born they are not able to produce their own antibodies. Over the first few months of life they develop the ability to produce antibodies. However, in the first couple of months of life they have antibodies from the mum and if the mum breastfeeds they will continue to get some antibodies this way too.

Vaccinations work by injecting a small amount of either a killed verson of the bug vaccinating against, or a bit of the bug's genetic material, into the body, he body produces antibodies against that and when the person next encounters that bug the antibodies are able to fight the bug so they don't get the infection (I'm using the highly technical term 'bug' to cover bacteria and viruses). This is exactly what they body does in response to getting the actual infection but with the immunisation you don't get sick because the bug has been either killed or broken down. You may get a fever and aches and pains as this is the body recognising the bug as a pathogen and mounting an immune response. This immune response needs to happen or the immunisation won't work.

Very young babies less than a month of age produce such a small amount of antibodies if any that there is no point giving them an immunisation - the body can't mount an immune response. However they are still protected by the mum's antibodies. As they get a bit older the protection from the mum is wearing off and their ability to produce antibodies is kicking in a bit so we immunise them against things that kill babies such as H. influenzae (causes horrible horrible meningitis that is very often fatal and throat infections that can cause the upper airway to close completely leading to death by suffocation), pneumococcus and men. c (which also both cause fatal/disabling meningitis), whooping cough (which is just highly unpleasant in bigger people but fatal in some babies and incredibly difficult if not impossible to treat in the litle ones who get very sick).

However, their antibody production is still not great which is why they need boosters (wheras if you have an older child who is unimmunised they may just need one vaccination as they have much better antibody production).

So it's not a case of these vaccinations being unsafe for tiny babies, just that they won't work and they are less necessary as they still have mum's protection (hence the drive to immunise pregnant ladies against whooping cough - it's so the baby gets the antibodies through the placenta so is protected in the first month of life where it is most risky to get it (as the babies I have looked after who've died from whooping cough have caught it when they were too young for the vaccination)

As for the volume being injected being the same in everyone - it is because a very very tiny amount of the material is needed to mount an immune response and that doesnt vary by size of the person - all it needs is one or two bits of bug to come into contact with one or two white cells and that's enough - (with norovirus you can become infected by coming into contact with just 2 viruses!). These volumes have been studied carefully - immunised populations have been tested following immunisation to find the minimal amount required to cause immunity in the majority of people. Most of what's injected is actually water or saline and the volume chosen will be enough to ensure the vaccination is fully dissolved and also to be big enough that you don't lose half of it in the hub of the needle (generally if I'm injecting something that is less than a quarter of a ml or so I'll dilute it just cause it makes it easier to measure and inject)

'You are going against this advice for whatever reasons you have, don't you agree that it's therefore your responsibility to seek out the appropriate professional advice. Even if you later disregard that advice, at least youll be better informed.'

I have not had medical advice that is specific to my circumstances. I think it is my responsibility to seek it out yes, and I have done so to the best of my ability. I also think it is the responsibility of those who promote the vaccination programme to provide this information easily, in a balanced and informed way and without a fight.

I have to say too, that it is likely that all I could hope to gain from such information is better understanding of the complexity between genetics and reaction to vaccinations that are specific to us, NOT absolutely proof that the DTP will cause renal failure to justify the decision to forego vaccination. Afterall, I have a similar genetic make up, received the DTP and as yet have not suffered renal failure. But that does not mean either, that the DTP is safe for my family. Nor does it mean that it is 'probably safe' for my family.

I suspect this is one of the reasons why my GP will not fund investigations and instead simply quote NHS guidelines at population level. Not necessarily because she is an evil, misleading, financially incentivised GP (although actually the GP Manager person pretty much is - and bonkers - telling me that I couldn't have a homebirth with no.3 because I wouldn't be able to cope with the pain, and that I had to have a pregnancy test at 38 weeks before she would refer me ).