To ask why people don't vaccinate their DC even though we know that it doesn't cause Autism?

[TheHouseOnBellSt]

www.thespainreport.com/16953/six-year-old-boy-with-diphtheria-in-catalonia-dies/

A 6 year old boy in Catalonia has died of Diphtheria. Why are people still anti-vaccinations?

Why? My SIL has not and is not vaccinating her DS. He's 14 months now and MIL is so worried.

..and if enough are not vaccinated we lose the herd immunity...

Isn't there about one confirmed case a year though? Dr google says that many people get it without any symptoms at all.

Yes MrsDV... They tested 84 people for suspected rubella last year... Only one was confirmed to actually have rubella. The rest were all misdiagnosed.

Well, I got rubella when I was 14 or so and it was very mild. It was going around at school but no lab tests were done to confirm it. Later when I was pregnant, I was found to be immune from rubella. So, it's reasonable to assume that what I had at 14 was rubella and not a post viral rash. If I hadn't caught it then, I must have caught it some other time and shown no symptoms whatever. I can't think of any other time when that might have been though.

MrsDeVere - re "People often confuse post viral rashes with Rubella. Which is why they think their child has had it and it was the mildest of all illnesses."

Didn't you tell someone off earlier in scalding terms for getting a bit personal? Please don't insinuate that I'm an idiot who confuses any old viral rash with Rubella.

DS actually did have rubella as a baby. If any of you are interested, this is how Rubella presents:

• red patches behind the ears... soon gone.
• red patch on the forehead... soon gone
• very mild "fever" of 37.5 C or so... for about a day
• pinprick rash (not itchy) over the body... gone within a day

All over in three days. If you missed the rash behind the ears and maybe thought the red patch on the face has another explanation (banged head? itched face?) it is very easy to miss the very slightly elevated temperature. You will then be puzzled by the rash that quickly disappears.

That is the scary killer disease Rubella that every girl and boy is vaccinated for, and that is if symptoms develop at all. A large percentage of people develop no symptoms when they catch Rubella. DD may have caught it from DS although she presented no symptoms at the time, and is hopefully already immune for life.

No outburst at all, MrsDeVere. As you can see, there is nothing aggressive about my last post. I am only pointing out that people living in glass homes should not throw stones outside. If you are so sensitive to others making personal comments about you, refrain from doing it to others.

Your post was clearly aimed at me, the very person who said DS had it and it was the mildest of all illnesses.

I hope you understood the content of my post rather than just the first sentence: You are wrong to assume that I must be confusing any old viral rash with Rubella. DS actually had it.

DS actually did have rubella as a baby. If any of you are interested, this is how Rubella presents:
As you well know that over 90% of cases of rubella that are sent off for testing come back negative, so it is not easy to diagnose and you have been told this numerous times.
<a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140505192926/www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733784648" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140505192926/www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733784648

from your previous posts your child was not test for rubella just diagnosed by a pediatrician.

You also know that before vaccination Rubella was not a disease of childhood which was why there was so many cases in pregnancy during the early 60s. Epidemics only come around every 5 or so years it is easy not to get. I was a teen when I had it and I caught it off my mum (during a known epidemic early/mid 70s) Adults dont get it so mildly and are prone to rhuematoid arthritis. My mum was in her 30s as was another friend who caught it at the same time
had to create bulge classes in the states in deaf colleges for the dc that were born with CRS How do you think so many were affected in just two years if everybody caught it as a child.

You can post all the links you want, bruffin. It is not changing the fact that DS had Rubella, presenting its unique symptoms in precise order. As diagnosed by his paediatrician.

"before vaccination Rubella was not a disease of childhood"

Absolutely not. Rubella has always been a childhood disease before we started vaccinating babies against it. Google some more to see that it is in every list of childhood diseases, along with measles, chicken pox, and mumps.

Rubella was not a disease that you can guarantee in childhood, how do you think so many caught it in pregnancy and no you cannot diagnose rubella just on symptoms as you seem to think you can. Look at my link over 90% of the time they are wrong.
complications of Rubella here so it is not always mild either.

You can't guarantee to catch any disease in childhood. My DB didn't get mumps despite everyone around him catching him, myself included, and got vaccinated for it in university. That doesn't change the fact that mumps is a childhood disease.

The best health policy would be to test girls as teenagers and vaccinate the few who are not yet immune to Rubella at that point, shortly before they reach childbearing age. The current policy of vaccinating girls and boys as babies makes no sense, since girls don't need rubella immunity while in diapers and boys don't need to be vaccinated at all.

Cote never said that it was a disease you could guarantee catching in childhood.

