choosing not to vaccinate

enilec

I'm currently pregnant for the second time and I have done some research on vaccines. Many contain undesirable additives such as mercury which is quite worrying to me. Although my 1st child received all her vaccinations without any apparent negative side effect, I am now very wary of vaccinations. I would love to hear the experiences of other parents who have chosen not to vaccinate.

silja

Are you not going to do any vaccinations, or do a selective/ delayed programme?

We also looked into the safety of vaccines, but in the end decided to do almost all of them. I do think there are some risks, but the benefits outweigh the risks both for my kids and for the community as a whole (preventing pandemics). The two vaccines we have chosen not to do are flu shots, because I feel that as long as you are healthy to start off with, the flu will not kill you or cause serious harm, and the BCG, as we decided we would move to the USA soon, where this vaccine is not given as there is still a reasonable chance of getting TB even with it, plus having the BCG means you can show up wrongly as having TB on some tests, causing issues in countries where the BCG is not common.

enilec

Thanks for your response, Silja. My partner is against all vaccines; I am wary of them so want to do more research before going ahead so will definitely delay them and be selective if necessary. When you see that major pharmaceutical companies like Bayer have sold products infected with AIDS, it makes a parent worry about the safety of all the products http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php

shell42970

I had my daughter, now 18, vaccinated according to the full schedule recommended in the US at that time. We've chosen not to vaccinate our son however, who is now just shy of 10 months old, for many of the same reasons you cite. We will revisit the possibility of having him selectively immunized when he's older.

Interestingly - perhaps coincidentally - my daughter, who was healthy from birth, was sick with something-or-other (from ear infections to pneumonia) every month from the time she began her vaccination schedule - this, despite living in a smoke-free environment and being breastfed exclusively. Our son, on the other hand, has yet to get so much as a cold.

enilec

Funny you should say that Shell, my daughter also started getting ear infections around that time. I never linked the two though. Interesting... Do you live in Ireland now? Did you find that you received adequate understanding from health workers, doctors etc about your decision not to vaccinate your son?

kmick

Id talk to your GP before making any decisions. We got both our kids vacinated and my wife is a nurse so knows a fair bit about it. Kids get ear infections all the time and it is mainly related to teeth. I dont take the flu vaccine either and to be honest I dont think they give it to kids. Flu will make immuno suppressed people very ill and it can kill. Dont make your mind up sorely based on what you hear and read. Talk to your GP and get him to give you all the information. If he is not coming up with the answers you want or is dismissive try another GP.

Remember the diseases that the vacinnes protect against are serious ones like TB, measles, mumps. All these things are on the rise again so be wary.

WeeBushy

kmick wrote: »

Id talk to your GP before making any decisions.

+1
No offense intended at all, but GPs and other doctors specialising in child care are far more knowledgeable on the pros and cons of vaccinations. I would be very hesitant in making that kind of decision myself, even with some research. Doctors are in a much better position for interpreting the results and knowing which studies are more reputable etc.
I would be scared making a decision on my child's health based on my own research when there are highly educated and trained professionals who know way more than we do on the subject.
Just my opinion...

LegacyUser

The Flu vaccine is not given to immunosuppressed people. It is only given to healthy indivduals and to children from 6 months. I get it every year. I would definitely get the flu vaccine this year in light of the H1N1 outbreak, this could get very serious in the winter.

As for the other vaccines, the benefits far out weigh the risks. There has been a huge surge in measles and mumps over the last few years because parents are refusing to vaccinate their children. These are very dangerous diseases.

As for TB, yes it can show up in some clinical tests that you have TB if you have been vaccinated as the antibodies are in your body but if you let the doctor know that you were vaccinated then you can be tested in a different way for the presence of TB infection. There has also been an increase of TB infections in Ireland over the last few years as the bacterium that causes TB is gathering resistence to the antibiotics used to treat it.

Definitely talk to your GP before making a decision.

shell42970

enilec wrote: »

Funny you should say that Shell, my daughter also started getting ear infections around that time. I never linked the two though. Interesting... Do you live in Ireland now? Did you find that you received adequate understanding from health workers, doctors etc about your decision not to vaccinate your son?

