Declining 8 week vaccinations for my baby - experiences?

[Plasticpineapple]

I don't want this to be about whether you should or shouldn't vaccinate your baby. I have chosen not to and I'm looking for experiences from others who have done the same. What did you say? What did the doctor say? Did you discuss vaccination once the child was older or flat out decline all vaccines?

Aly, yes, I would actually. I think antibiotics have had far more of an impact but maybe they aren't classing them as 'modern medicine.'

Can't find the exact article right now - it may be in the history of my other computer. Here are some other articles from them emphasising its importance - no of lives that can be saved etc.

Info from WHO about their campaign for safe water and basic sanitation

Another one

"Do you agree with mass immunisations in the developing world, Bumbley?"

I think their risk factors are very different to ours so I think their vaccine schedule should be different to ours (and it is). I do think it could also be improved though (as discussed earlier) for example using micro needle technology to improve safety and ease of delivery.

RE polio vaccine. Would I have introduced it? Not the way it was introduced, no. I would have been on the side of the more cautious virologists. I also have issues with the ethics around the use of the HeLa cell line but that's prob another thread. I do think they need to move away from the OPV in developing countries and start using the IPV.

"Why should MMR be delayed - why not just give an extra booster?"

I didn't say delay it. I would split it completely. I don't think mumps and rubella vaccines need to be given to a one year old.

"Well there's this whole thread where you imply that the HPV vaccination won't do all that much to cut cancer "

Just read through all my posts and no, I don't imply that at all. I actually recall that thread because it was just after I had spoken to a few people in PH about the HPV vaccine and they were very concerned that so many people were given the impression that 'this will prevent cancer' and they were worried about falling screening rates (and a shift in dominant strains). I dislike that so many people promote the vaccine (which provides limited protection) and don't promote the importance of screening.

"HPV testing alone is more effective than smears at detecting pre-cancerous changes"

Source? HPV testing does not test for pre-cancerous changes. It tests for high-risk HPV types in cervical cells.

"cancer is still missed, especially in the glandular tissue of the cervix and higher up in the cervix?"

Are you talking about cGIN? It's quite rare in comparison. How many cases do you think the vaccine is going to prevent?

"HPV vaccination will massively reduce the incidence of CC"

Well it's hoped that it will. So far I think they have established that it provides protection against those 2 strains of HPV (16 and 18) for around 5 years. Whether those people go on to develop CC later in life remains to be seen.

Ah, so are you plucking figures out of the air. Good to know.

I know what false positives are thanks :)

Again - So facts cast doubt on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines do they?

Re your HPV vaccine comparison -we've been through this - see a few posts above.

Just search throughout my posts (and yours) I'm sure you'll find it. Although you still think I'm anti-vax after reading through it the first time so it probably won't make any difference.

"You dismissed Men B by saying that the incidence is reducing so no point in introducing it"

No I didn't. I pointed out that it is reducing and it was one of the things being considered by the JCVI in whether or not it was cost effective to introduce. Can you stop making things up please? It wasn't me dismissing it. It was a consideration by the JCVI. I guess they must be a bit 'shaky' too then

Re incidence of CC falling (as mentioned above) - why do you think that was? Have I tried to attribute the decrease in mortality entirely to screening?

Well Aly, if we were only talking about < 30 year olds then it would make sense for you to use those figures. I wouldn't necessarily call it biased. I wouldn't take it as you being anti-screening either tbh.

Antibiotics have certainly been an important modern medical innovation. But then so are vaccinations.

And it is also important to have safe water & good sanitation, no one's denying that.

But immunisations are a cheap and highly effective way to save children's lives - and they shouldn't wait until we have effective sanitation/water!

"RE polio vaccine. Would I have introduced it? Not the way it was introduced, no. I would have been on the side of the more cautious virologists. I also have issues with the ethics around the use of the HeLa cell line but that's prob another thread. I do think they need to move away from the OPV in developing countries and start using the IPV. "

Why wouldn't you have introduced it - do you not think it was that effective? HeLA is indeed totally separate. As I'm sure you know HeLa wasn't just used for the Polio vaccine - it is in use now and indeed it was used for the development of antibiotics, cervical cancer treatments (as it came from a highly aggressive CC, made particularly aggressive by the particular mutation the HPV virus caused in Henreitta Lacks)...you name it, HeLa is part of it.

