Yep. Did that. Narcolepsy and the Pandemrix swine flu vaccine less than .0001% of people receiving the vaccine displayed symptoms of narcolepsy. Those look like pretty good odds to me, how many people died in the 1918 Flue epidemic?
I'm on my mobile at present which makes a well structured response difficult. Pete is using an old debating trick. Make two extreme statements, that are quite possibly no ones view (I don't think shadow implies that vaccination has 0 risk). Make a statement somewhere in the middle. Do this I. Such a way that you appear reasonable and are presenting others as extreme. I suspect Pete knows exactly what he is doing as he likes a good debate, I think it somewhat inappropriate on this topic. The MMR scare has been stoked by media, celebrity and anecdote (is is mine).
What is a "really bad argument", 900SS? What I said was: "The moderate view is that vaccines can and do cause damage in a small proportion of cases, but such damage is far outweighed by the damage caused by the diseases; so that on balance most vaccination is justified." That seems to be almost precisely what you are saying yourself, so does that mean you position yourself as a moderate? And that you agree with me?
If indeed no-one takes either of the extreme views, then we are all on the same page. We can then move on the discuss the cost/benefit calculations both for whole vaccination programmes, and for individuals. "Inappropriate" ? What could possibly be inappropriate about discussing an issue of wide public interest which has been much debated for years, and is also a current hot topic because of the measles outbreak.
Ok going back to MMR ... Now at the time the Possible autism link was a worry to parents. I put this to you.. Your first child is Autistic ... You have another a son given that Autism more likely to be found in boys and higher if one sibling has. What would you do then would you A. Risk it and have MMR 2. Do nothing avoid Vaccines 3. Or 3 still get it done but in singles for mind sake. Now if you said give MMR Do any of you who are saying parents giving singles are foolish have Autistic children or ever worked with them day in day out or given 24 hour care? Have any of you had to fight the Education system to make sure they get the help they need. Have any of you had to spend time learning how to communicate with a child who does not understand tone or facial expressions ? Have any of you had to care for an Autistic child who until 9 years was not able to toilet train or pees everywhere or as some do smear poo everywhere? Who need special diets? Have to take countless days off to go hospital and speech therapy? Any one got a disabled child? Who will need watching all their life or the worry of when you die what will happen? I know the reply will be well could have it anyway . Yes is true however if as a parent or worker or carer you'd been through all this ? Marriages are torn apart .... So given what was going on at the time is the parent who pays out of their own pocket for singles because there may be that teeny risk that bad? Or they are worried? I would challenge you to step into that parent carers shoes. AFTER giving that high level care for a few years. And the worry and stress. The same could be said for a parent with a non vaccinated child But at least some people give the singles rather then nothing? So I'm sorry it's ok for people to say people using singles are misinformed .. Scare mongered .. But if you had been through it all and then a maybe link came up ... No way on gods earth would you risk it. You'd go for singles. If you say I wouldn't ... Hmmmm . I also think the only people who could argue are a parent who's child has died of measles or been disabled or a parent of a child with Autism who's cared for years.
Some people will be affected (a small percentage), the same as some people are extremely sensitive to the sun , food, bee stings whatever, you name something and someone somewhere will die from it or be highly messed up by it. If you want to live in a civilised society, you have a duty to the greater good , if not, by all means pay for the injections seperately or simply move to a third world country and take your chances, you'll be in the same boat as all the other randoms that are pleading for medicines from the civilised world. Of course we live in a democracy so parents have the choice of rolling the dice , some you win ?
And all that would be valid and rational if there was any evidence that the MMR vaccine had any influence in causing Autrism, but it doesn't. You might as well be concerned about the colour of socks the nurse giving the injection was wearing or the star sign of your GP. Difficult though life undoubtedly is for parents and carers of autistic children there is no connection between having the triple jab and the condition, there is however a very clear causal link between not having the vaccination and dying.
All I wanted was the choice between a free MMR jab and paying to get them separately from my family doctor. Its not as if people who cannot afford to pay for the single injections are having a bad decision put upon them, after all the MMR injection is perfectly safe...... But I would like to MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS for my own child. Some of the statements earlier are bordering on compulsion for this sort of thing, which I feel is travelling in a direction we dont want to go. I totally agree with being immunised against all these diseases. as I travel a lot, my arm is like a pincushion. But no-one has yet said why my child cant have individual jabs IF I SO CHOOSE.
No one has said you can't but the majority opinion I've heard is it's better generally for everyone to have the triple jab for a number of reasons, from the Tayside NHS Board Immunisation Pages So you can make your choice but be sure to make an informed choice, and when I say "informed" I mean health care professionals, not Journalists.