Yes, I'm living in Ireland (now married to a fine Cork man), and our son is Irish by birth. Our GP respects our stance on the vaccinations, and understands that it was an educated decision, not an emotional one, however he doesn't approve of it.

I don't know about here in IRL, but in the US clinics are paid by the government for each vaccination they administer - to the tune of about $100 each - (the pharmaceutical companies have a huge lobby in Washington, by the way), and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) - which approves the vaccines for release to the public there - has voting members who also sit on the boards of (and own stock in) Big Pharma. Because of this, both parties - the doctors there who are getting paid for every vaccination they give, and the FDA approving those vaccinations - pose enormous conflicts-of-interest in advising me on what's best for my child.

You will find VERY few doctors who'll give you a nod of understanding approval for not immunizing your child. I think it'd be a fair question for your GP, though: "Are you receiving a financial incentive for each vaccination you administer?"

I think the premise behind vaccinations is sound and have no problem with them in theory. When they're available without toxic preservatives, I'll reconsider having them administered to my son, but in the meantime I'll pass at this time, thankyouverymuch.

Quackles

I chose to vaccinate both my children, I gauged the risks of them being damaged by the diseases the vaccinations protect them from as more harmful than the actual vaccinations themselves. I understand completely your point about the GP and pharms profiting from each vaccination, and I'm sure they do. However, what I would be more inclined to ask my GP is if he/she vaccinated their own children. Regardless of the monetary gain, I'm sure they wouldn't do it to their own if they perceived a danger from it.

Also, my first son was a sickly child, constant chest infections etc. and my second has never even had the sniffles, but they follow the same vaccination schedule, I don't think anecdotal evidence proves a thing. Some kids are just more sickly than others

At the end of the day, it's your decision. Your children are your responsibility, you weigh up that risk yourself. I'm not sure if either option is wrong. The one risk I see is that as the uptake of vaccinations decreases, the likelihood of pandemic increases, that would be my major fear.

Ironically, both my boys are in for their vaccinations tomorrow I really do hate that job..

kmick

Unregistered wrote: »

The Flu vaccine is not given to immunosuppressed people. It is only given to healthy indivduals and to children from 6 months.

What I said was "Flu will make immuno suppressed people very ill and it can kill". not flu vaccine. If you are going to comment on a pretty serious topic read the other posts correctly.

kmick

shell42970 wrote: »

Yes, I'm living in Ireland (now married to a fine Cork man), and our son is Irish by birth. Our GP respects our stance on the vaccinations, and understands that it was an educated decision, not an emotional one, however he doesn't approve of it.

I don't know about here in IRL, but in the US clinics are paid by the government for each vaccination they administer - to the tune of about $100 each - (the pharmaceutical companies have a huge lobby in Washington, by the way), and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) - which approves the vaccines for release to the public there - has voting members who also sit on the boards of (and own stock in) Big Pharma. Because of this, both parties - the doctors there who are getting paid for every vaccination they give, and the FDA approving those vaccinations - pose enormous conflicts-of-interest in advising me on what's best for my child.

You will find VERY few doctors who'll give you a nod of understanding approval for not immunizing your child. I think it'd be a fair question for your GP, though: "Are you receiving a financial incentive for each vaccination you administer?"

I think the premise behind vaccinations is sound and have no problem with them in theory. When they're available without toxic preservatives, I'll reconsider having them administered to my son, but in the meantime I'll pass at this time, thankyouverymuch.

To be honest shell42970 you can find a conspiracy in every corner of every story. However I do have a certain amount of trust in the thousands of scientists and doctors who spent millions of hours testing these things. Its yur choice at the end of the day but if you spend your life believing the world is conspiring to poison its children then true or not they are gonna get you one way or another be it in the water, the air wherever. I have a healthy distrust/dislike of all things that are politicaly and commercially linked by the waym

the_syco

Unregistered wrote: »

As for the other vaccines, the benefits far out weigh the risks. There has been a huge surge in measles and mumps over the last few years because parents are refusing to vaccinate their children. These are very dangerous diseases.

Mumps happened in a few of our universities in 2008, and measles happend in North Dublin back in 2000. Although nothing is foolproof, the pros outweigh the cons.