The time I caught rubella at school, it was only diagnosed by a quick examination by the GP, (who happened to see me when he came to our house to visit my sick grandma) but I most certainly had had rubella by the time I was pregnant, as confirmed by blood tests.

I agree with Cote's descriptions of the symptoms too - that's why it was a scary disease, because it was so easy to miss.

Firstly, in answer to the question at the title of this thread, we don't know that it doesn't cause autism, the best we can say, is that there is no evidence that it does cause autism. In fact, if we follow the evidence from recent legal cases, we might well say that it does cause autism (but that's a whole other debate).

Secondly, why don't people vaccinate? I have a moral objection. I think the benefits are skewed in favour of those not receiving the vaccine, especially in the case of rubella, flu, mumps, whooping cough. The vaccines are all combined together so you can't just have one, we target the wrong age groups, I have no problem in a young women who might have a baby deciding to have a rubella vaccination but a 13 month old baby boy, come on, no benefit to that child at all, the rubella vaccine is stop them passing the disease on to a pregnant woman. That's the moral objection and the reason I don't vaccinate.

There's no evidence that carrots don't cause autism either..........

And you have a moral objection to vaccination? Jesus wept!

Live and let live, I say. Unless people are physically harming their children then I don't think it is any of our business.

The vaccines are all combined together so you can't just have one, we target the wrong age groups

No we don't, we target the age group that will stop the disease spreading. We have virtually eliminated rubella from the uk, which wasn't happening before when it was limited to teenage girls getting the vaccine.
In the past 1 in 5 adults did not get rubella as a child, hence the numbers of CRS and adults getting more serious complications. In the 60s in US epidemic there were also 10's of 1000s of miscarriages and still births due to Rubella

the green book says
"Clinical diagnosis is unreliable as the
rash may be fleeting and is not specific to rubella" which is why you need a blood test.

However I was diagnosed in the middle of a true epidemic in the 70s and was diagnosed because of the lumps behind my ears as per the NHS and not part of Cote's diagnosis. This was a few weeks before I was due to have the vaccine myself and was caught from my mother who was in her late 30s by then.

"If you have rubella, the glands behind the ears, below your skull at the back of your head, and in your neck usually swell. In some cases, this swelling can be painful"
and agree Bertrandrussell the moral objection is weird. Especially as the risk from the disease (see my link above) is more than the risk of vaccine.

TheHouseOn, surely it's up to sil to do as she pleases with her child, not mil to interfere, I'd just step back if I was you and wouldn't be a go between. Sil obviously has her reasons.

Bertrand, agree with you about carrots you're not going to be able to prove they don't cause autism just like you can't prove vaccines don't.

Not a moral objection to vaccination as such, a moral objection to risking my child to stop them passing a disease on to someone else.

Ah, right. So you rely on others being immunised and take advantage of herd immunity. Nice.

Vaccines don't cause autism, by the way. True Fact.

side - so if you had a toddler and didn't vaccinate, then got pregnant, would you be happy taking the risk of your toddler catching rubella then passing it on to you and risking your unborn child?

Bertrand, not sure how you have managed to prove a negative, and state that vaccines don't cause autism as a fact.

I'm not relying on others being vaccinated, I can't account for what others do, however, if they chose to vaccinate that's up to them. Whole other debate, which I'm sure you'll all be on at me for, but hadn't a lot of the decline in these diseases happened before vaccination and what about scarlet fever, cholera, typhoid?

Wide, I would not risk vaccinating a toddler to protect myself or a possible unborn baby. Same objection, risking one child to protect another.

I think some of you are asking SideOfFoot the wrong question. She has said she had no moral objection to a vaccination as such so the question to put should be either has she had rubella or had the vaccination herself? (Not that it's any of our business!) If so, then she wouldn't need to get another child vaccinated for her own/unborn child's sake.

Some PPs don't seem to understand (or just don't care about) herd immunity and why it's so important. Everyone who can get vaccinated should, in my opinion, to protect those who can't for medical reasons. This is how a functioning society works. I can't believe the selfishness displayed in this thread.
Regarding rubella, what if the woman wanting to get pregnant can't get the vaccine? Or it didn't work? If the vast majority of people around her are immune (including males, and girls below child bearing age) then she and her unborn baby is essentially protected. If we start picking and choosing who to vaccinate then that benefit is lost.
I honestly believe that this, as well as the obvious benefit of NOT getting these potentially deadly or life-altering diseases, far outweighs the minuscule risk receiving the vaccine.

LaVolcan, thank you, its surely up to me to protect an unborn baby I might have, not my toddler, and, we come back again, to, if the vaccines worked then my unvaccinated child would be of no concern to anyone.