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?

What do you mean "CRS is 100%"?

The girl's mother had rubella during pregnancy, the child presented with full blown, unambiguous CRS. It is 100% clear that her conditions were caused by her mother's rubella infection.

Crumbled - really, you are getting all worked up here. No smear (well maybe against the Daily Mail - it really generally is a poor source of information). In any case, I don't know any details about Robert Fletcher's case, but I do know several cases of "healthy child gets vaccine, develops epilepsy" where the vaccine did not cause the epilepsy (usually, those children turn out to have a genetic defect some time later, so the vaccine may have triggered a seizure, but the disorder was always there). There are no cases of congenital rubella where the rubella did not maim the baby.

Finally, for yet another time: vaccinating only women does not work to prevent rubella. This approach has been tested. It has failed at the expense of hundreds of ruined lives.

He was awarded compensation by a court for damage by MMR. Are you honestly suggesting they came to the wrong decision? What evidence do you have for this?

Well of course CRS damages the baby - not every case of rubella during pregnancy results in CRS though.

This is the BBC version

You really should come forward if you have evidence that this decision is faulty and that Robert Fletcher wasn't damaged by MMR.

There are no cases of congenital rubella where the rubella did not maim the baby.

There are cases of antenatal rubella where the rubella did not main the baby - you do know that? In the first trimester too?

Crumbled - stop using the "when did you stop beating your wife" tactics.

What I am saying is: it is 100% certain that the CRS case I know was caused by rubella.

It is NOT 100% certain that every seizure disorder that has an onset after a vaccination has been caused by the vaccination. That also holds true for Robert Fletcher. I have read that he had his first seizure 10 days after the MMR and that is absolutely consistent with MMR side effects (e.g. MMR induced fever directly triggering the seizure). However, this does not establish a causality for a complex and debilitating seizure disorder. It is well possible that the Fletchers have information that establishes causation beyond their doubt. I don't have access to this information.

You are avoiding the question, very, very hard.

"It is well possible that the Fletchers have information that establishes causation beyond their doubt. I don't have access to this information."

Why are you mincing words? You know very well that all the information was presented to a court which resolved that MMR was responsible. Why do you still cast doubt on it? Why don't you accept the court's decision? or do you accept the court's decision?

I think this level of damage is not an acceptable risk for a baby when the same outcome can be achieved by immunising young women (and even men).

Do you agree or not agree?

Goodness, Crumbled!

When a child of a mother who had rubella during pregnancy pops out blind with cataracts, deaf and with a heart damage, then it is 100% clear that rubella caused the disabilities.

When a child has a seizure after a vaccine and subsequently develops a complex seizure disorder, it is not 100% clear that this was the fault of the vaccine. More often than not, this is the result of a genetic disorder that becomes apparent at a certain age, whether a child is vaccinated or not. Dravet Syndrome is the usual example, but there are other mutations that can cause such phenotypes. It is really not that difficult.

Did you have some difficulty with the words "I believe you" which came at the top of my post?

Do I cast doubt on what you have posted? No. Why do you keep repeating yourself?

Now, Robert Fletcher. Why do you cast doubt on this vaccine damage when a court has assessed the evidence and come to a finding. Do you have evidence to believe it was wrong?

And do you think it's an acceptable risk for a baby? Why can't you answer?

because courts do not decide what happened here. The court decided to award the Fletchers some money (very little in relation to the expenses they must have, btw), but that does not mean that MMR caused his seizure disorder. I do not have more than a few media snippets on this case, I don't know the medical details. I do know a little about brain development and degeneration though and therefore I know that it is not 100% clear that Robert's long term disability was caused by the MMR.

I'm well aware that a court ruling is not a medical finding. Most normal people wouldn't use this as a get out of jail free card when the overwhelming evidence points to the court's finding of vaccine damage. I was wondering if you'd have the guts to say you think the court was wrong. Because you simply can't admit it was right, can you?

I am repeating myself because you don't seem to get that the situations presented here are different.

There are many cases in which a genetic disorder has been interpreted (and in some cases compensated) as an adverse effect of a vaccination.

I don't even know what the court said, Crumbled. Did they say "Robert Fletcher's seizure disorder was caused by the MMR, here's 90k", or did they say "we cannot exclude that Robert Fletcher's seizure disorder was caused by the MMR, therefore, here's 90k"? Do you know?

and yes: the MMR is absolutely worth the minute risk it poses, because it protects against three diseases, two of which have a, in my opinion unacceptably high, risk of complications/severe illness to my child and one poses an unacceptably high risk of causing damage to someone in my community (in that order, btw).

Two doctors Prf Sundara Lingam a former consultant at GoSH, ndDr Adran Allaway, and a judge on a vaccine compensation panel.

You are trying to say the cases are different because of the nature of the way the cause is ascertained. This is a deliberate misunderstanding on your part. They are similar because they are two children damaged by avoidable causes. One cause is 100pc avoidable (vaccine damage) That 100pc avoidable risk is undertaken only to avoid damaging another child. That outcome, of damage avoidance for the other child, could be achieved without that 100pc avoidable risk.

You are splitting haris when you know very well that this child damage damaged by a vaccine. You know vaccine damage exists, even if you rather desperately cling to the view tha maybe, just maybe, Robert Fletcher was not damaged by a vaccine. You know that seirous vaccine damage exists (with or without this case) You know, basically, that the chance that Robert Fletcher was not damaged by MMR vaccine is so vanishingly small so as not to be entertained.