"I didn't say delay it. I would split it completely. I don't think mumps and rubella vaccines need to be given to a one year old."

Why not? Can 1 year olds not catch mumps or rubella?

"Just read through all my posts and no, I don't imply that at all. I actually recall that thread because it was just after I had spoken to a few people in PH about the HPV vaccine and they were very concerned that so many people were given the impression that 'this will prevent cancer' and they were worried about falling screening rates (and a shift in dominant strains). I dislike that so many people promote the vaccine (which provides limited protection) and don't promote the importance of screening."

I certainly got the impression you were against HPV vaccination in that thread. Was I wrong?

"Source? HPV testing does not test for pre-cancerous changes. It tests for high-risk HPV types in cervical cells."

news.cancerconnect.com/hpv-testing-found-to-be-more-effective-than-pap-smears-in-evaluating-cervical-cancer-risk/

HPV testing is a more reliable indicator pre-cancerous cell changes that will turn into cancer (I.e. the ones you want to worry about!) than smears alone.

"Are you talking about cGIN? It's quite rare in comparison. How many cases do you think the vaccine is going to prevent?"

I'm talking about Adenocarcinoma in general - some of which is never picked up as CGIN in the first place. I wouldn't say that it's that rare - it accounts for around 1/5 of all cervical cancers and is on the rise, especially amongst young women. Hopefully it will prevent 70% of it - we'll have to wait and see. Even if it only prevented 5% of cases I think it would be worth it, tbh. Here is an article on how hard it is to detect with smears: www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514371.

"Well it's hoped that it will. So far I think they have established that it provides protection against those 2 strains of HPV (16 and 18) for around 5 years. Whether those people go on to develop CC later in life remains to be seen."

Quite - even if it is just for 5 years, the HPV viruses will have fewer hosts to propagate, leading to a long term decline in those getting the virus, and therefore fewer cases of CC.

"No I didn't. I pointed out that it is reducing and it was one of the things being considered by the JCVI in whether or not it was cost effective to introduce. Can you stop making things up please? It wasn't me dismissing it. It was a consideration by the JCVI. I guess they must be a bit 'shaky' too then "

What am I making it up? Do you think Men B should be introduced? I'm confused.

*"Ah, so are you plucking figures out of the air. Good to know.

I know what false positives are thanks "*

No I'm not, and no you don't. What figures have I made up? For a 99.9% accurate test:

for a disease/condition whatever with 1 in a million incidence, a positive result means only a 1 in 1000 or 0.1% chance of having the reaction

for a disease/condition whatever with a 1 in 10,000 incidence, a positive result means only a 1 in 10 or 10% chance of having the reaction

Clear?

"Re incidence of CC falling (as mentioned above) - why do you think that was? Have I tried to attribute the decrease in mortality entirely to screening?"

No - and I haven't said all reductions of Measles were due to the Measles vaccination, just that it was a hugely important component of the reduction, regardless of whether deaths were falling beforehand or not.

I'm trying to point out to you in my previous post that your position seems to be "just the facts, folks" - but you only present facts which are in isolation highly misleading...just as if the only thing I said about CC screening was that it missed over half of all cancers in young women or that it was pretty useless at detecting adenocarcinoma. You might even think that I was anti-screening if I talked that, wouldn't you! (I'm not; Cervical screening is a hugely important public health screening tool that has saved tens of thousands of lives).

Just like you never, ever talk about the good vaccination has done - only its limitations and your discredited theories re: it triggering autism.

It's not biased to only talk about the downsides, issues and overtreatment smear tests cause and never talk about the lives it has saved?

Would you not think if I came onto every thread about Cervical Cancer only to talk about how ineffective it was and how many women were overtreated, it would come across that I was anti-screening?

