Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
saintlyjimjams · 31/08/2013 22:49

Although as lottie says - good luck proving the source of the infection!

Especially for something like pertussis where high numbers of cases occur in those who have been vaccinated.

IceBeing · 31/08/2013 22:50

not always...sometimes surgery is cosmetic....

what do you mean about the hungry people crap?

do you think I am wrong that my DD is more at risk from measles than from the vax?

Crumbledwalnuts · 31/08/2013 22:51

I explained it. You're alright Jack (as in you don't expect any complications for your daughter) So you can't understand why anyone else would worry about complications.

Crumbledwalnuts · 31/08/2013 22:52

Tell me, if you thought your daughter was at a higher risk of complications and brain damage, would you vaccinate "for the herd"?

bruffin · 31/08/2013 22:52

CW

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

No, going on the quote by Professor Lingam and the fact this was an appeal, there is some doubt this was caused by vaccination. The vaccination may have caused the seizures, but from what the professor said this could be have been a genetic problem. You need to read the full court proceedings, which are not available. Its strange you seem so obsessed in this case as if it is some vindication of your hatred of vaccines. The findings of this panel also said this case did not set a precedent. This case just shows that it is not black and white and

The vaccination was only necessary in your eyes because you dont seem to have done any research in the risks of vaccination. Are you going to bother to read the IOM book i have linked to , i very much doubt it.

Cote
You are worried about mumps in teenagers because of the complications, on of the links given either in the guardian or the other report , was research which showed that even the vaccinated did get mumps the complications of orchitis and meningitis were greatly reduced. So even the vaccine did wane or fail, it was still doing its job.

IceBeing · 31/08/2013 22:52

I accept the stated risk of complications.

Why are you inferring this is incorrect?

saintlyjimjams · 31/08/2013 22:53

And if you had a young baby born to a vaccinated mother dying of measles then would the mother sue the source of the infection or the vaccine company for waning immunity meaning she passed on no antibodies (that issue is discussed in Dept of Health documents btw - not suing, but babies born to vaccinated mothers lacking antibodies to measles).

IceBeing · 31/08/2013 22:55

If the risk from the vaccine was the same as from the disease or within a factor of 10 I would do it for herd immunity. Beyond that I wouldn't.

There have to be people we are protecting from the disease who can't be vaxed otherwise the argument is bull.

I don't have a problem with anyone who doesn't vax based on medically demonstrated counter indication or even medical family history implying counterindication.

saintlyjimjams · 31/08/2013 22:55

IceBeing - when I believed my son was more at risk from the disease than the vaccination I vaccinated. Many of us on here have been through experiences that mean that is quite possibly no longer the case. So we have to make vaccination decisions without knowing which is the greatest risk - vaccination or disease. It somewhat complicates matters.

Crumbledwalnuts · 31/08/2013 22:56

So you do dismiss Robert Fletcher as a case of vaccine damage. Why say you didn't?

It's not necessary because children don't benefit from rubella vaccination. The vaccination campaign is for the purposes of defeating CRS. (as repeated ad infinitum on this thread).

No, I'm not going to read it at all! I've read plenty thanks, and still reading. I mostly read pro-vaccine studies actually (as in, papers "proving" that they don't cause problems). Link me the proof that a child damaged by vaccines would have suffered worse damage from the disease. Any study, any link will do, and I promise I'll read it.

IceBeing · 31/08/2013 22:59

erm how the hell can you sue for a vaccine doing what it does? Conferring immunity for a non-infinite period of time?

I would sue the source of easily safely* avoidable infection.

  • you know, safer than travelling by car etc. not 100% safe whatever that means.
Crumbledwalnuts · 31/08/2013 22:59

No, people always say that. Oh, so one child was damaged? You're excused from damaging the others then.

That one damaged child was vulnerable from the beginning. But there was no way of telling. Why should one child suffer before his or her brothers or sisters can be excused?

Crumbledwalnuts · 31/08/2013 23:00

I'll leave you to your point of view. I hope your daughter is ok. :)

IceBeing · 31/08/2013 23:01

saintly I don't understand what point you are making.

Does your child suffering vaccine damage change the overall general population statistics significantly?

Crumbledwalnuts · 31/08/2013 23:01

Oh - except I missed your point about the stated risk of complications. I do indeed infer it's incorrect, because of so many reports of vaccine damaged which are neither acknowledged, compensated or researched.

IceBeing · 31/08/2013 23:02

Crumbled well duh! IF you could tell in advance then you clearly wouldn't vax a high risk child.

If you can't then you can't.

We can't. Yet.

I hope we will one day very very soon.

lottieandmia · 31/08/2013 23:04

Ice - your logic seems to be flawed. There are many things that could kill a person with a compromised immune system, like flu for example. So you think you should be sued if someone contracts flu from you?

Cosmetic surgery is a choice undertaken by the individual who's going to have it..........not comparable with having a child vaccinated without their consent.

Crumbledwalnuts · 31/08/2013 23:04

I shouldn't think we will, Icebeing, as little research is not being done because of the "deny deny deny" approach taken to vaccine damage.

Goodnight.

saintlyjimjams · 31/08/2013 23:05

Except people aren't told to test for immunity before pregnancy - so I'm sure there's someone to sue in there somewhere. You can get immunity checks on the NHS before pregnancy btw - I did for rubella

The risk is individual IceBeing. My children share 50% of their child's genes. My son is believed to have a genetic susceptibility. His siblings are far more likely to share those susceptibility genes than Joe Bloggs at the end of the street. So my son having regressed alters what we know about his siblings risk.

IceBeing · 31/08/2013 23:05

ahhhh so you are all conspiracy theorists....you think all the stated risks and reported results from medical trials are bull.

Because you found on THE WHOLE INTERNET some other people it happened to too.

You know there are a lot of people on MN......even if there is a 1:10000 chance of damage from measles vaccine then it is 10 times safer than the disease (at least) and there would be 60 cases a year of damage in the UK.

Finding a few of those people doesn't mean the government is lying.

But I suspect you know that.

lottieandmia · 31/08/2013 23:07

That vaccine damage is denied is certainly not a conspiracy theory, unfortunately.

ArgyMargy · 31/08/2013 23:09

So, mass vaccination against chicken pox, anyone?

BTW evidence of benefit from annual vaccination (sorry, can't bring myself to use vax as it sounds like I'm shampooing carpets) against flu is very very limited. And yet this is coming in for all infants this year.

saintlyjimjams · 31/08/2013 23:09

Er no, I read research on the condition that my son has. I speak to researchers working in the field and ask their opinions and I have attended the mainstream, academic conferences.

saintlyjimjams · 31/08/2013 23:12

Then we made our decision after talking through with ds1's doctors. Of course as I continue to follow the research and talk to the researchers working in the field, then one day our decision may change. Or the younger children will be old enough to do their own talking to researchers and decision making. Until then I'm pretty happy that we've made the best decision on the currently available information.

Frontdoorstep · 01/09/2013 11:45

Icebeing, it doesn't matter to me what the risk is from measles, to me the risk from measles is something I can cope with, the risk from the mmr is not acceptable to me, considering that the child having the vaccine doesn't need two component parts of the vaccine, namely mumps and rubella.

If it was mandatory to have this vaccine purely for herd immunity then I would expect a significant amount of compensation in a timely manner since my child was damaged to help someone else.

There are huge moral and ethical issues and you raise a good point about suing someone who passes the disease on but I don't think you would know where the disease came from.

Anyway is there really a parent who would put someone else's child first, before their own child.