It's immoral to believe that you level of vaccine damage is acceptable ? when the outcome is achievable without taking that risk. Protection is possible without the MMR. R is not necessary for babies. R protection is available later in life.

You can't say it's a minute risk. Too many vaccine reactions go unrecorded for that to be credible. (of course when someone doesn't even believe in a finding like Robert Fletcher's, they're hardly going to believe that thousands of other similar "coincidences" were nothing of the sort)

Btw they said "we find that Robert is severely disabled as a result of vaccination".

Catherina is right

dravet and vaccines in the past dravets disease has been mistaken for vaccine damage and compensated for.

alleged cases of vaccine encephalopy rediagnosed later as Dravets syndrome

My son has GEFS+ which is connected to dravets syndrome, however without affecting development. He had his first Febrile Seizure within weeks of mmr, may people would have made a connection, but thankfully i knew my family history and could go back generations with abnormal febrile seizures. Gefs+ was only discovered a couple of years before DS had his last one at 13 (he will be 18 next month)

BM from the encephalitis society, a disease that is the leading cause of hospital admissions for meningitis and encephalitis and also the leading cause of deafness is a problem,

Mumps virus frequently infects the central nervous system. Before the
MMR vaccine was introduced mumps used to be the most common
cause of admission to hospital with meningitis or encephalitis, occurring
in 1 in 200-5,000 children. Mumps also causes deafness. MMR vaccine
has had a dramatic impact and hardly any children are admitted to
hospital with mumps these days. Outbreaks of mumps have occurred
in recent years in older children and young adults who were too old to have received the two doses of MMR vaccine recommended before
going to school

Bruffin do you have evidence that Robert Fletcher was not damaged by MMR? Do you deny vaccine damage happens? (if so why not write to the manufactures and let them know?)

Plainly if a child is damaged by a vaccine it has a vulnerability to that vaccine. That will be, presumably, a congenital vulnerability. Does that mean it hasn't suffered vaccine damage? Of course not. That vulnerability might never be triggered were it not for vaccine trauma. (as acknowledged by Catherina above). But no screening takes place for vulnerable infants and children, though we are urged to get our children vaccinated to protect vulnerable children. There is no way of knowing if a child is vulnerable to vaccine damage. I've got no truck with people saying well it wasn't vaccine damage because they had a genetic vulnerability to vaccines. Of course it's vaccine damage - that problem might never have caused a health issue without the vaccine.

By the way Bruffin I'm very sorry to hear about your son. That doesn't sound easy at all.

Thankfully my ds appears to have finally grown out of gefs+ .
The point is these children dont have a genetic vulnerability to vaccines. They would have the same developmental problems whether they are vaccinated or not. Vaccines do not cause dravets, nor do they exacerbate it. Its the same as mitichondrial disease.
The point catherina is making is that in the past conditions similar to Robert Fletchet have been misdiagnosed as vaccine damage. Not sure why you think the vaccine manufacturers dont know about it. Its research thats easily available on pubmed.

I'm glad to hear it.

:) However are you suggesting either that serious vaccine damage doesn't happen, or that Robert Fletcher wasn't damaged by a vaccine? Because Unless you are saying one of these things, there's no relevance to the case I have mentioned.

Catherina's last posts seem to indicate that she thinks wholly avoidable vaccine damage, as suffered by Robert Fletcher, is an acceptable risk when the same outcome could be achieved without it. Obviously I disagree with that, and find that view morally repugnant. You also think the wholly avoidable suffering of Robert Fletcher is acceptable?

"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?"

Sorry, I was out yesterday and had forgotten I had posted that.

I have had no reason to mistrust the GPs at our doctor's practice nor had any reason not to believe them. DD has had a lot of medical issues to deal with and ended up in ICU at 9 weeks old. She had a tracheostomy for over 3 years and has had several other medical problems which our doctors always managed to diagnose correctly and treat successfully.

I have nothing but respect for the medical profession because, based on my experience, they were a) Always right and b) Solved my daughter's medical problems.

I didn't rush in blindly to have her vaccinated, but did the research and also asked two doctor friends who were able to give me unbiased advice (because they had nothing to gain from DD being vaccinated). They both said that they didn't hesitate to have their children fully vaccinated and it would be wise to have DD vaccinated, especially as her immune system wasn't as strong as it should be.

I hope this answers your question fully.

I accept that some people are more vulnerable and might have problems with vaccinations, but I don't agree with the blanket statement saying that vaccinations are a bad thing.

Bruffin,

"The prognosis of patients with encephalitis is generally favorable ;however, neurologic damage and death can occur. Reported rates of mumps encephalitis range as high as 5 cases per 1000 reported mumps cases. Permanent sequelae are rare ; the reported encephalitis case-fatality rate has averaged 1.4%. Transient myelitis or polyneuritis is rare . Approximately 10% of all infected patients develop a mild form of meningitis , which could be confused with bacterial meningitis.

Sensorineural deafness is one of the most serious of the rare complications involving the CNS.[10] It occurs with an estimated frequency of 0.5-5 cases per 100,000 reported mumps cases. Transient sensorineural loss occurs in 4% of adults with mumps. Minor degrees of hearing loss or impairment are likely to occur with higher incidence and are probably reversible. Deafness after mumps is rare , mostly unilateral (20% bilateral), and often permanent."

I'm not the only one saying that those complications are 'rare'

Source