And just for reference it's not only for young women that CC screening has limitations:

Cervical screening can prevent at least:
• 75% of cervical cancers in women in their 50s and 60s,
• 60% of cervical cancers in women in their 40s,
• 45% of cervical cancers in women in their 30s.

www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/spotcancerearly/screening/cervicalcancerscreening/cervical-cancer-screening2

Are you concerned that cervical screening gives the impression that women will be safe from cancer as long as they attend on time and followup? I think the NHS is very clear that a clean smear does not mean you are not at risk of cancer, just as they are very clear that HPV vaccination alone is not enough to prevent cervical cancer.

Both together are necessary to reduce the incidence of this cancer.

"they shouldn't wait until we have effective sanitation/water! "

Who said they should?

Aly - "Why wouldn't you have introduced it"

as I said, it was the way it was introduced. "you name it, HeLa is part of it." Hardly.

"Can 1 year olds not catch mumps or rubella?"

Yes, they can. This has been discussed previously (at length.) I thought you were on the thread for a while?

"I certainly got the impression you were against HPV vaccination in that thread. Was I wrong? "

I was against how it was being promoted (As explained above)

Your link doesn't say that HPV testing is better at detecting pre-cancerous changes. It backs up what I said about it testing for the HPV virus in cervical cells. Not the same thing. It does make sense to screen for HPV - haven't denied that.

"I'm talking about Adenocarcinoma in general"

Not particularly "glandular tissue of the cervix and higher up in the cervix"?

Let's see what happens wrt incidence shall we.

This is what you made up: "You dismissed Men B by saying that the incidence is reducing so no point in introducing it"

If you read what I wrote I was not saying whether I thought it should be introduced or not. I was commenting on the things that the JCVI were considering. They were the ones who were looking at the fact that incidence has been decreasing when they were weighing up whether or not it was cost effective. So I guess that makes them 'shaky' in your opinion?

Your 1 in a million.

Yes, I do :)

No. It means your test will get it wrong 1 in 1000 times.

"I haven't said all reductions of Measles were due to the Measles vaccination"

Fine. Some people do and I correct them. Not sure why you would object to that seeing as you agree with me anyway.

Link for showing it was 'pretty useless' at detecting adenocarcinoma please?

Well it usually gives some balance to the people who come on and give vaccines credit for everything and suggest that if you don't vaccinate your child against rubella they're going to DIE! Or that they'll catch tetanus out playing in the garden and DIE etc… Do you correct them?

Triggering autism in a subgroup of susceptible children. Still being disingenuous I see. :)

"It's not biased to only talk about the downsides, issues and overtreatment smear tests cause and never talk about the lives it has saved?"

Well you mentioned that it prevented 45% of cases so you are talking about the lives it has saved. What was your source for that BTW? Everything you mentioned wrt the under 30s was relevant.

It may balance the discussion if everyone else was presenting it as some 100% accurate method of testing that had no disadvantages whatsoever because that wouldn't be true would it?

Screening effectiveness is also affected by coverage.

"Are you concerned that cervical screening gives the impression that women will be safe from cancer as long as they attend on time and followup? "

Does it? I haven't been given that impression.

"just as they are very clear that HPV vaccination alone is not enough to prevent cervical cancer."

Yet somehow people are under the impression that the HPV vaccine 'prevents them from getting cervical cancer'. I've seen it on many a MN thread.

Sorry - saw that you gave source for 45% after I had typed that. :)

"Who said they should?"

Well you seem to give the impression that we shouldn't focus on vaccines in the developing world - just sanitation and water. I think we should focus on vaccinating every child in the developing world (and the UK/US for that matter...excluding the ones who are told not to vaccinate by a medical professional) as that is an excellent way to say at least 3 million lives a year.

as I said, it was the way it was introduced. "you name it, HeLa is part of it." Hardly.

HeLa is an ethical problem - but her appropriated cells have saved so many children. It's less of an ethical problem than animal testing...which I am not opposed to. Maybe you are.

"you name it, HeLa is part of it"

I know, only 60,000 research papers have used HeLa (not counting the research that doesn't end up in a paper), such a trivial number. You might want to check that all the medicines you use have not been developed with a human cell line from either HeLa or someone else... Here is an example of some antibiotic research using HeLa: cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/21/7/929.short. Are you going to stop using anything developed with this research?