Dozen Wicked Words

enilec wrote: »

Thanks for your response, Silja. My partner is against all vaccines; I am wary of them so want to do more research before going ahead so will definitely delay them and be selective if necessary. When you see that major pharmaceutical companies like Bayer have sold products infected with AIDS, it makes a parent worry about the safety of all the products http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php

I would question the validity of any article that says a product is infected with a syndrome. AIDS is caused by the virus HIV, and therefore NO product EVER has been infected with AIDS.

If your doubts are raised by this woeful piece of scaremongering, you should be more worried about blood products than vaccinations. Blood Transfusion services worldwide have also sadly unknowingly infected thousands worldwide with Hepatitis, HIV and ? CJD. This is a tragedy that should not have happened but does not detract from the fact that millions worldwide have been saved by blood transfusions.

Vaccination worldwide saves millions and millions of people, there is a huge drive in the third world to vaccinate for this reason. I would suggest trying to find some scientific research rather than a site devoted entirely to a negative view of medication in general.


I would suggest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/health/2002/mmr_debate/default.stm gives you a broader view than, IMO, the unhelpfully biased AHRP.

Nevyn

I am just going to move this into the main parenting forum as it is more suited to there.

cuckoo

shell42970 wrote: »

You will find VERY few doctors who'll give you a nod of understanding approval for not immunizing your child. I think it'd be a fair question for your GP, though: "Are you receiving a financial incentive for each vaccination you administer?"

If we're considering financial motives I think that with the government desperate to cut money right, left and centre the fact that there's no hint of a suggestion to stop the national vaccination shows how important it is.

blondie7

anyone who doesnt vaccinate is selfish!

calex71

The question i'd ask myself , is how many people do you know / heard of having ill effects from vaccination? I'm betting it's like me .....none.

I do however know people who have had ill effects (one very serious) from NOT being vaccinated against these things.
(Edit: by ill effects i mean dangerous life threatening side effects or long term damage)


I'm not saying it cant and doesnt happen but on a scale of odd's and pro's VS con's better with than without in my opinion.

There have been some some really dubious reports and to and extent blantent scaremongering in the media in recent years, and honestly i truly believe that kind of thing put more people at risk than any jab.

tallaght01

Vaccination is safe. Very safe. There are occasional side effects, but these are extremely rare.
Like someone said above, very few people have ever met anyone who has been harmed by a vaccine.

Looking at the potential harm of vaccines has been made easier actually, since the rates of vaccination uptake dropped. We can look at the kids who haven't had the vaccine, and compare them to the kids who have had the vaccine, and see if there's any differences in things like autism etc. There's not.

Not a hint of difference. Vaccines don't give you autism, or ear infections.

But look at the diseases they protect against. Measles is making a comeback. Most people nowadays don't have experience with measles. Now there's a virus that will give you earache. About 7% of kids who get measles develop severe inner ear infection. 6 or 7% get pneumonia and end up in hospital. Measles pneumonia is particularly significant, as it's responsible for 60% of measles deaths. In countries where measles is actually common, parents clamber over each other to get these vaccines for their kids.

Mumps, meningococcal, tetanus etc etc etc. All potential killers, and all potentially serious diseases.

You can talk about financial incentives. But someone has to get paid to give a vaccine. Same as someone gets paid for every healthcare intervention you can think of. When I put a baby on a life support machine I get paid for it. But that doesn't mean I'm doing it for fun.

You also have to consider the effects of non vaccination on society. A non vaccinated child can pass these infection on to other people with weakened immune systems (remember these illnesses are sometimes contagious before there are symptoms) or to a pregnant woman.

There's a good reason why the world health organisation regard vaccination and clean drinking water as being the 2 most important medical advances of the last 100 years.

I don't know a doctor who hasn't vaccinated their kids. You'll struggle to find one. Most doctors get extra vaccines, in fact (hep B boosters, I get the flu jab every year).

Everyone has to make the decision they think is right. I never hassle parents who don't vaccinate. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's an educated, informed decision, because it's not.

calex71

tallaght01 wrote: »

But let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's an educated, informed decision, because it's not.

