Dear MNHQ why does this board exist?

[TalkinPeace]

Having the board encourages people to think that not vaccinating is a valid viewpoint.

I'm no sockpuppet bumbley, if that's what you're implying. You really don't like being challenged, do you?

Not a stupid question or a wind up at all. You were accusing me of being in someway irresponsible because my too-young-to-be-vaccinated children had rubella. You said your doctor hadn't given you any advice about keeping your unvaccinated children away from pregnant women so I wonder why you thought my doctor would advise 'all pre-mmr babies to stay away from pregnant women'?

First time - second, older, doctor was actually brought in to confirm it was rubella (younger doctor didn't know).

Second time - we recognised the symptoms and older doctor confirmed.

Both times he was very laid back about it. They weren't that sick so nothing really to worry about. When I mentioned about it being a risk to pregnant women he said most people were immune as adults anyway so it's a very low risk.

We didn't sit in the waiting room either time. HTH :)

I have no problem being challenged at all. I do think you come across as unnecessarily confrontational in your posting style though.

You can't advocate the locking away of all children for the first year of their life, until they have the mmr, so yours was a stupid question. I said ask your blasé doctor precisely because it was a stupid question.

You can, however, support the mmr vaccination of all children who can have it, to stop rubella circulating in the first place. Then children are unlikely to be infected while waiting for the mmr.

Your children did have rubella according to you - definitely, you said, so my question about contact with others was perfectly reasonable.

I don't. I didn't think your attitude really made sense given that my children were too young to be vaccinated. :)

Because you knew they were infected by rubella.

I'm really interested to know what you were implying, Bumbley ;)

Exactly.

Yeah, she never actually seems to say anything. Is she like that on all medical-related topics?

I mean over the years I've seen multiple people ask her her stance on vaccines and she hasn't ever answered it - not once. It's quite an incredible skill!

Yes she does what she does with an incredible skill. There's a compliment for you bumbley!

Anyway, I'm going to bow out now and spend what's left of the night with dh who is always very when I get into an argument discussion on here

Good luck nailing jelly to the wall.

Think I'll namechange again for good measure. And I liked this one!

Ha my DP is the same.

I've found c&ping the questions she refuses to answer usually results (after 10 or so posts) in a half truth, rumour, unsubstantiated suspicion or, once in a blue moon, a genuine reply. Which she then usually backpedals on (see her calling LaVolcan anti-vax).

Have a lovely evening - good luck with your new name!

The calpol thing - I was told by a Dr that it's better not to use it usually. He explained it like this - a fever is the body's way of trying to kill off what is causing the infection. Calpol reduces the temp and thus it takes longer for the body to fight off the illness. I think it also reduces gluthiathone which is why it's become a big thing around the MMR jab as the measles bit depletes this also and there's a theory floating around that MMR + calpol can deplete it dangerously, potentially triggering autism. Disclaimer: it's a theory, but not one I personally am promoting.

Anyway I'm not a HCP but I have heard about avoiding calpol and am one of the kind who does hold off on giving it. Recently we had a trip to a & e and were offered it alongside another medication, I refused it and was commended for my choice by a Dr saying most parents demand it as fever scares them but it's better to let them have one really. The other medication was actually able to help DS fight the illness hence i accepted it gladly.

Good morning ladies. Looks like you had a fun evening :)

Aly - I've given my stance. You just don't accept it. Others seem perfectly able to understand it. As I said on the other thread - Just because you don't like an answer you can't get another. In any case, given that we're actually discussing giving the rubella/mumps vaccines later and using a single measles vaccine I'm not sure how that can translate to 'anti-vax' but hey ho!

onholiday, treating a fever only if it is causing discomfort and not simply to reduce a fever is NICE advice actually. You can check it yourself here. You know what goes against NICE advice - telling people to alternate Calpol and Neurofen. That comes up a lot on MN. Better tell them they're 'anti-medical profession' next time you see it.

Bubbles, yes, more and more HCP seem to be giving that advice. I haven't heard the measles thing. I know that it's not recommended to give paracetamol prophylactically before vaccines because it can decrease antibody response. Some people still give it though.

Oh yes the antibody response being decreased, I forgot that bit

The doctor expressly told me not to for this reason with our first jab

Discussion of compulsory vaccination in schools a few pages back...

Alyosha
But you are not directly posing a risk to other people through being fat; by being unvaccinated you are directly posing a risk to children who can't be vaccinated, as well as young babies.