"Yes, they can. This has been discussed previously (at length.) I thought you were on the thread for a while?"

So in your opinion sparing your child from illness is just not worth it? My previous attempt to discern your views was to say (paraphrasing) that you think that most diseases vaccinations protect against are harmless, so therefore not worth vaccinating against; you said I was wrong...have I misread your position on these illnesses? Please do tell. You are being so very coy.

"If you read what I wrote I was not saying whether I thought it should be introduced or not. I was commenting on the things that the JCVI were considering. They were the ones who were looking at the fact that incidence has been decreasing when they were weighing up whether or not it was cost effective. So I guess that makes them 'shaky' in your opinion?"

So you don't think it's relevant to the introduction of Men B that incidence has been reducing? You seemed to think it was quite relevant before. Personally I think if its incidence could be reduced further, it's worth introducing.

*"Your 1 in a million.

Yes, I do smile

No. It means your test will get it wrong 1 in 1000 times."*

1. I did not make up 1 in a million. It came from the CDC website, which was linked.

2. No you don't, because...

3. You're still not getting it...

We do 800,000 tests (rough no. of births in the UK!). The test gets it wrong 1 in a 1000 times, so 800 wrong tests. Because the incidence is only 1 in a million, that means the test is getting it wrong by saying that someone will have the reaction rather than not (although there is also a small chance of a false negative). So only 0.8 in 800 children will ACTUALLY have the reaction (as we know that the true incidence of severe reaction is in 1 in a million), meaning with a positive test, the chance of ACTUALLY having the reaction is 1 in 1000. Because we saw 800 positives, but know that only 1 of those (if that) are actually at risk, due to the population risk identified through many years of having the vaccine.

With a 1 in 10,000 reaction, we do the test 800,000 times, the test gets it wrong 1 in a 1000 times, so 800 wrong tests. Because the incidence is 1 in 10,000, that means the test is getting it wrong by saying that someone will have the reaction, rather than not having the reaction (although some false negatives will happen, more so than with the 1 in 1,000,000 reaction.
So we know that we have around 80 kids with the reaction (800,000/10,000 = 80). But 800 kids test positive. So the chance of a kid testing positive actually have the reaction is 1 in 10, or 10%.

Please read this. You do not understand. www.nottingham.ac.uk/nmp/sonet/rlos/ebp/sensitivity_specificity/6.html

Link for showing it was 'pretty useless' at detecting adenocarcinoma please?

See the Medscape link I gave you before.

"Well it usually gives some balance to the people who come on and give vaccines credit for everything and suggest that if you don't vaccinate your child against rubella they're going to DIE! Or that they'll catch tetanus out playing in the garden and DIE etc… Do you correct them?"

Well their child could die - do you disagree with that? Is it wrong to tell people that if they don't protect their children from illnesses with a simple, safe intervention, then they might suffer from disability from the illnesses they catch as a result?

Is it wrong to tell someone who never goes to Cervical Screening that they might die from an easily prevented Cervical Cancer?

Triggering autism in a subgroup of susceptible children. Still being disingenuous I see

No I'm not, I'm simply refusing to abide by your terms of debate. I don't think it's possible to identify susceptibility as of yet - you've simply given me studies where people try and identify children who will develop autism. And, as I have mentioned umpteen times, large population studies are sufficient to see whether or not there is a correlation between vaccination and autism if there are any significant no. of kids whose autism is triggered by vaccination.

Yet somehow people are under the impression that the HPV vaccine 'prevents them from getting cervical cancer'. I've seen it on many a MN thread.

And people are also under the impression that going to cervical screening means they wont' get cervical cancer.

Also re HPV testing: you're being quite disingenuous - HPV testing is more accurate at predicting the dysplasia that will go on to become CC - so actually it makes more sense to do HPV testing, then refer anyone with HPV for immediate colposcopy than smears, then colposcopy. The best method is HPV testing + smears.

