Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Refusing to vaccinate your child

575 replies

Organic100 · 15/08/2013 22:34

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?

OP posts:
bumbleymummy · 29/08/2013 19:44

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

Rubella in a child usually is though...

Goldmandra · 29/08/2013 20:13

and you can't force babies to be vaccinated for the sake of other people, even if you consider foetuses "people"

I don't recall suggesting that anyone should be forced to vaccinated their babies or suggesting that the potential future children the vaccination programme protects have any legal rights at the time of the vaccination Hmm

The lack of legal status of a feotus doesn't change the fact that is is future babies that are protected by Rubella vaccination, not pregnant women.

bumbleymummy · 29/08/2013 20:49

Bruffin, stop scaremongering. You are well aware that mumps meningitis is usually mild and uncomplicated and that the other possible complications are extremely rare and/or do not usually cause any long term problems.

bruffin · 29/08/2013 20:50

It makes sense to vaccinate as early as possible to erradicate disease, rather than leave a pool for the disease to carry on spreading in. Again posters are ignoring the fact that we need herd immunity to protect those who cant be vaccinated or for whom it doesnt work.
We have a situation now which is working well.why do we have to go backwards.

bruffin · 29/08/2013 20:55

Bm i am not scaremongring. You know very well that mumps was the number one cause of deafness and that mumps also causes encephalitis as well as meningitis.
The risk of mmr is far lower than the risk from mumps.

LaVolcan · 29/08/2013 21:56

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!

This would have to be done on a global basis and as far as I am aware there are no plans to attempt to do that. So why not have a public health policy which asks adults of childbearing age to ascertain their immunity? Why does MMR for infants have to be the only policy on the table?

Crumbledwalnuts · 29/08/2013 22:00

What is wrong with vaccinating young children.
The unnecessary risk involved.

There is also no evidence whatsoever that mixing three vaccines together is a problem
There is with MMR.

We know that one dose is considered under vaccinated
One dose is supposed to give 90 pc of people immunity. Not 90pc immunity. The second dose is to catch people who didn't not become immune after the first dose. 'Undervaccinated' is a highly misleading term.

Queenmarigold · 29/08/2013 22:01

Community immunity is the most -and only- protection vulnerable children have. It's not only about your own child but about public health as a whole.

Crumbledwalnuts · 29/08/2013 22:04

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

Quite.

Re: protecting others who are vulnerable. Firstly there is no testing to see if the child may become vulnerable as a result of vaccination. Secondly a baby should not be put at risk when a grown woman can take a lesser risk for the same protection. Thirdly a parent's primary responsibility is to their own child. Fourthly there is an issue of informed consent: ie is the parent appropriately informed about the risk to their child? No, he or she is not.

Crumbledwalnuts · 29/08/2013 22:06

Queenmarigold: there is no screening to ascertain if a child will become vulnerable because of a vaccine. The risk is unknown. That means there's no informed consent. It's an immoral and unacceptable risk to take with a baby when a grown woman can acquire the same protection with a smaller risk.

CatherinaJTV · 29/08/2013 22:11

Congenital rubella did the following to my mother's colleague's daughter:

it robbed her of her sight
it robbed her of her hearing
it messed up her brain so she had cerebral palsy
it also messed up her brain so that she was intellectually impaired enough to be "unschoolable" on top of the sensory loss and physical disability
it messed up her heart so badly that when I met her (she was about 12) she had had three open heart surgeries - still had a badly functioning heart which meant that she would either faint or crouch (apparently something that children with heart defects do instinctively to reduce the circulation load on the heart?).
She was supposed to not survive the fourth surgery scheduled for her early teens for very long, but she did. Mum took care of her for as long as she could and she now lives in a care home, blind, deaf, spastic...

Rubella in the person who infected this girl's mum may have not been a big deal for the patient...

Crumbledwalnuts · 29/08/2013 22:15

I believe you. MMR did the following to Robert Fletcher.

