If you decided to delay or to forgo MMR, how did health professionals react?

[usedtogotomars]

Just wondering about this (and haven’t yet decided) - do they respond in a way that respects your view or do they try to persuade you to have the vaccinations given to your child?

Yes, former anti vax nut here. I had very polite curiosity from the nurse who administered the catch up for my children. No obvious judgement, they were just very pleased I'd come around.

However I live in an area of measles outbreaks currently, and I know of two unvaccinated families who have changed their minds and been turned away! Told they have to go private now as they've missed their schedule. I'm furious about this as I know it's against NHS guidelines and in light of outbreaks as well.

Well, I didn’t understand what you wrote too well I’m afraid :)

Anyway I am not sure it is neutral from the description on the front.

Anyway I am not sure it is neutral from the description on the front.

Scientific research doesn't have a point of view. It uncovers facts about vaccine effectiveness, risk and disease prevalence. There's nothing wrong with you not being a scientist or academic, but if you feel as if you can't make a competent judgement on your own, you must turn to someone who is competent to interpret the facts and advise you. In this case, that would be your health care providers.

I'm an RN and a mum. There are cases where the benefits of medical treatment don't always clearly outweigh the risks - major surgery for the elderly, for example. Medical professionals don't have any incentive for you to get immunized or not. They advise people to do it because it's genuinely in their best interest in almost all cases. I really do understand the research on vaccine safety I got my immunizations during while pregnant and my kids have all of theirs too.

I'm glad you decided to schedule the jabs. You will not only protect your child but you will be protecting the rest of your community as well.

And, at the risk of things going round endlessly in circles, I don’t feel I will get a response I can trust from health care providers.

Apologies if you are talking to somebody else but I haven’t decided to schedule the jabs.

Can I just ask - what is the opinion of the Father of your child?

There is a measles outbreak in Surrey (possibly elsewhere). Just saying.

I can vouch for that (live and work in Surrey). We had two children with measles in school the week before we broke up. The two staff members who are currently ttc were told to take extra precautions once they were made aware.

Does not really have an opinion.

I don’t feel I will get a response I can trust from health care providers.

What motive do you think they have for your child to get an immunization that they shouldn't? Why do you think the NHS provides them?

And you're right, I did confuse you with someone on another thread. My apologies.

“I do attempt to find things out, most of the literature available is very much in the one camp or the other and so it is difficult to come to an informed decision.”

What do you want to find out? Lots of people on here could point you towards stuff.

Bear in mind here I am not anything or anyone special, so if I don’t express myself well, that’s why.

Ultimately I think that it’s an exercise of cost. I imagine most children will have the vaccinations and come through them just fine, will not therefore encounter the diseases and that’s all well and good.

However there are children who react badly to these vaccinations, for whatever reason, and in some of these cases the damage is serious, it is sustained and it is there for life.

Now obviously when that’s an established sort of fact - it gets people anxious and worried, so the fact as it is is just completely denied. ‘No, no, Mrs Jones, this vaccination is absolutely safe and anyone who says otherwise is lying/deluded/one of those idiots who listens to Andrew Wakefield who has been struck off you know/their child was certainly disabled beforehand and the symptoms just coincidentally showed themselves at the same time as the vaccination.’

I’m sure many actually believe it.

I know the vaccination isn’t 100% safe. What I can’t find out is the extent of damage because so many children are placed in the category of there being damage but it predated the vaccines, however the symptoms coincidentally showed themselves at the same time. So I don’t feel I can trust research - any research - as it is skewed according to people’s prejudices.

So if when your child is born he developed an opinion that is contrary to yours, would you be able to deal with that? Sorry if I missed your answer somewhere, but is the person who had a reaction to vaccine a blood relative or is your fear based on what you've seen?

I am just asking as my DH is very pro vaccine and until I'd researched it and decided that I agreed I didn't really have an opinion. Also I think there was a case last year where a Dad had to go to court to get his DC's immunised as the Mother didn't want to. It might be as well to make sure your DP is def on the same page as you.

I am sorry for your experience and that this is such a major decision for you.

If you are concerned about the MMR link to autism, I believe they haven't given the MMR in Japan since the early nineties. The cases of autism are rising at a rate in line with those countries who do give the MMR.

And above I meant I didn't have an opinion on vaccines until I'd researched it.

It isn’t just autism I’m concerned about, no.

Okki why do you want to know so badly about my child’s father? I’m not trying to be rude but it’s got nothing to do with any of this. If he expressed a strong opinion either which way of course I would listen to it but he hasn’t. Respectfully I am not posting about my marriage and you grabbed a sentence of mine and ran away with it, inferring things that are way beyond a reasonable inference.