It may balance the discussion if everyone else was presenting it as some 100% accurate method of testing that had no disadvantages whatsoever because that wouldn't be true would it?

NO - but the disadvantages of Cervical screening are far more numerous & greater than mass vaccination! But funnily enough I only see you on the vaccination threads, I can't think why... Do you honestly not see how someone who only comments on how crap cervical cancer screening is would be perceived as anti-cervical screening?!

Aly, you seem to think I 'give the impression' of a number of things.

"that is an excellent way to say at least 3 million lives a year. "

Where are you getting this figure from? Why are you assuming that because they may be protected against certain diseases that they won't die from something else (perhaps due to the lack of clean water and sanitation) it's not just about vaccination you know. I thought you agreed. Maybe not.

There are new guidelines for using HeLa cells so I guess the family felt it was a big enough issue.

Yes, many studies have used that cell line. Not the same as "you name it, hela is part of it"

Search for what I've said (and others) about mumps and rubella on the thread. Nothing coy about it - just can't be bothered repeating myself again.

"So you don't think it's relevant to the introduction of Men B that incidence has been reducing?"

How on earth did you get that from what I had written? I've just said that it was clearly relevant to the JCVI.

"It came from the CDC website" About a vaccine that we don't use in the UK.

I know what sensitivity and specificity are as well thanks :)

Sure…their child could also be damaged by a vaccine but apparently we aren't supposed to tell people that because it's undermining vaccines. Yes, I remember my grandparents telling me how they were always kept indoors and not allowed out to play in case they caught tetanus 'cause it's everywhere you know'.

Refusing to abide by my terms of debate? No, you're just saying that I've said things that I haven't.

I'm not being disingenuous regarding HPV. You just said something that was inaccurate and I corrected you.

I don't only post on vaccine threads :)

Bumbley,

1. It is entirely in my gift to decide what impression you are giving. If you'd like to give a different impression. perhaps take the time to tell me your views.

2. 3 million figure comes from UNICEF

3. How do you know after having developed good sanitation and water, a child won't die from Measles? Vaccination is relatively easy and cheap to introduce - and it's proven to save lives. No one is saying not to bother with water and sanitation!

4. Yes, they did. But unsure why Polio developed with HeLa is a big deal but nothing else that was developed?

5. As far as I can see you think they are super trivial illnesses. Am I wrong? You are so hesitant to correct my misapprehensions of your opinions!

6. You clearly think the reduction of Men B incidence means it's a pointless vaccine. Or am I wrong about that too and you are all in favour?

7. At least you've stopped insisting I made it up! And as we discussed before - it's a difference in degree. Allergic reaction causing swelling vs. permanent disability, death, life long seizures

8. Ha OK Bumbley where has anyone on this thread denied that vaccine damage is a real thing that does sometimes happen? We're questioning your single minded focus on these rare reactions vs. your lack of concern at the more serious and widespread effects of wild disease.

9. Why is it wrong to point out that Tetanus can and does and did kill? And that whilst usually mild, so do Mumps as Rubella? And that the risks of these vaccines are far below the risks if the wild disease?

Would it be wrong to tell someone who doesn't attend cc screening that they might die of a preventable cancer?

10. Glad to see you finally accept the folly of attempting to test everyone for something with an incidence of 0.0001%

11. Nothing I said re HPV was wrong. HPV testing alone is a better indicator of pre-cancerous cell changes than smears.

12. Oh, so you do believe that an autism- MMR link would be picked up in population studies then?

Separately my mind boggles at how you accept happily the risk of over ad under treatment at smear tests but not the vastly superior by comparison vaccines! Every time you go for a smear you know you risk over treatment but you statistically accept that the treatment saves lives. With vaccination that calculation is so much easier!

Aly, I told you my views and you still have the same impression. As I said earlier, think what you like.

And UNICEF were able to say that those 3 million children would survive into adulthood?

Technically not that easy. That's why they're looking into alternative ways to deliver it.

I didn't say nothing else was - just said it was prob another thread.

'Super trivial'? I've said that rubella and mumps are typically mild in childhood. As I said earlier, this has been discussed on this thread at length. Go back and read it. I'm not going to go over all the same stuff again.

