Refusing to vaccinate your child

[Organic100]

For a while now I have been researching the dangers of vaccines and all the cases of children dying or being made sick after having a vaccine, all of which is not reported in mainstream media. How do you feel about vaccines? I've heard that the medical profession encourages pregnant women to get the flu vaccine, and that babies are vaccinated at birth. I've also researched stories where parents have been reported to social services by a spiteful doctor or nurse, simply for refusing their child a vaccine. It seems parents are losing their rights. What do you think?

Again please tell me where there is any evidence at all of immunity being a problem in the uk or the states
i did mention US. most people understand that the states are the US.

just unnecessary and illogical
It's only unnecessary and and illogical if you think its harmful
If its not harmful why is it a problem?

"In response to the question: "I thought that MMR prevented mumps, so why is this happening?", the present reply simply says that two doses of MMR are needed for people to be protected but explains why the timescale of introduction of the vaccine meant that some teenagers and young people had not had both, and urges people to ensure this is remedied.

PHE's suggested replacement is more detailed and says outbreaks of mumps in universities and colleges occur every three to four years, and though the highest risk is to completely unvaccinated students, "it is likely some vaccinated students can catch mumps and pass the infection on to their close contacts without even knowing it."

Again the article you refer to says that it is those that are not fully vaccinated that are most at risk.

bumbley This is a good point about when the second dose was introduced. I always get annoyed, as in the latest measles scare, when the talk is of people not completing courses of vaccine. They seem to forget that the advice changes over the years, so that people may well have been following the advice given to them at the time. For example, both me and DH have been vaccinated against polio; he had three injections, I had four, because in the intervening 18 months the advice had changed. Yet our medical records show that we are both completely vaccinated.

Only unnecessary and illogical if harmful - really bruffin?

"Most at risk" is not the same as "only at risk" and that's not what you said previously "The mumps waning has been in those who had a single dose of MMR"

From the article:

"Half of those who developed mumps in the first three months of this year had received at least one of the two jabs needed"

YOu are doing that ridiculous splitting hairs thing again. We know that one dose is considered undervaccinated,therefore the majority of those who get mumps are undervaccinated. There will always be those for whom vaccines dont work but we know they are a small minority. You dont know from that statement how many had their second dose but even if was 30% which is unlikely, the majority will have been under vaccinated. As i said previously the advice is to make sure you have had your second dose before starting uni, not go for a third dose. You also need to look at how many of the entire student population were fully vaccinated and what percentage of those actually caught mumps and what percentage of the unvaccinated caught mumps. Its only then you can see if mmr is actually working against mumps
ie if there were a 1000 student 95% vaccinated . Outbreak in 100 students 50% of those unvacinated would mean that 100% unvaccinated student got mumps and only 5% of the vaccinated caught mumps which is what is expected anyway. Its not a sign of waning mumps. This is theorectical, but unless you know the full student body and the rate of full vaccination, the rate of single dose you cannot make any assumptions of waning mumps from the statement you made.

Can you actually give me a reason why a third dose is a problem, or is this like the ridiculous aluminium thread where there were hundreds of posts and you could still not actually say what the problem was .

We know that one dose is considered undervaccinated,therefore the majority of those who get mumps are undervaccinated.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought what was known was that the first vaccine takes in 90% of cases and that the second dose, far from being a booster, will get the vaccine to take for half of the remaining 10% giving the desired 95% coverage.

Are you saying therefore that the majority who get mumps come from this 10% for whom the vaccine didn't take the first time round? It could be so, but since no-one checks to see whether the first dose was effective, I don't think anyone can say that it is so. It could equally be that the mumps component is not as effective as they originally hoped, which is being suggested.

Bruffin, it's not splitting hairs. You just like to take any opportunity to brush over the fact that even having 2 MMR vaccines doesn't guarantee protection by making sweeping statements such as "The mumps waning has been in those who had a single dose of MMR" which clearly isn't the case. How do you know that it's not 30% or more? You don't. You're just assuming that because its out of your comfort zone to think otherwise.