The scary part is that there are people out there who think they have made an "educated, informed decision" based on stuff they read on the internet and seen on the news. Like the big one in the UK a few years ago, I remember sky news running their tripe of a report on the "scandle" every half hour for a week or more :mad:

silja

Yes GPs get paid for the vaccines/ vaccination visits. It's significantly less than they would get paid for a normal consultation where you pay though, so effectively they are loosing money, assuming they are a busy clinic.

shell42970

I should clarify that by "financial incentive", I meant a bonus. Of course doctors should be paid for their work, and I never meant to suggest otherwise, but in the US there has been, in some instances, a bonus fee attached to each vaccine that is administered, which in my opinion creates a conflict of interest when a parent is trying to get unbiased information from that doctor about the benefits and risks associated with vaccinating their child. It does no harm by asking your GP if he receives one (I don't know if this is a problem here).

As far as my own decision being uneducated or ill-informed, assumptions shouldn't be made about where a parent's information comes from. I'm fortunate enough to have friends in both the medical community and pharmacy community (University of Minnesota Department of Pediatric Oncology and Nova College of Pharmacy) to whom I could go with my own questions. They are both parents - one has immunized their children and one has not, because their child has a heart condition. The information they gave me helped me make my decision to wait for some/opt out of others. It frustrates me that those of us who choose alternately are always assumed to be getting our information from The Daily Mail, or something.

Again, my main problem stems from the preservatives used (hope that link works). I don't want even "trace" quantities of these in my baby.

I know someone whose child was adversely affected (how many people have stopped to ask those around them?) My neighbor's son developed a hard, sore lump at the site of an injection when he was a baby, which has never gone away (he'll turn nine next month). She takes him up to Dublin a couple times a year to have it looked at - none of the doctors who've looked at it know why it developed, or why it won't go away, but it causes her son pain. Rare, to be sure - none of her doctors had seen it happen before - but none deny that it is directly attributable to the shot.

I'm simply doing what I believe is in the best interest of my child's health, if this makes me selfish, so be it.

Enilec, good luck with your own choice in the matter, either way.

tallaght01

shell42970 wrote: »

I should clarify that by "financial incentive", I meant a bonus. Of course doctors should be paid for their work, and I never meant to suggest otherwise, but in the US there has been, in some instances, a bonus fee attached to each vaccine that is administered, which in my opinion creates a conflict of interest when a parent is trying to get unbiased information from that doctor about the benefits and risks associated with vaccinating their child. It does no harm by asking your GP if he receives one (I don't know if this is a problem here).

As far as my own decision being uneducated or ill-informed, assumptions shouldn't be made about where a parent's information comes from. I'm fortunate enough to have friends in both the medical community and pharmacy community (University of Minnesota Department of Pediatric Oncology and Nova College of Pharmacy) to whom I could go with my own questions. They are both parents - one has immunized their children and one has not, because their child has a heart condition. The information they gave me helped me make my decision to wait for some/opt out of others. It frustrates me that those of us who choose alternately are always assumed to be getting our information from The Daily Mail, or something.

Again, my main problem stems from the preservatives used (hope that link works). I don't want even "trace" quantities of these in my baby.

I know someone whose child was adversely affected (how many people have stopped to ask those around them?) My neighbor's son developed a hard, sore lump at the site of an injection when he was a baby, which has never gone away (he'll turn nine next month). She takes him up to Dublin a couple times a year to have it looked at - none of the doctors who've looked at it know why it developed, or why it won't go away, but it causes her son pain. Rare, to be sure - none of her doctors had seen it happen before - but none deny that it is directly attributable to the shot.

I'm simply doing what I believe is in the best interest of my child's health, if this makes me selfish, so be it.

Enilec, good luck with your own choice in the matter, either way.

Doctors incentives: Some places in the states pay their docs more for vaccination. Its one of the very few things there are bonuses for. That's because every single piece of evidence points towards vaccines being good for children. Therefore, they try and incentivise it. It saves the healthcare system money in the long run because the kids get less sick.

The kid in your street who got a lump: That happens. Never said it didn't. The fact that next to no-one knows people who've been affected by vaccination shows how rare complications are, as opposed to that they never happen. Ask some elderly people about kids they knew who had measles, say, or meningococcal meningitis. See how many of them know kids who've been badly affected.

The trace elements in vaccines: These have never ever been shown to adversely affect kids. If they did, paediatricians wouldn't give them. We're mental careful about what we give to kids. If your medical and pharmacy relatives have told you there's evidence to the contrary, then I'm afraid they're just wrong.

