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?

That is the NHS' current stance, but reinfection with mumps has been reported as "not a rare event" www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18205215

A Catherina - now I agree with you that mass vaccination can potentially mess up naturally acquired immunity as well. Which is why it pisses me off when they introduce mass vaccinations against things like mumps for economic reasons.

But then I have this crazy idea that vaccinations should be given according to individual risk-benefit ratios.

Thank you for the thoughts re epilepsy. It does terrify me to be honest.

"Which is why it pisses me off when they introduce mass vaccinations against things like mumps for economic reasons."

That is because we have an NHS. We could dismantle the NHS, revert back to private medical care and then all vaccinations could become optional. Then those who can't afford medical care can just whistle.

I'm not trying to prove a point, I'm asking you a question. But I can tell you are struggling. Here it is in simple terms.

This child's brain damage was caused by vaccination.
This vaccination was not necessary.
Is this acceptable to you?

You missed my point bunbaker. I would rather my children were exposed to mumps as children - that is now relatively unlikely to happen, which means they are at increased risk of being exposed as adults, when it is more likely to come with complications. When I said economic reasons I meant that mumps has not been introduced because of health concerns (the extract above for example says that - it is still considered a mild disease in children - in fact the health concerns are more in adults, and mass mumps vaccination does increase the risk of it becoming a disease of adults) but because of economic concerns. It is cheaper to vaccinate than treat mumps and better for the economy to not have parents taking days off to nurse sick children whether it would still be considered cheaper if cases of vaccine damage were accurately recorded and accounted for who knows

In terms of people whistling. One of the leading experts in my son's condition has said publically on more than one occasion that she believes it would be wise to spread vaccinations in cases such as ours. That is not an option anymore on the NHS. So we have effectively been told to just whistle (and not all of them can be sourced singly even if we pay). Even my GP thought we should be able to space them.

I suppose I would prefer to see 2 changes to vaccination programme (1) an individual approach, so vaccinations given only if the benefits are greater than the risks - assessed at an individual level and (2) decisions on which vaccinations are to be introduced to a population based on health rather than economic concerns.

Oh and (3) recognition and adequate compensation of those damaged by vaccination.

Then I'd probably be relatively happy with the system

:watches 3 pink unicorns flying past:

Saintly - I agree with you that our kids are no longer exposed to the diseases we had as kids. In the vast majority of cases usual childhood diseases are not serious.

There is evidence that kids in daycare or in large families develop more robust immune systems as they are exposed to more bugs. So what if our immune systems almost need exposure to mumps etc?

Is this part of the reason behind overall huge increases in allergies, eczema etc?

I don't even think you can say "oh we have been vaccinating for 50 years, it's all fine". As a kid I was only vaccinated for things like typhoid, polio etc. it's only relatively recently our kids have received MMR etc.

I think if there were more long term studies done people would be more reassured. And proper reporting of vaccination damage.

I find the "we know best" attitude just serves to increase suspicion and mistrust.

as the discussion is swing through the general area...

why do you get 'compensation' in cases of vaccine damage? OR is that an american only thing?

why should there be compensation?

I find it interesting that the Guardian article that cote and I both linked to identifies the problem with the vaccines all being bundled together. Ideally they would boost mumps later but they can't because it's with the other two that they want to give earlier. Oooooh, what to do? How could this possibly be solved? Oh wait - wouldn't it be handy if you could give the vaccines separately at the most optimum time? I wonder why no one has thought of that before?

Icebeing: I don't think you do, in children under the age of two. There should be, obviously. In fact given that informed consent is almost impossible to achieve, and that parents aren't given all they information they could be given about such an important medical intervention, awards should be much higher.

I don't understand that argument really.

If you go in for surgery and it kills/maims you then you don't get compensation...unless there was gross negligence or malpractice.

You can't on average be totally informed before surgery either.

I am not seeing the difference here.

Well, it's one point of view :)

I think that unless you offer compensation you certainly have to drop the "herd immunity" and "social responsibility" arguments, for a start.

maybe - but that is incompatible with the individual risk assessment approach.

At the end of the day my solidly built no allergies DD can probably take any thing going...I am getting her vaccinated for herd immunity reasons....

I think you would only owe compensation if vaccination was compulsory.

Not maybe. If you ask people to be vaccinated for the sake of other people you have to compensate them when it goes wrong.

Hope your daughter is fine. :)

I think parents of immuno-compromised children that die after catching measles of a normal, no contraindications low risk non-vaxed child should be able to sue said childs parents though....

I think the NHS ask people to vax for the sake of their own child primarily. I think people on MN big up the herd immunity thing...

I still soundly believe that my DD would be more at risk from measles than from the measles vaccine...herd immunity or no.

Well if they're not going to compensate then I guess we should be signing disclaimers that state clearly all the risks before vaccination. I don't remember doing that before ds1's, maybe I did.

If your child dies before the age of 2 from a vaccination you don't get any compensation. If they die after the age of 2 then you get some - if you can prove it. Most of the compensation is meant to be towards the increased living costs of living with a severe disability (and doesn't begin to cover the costs).

In the States they used to have a system where the vaccine manufacturers provided the funds. They paid in per shot given depending on how dangerous the shot was known to be. So a few cents for each DT given, a dollar or so for each DTP given and more for MMR. (which in itself is interesting). BUt I don't think that exists anymore.

Never fear though, it is well recognised that it is almost impossible to access any funds from the Vaccine Damage Payment scheme

If they take away compensation it will certainly focus people's minds. There won't be any herd immunity argument, it would be impossible to lecture people about that, so that's gone. And the "one in a million" risk argument will be explored much more thoroughly by parents - simply because there's nothing else to take into account. There'd be no social "guilt" or guilt-tripping because it could no longer be seen as a social responsibility. And take up would probably fall.

'I think parents of immuno-compromised children that die after catching measles of a normal, no contraindications low risk non-vaxed child should be able to sue said childs parents though....'

how would that work?! There is no way to actually prove the source a person was infected from. Seriously, get real.

"I still soundly believe that my DD would be more at risk from measles than from the measles vaccine...herd immunity or no."

Well, your fridge is full - it's not surprising that you can't possibly understand why other people go hungry. (that's another way of saying "you're alright Jack" btw)

Also if you're having surgery then there must be a good reason why you need it now whereas a vaccine is preemptive.

What about cases where the child catches a disease from someone who is vaccinated but whose parents hadn't bothered to educate themselves sufficiently to find out that you can still catch a disease despite vaccination? (How ds1 caught rubella - vaccinated child spread it far and wide, we stayed in from start of potential infectious period - so before rash - and didn't spread it anywhere). If someone had been damaged by said vaccinated child should parents have been sued for not educating themselves and ignoring an obvious rash?

Oh absolutely Saintly. If there's a campaign to vaccinate based on the herd (which is what public health policy is based on) then signings must take place in the surgery or nurse's office. And people will want something the other way round too - I'll vaccinate my child if you can guarantee the risk is zero. (obviously impossible)