In the article they say that they aren't recommending a third dose because "the effectiveness of another jab for those already with immunity was uncertain. There would also be "very little added protection" against measles and rubella and it might only shift the burden of the disease due to "waning vaccine-induced" immunity to older age groups." So why don't you write to them and ask them?

Why would they write an article talking about their concerns about waning protection from the MMR vaccine if it was just the case that unvaccinated students were catching it? Do you really think they would voluntarily throw a bit more negativity about the MMR vaccine out there?

Why do you keep asking me the same questions? I've already said that I think it's unnecessary and illogical to have to vaccinate against diseases you are already immune to simply because they happen to be bundled in with the one you need.

As for the Al thread, the problem was that you (and others) thought you had the answers that even the researchers admitted they didn't have.

Firstly can i just point out that second dose of mmr wasnt introduced until 1996 in the uk, therefore those who are in uni now will probably not have a second dose which is why there is a reminder on their websites.

Why do you think that a second dose doesnt boost the immunity?

*The second MMR immunisation is needed to protect those children who did not respond to the first dose, whilst those who did respond to the first dose get a boost to their antibodies with the second dose.

It has been shown that a second dose of vaccine increases protection. The second dose of MMR vaccine increases the vaccine's efficacy against each of the diseases to 99- 100%. This shows the importance of children receiving both doses of MMR vaccine.*

from Philip Hunt

A second dose of vaccine has been shown to significantly increase protection. Among children who did not respond to a first dose of MMR vaccine, over 90% have a good response to a second dose. If children have low levels of antibodies after the first dose, their levels are boosted by a second dose.
from nhs wales

OK I obviously need to split a few hairs - 'far from being a booster' should read, 'it's primarily designed to catch those for whom the vaccine didn't take the first time round, but will boost the antibodies of those for whom it did take'.

The second dose not being introduced until 1996 exactly bears out the point I made earlier. Those parents who took their children for MMR between 1988 - 1996 will believe that if they complied with the vaccine schedule of the time, their child is protected. They won't necessarily know that the advice changed, and their child was then deemed to be 'undervaccinated'.

It's fine to say that rubella might be eradicated by now if everyone had been vaccinated and to talk about immunity but the fact is that a child has to be injected at 13 months and 4 years to protect a pregnant woman. I consider this immoral and unethical.

Why can't the people who might have a baby be vaccinated, but they won't turn up for it will they and the vaccine isn't effective enough to just target women who might have a baby.

Frontdoorstep

because this does not work

It has been tried, it failed. Hundreds of babies were born disabled. It only works when everyone gets the MMR.

The option of vaccinating boys against rubella wasn't tried.

It might work if everyone was given an 'R' vaccine, but that is not on offer. How does vaccinating a baby against measles and mumps, protect a pregnant woman's child getting congenital rubella syndrome?

but the fact is that a child has to be injected at 13 months and 4 years to protect a pregnant woman.

pregnant woman's child
So that child does not have a father? Do you really think that a father should not take some responsibility for preventing CRS as well?

And secondly why do people think that vaccinating a 13 month or 4 year old is any more harmful than vaccinating a teenager? I said before there is no evidence that a teenager will react any differently to a baby, other than maternal immunity interfering with the vaccine.

It protects the child as well, just in case you have forgotten - measles are no walk in the park...

"but the fact is that a child has to be injected at 13 months and 4 years to protect a pregnant woman. I consider this immoral and unethical."

Is that any more immoral and unethical than putting a pregnant woman at risk of CRS? I know someone who had to have a termination because she caught rubella in the early stages of pregnancy.

^ that! So do I - plus the woman who did not have an abortion and her daughter with full blow CRS

Catherina I'm not talking about measles, I'm talking about vaccinating a child against rubella to potentially protect that child years into the future and to perhaps not protect at all if the immunity wears off. A child having a rubella vaccine is not having the vaccine to protect themselves but to proect someone else and I have a huge ethical and moral issue with that.

