Mandatory jabs!

[MKG]

Look, all I'm saying (going back to the point of this thread) is that general vaccination (to which I'm opposed) shows overall good results. It works, generally. Most vaccinated people don't get the disease. It's demonstrable, and you must make up your own mind whether the low percentage of (also demonstrable) adverse reactions is worth the horrible balancing act you have to perform as a parent. There isn't a homeopathic remedy in this world which can demonstrate such positive results. But that's beside the point. I have just kicked off about homeopathic remedies, and I would kick off equally, if not more so, hard about anyone who would be so presumptive and arrogant as to take that decision out of my hands. Gordon Brown, in this instance, has no more right to a "correct" opinion than do I, or Ina, or Martin, or even Andy who hasn't said a word. I have no time for the "better for the majority" brigade, because it's obvious that they've never had to make the choice.

Politicians don't know. Drug companies couldn't care less. Doctors look at the overall statistical effect. When I was a parent with young children, I looked at the children and agonised.

[Martin]

well said - it's an agonising decision for parents, but that's in who's hands it must rest!

[lsm1066]

Re-rant - Oh, for goodness sake, vaccines are the very definition of homeopathic. To go over very old ground homeo = same. Treatment by giving you something which in large active doses would give you the very disease you are complaining of. Please let's not get into a re-invention of what the term means.

Actually they often do give you the very disease they're supposed to prevent, at least, in my family's case. My sister and all three of her kids had whooping cough twice, each time when they had boosters. That's full blown whooping cough. And all three of her kids had serious reactions to the MMR, and all of them got Rubella (including my sister) when her youngest had her pre-school booster. Again, full blown Rubella.

I find it moderately amusing that doctors will say, when someone contracts a disease they've been vaccinated against, that at least it's a mild dose. Hello? There shouldn't have been any dose, mild or otherwise. But hey ho. Iatrogenesis (illness caused by medical treatment) is on the increase. According to the FDA, something in the region of 100,000+ people in the USA die as a result of adverse reactions to correctly prescribed medication each year. About the same number die from infections contracted in hospital. That's about 0.1% of the entire population of the US.

My doctor knows me. And it was she who suggested we didn't give the kids any more vaccines (they had their first baby ones but that's all). She also knows that I go to her for a diagnosis and unless absolutely necessary, like when I had kidney problems requiring surgery, my homoeopath for a cure. It's a system that's never failed me, my kids or my cats yet. As for research into homoeopathy, have a look at http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Th ... search.htm

[Clara]

There is no such thing as a homeopathic vaccine.....nosodes are homeopathic remedies that are created from bodily secretions ( ) of those with the disease. These can be used to treat the disease itself or used as a constitutional remedy, but not as a preventative. I know this because I challenged a homeopath about the fact that if homeopathic vaccines worked, why couldn´t we just create homeopathic vaccines for ALL diseases (i.e. cancer AIDS etc). She told me that a classically trained homeopath would never use them as vaccines, but that sometimes naturopaths do, misguidedly.

I think if you choose not to vax conventionally, it is better not to kid yourself that you are covered against the disease with a homeopathic remedy......better to create the environment both external and internal which will give you or your kids a better chance of making a complete and swift recovery.

[eccentric_emma]

So basically, its an absolute minefield! I think I may need to do a bit more research into this as mainly it's been idle wonderings, but recently we have been thinking about having a baby and as part of the preconception preparation will involve discussing my immunisations and what to get updated and all that apparently. But then again the doctor was the first one to recommend against me having the immunisations whilst I was on other medical treatment so I trust her judgment. I think.

And I bet it's going to be even harder trying to decide what to do for our children!

Does anyone recommend any resources that they used whilst deciding?

.........and back to the very original point of the thread - although it is clearly a very very difficult decision to make, I certainly cannot condone compulsory vaccination - especially after hearing some of the stories on here.

[red]

OK - but there are lots of things we do that we do not necessarily benefit from directly but which do benefit society as a whole.

well yes - and as I said in an ealier post. if you believe in society (and personally I think its a good thing) then vaccination is the right thing for the whole community,, and you could argue that opting out was a selfish act.