You posted he didn't have an opinion. All I was saying is he may get one.

so the fact as it is is just completely denied. ‘No, no, Mrs Jones, this vaccination is absolutely safe and anyone who says otherwise is lying/deluded/one of those idiots

I can't imagine any health care professional making a statement like this. What they might say is something like "It is very safe and the likelihood of a serious reaction is very remote", which is what the research tells us:

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm

MEASLES PREVENTION

The following recommendations concerning adverse events associated with measles vaccination update those applicable sections in "Measles Prevention: Recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee" (MMWR 1989; 38{No. S-9}), and they apply regardless of whether the vaccine is administered as a single antigen or as a component of measles-rubella (MR) or measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Information concerning adverse events associated with the mumps component of MMR vaccine is reviewed later in this document (see Mumps Prevention), and information concerning the rubella component is located in the previously published ACIP statement for rubella (18).

Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

More than 240 million doses of measles vaccine were distributed in the United States from 1963 through 1993. The vaccine has an excellent record of safety. From 5% to 15% of vaccinees may develop a temperature of greater than or equal to 103 F ( greater than or equal to 39.4 C) beginning 5-12 days after vaccination and usually lasting several days (19). Most persons with fever are otherwise asymptomatic. Transient rashes have been reported for approximately 5% of vaccinees. Central nervous system (CNS) conditions, including encephalitis and encephalopathy, have been reported with a frequency of less than one per million doses administered. The incidence of encephalitis or encephalopathy after measles vaccination of healthy children is lower than the observed incidence of encephalitis of unknown etiology. This finding suggests that the reported severe neurologic disorders temporally associated with measles vaccination were not caused by the vaccine. These adverse events should be anticipated only in susceptible vaccinees and do not appear to be age-related. After revaccination, most reactions should be expected to occur only among the small proportion of persons who failed to respond to the first dose.

So of course it's not completely, 100% safe. Neither is breathing or eating or walking down the sidewalk.

I'm not following your "exercise of cost" concern either. The NHS provides the jabs for free, along with all of the labor that goes into distributing them, so how does that save cost? Would it cost less to have thousands of kids in hospital with measles? Don't you think the amerloriation of human suffering enters into the picture somehow?

Anyway enjoy the rest of your pregnancy and your bundle of cuddles when he/she arrives.

"when I do attempt to find things out, most of the literature available is very much in the one camp or the other"
Is there something specific you want to find out? I (or others on here) could probably)

Can I just ask MissConductUS, why if there is a reaction after the first jab, HV's/practice nurses want to give the second? I also had them describing the 2nd jab as a booster which it Isn't, I Don't believe, it's the same vacc given again in case the first one didn't take which it doesn't in about 15/20% of cases.

I do think parents would be less concerned if many of the hv's/practice nurses who deliver the public health education actually provided the right information in the first place. Why can't they?

I think ultimately it would cost far more to treat the diseases. And even when vaccine damage occurs it can’t always be proved. Didn’t mean it didn’t happen.

okki he May but in fairness you did ask about whether he had an opinion now and he doesn’t. He may get one of course but as of now he does not.

Sorry about that random extra post.

I can't imagine anyone saying that any medical intervention is absolutely safe. Anything that works by definition will have side effects.

Bertrand thank you. I do genuinely appreciate that offer. But the problem is that I don’t think it exists. I know there have been cases where a child has been permanently altered after vaccinations but it wouldn’t appear on official stats as it’s never been recognised as such.

I'm sorry, I have read the beginning and end of this thread, but not the middle.

Do I understand that what you really want to know is
a) the risk from the vaccination where a relative, so someone with a similar genetic makeup to your child, has suffered an adverse reaction.This may be unknown, but may be out there in the detailed literature.

vs

b) the risk from the diseases that the vaccination protects against. This is known, and out there in the literature - however, the risk of our child catching the disease is different from the pre-vaccination era, so you may need to select more recent literature which incorporates the probability of infection in a mainly-vaccinated community as well as the nature and risk of serious harm caused.

However, one obstacle is that you don't wish to discuss this with a HCP, because you feel they will not be impartial. Do you also object to papers authored by HCP, and to NHS / other healthcare system literature? That will make finding relevant high quality peer-reviewed literature quite tricky?

No, I don’t object to anything. Why would I? I don’t know enough. However in this one particular instance I have concerns that I can’t alleviate by arming myself with knowledge because the knowledge itself doesn’t give a full picture.

So you believe that cases of vaccination damage have not been reported, but that all cases of harm from the diseases vaccinated against have been fully reported - ie that there is systematic bias within the collection of data used in analysing vaccination risk?