For 99.9% of paeditricians in this world, there is no financial incentive to vaccinate. Yet virtually everyone does.

The Big Red Button

shell42970 wrote: »

I know someone whose child was adversely affected (how many people have stopped to ask those around them?) My neighbor's son developed a hard, sore lump at the site of an injection when he was a baby, which has never gone away (he'll turn nine next month). She takes him up to Dublin a couple times a year to have it looked at - none of the doctors who've looked at it know why it developed, or why it won't go away, but it causes her son pain. Rare, to be sure - none of her doctors had seen it happen before - but none deny that it is directly attributable to the shot.

Your decision really should not be based on anecdotal evidence. Sure, that's one child, out of how many children you know?? If we're going to bring anecdotal evidence into it - five people in my class in college last year contracted mumps - two of them now have to repeat final year as a result, one of whom has been left partially deaf as a result. I'm pretty sure she'd have rather taken her chances with a relatively harmless little lump, had she the choice!

Vaccinations aren't perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

eightyfish

I think not to vaccinate would be a mistake. The side effects are either non-existent or have minimal questionable evidence, the benefits have been proven many times, and the cases of measels, mumps and rubella have suddenly started to increase after being next-to-zero for years because of lack of vaccinations.

The decision is yours, but I would recommend you read the relevant chapter in Dr Ben Goldacre's book "Bad Science" or at least read this article from his website before you decide.

deisemum

I waited until my second lad was 2 before I had him vaccinated for the MMR. I did think long and hard as there was so much scare-mongering at the time most of which has been discredited.

One of my children got measles about 3 months after he'd been vaccinated. There was an outbreak in the area, fortunately he only got a mild dose and that was bad enough and the doctor told us if he hadn't been vaccinated that it could have been a lot worse.

As regarding the lump not going at the injection site well I think that can be down to any type of injection. One of my son's still has a lump where he had radium injected 15 months ago when he was having nuclear bone scans.

Deliverance

enilec wrote: »

I'm currently pregnant for the second time and I have done some research on vaccines. Many contain undesirable additives such as mercury which is quite worrying to me. Although my 1st child received all her vaccinations without any apparent negative side effect, I am now very wary of vaccinations. I would love to hear the experiences of other parents who have chosen not to vaccinate.

I think that I would and will have my child vaccinated against potential threats virus wise. When the TB threat came out I got her done straight away, the hospital folks did it and had it done on request. The media made it seem like it was worse than what it was at the time maybe by saying that folks didn't have access etc and there was a shortage of the gov vaccinations.

My child had no adverse affects at all. and TB is not a worry now as my child had this done.

nesf

deisemum wrote: »

I did think long and hard as there was so much scare-mongering at the time most of which has been discredited.

All of which has been discredited. That the whole mercury/autism thing is still convincing parents not to vaccinate their kids makes me despair about the human race at times.


...


Actually, anyone who posts any garbage about vaccinations in this thread will have their post deleted. If you want to debate their safety, despite there being no evidence to suggest that there is a problem, take it to Bio/Med. Anyone who advises someone to not vaccinate their children on this forum will be treated harshly. There are very few limits that I place on conversation in this forum but this one is non-negotiable.

Fad

Put it this way, do you want it that your son/daughter to get mumps/whatever during an exam year in school?

That happened to I dont know how many people this year.

The things children are vaccinated against are serious illnesses that could end up being fatal.

I can understand people not using the MMR vaccine in the 90's, when that paper linking it to Autism came out, but now? There is no excuse.

The internet is a very useful resource, for preliminary research, but to make a truly informed decision, go to your GP.

I'm trying to not be overly sensationalist, but had my parents not vaccinated me because of what they read on some website and didnt consult a GP, and I subsequently got mumps when I was doing the Leaving Cert this year, I wouldnt exactly have been a happy camper.

Piste

I'm the same as Fad, did my LC this year and most of the year was terrified we'd get mumps and were really relieved to get the vaccine. The benefits hugely outwigh any possible debated disadvantages. It baffles me why anyone would be so quick to protect their child from a tiny bit of (harmless) preservative at the expense of leaving them open to a wide range of possibly deathly diseases.

schween

Last year I was so grateful that my parents got me the vaccines as a child when a few of my friends got the mumps. Sore dose!