My personal view point: I have a disabled child. the vaccinations had a bad effect on him, his reactions were harsh. As he is 'different' he might react differently. I have to - in my personal situation, weigh up the devastating effect the disease might have on him vs the effect the vax might have on him.

Personally, and selfishly, what I want is for everyone with healthy kids to have the vaccinations, so that vulnerable kids like mine, or worse - those fighting off lukemia etc dont have to have either the disease or the vaccination. Thats society for you.

But.. although this is what I would like.. I don't feel able to impose this decision on other parents..

I want the government to be more honest with the stats re risks etc. and the reasons why vaccinations are a good idea.. and I want some choices

For example.. my son had rubella as a disease as a toddler.. so there is no need for him to suffer potential side effects of a jab. they dont need to throw all the vaccinations together.. and there might be good and sound reasons to avoid one.

As it goes my lad had the MMR - as measles is a disease I dont want him to have.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Red - personally, as far as I am concerned, your position is entirely reasonable. Society has to include elements of compromise. There will always be exceptions: it is the way of things.

What concerns me is that there is an increasing number of people opting out not because they have a particular concern and not from a position of knowledge or understanding but because it is a fashionable thing to do*. In the first world you can get away with it. Most of the time. Elsewhere it is not so simple.

I've said before that I don't support compulsion and I stand by that. And yes, the authorities could do more to encourage and to reassure people.

There may well be no reason to be concerned about bundling three vaccines into MMR (no research I am aware of raises any such), but equally (cost aside) there is no reason why they could not be given seperately if parents requested this. Not to do so is just bloody minded on the part of government.

Broad view, vaccination has brought HUGE public health benefits. No more smallpox. Rabies practically eliminated in mainland Europe. Yellow fever - a horrible mosquito borne viral illness - is being pushed back. To undermine these advances is not something that should be accepted blandly.

End of rant. Sorry.

* Not anyone on this board I hasten add. You lot are sensible and thoughtful, as far as I can see.

[Millymollymandy]

because it is a fashionable thing to do

That's what I thought because I have seen so many people discussing it on forums (usually French ones)!

[Clara]

Does anyone recommend any resources that they used whilst deciding?.

I read this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vaccinations-Ye ... 908&sr=8-1

Though the version I had was published earlier and so some of the vaccines mentioned weren´t the ones on offer, though I assume this has been fixed now (this ed published 2003), I would still check on the exact type of each vax that you will be offered. It is written by a couple of homeopaths, though I can hand on heart say that have written as balanced a book as is possible - based on facts and figures from both sides of the argument. It doesn´t come down in favour on one side or the other, which might not make the job any easier for you but at least you can feel as though you´re not being misled because they have an agenda.

One of the most important pieces of info contained therein is about vaccination schedules: they vary wildly in both their timing and content from country to country. The reason why so many vaccines are given so soon after the birth is not because that is when they MUST be administered for the health of the child but because evidence shows that this increases uptake, I guess the theory being that if you have had a standard medical pregnancy and birth you will still be in the clutches of the system. Therefore if you have made up your mind to vax, in most cases delaying vaccination will not have any effect on the effectiveness of the jab (though obviously a child is exposed to the possibility of contracting the disease for a little longer, which in turn must be balanced against the possible effects of giving a jab to a really small baby ) You´re right, it´s a minefield!

There´s good helpful info on www.mothering.com, if you´re really interested.

[QuakerBear]

I’ve been asking round and this link was suggested to me by some epidemiologists I know so you can be sure it’s a decent journal. You should be able to search their archive of previous articles. I’d avoid anything on the internet which doesn’t match it in terms of referencing and technical depth as it will not have the same standards of integrity or have been evaluated to the same degree.

