MMR or not, and where to go for single vaccs? Lone parent, would love advice

[missperelman]

hello, i think i have decided to go for single vaccs for mumps and measles for my one year old daughter. i wondered if anyone knew where was best to go for this in London? the childrens immunisation clinic on harley st? is there cheaper, does anyone know? also, would you not bother with rubella until the child itself is of childbearing age. ??
confused as to which way to go, even to have them at all. but i think i will do mumps and measles separately. aaaargh. confused
laura
lone parent

There are loads of properly peer reviewed scientific papers produced by proper academic scientists on the subject- do you have a specific concern? If you do, there are plenty of people on here who could point you in the right direction.

What do you mean doctors could be in serious trouble?

Multiple large epidemiological studies have been undertaken a good place to start is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy and if you don't belive the content follow the references.

Thanks. I was told by the HV a few weeks ago that she had to tell me the government line on things like that. Otherwise she could get into trouble if something went wrong.

I assume it's the same with practice nurses etc.

I could ask on here but look what happened when the OP did that.

But thingy has been discredited!

That's not the point seeker - maybe he has. But it's like they are only allowed to say that and not even discuss the things I am worried about. iyswim

I have tried hard to ask about various aspects for reassurance but get met with the same script over and over again. I just want an honest conversation about it with someone but no one will do that and tbh that makes me feel very distrustful.

Ok here are my concerns : that I am potentially damaging my baby's immune system by giving him these artificial products

that I've read that a lot of vaccines are inefficient at actually preventing the diseases they are meant to

that the injection itself may therefore be pointless and could be doing him some harm with its nasty ingredients

Those are the basics

Also I'd like to defer these vaccines till he is older as he was a very upset and screamy baby from the off, just started to settle and then he had his 8 week injections and went backwards.

I can't put him through that again. I just can't do it. Can you defer till they are a bit older? Will it still work?

and why do they need three shots of each?

I think the OP got sensible advice- apart from the scattergun poster!

Rooney- have a look at this and see what you think.

What is worse? The scattergun or the heavily armed warlike approach of the vaccination industry putting so much fear an pressure on parents?

there's good stuff here too

Trouble is, Rosi, the scattergun is completely unhelpful. And in your case, as I and others have pointed out, factually inaccurate. One or two well argued posts that could stimulate debate would be a really good thing for you to produce. Oh, and I'm still waiting for your comments on the Salk/Sabin issue.

"that I've read that a lot of vaccines are inefficient at actually preventing the diseases they are meant to"

If that is the case why do we no longer see: smallpox, polio, diphtheria and tetanus? Did you see the little boy on Comic Relief with tetanus?

Fair point Bun. What about measles though? lots of kids seem to get that regardless?

Thankyou for the links Seeker. It is so hard to tell what is a pro site and what is anti and what is totally unbiased.

Rooney- I don't think you can be unbiased on this subject- all the science and proper research points one way. All you can do is read the evidence.

And yes, kids do still get measles. But a) the vaccine protects about 85% of children, and reduces the severity of the illness in most of the remaining 15%.

No vaccine is 100% effective. Nothing is 100% effective.

Seeker - do you really expect me to dig out the information you want to have - I am sure you can do that yourself. Besides that you have not answered my question either.

The proper research you refer to for me is no more valid than all of the experiences parents and doctors have made in their lives even if it is not based on proper scientific research.

If you feel it is not a big thing if doctors take a pharmaceutical company to court just because you already seem to know about it - that is an interesting viewpoint.

Which question was that?

I don't want you to dig for information, Rosi- I just wanted to understand your point of view. Which I why I suggested you express it in a short paragraph. Then we can talk about it.

Really?

Yes, really. But hey ho, if you don't want to, you don't want to. I, and others, will extrapolate that you think that your position is indefensible.

Why then don't you ask what you would like to know but expect me to deliver all kinds of data?

I don't expect you to "extrapolate all kinds of data" you flooded the thread with unsupported statements. I challenged one in particular which I know to be misleading at best, but you haven't yet produced any supporting evidence.

I would just like to know what your standpoint is. Why is that so difficult?

It is so difficult, Seeker, because you what you wrote earlier and what you write now is something different. If you want to know all the details you asked for why do you say later you wanted to know my standpoint?

Your messages create huge confusion and then you put the responsibility on the one who should answer your question.

I have said all along that I want to know your standpoint.

I have also asked you several times to back up your statement about Joseph Salk. I would like to ask you to back up all the statements you made, but one will do.