Gave him severe brain damage
Left him severely disabled
Left him unable to stand unaided
Left him unable to talk
Left him doubly incontinent
Left him unable to feed himself
Left him with frequent epileptic fits
Left him in need of round the clock care
Now in his early twenties, with the mind of a 14-month-old

MMR may not be a big deal for some. Not for Robert.

CatherinaJTV · 29/08/2013 22:21

except that in my story, it is 100% clear that rubella cause the damage.

Crumbledwalnuts · 29/08/2013 22:21

Are you suggesting Robert Fletcher was not damaged by MMR?

Crumbledwalnuts · 29/08/2013 22:23

Well?

bumbleymummy · 29/08/2013 22:28

Again bruffin, incidence is very low.

bumbleymummy · 29/08/2013 22:35

Catherina, was there a reason why her mum was not vaccinated herself/did not have the opportunity to check her immunity?

CatherinaJTV · 29/08/2013 22:43

she was pregnant just around the time the vaccine was introduced.

And crumbled - I don't know about Robert Fletcher and no one can tell 100%. But I do know about this girl and it is 100% clear that it was rubella that maimed her.

Crumbledwalnuts · 29/08/2013 22:45

A court has given him compensation for MMR damage. Do you think MMR damaged him or not?

Crumbledwalnuts · 29/08/2013 22:46

Why are you trying to imply that MMR did not damage him Catherina?

Crumbledwalnuts · 29/08/2013 22:49

What evidence do you have that the court came to the wrong decision in Robert Fletcher's case? Are you afraid to admit that MMR can cause this kind of damage?

Crumbledwalnuts · 29/08/2013 22:56

It pisses me off this kind of smear, this kind of hint, this kind of cruel doubt about severely damaged children, suffering because of a vaccine, which people attempt to cast because they can't stand the truth.

This is the damage which the MMR vaccine did to this baby. Do you think this is an acceptable risk for a baby when the same result can be achieved by an adult woman or teenager being immunised?

Bunbaker · 29/08/2013 23:01

Crumbledwalnuts
No vaccine offers a 100 per cent guarantee of being risk free. We all know that. We weigh up the risks of vaccination versus the risks of contracting the disease and the long term consequences of the disease.

Please stop being so angry and try to understand why so many of us do choose to vaccinate our children.

CatherinaJTV · 29/08/2013 23:09

Crumbled - maybe stay off the web for a while if it makes you so angry?

As for Robert Fletcher - I had to google the name. I have no idea whether the MMR caused his autism or what did, since I don't know his medical history at all. CRS is pretty much 100% - the damage is very characteristic (while epilepsy can have a lot of origins, but as I said, I know nothing about his case, except for a quick glance over the first hit, a Daily Fail article).

Crumbledwalnuts · 29/08/2013 23:47

Anther little smear Catherina?

He doesn't have his autism, but obviously you don't really give a shit about vaccine damage if you can't be bothered to find out the single thing about this case. He was damaged by MMR. He was awarded compensation after 18 years.

Do you think that is an acceptable risk for a baby to take when a young woman can achieve the same protection without that risk being taken?

Do please answer the question, or maybe stay off the web if you're struggling with these awfully difficult moral uncertainties?

And I repeat - anyone who writes in that laconic style about "I've no idea,, Daily fail" and can't be bothered to look at the detail obviously don't give a single shiney shit about vaccine damage.

Revealing, but not surprising.

Please stop being so angry and try to understand why so many of us do choose to vaccinate our children. I do. Why don't you try to understand why many of us don't?

I asked you a question earlier Bunbaker - did I miss the reply? Do you think doctors are always right? I paid you the respect of answering yours. Could you reciprocate?

Could you respond to this too? You say no vaccine is risk free. Do you think this is an acceptable risk for a baby when a grown woman can achieve the same outcome without the same risk?

Swipe left for the next trending thread