The journal Vaccine:

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journa ... escription

[Martin]

I feel you are missing the point - it may well be the best in it's field, but it is by it's very definition by, of and for the "vaccine trade".........it's rather like asking a Chief Constable for a verdict on policing.........
Having spent over 40 years having a deep interest in "the other side" (non-allopathic therapies) this is "preaching to the converted", which I, and a great many others are not.......
I find the idea of removing people's right to choose on such a basis frankly terrifying - it is but one step from Dr Mengele and all the other vile happenings of a totalitarian state. Sorry, total sense of humour failure!

[The Riff-Raff Element]

I feel you are missing the point - it may well be the best in it's field, but it is by it's very definition by, of and for the "vaccine trade".........it's rather like asking a Chief Constable for a verdict on policing.........
Having spent over 40 years having a deep interest in "the other side" (non-allopathic therapies) this is "preaching to the converted", which I, and a great many others are not.......
I find the idea of removing people's right to choose on such a basis frankly terrifying - it is but one step from Dr Mengele and all the other vile happenings of a totalitarian state. Sorry, total sense of humour failure!

You are so quick to critisise and yet you can offer nothing in return. Not a single sensible link to a journal or anything else subject to proper scrutiny yet you have the temerity to evoke the ghost of Mengele in the face of those who seek to help. Your "other side" is nothing more nor less than rubbish.

Clara: you sought emotion, you have it. Voilà.

[Martin]

For the state to insist on vaccination is a totalitarian move - that is precisely what generations fought world wars to avoid - and you object to my emoting? (a little!)
As I said way back near the beginning of this thread, I'm not prepared to get into a long- drawn out argument over whether or not homoeopathy works - got that well-blooded t-shirt! I have satisfied myself that it does, having used it on animals, myself and my family - you can believe what you like, and good luck to you! (I believe in freedom of choice - you apparently don't)
Quaker Bear seems to think that the state has the right to make vaccination mandatory- I don't, and would fight to keep that right! To deny "agnostics" such as myself the right to opt out of vaccinations because "ours is the only way" is supremely arrogant (and petrifying), and is completely redolent of a totalitarian state at it's very worst!
The argument is not whether to vaccinate is right or wrong, the argument is over the right to choose...............

[Clara]

What concerns me is that there is an increasing number of people opting out not because they have a particular concern and not from a position of knowledge or understanding but because it is a fashionable thing to do*.

I guess the same logic could work the other way, that I have a concern that some people accept what they are told by governement or doctors blindly. They too are not coming from a position of knowledge or understanding. In truth this is what the government have been relying on for too long, and now that significant numbers are questioning their omniscience they are thinking about railroading over the debate rather than engaging in it.

*I guess I too should add that this is not aimed at anyone who has posted thus far!

[The Riff-Raff Element]

For the state to insist on vaccination is a totalitarian move - that is precisely what generations fought world wars to avoid - and you object to my emoting? (a little!)
As I said way back near the beginning of this thread, I'm not prepared to get into a long- drawn out argument over whether or not homoeopathy works - got that well-blooded t-shirt! I have satisfied myself that it does, having used it on animals, myself and my family - you can believe what you like, and good luck to you! (I believe in freedom of choice - you apparently don't)
Quaker Bear seems to think that the state has the right to make vaccination mandatory- I don't, and would fight to keep that right! To deny "agnostics" such as myself the right to opt out of vaccinations because "ours is the only way" is supremely arrogant (and petrifying), and is completely redolent of a totalitarian state at it's very worst!
The argument is not whether to vaccinate is right or wrong, the argument is over the right to choose...............

Martin, you have every right to emote (though I am not sure that that is a proper word). But, and this is important, so please pay attention, no-one as far as I can see – and certainly not me because I mistrust Big Government more than most – is advocating compulsory routine vaccination. So get over yourself.
.
And I am sorry, but you cannot seek to exclude from this argument examination of homeopathy – which, and let’s be frank here, is quack medicine mostly practiced by the misguided, charlatans and snake-oil salesmen and which withstands cursory examination by science or even simple logic about as well as a cream cracker withstands sand blasting – and at the same time disparage in the most juvenile terms an entire body of scientific opinion on the benefits of vaccination on the promotion of public health, just because you claim to have the T-shirt. Free and open debate doesn’t work like that.