What is the size of the risk you think unvaccinated people currently pose in the UK? Out of interest, how complete and reliable do you think the vaccination records are for the UK population, especially older adults, immigrants etc (in order to determine a picture of 'risk'?). That's without considering the question of actual immunity.

I was putting forward an example of a theoretical compulsory health intervention to improve public health (not something I agree with doing). The point is, if you want to compel people to be vaccinated (to go to school), then it's reasonable to ask whether you would be happy to have health based decisions made for you and forced upon you (including those you don't agree with).

Your NHS funding analogy is very stretched.
I don't think so. The recent NHS: £2 Billion a Week & Counting made interesting viewing. There were people, in my opinion with valid cases, turned down for procedures/medical support etc because the NHS has finite resources. Not receiving NHS approval and funding would clearly have implications, and an impact, on the health/quality of life (or finances if they paid privately) of individuals concerned.

I 100% support the smoking ban in public places. Do you?
Yes. Not comparable to compulsory vaccination though.

Fascicle, it comes down to the fact that I care more about the health of young babies and children who can't be vaccinated. I want the parents of very unwell children to know that their child is very unlikely to get an avoidable potentially fatal illness while at school.

I fully accept that there isn't an enormous risk - but there still is one. I also think it would send a strong signal that vaccination is an important public health measure, an it would help to reduce morbidity across school populations.

It is not compulsory: if you feel so strongly about it, you can make alternative educational provisions. I think if it is something you feel so incredibly strongly about then that is not unreasonable.

Bumbley, lovely to hear your support for MMR. Very confused though - we spent many pages in which you insinuated (do you ever so anything else?) it was an illness not worth vaccinating against! Has your mind changed or were you just playing Devil's advocate? When would you use MMR Bumbley, at what age?

And by "others" do you mean Fascicles and LaV? Would you two min telling me Bumbley's views in vaccinations? I'm finding it really hat to parse :D

And in in holiday now so looking forward to see if Bumey has said something (as opposed to hunting at it) on my return...

Ahem

Alyosha
Fascicle, it comes down to the fact that I care more about the health of young babies and children who can't be vaccinated.

Unlikely, and a difficult concept to prove. For example, in the case of infectious diseases that don't have a routine childhood immunisation, I doubt that otherwise fully vaccinated individuals (and their families) apply greater measures of care and consideration (in order that others are not infected) than those who make other choices on vaccination.

I fully accept that there isn't an enormous risk - but there still is one. I also think it would send a strong signal that vaccination is an important public health measure, an it would help to reduce morbidity across school populations.

But what are the morbidity rates currently, amongst school populations in the UK, for infectious diseases with scheduled vaccines? (and some diseases without vaccines, for comparison?)

It is not compulsory: if you feel so strongly about it, you can make alternative educational provisions. I think if it is something you feel so incredibly strongly about then that is not unreasonable.

I don't think your suggestion would ever be put into practice here, and not without exemptions. I think it would conflict with important principles of medicine, law, freedom of choice etc. But for the sake of this hypothetical argument, I'll ask again: on medical issues, would you be happy to let another authority make medical decisions for you, that you might not agree with? (Imagine if there was no freedom of choice in labour, for example, and women were obliged to accept certain standardised procedures, drugs etc. Would that be ok?)

And by "others" do you mean Fascicles and LaV? Would you two min telling me Bumbley's views in vaccinations? I'm finding it really hat to parse :D

You quizzed bumbleymummy extensively on the 8 week vaccination thread. Try page 16. As I've said before, I think the issue is not a lack of explanation but a lack of believing that anybody can occupy the middle ground. This 'anti vax' stuff seems to be pretty much an artificial construct as far as these threads are concerned. I can't see anybody who is 'anti vax' per se. To focus on it is an unnecessary distraction in my opinion.

I found the rubella figures since 1989 for England and Wales <a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140505192926/www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733842982" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here

Bruffin why did you say there were only 2 reported cases in the last ten years? Was it simply an attempt to discredit me when I said my children had it?

I will link again

<a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140505192926/www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733752351" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here are the figures by age and there are only 1 or 2 cases a year in under 1 year olds You claimed your children were under 1 when they had it, so yes I am very sceptical. Especially as some viruses are misdiagnosed as rubella and over 90% of cases sent off for lab confirmation come back as negative