For what its worth if my child(ren) could have just had a measles vaccine I might have done it,because measles can be serious but to have a measles vaccine they need to be vaccinated against rubella and mumps too and that is my objection.

I agree the father should take responsibility, why can't a potential father then choose to have a vaccine to protect his future child. Why should my child be protecting that future child? Plenty of people don't have children, should they be protecting the ones who do?

Griffin, I don't know if it's safer or not to vaccinate a teenager, I'm not prepared to vaccinate myself because I see it as too risky but 16 years old and older can at least make a decision for themselves, they can weigh up the evidence for themselves.

Bunbaker, yes I believe it is.

Of course, if the vaccines really worked my unvaccinated child would be of no concern to anyone who had had the vaccine.

Is that any more immoral and unethical than putting a pregnant woman at risk of CRS? I know someone who had to have a termination because she caught rubella in the early stages of pregnancy.

That woman and her partner could take their own responsibility for finding out her immune status before conceiving. I would argue that it's better to do so than rely on complete strangers to protect you.

Of course, that doesn't protect those who accidentally get pregnant. More advice to check your immune status and making it easier to do so, could be a useful public health campaign. Why not offer a test to young people about to leave school for example?

but the fact is that a child has to be injected at 13 months and 4 years to protect a pregnant woman. I consider this immoral and unethical.

The child is vaccinated at those times to protect him or her against Measles and Mumps and to protect other babies against damage from Rubella, not pregnant women who can decide whether to be tested or vaccinated.

Of course, if the vaccines really worked my unvaccinated child would be of no concern to anyone who had had the vaccine

It not about protecting the vaccinated from the deliberately unvaccinated. It's about protecting those who for whatever reason can't be vaccinated, or are immune suppressed or the minority for vaccination doesnt work.

Im sure you have made numerous decisions for your child long before they were 16. I don't see why a medical decisions need to wait.

Of course, that doesn't protect those who accidentally get pregnant. More advice to check your immune status and making it easier to do so, could be a useful public health campaign. Why not offer a test to young people about to leave school for example?

Better still let's eradicate rubella and make sure no one has to worry about getting it in the first place, oh i forgot we are on the verge of doing that, but some people want to sabotage that!

No, those are not "other babies". They are foetuses.

Babies cannot be made to take on even a small risk for other people, especially for foetuses who are not even yet "people". It is an ethical minefield and legally impossible to legislate for. You can't force people to donate blood for the benefit of others, and you can't force babies to be vaccinated for the sake of other people, even if you consider foetuses "people".

This is why vaccination is not mandatory. It is time the people spouting the same nonsense on every vaccination thread get this.

I don't want my daughter to have a vaccine to protect against a disease that causes adult male infertility (Mumps), I consider that immoral and unethical too.

Why can't youths of an age to consent themselves have a mumps vaccine, after all if vaccines work so well, they will have taken responsibility for protecting themselves.

Mumps can badly affect girls as well. Its' not just about becoming sterile,although girls ovaries can be affected as well. Mumps cause meningitis and deafness, why would you not protect a girl from that.

No, those are not "other babies". They are foetuses.

They become babies who are blind and deaf and have numerous other problems. By vaccinating my children i am protecting them from an unnecessary disease and their future children.

I agree CoteDAzur, it is a legal minefield, I agree also about donating blood.

Bruffin,

"Do you really think that a father should not take some responsibility for preventing CRS as well?"

If the mother is immune then she doesn't have to worry about who else around her may/may not be.

"why do people think that vaccinating a 13 month or 4 year old is any more harmful than vaccinating a teenager?"

Why do you keep focussing on whether or not people think it is risky/dangerous. Most people here are just saying that it makes more sense to vaccinate them closer to the time when they may need it.