There are definitely more pros than cons. In developing countries, where many of these diseases are far more prevalent, I'm sure the no side to this debate would be almost non existent.

nesf

schween wrote: »

Last year I was so grateful that my parents got me the vaccines as a child when a few of my friends got the mumps. Sore dose!

There are definitely more pros than cons. In developing countries, where many of these diseases are far more prevalent, I'm sure the no side to this debate would be almost non existent.

Vaccines are most compelling in areas where the diseases they protect against are common, then parents can clearly see the cost of not vaccinating. In a country like Ireland, where mumps etc are rare then it's easy for people to forget that what they're vaccinating against is a very nasty disease.


For example, there's a vaccine against dental cavities being worked on at the moment, it's presently in either first or second stage human trials, I forget which exactly. If offered, most of our generation would leap at the chance to take it and give it to our kids since most of us have had unpleasant trips to the dentist for fillings or root canals. In a generation or two's time when no parents would have experienced this themselves, they might undervalue the vaccine because they don't grasp how nasty the alternative is.

shell42970

nesf wrote: »

there's a vaccine against dental cavities being worked on at the moment.

Judas Priest, where will the public draw the line?

I'd love to see the research demonstrating that dental caries (a largely avoidable condition with proper diet and oral hygiene) is a communicable disease that can cause widespread illness, disability, or death - or that the possible side effects of a cavity might be more risky than the possible side effects of the vaccine.

LegacyUser

don't forget, you have to think about others, not just your children. What about the pregnant women your children might pass mumps or rubella onto therefore retarding her child's development. What about the other kids in the playground? Why would you want your children to get painful diseases if science has found a way to prevent them?
I tell ya, in Africa no parent would be refusing vaccines for anything.

Hagar

A cousin of mine decided against getting her kids vaccinated against polio in the sixties, it was taken on a sugar lump, not even an injection. The result of that decision was that her daughter was one of the last cases of polio in Ireland.

Mother's feelings and instincts aren't always right.

siobhank

remember, when your kids grow up and go travelling they will have to get vaccines anyway like polio, tetanus, diphteria, Hep A/B strains. Why not just do the vaccinations when they're kids? MMR is vital to protect pregnant women from birth defects as far as I know.
Sounds a bit over-protective to me although I'm not a parent so I might not understand

shell42970

Hagar wrote: »

Mother's feelings and instincts aren't always right.

This is absolutely true, but to be fair the science of medicine isn't infallible, either.

Hagar

Tell that to my almost very beautiful 2nd cousin.

tallaght01

Australian figures this year are showing we already have more cases of whooping cough so far in the last 7 months than we had in the whole of last year. We've a big increase in the numbers of cases in little babies.

Whooping cough is a well documented killer of babies, and often puts them in hospital for prolonged periods. Speaking on a personal level, rather than on a professional one, I find the adults who are willing to sacrifice these babies on the basis of what they read on the web, to be extremely extremely selfish people.

I'm not supposed to say that. But looking at the figures really made me mad.

eightyfish

In reference to the above, the MMR bull that was promoted by the scaremongering media is to blame for :

Increase in Measles



Increase in Mumps 1 2



These are really nasty, possibly fatal diseases. Before this disinformation about the MMR vaccination spread, these diseases had almost been eradicated. Let's hope rubella stays away, this trend for non-vaccination cannot be let continue.

tallaght01

I've no idea about how to put graphs into my posts, so well done!!!!

Those figures are looking to get even worse this year, with our mid-year figures.

It's awful. We're not even trying to convince the non-vaccinators at this stage, as they're too entrenched in their ways. They're benefiting from the goodwill of others who vaccinate. But we're trying to target the 10%, or thereabouts, of parents who have some reservations about vaccination because of the stuff they read in whatever crazy newspaper or blog publishes stuff about autism and brain damage etc.

Nevyn

Given that it's over 10 years from the mmr scare related to autism it is not strange to see those figures imho.

I didn't have either of mine vaccinated with the mmr, due to the information I had at the time both as much research as I could get my hands on and due to there being autism in the family.