"You clearly think the reduction of Men B incidence means it's a pointless vaccine. "

Clearly nothing. Read what I wrote. I was commenting on what reasons the jcvi were considering wrt its introduction.

You made it up in relation to pedicel - the w/c vaccine we use in the UK.

Oh yes, these things happen but we just don't talk about them. I actually don't focus on them that much - more on how some things are overstated in favour of vaccines.

You might want to look up stats for deaths for mumps and rubella. Remember- mumps wasn't even a notifiable illness before the MMR was introduced.

It would be wrong to tell them that if they didn't attend then they would get CC and die, yes.

I don't :) we can agree to disagree on that one.

How you said it above was wrong and I'm pretty sure you know it.

Where have I said that?

Bit of a difference.

Bumbleymummy

You know very well you have been accused of being antivax many many times over the years, so you are really doing something wrong if you are saying you are neutral etc. By the way have your children been vaccinated? because you have been asked that question a few times in the past and as far as i am aware played dumb on that question.

As others have pointed out you only ever raise concerns about vaccines and downplay the diseases.
You are very quick to point that vaccines wane or not 100% effective, but never point out that even if you do get the disease the disease is nearly always milder and less likely to pass on. You have been shown research in the past that university students that got had been vaccinated and got mumps didnt have any of the potentially serious side effects of oophritis and encephalitis.
Measles again there is evidence that it is milder south wales research in vaccinated who caught measles in the outbreak and there is a paper i have seen recently that shows that there is less likely to pass on]]
Your advice is better let them all get measles and give vitamin A , which incidently is only 50% effective and if a vaccine was that ineffective you would be up in arms, or if they get pnuemonia they can have antibiotics and lets ignore brain damage, deafness etc.
and you know very well that people did die of Mumps, ie 50 deaths a year in the US and it doesnt matter what age they were, they were unnecessary deaths that could be prevented.

there is an old saying Prevention is better than a cure and vaccines do that even if they are not a 100% effective.

i really dont think mumps is usually mild in childhood. i only have my experience for that but i had years off school with post viral fatigue, my cousin had mumps encephalitis that years later has caused epilepsy and psychosis. i suppose it is mild as it rarely causes fatalities, if that is what you mean?

"Aly, I told you my views and you still have the same impression. As I said earlier, think what you like."

Bumbley, no you haven't. I've asked you multiple times. Simply wafting vague suspicions in my general direction doesn't count.

"And UNICEF were able to say that those 3 million children would survive into adulthood?"

What, so your threshold for evidence is now so high that Unicef have to have the ability to see into the future?

"I've said that rubella and mumps are typically mild in childhood. As I said earlier, this has been discussed on this thread at length. Go back and read it. I'm not going to go over all the same stuff again."

Do you deny that Mumps and Rubella will kill some children who get it, and they will disable others? Why is wrong to point that out? The vaccine is safer than the illness. Do you disagree?

"Clearly nothing. Read what I wrote. I was commenting on what reasons the jcvi were considering wrt its introduction."

So you do think it should be introduced, then?

"You made it up in relation to pedicel - the w/c vaccine we use in the UK."

I have made nothing up. Please stop accusing me of this.

"Oh yes, these things happen but we just don't talk about them. I actually don't focus on them that much - more on how some things are overstated in favour of vaccines."

Yeah, well, I don't usually talk about things that happen really rarely - it would be pretty odd for me to come onto a thread about someone preparing to drive off for a summer holiday and tell them they have a 1 in 5000 chance of dying en route.

"You might want to look up stats for deaths for mumps and rubella. Remember- mumps wasn't even a notifiable illness before the MMR was introduced."

Are you denying the fact that some children will die after getting Mumps and Rubella?

"How you said it above was wrong and I'm pretty sure you know it. "

Not it wasn't. Please demonstrate how it was wrong.

"Where have I said that?"

I said I was refusing to abide by your terms of debate re: your susceptible populations theory. You said I was making things up again...

"Bit of a difference."

