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?

Come again ?

Or that you have personal knowledge of a single case in which vaccination damage has been alleged by the family but not confirmed by HCP, so you believe that this single instance indicates that all statistics / knowledge are unreliable and cannot be used in reaching your judgement?

Put simply, as I’m not following your questions too well (my issue not yours) I don’t feel the information on either side is unbiased.

Usedto,

Sorry, X-posted. What I understood you to be saying was that you know at least 1 case in which an adverse health change has occurred at the same age at which a child was vaccinated, but that this has not been recognised by HCP, so as you know this case is not in the stats, you believe there are many others out there like this, so the stats are not reliable?

The problem is, if you trust no information from any source, nor the professionals working in the field of healthcare, what do you have to base your judgement on? At an individual level, humans are extremely poor at judging risks and comparing the size of 2 risks, but ultimately if you trust neither information nor professionals, you have to stick a pin in the 'yes' or 'no' side and live with the consequences.

More or less correct yes.

In one of the cases I have personal knowledge of (a high profile one, you may be able to guess which one) vaccine damage was eventually admitted but it took almost two decades and quite honestly many would have given up.

In addition to this the damage was severe. Had it been less notable, I doubt anyone would have pinned it on the vaccine - just ‘one of those things.’

Sil wanted individual jabs for my nephew. This was 19 years ago, when the initial controversy was raging and they were just phasing out separate jabs and strongly discouraging them.
The gp was very sympathetic to her, and sourced her some, as she had just lost a child to another health condition.

Well yes, cantkeep, this is precisely the problem. It is the devil of ‘you will kill your child, other people’s children and yourself from measles/mumps’ if you don’t vaccinate and the deep blue sea of a beautiful healthy baby boy who is now a grown man who’s vocabulary is less than it was at ten months - and others like him.

I appreciate that in the 'stick a pin in randomly' scenario, then a single emotive case - your relative who is thought to be vaccine damaged, my grandfather who had polio at 7 and never walked unaided again - will tend to have a greater influence on your decision than if you look at population statistics or talk to people with expertise. However, if you have no trust in statistics or expertise, then following your emotions is no better - or worse - than the toss of a coin as a basis for decision making.

Just recognise it for what it is - an emotional response not a logical one.

But with respect it is logical. Vaccine damage happens: I don’t know why, to whom, what steps can be taken to minimise it - because most people seem to be in denial that it ever happens.

No easy decisions, as I’m discovering.

Oh you Provaxxers do crack me up! We don't live in Africa you know!Neglect? How can researching what is injected into my babies body equate to him being uncared for? So by reading 17 books in one year (some of which are on biochemistry & immunology) reading all the package inserts, attending 2 lectures hosted by a registered doctor, watching approx. 100 hours on vaccination, dressing him in organic clothes, eating organic wholefoods and limiting his exposure to toxins somehow means to you lot I don't care for my son? What I am doing is reducing his body burden of chemicals and supporting his immune system through nutrition. When he does encounter childhood diseases he will be able to fight them off quicker & have the ability to build a strong immune system by allowing it to develop the way natural intended. When the immune system is allowed to develop natural immunity to bacteria it will then be able to fight it off again without shedding or spreading the bacteria to others. That is REAL herd immunity. Cellular immunity is far more powerful than humeral immunity given to you by vaccination. When vaccinated persons encounter say.. pertussis .. you continue to shed it others because you only elicit a Th2 humeral response. You need immunity at the bronchial lymph nodes which you cannot get through injection. It bypasses that part of your immune system.
It's neglectful NOT to understand what is being injected into your children.

That is why you HAVE to look at the statistics.

Yes, vaccines, like all effective medical approaches, have non-zero risks. However, if the risk is , say,100x smaller than the risk of the disease - and I doubt under-reporting of vaccine harm affects the stats by a factor of 100, and also believe that the ratio is greater than 100x - then the devil is much larger than the deep blue sea.

I don't know anyone who denies that vaccine harm happens. All HCP I have ever dealt with have described the 'balance of risks', not 'an absolute harm vs an absolute good'.

I do believe that they are significantly downplayed.

From my point of view, I know a woman who had a healthy, crawling baby who crawled into my can of coke at a Christmas party when I was a little munchkin myself and knocked it over. I spent that Christmas party worried people would think it was me, and it wasn’t. It was the baby who is now unable to crawl, stand, walk or go to the toilet. It was very marked. And it took his mum two decades to prove it.

So what about the baby who was just a bit less vocal, the baby who just didn’t seem as interested or responsive? See what I mean ... ?

It is just that if you know one of the 1 in a million, or whatever, who ARE harmed by vaccines, that risk will, emotionally, appear greater to you than the 1 in 100 risk of harm should your child catch measles if you personally have never met anyone measles-damaged.

But I don’t think it is one in a million.

I’m sorry, but I don’t.

I would guess all those kids here ate pure organic locally grown food and wore only organic clothes with barely any exposure to e-numbers..

But is it as high as the 1-2 in 1000 who will die from measles, and the 1 in 1000 who will be brain damaged and the 1 in 10 who will get ear infections that could lead to hearing loss - so perhaps 1 in 100 who have significant lasting harm or death?

Nbroots- tbh I didn't understand all the you posted, but basically are you saying that in today's society we are better equipped to reduce our exposure to toxins, thereby strengthening our immune systems as opposed to lifestyles of a century ago when the vaccines were developed? So vaccines were once necessary but no longer are in first world countries?

Sorry, what is the organic post referring to?

Historically of course people tended to die of diseases that are now preventable. If it was a stark choice between certain death and certain life that would be one thing. But it isn’t as simple as that.

Cant, I don’t know. That’s the point :)

Then you have the children who will have congenital rubella syndrome (including intellectual impairment) as a result of being exposed to rubella in utero, and those who have deafness, encephalitis, etc as complications of mumps.

this was referring to Nbroots post about how her DC is able to fight off all the bugs naturally as the DC only eats and wears organic. Honestly most viruses and bacteria really don't care how deeply you have been duped by the Big Organic to believe their produce is somehow superior

usedto, I appreciate that you cannot KNOW to a decimal point, and none of us can know if our child will be the '1 in.....'

However, if you add up all the risks from all the diseases vaccinated against, and look at the available literature on vaccine damage, you can arrive at a rational comparison of risks.

So, say - bear in mind i have NOT done this exercise, but you could - you find out that, added together, the risks (just to your child, not to anyone else ion the population e.g pregnant women, the immunocompromised etc) from the diseases that are vaccinated against are that 1 in 50 children will suffer some kind of serious lasting harm, ranging from deafness or blindness to brain damage or death.

You can then look at the recorded risk of vaccine damage - which could, again plucking a figure out of the air, be 1 in 20,000.

You could then ask the common sense question: do I believe that vaccine damage is 400x more under-reported - ie that for every reported / acknowledge case there are 399 that are not - than harm from measles / mumps / rubella (bearing in mind that some mild brain damage etc from these diseases may also not have been reported)?

You cannot absolutely KNOW that the risk to your child is 1 in 50 vs 1 in 20,000 - but you should be able to arrive at a point where you either know that one riosk is so much larger than the other that under-reporting can make no substantive difference, or you arrive that the point where you feel that both risks are, given potential under-reporting, equal, and then go for the toss of a coin.

I’m afraid I can’t.

And I wish I could.