Two years ago my was diagnosed with aspergers syndrome and his sister has be refereed to rule it out, and honestly I feel I made the right call at the time and I am glad I don't have any question of doubts what so ever re if the vaccination could have been a contributing factor.

They have not had measles or mumps but they both be getting vaccinated as soon as possible with the family Dr and getting the meningitis shot as well.

nesf

shell42970 wrote: »

Judas Priest, where will the public draw the line?

I'd love to see the research demonstrating that dental caries (a largely avoidable condition with proper diet and oral hygiene) is a communicable disease that can cause widespread illness, disability, or death - or that the possible side effects of a cavity might be more risky than the possible side effects of the vaccine.

Just because its a vaccine doesn't mean it's for an illness or condition that is communicable! Similar to the "cervical cancer vaccine" such a vaccine only protects the user and doesn't at all contribute to herd immunity.

nesf

tallaght01 wrote: »

I've no idea about how to put graphs into my posts, so well done!!!!

Create a graph in whatever software you like to use and copy the image and paste it into Microsoft Paint. Resize the canvas so it exactly fits the graph. Save the file, upload it to somewhere like PhotoBucket and then put the image into your post on here using the IMG tags.

eightyfish

nesf wrote: »

Create a graph in whatever software you like to use and copy the image and paste it into Microsoft Paint. Resize the canvas so it exactly fits the graph. Save the file, upload it to somewhere like PhotoBucket and then put the image into your post on here using the IMG tags.

Also - if you can find the image on a website - right click and select "copy image URL" (in Chrome - FF and IE might say something a bit different). Click on Insert Image in your post and paste in the URL.

Das Kitty

shell42970 wrote: »

This is absolutely true, but to be fair the science of medicine isn't infallible, either.

Not infallible no, but a damn site sounder than parental intuition!

littlebug

tallaght01 wrote: »

But we're trying to target the 10%, or thereabouts, of parents who have some reservations about vaccination because of the stuff they read in whatever crazy newspaper or blog publishes stuff about autism and brain damage etc.

There was some research here a couple of years back... I can't remember the exact details or figures but there was a fairly sizeable proportion of parents who fitted into that "unsure" category and there was also a whole other group who had delayed getting their child immunized simply because they hadn't got round to it yet...e.g both parents working and GP 9-5 times don't suit and other such reasons so it was just put on the long finger. Direct contact and discussion with parents with some flexible clinic times would increase the immunisation uptake figures among both those groups I think.

My eldest was over 2 before she got her MMR because she was sick an awful lot thus not well enough to get it and I ended up taking so much time off work when she was sick that it was hard to take any more time off when she was well

eta- apologies... i'm useless at providing research details. I think the research referred to above was an in-house rather than journal published piece or work but if anyone is interested I can find out further details or how to access the report.

tallaght01

It's that population of parents who aren't 100% against vaccines that are often the target of intervention. The anti-vaccine people just often don't trust medics, and there's sometimes nothing you can do about that. But up to 10% of parents regard themselves as "unsure" about vaccines. So they're people who are open to being given the right info.

I was at a meeting today, discussing people who are "too busy" to get their kids vaccinated. People were suggesting that they have to show evidence of vaccination before their kids will be allowed go to school, which might help the situation, as well as protect other kids. I know I'd be pissed if my kid was at school sitting next to the child of a parent who doesn't believe in vaccines. It's a politically brave move, though, which sadly usually trumps public health benefit.

LegacyUser

I would suggest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/health/2002/mmr_debate/default.stm gives you a broader view than, IMO, the unhelpfully biased AHRP.[/QUOTE]

No offence but I'm not sure that the propaganda machine that is BBC can offer a broader view.

tallaght01

Unregistered wrote: »

I would suggest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/health/2002/mmr_debate/default.stm gives you a broader view than, IMO, the unhelpfully biased AHRP.

No offence but I'm not sure that the propaganda machine that is BBC can offer a broader view.

Click on the "MMR research timeline tab on that BBC link. It basically just gives a (surprisingly accurate) rundown on the research carried out on this topic. That would be pretty objective.

ceannair06

When you hear people saying (as I have and it chilled me) "I'm not vaccinating my children until I find out whether Tony Blair did".

WTF ??? Parents DO NOT KNOW BEST!

Except my mam, she knew everything!