Please do explain how you can tolerate an intervention less effective than the Men B vaccine with far greater risks?

And no one is saying that your child WILL die if they don't get vaccines, just that's is a possibility, and a possibility far higher than being damaged by the vaccine itself.

Not sure why you think that's so controversial.

And again, can you not see how if someone came onto every CC thread to talk about the limitations of Cervical screening and only that, they would perceived to be anti-screening?

bruffin - "You know very well you have been accused of being antivax many many times over the years"

Yes, incorrectly.

"As others have pointed out you only ever raise concerns about vaccines and downplay the diseases."

All facts. Although I have also pointed out to people who have suggested that the single measles vaccine is risky because it's 'imported from foreign manufacturers' that Rouvax is actually manufactured by Sanofi-Pasteur - the same people who manufacture PEdiacel. So no, not always raising concerns about vaccines…

"the disease is nearly always milder and less likely to pass on"

Not always the case. Current concerns about recipients of the aP vaccine acting as carriers of the disease and transmitting to others who are not immune.

Are you talking about the mumps epidemic that occurred as a result of the waning immunity from the vaccine that people were told would give them protection for life? The vaccine that was shown to not be as effective as originally stated?

"Your advice is better let them all get measles and give vitamin A"

No it isn't.

It does actually matter whether or not the deaths were in adults because currently we're discussing whether or not a one year old needs to be vaccinated against mumps - not whether or not the vaccine is necessary at all.

san, it is considered 'generally mild' in childhood. Over ? of cases are completely asymptomatic. Complications are much more likely in adulthood.

Not vague Aly, have answered you directly.

No, they don't have to see into the future. Just wondering how you can say that vaccination alone would save 3 million lives.

How many children will they kill Aly?

Why do you think that? The JCVI aren't even sure if it's going to be introduced yet.

Well then don't keep using 1 in 1 million figures that are in relation to a vaccine that we don't use in the UK.

Re. driving holiday. It wouldn't really be relevant to the discussion would it?

Where have you answered me directly?

Take it up with Unicef - I trust them more than I trust you to come up with accurate figures, sorry.

I'm not a seer, Bumbley, but I can safely say more than the vaccine will. Do you disagree? Are you denying that Mumps and Rubella will kill some children who get it, and they will disable others? Why is wrong to point that out? The vaccine is safer than the illness. Do you disagree?

Do you think Men B should be introduced, Bumbley?

1 in a million, as I have repeatedly stated, was the US figure for exceptionally severe reactions, not just allergic reactions that result in swelling (I'm not saying these are pleasant, just not as a bad as dying).

You seem perfectly entitled to come onto threads where parents are asking about where they can get Chicken Pox/Men B/BCG and start talking about rare reactions and side effects - how is that different?

And again, can you not see how if someone came onto every CC thread to talk about the limitations of Cervical screening and only that, they would perceived to be anti-screening?

Please do explain how you can tolerate an intervention (Cervical Screening) that is less effective than the Men B vaccine with far greater risks?

"All facts. Although I have also pointed out to people who have suggested that the single measles vaccine is risky because it's 'imported from foreign manufacturers' that Rouvax is actually manufactured by Sanofi-Pasteur - the same people who manufacture PEdiacel. So no, not always raising concerns about vaccines…"

Why don't you like MMR Bumbley?

"Please demonstrate how it was wrong."

Did this earlier. Again, HPV testing is not 'detecting pre-cancerous changes'.

Where did I say what you've said I said about population studies?

No, they just say they'll get tetanus when they go out to play in the garden

Read upthread. Others were able to find it. :)

They're the figures you gave.

Are you going to have a look at those fatality figures for mumps and rubella?

For a vaccine that we don't use in the UK…

No, not usually talking about rare reactions and side effects on those threads.

anti-screening? No, I don't tend to put people in little 'pro' and 'anti' boxes like you do.

Just to be clear here - you're asking me to compare things like having to have a colposcopy to check if you are likely to develop cervical cancer with having a vaccine for MenB?

I've already said - I don't think it's necessary to vaccinate 1 year olds against mumps and rubella. Why did you need to ask that again?