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.

Cote - how would you have felt if an unvaccinated child had infected you, whilst pregnant with your child?

"the disease isn't dangerous to him."
"No, but it is VERY dangerous to other, unborn, people."

As discussed at length below, the best way to deal with that is to test teenage girls for rubella immunity and offer the vaccine to non-immune ones at that point. This will improve the current policy in several ways:
(1) Boys won't be vaccinated unnecessarily
(2) Most girls will be immune for life after having the disease itself
(3) The few girls who need to be vaccinated can better rely on their immunity during childbearing years.

It may well have been explained in 'thread after thread' about rubella but it still seems a little contradictory to say on the one hand that the old policy of only vaccinating girls at around puberty and not vaccinating boys was insufficient but that herd immunity is doing its job because 50% of people over 27 are unlikely to have that immunity almost by definition (unless they caught the disease). So what proportion of the population will have had herd immunity say for the ten years following the last outbreak? Or is the herd immunity figure for rubella significantly lower?

Genuine questions - no need to be patronising with the answers.

Wideopen - I would have felt nothing at all, since I have had measles, rubella, chicken pox, and mumps as a child and am immune for life.

I haven't read the whole thread, but basically people are a) thick or b) selfish.

People don't understand risk, exposure to risk and that unfortunately children die from illness.
People understand risk but are selfish and are misguided in their response to risk!

"selfish comments"

Are we now pretending that every stranger in the world matters to us just as much as our own children? Don't make me laugh.

As parents, our primary responsibility is to our own children. Of course I'll do what is in the best interests of my children, including not subjecting them to unnecessary vaccination (like rubella vaccine to DS) or vaccinating them for a disease that I'd rather they get and be immune for life (like rubella for DD).

Cherriesandapples - it's abundantly clear that you haven't read the thread.
Try reading the post by
musicposy of Sat 27-Jun-15 22:24:50

and perhaps reconsider whether such a parent is thick or selfish.

Disease control/eradication benefits us all. When I weigh up the minuscule risk of vaccinating my fit and healthy DD vs the huge benefit partaking in the vaccination programme serves the society I am bringing her up in, it seems ridiculous to choose not to.

La Volcan et al. I haven't read the thread, correct but I recognise your names and I can't understand your lack of science knowledge leads you to continually post views which are unsupported by science,

Cote - do you not want to see your children grow up in a society where certain diseases are eradicated? Aren't you just heartily relieved to live without smallpox as a threat to your children? You seem to be taking a very short-term view.

Instead of trying to get on board with your children living in a safer environment, where your daughter or son could experience less worry both as children and during their adult life (imagine your daughter having an unexpected pregnancy, without having had the rubella shot, you might suddenly change your views), you are deliberately keeping them away from something that could help them directly and indirectly because of a tiny, miniscule risk.

Forget about the risks to your friends, extended families and neighbours, who you are willing to put at risk, do you really not see the direct benefits for your kids?

I got DD immunized because I want her to be safer, and I want the environment around her to be safer. Immunization eradicates a huge amount of worry from my life, and a huge amount of risk from hers. It was a selfish motive, but it is the best for my child.

I love how people blather on about the science. Science is an ever developing thing. A recent, not media reported , article in the
Lancet talked about the concerns many scientists have about vaccinations.

Cherriesandapples - do you think that scientists should not question? Be ready to challenge the orthodox position? Not propose a new hypothesis ever? If not, would you like to tell me how you think science advances?

Did you bother to read the posting I pointed you to? Perhaps you could trouble yourself to do so - it's only one post, and then tell me whether that parent is thick or stupid.

Why does getting the vaccine not confer lifetime immunity but the disease does?

"do you not want to see your children grow up in a society where certain diseases are eradicated?"

It is not possible to eradicate a disease in a society with frequent influx or people from non-vaccinating areas of the world.

"Aren't you just heartily relieved to live without smallpox as a threat to your children?"

Yes, definitely. That was a dangerous disease, though.

"you are deliberately keeping them away from something that could help them directly and indirectly because of a tiny, minuscule risk"

DS doesn't need rubella vaccine. It will never be dangerous for him, ever. (He had it anyway but I can't count on lifelong immunity as he was a baby).

DD may have caught it from him. If not, she'll hopefully get it in the next couple of years and be immune for life. I'll get her tested in her teens and give her the vaccine if necessary at that point.

I've said all this many times on this thread. You really need to read the thread before posting.

"Why does getting the vaccine not confer lifetime immunity but the disease does?"

That's just how it is. Having the actual disease confers lifetime immunity. Vaccines don't provide immunity 100% of the time and when they do, duration of protection varies.

"A recent, not media reported shock, article in the
Lancet talked about the concerns many scientists have about vaccinations."

Could you link to that, please? I'd really like to read it.

And the diseases don't give lifelong immunity either- you hear about people getting them twice. My brother has had chicken pox 3 times so far........

That link says "Lifelong immunity is not always provided by either natural infection (getting the disease) or vaccination."

So neither option gives 100% protection? That makes more sense.

I haven't read the whole thread but the words "vaccination" and "autism" stood out. I know people who swear blind that their child/grandchild was only diagnosed with autism post-vaccination.

I had a 12 year gap between my children, I knew from my DS's birth four years ago that there was something wrong and that he wasn't "behaving" like other babies and he was nothing like the baby my DD was. At 2 1/2 he was referred for "statementing" and at 3 1/2 was diagnosed with autism (Aspergers). Vaccination made absolutely no difference whatsoever, the signs were there long before he had MMR and frankly, I would have done it anyway. I don't understand the anti-vac league, I really don't. Autism is genetic. My STBXH is quite clearly autistic and that is why my son is. Having said all of that, MMR wasn't around when I was little and both my brother and I had measles, mumps and rubella. However, if you can avoid all that, you surely would? That's what my late Mum said anyway...she marvelled at the whole thing...

Natural disease doesnt guarantee life long immunity either.

Sweet - What that is probably referring to is that if you have a disease as a baby (before your immune system is properly established) you are likely to not have lifelong immunity.

Otherwise, you will be immune for life and won't have that disease again, except if your immunity is compromised through chemotherapy, for example.

Hmm. That's not what it says. And people do get these diseases more than once.
I don't think it's straightforward.

"Otherwise, you will be immune for life and won't have that disease again"

That's just not true. Some people get these childhood diseases more than once. As I said, my db has had chicken pox three times. Natural immunity is no better or worse than vaccination immunity. Oh, except that that with natural immunity you are more likely than you are with vaccination..

"Natural immunity is no better or worse than vaccination immunity."

Oh come on. Do you actually believe the stuff you write?

I don't know what's wrong with your DB 's immune system but you must have noticed that the rest of us get chicken pox only once. We also had measles once. And rubella. And mumps.

The measles vaccine confers likely lifelong immunity according to your link.

My father had almost every childhood illness known within a relatively short space of time as his older brother started school soon after my father was born. My father nearly died from pneumonia as a result of measles when he was already not doing well as a result of all the other things that we can now vaccinate against.
My DS1 is autistic, looking back there were already signs consistent with autism long before he had the MMR vaccine.
As a medical professional I find it amazing that people don't get their children vaccinated, and the delusions that they spout in a failed attempt to justify their decision based on annecdotal hype. Yes there are some situations where vaccines should not be given to certain individuals but without a high enough proportion of other children being given vaccines there will not be sufficient herd immunity