Shadow and 900SS - you have conclusively proved my point about "1984". What you appear to be saying is that parents do not the inteligence to make up their own minds, and should not have the right to decide ( on moral, religious, interlectual or any other grounds ) what vacinations their children have. Force all children to be imunised no matter what... The arogance of science is something I find incredible. Presumably the same arguments that you put forward were used when thalydamide was being used - "don't worry, scientists think it's perfectly safe..." In a democracy FREEDOM OF CHOICE is of paramount importance!
Shadow, I have had some nasty reactions over the years to injections, and I am fit healthy, and quite large. My cause for concern was giving 3 injections at once to a small child. My Father worked with childrens rides for some 40 years, and often commented on the increase in numbers of children with all sorts of mental difficulties he saw over that time. Either the numbers of children with these problems hasnt changed, and they are just being brought into society more, or the numbers have increased sufficient for my Old Man to notice. Admittedly he is no Doctor, but he is astute enough to notice that
I am saying that parents in most cases do not have the knowledge to make an informed choice, there's a massive difference between knowledge and intelligence. Immunisation is proven the world over to be the most effective means of controlling or eliminating many fatal illnesses, there is plenty of evidence out there, look at some of the links I've posted or go to Wikipedia, it has some solid information but more importantly has references to the original source material. There are plenty of safety related issues where you as a parent are not permitted to make the choice, you can't for example take you baby on your Ducati, you can't drive them home in a cat box tied to the roof, you can't smoke in the maternity suite, you can't drive them home after seven pints of Stella. Immunisation is not one of them, you can choose not to have it done however there are no good reasons not to have it done. Your claim of the "Arrogance of Science" is almost beyond parody. When someone studies of at least 10 years to become a GP 12 years to become a Hospital Consultant, and then goes on beyond that initial training to specialise in a subject how is it arrogant to suggest they might actually know what they are talking about? The tragic example of Thalidomide which was withdrawn in 1961 in the UK and finally worldwide in 1962 so over 50 years ago, did lead to greater control and regulation of drug use, http://wp.rxisk.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Breckenridge-Thalidomide.pdf Regulation was enacted worldwide to ensure proper testing and regulation of pharmaceuticals, ironically it is largely due to the events of the late 50s and early 60s and Thalidomide that we can be confident in current drug testing and safety. Freedom of choice is all well and good but as I've already mentioned there are plenty of occasions when freedom of choice is curtailed for the greater good. I could list some more obvious examples but I'm sure you can think of a few yourself.
The plural of Anecdote is not Data. I would suggest that if there is any statistical evidence backing up your father's observation it is far more likely to be a more open society where parents of children with the type of condition he's noticed are better supported and happier taking them out.
Well, Shadow, so you have chosen not to state explicitly what your position is. It still seems implicit in your recent posts that you are a vaccine damage denier - you refuse to accept that any vaccine ever causes any damage to patients - although you are shy about admitting as much clearly. Most people think it is a matter of balancing the risk of vaccine damage against the risk of harm from disease, with the balance coming down in favour of most vaccinations most of the time. Not you - you seem to be in total denial about any possibility of vaccine damage, so according to you it is not a question of balance but of absolute certainty. You have been asked to justify your position, but you choose not to. So be it, that's your privilege. Readers of this thread may decide for themselves how much weight to give your views, or rather assertions, given the way you approach the issue; that's their privilege.
You suggest that I take an extreme position and then continue with that assertion to ridicule my supposed position with nothing to back it up beyond your own assertion. Of the choices you give my feelings are closer to what you term the "moderate" view however as with most things in life and with medicinal science in particular it's not a black and white issue despite your legal background making you want to put things in simple yes/ no answers. I must have missed the meeting where it was agreed that there were only three possible positions on this subject. You then seem to have set yourself as arbiter of how others should interpret my posts for not answering your simplistic posturing. The facts of vaccination are that many diseases that used to blight childhood such as Whooping Cough, Tuberculosis, Diptheria, Polio, Measles, Mumps and Rubella have been virtually eliminated through mass vaccination, the side effects are rare and minimal when they exist at all but despite these undeniable facts there are still those who would question the efficacy of the treatment, in some cases this is for personal gain as in Andrew Wakefield's case, in some it's willful stupidity and others it's gullibility. In no case are the objections based on solid science, however before you accuse me of being blinded by big pharma or some such nonsense I will accept that sometimes science gets it wrong, but even when it does that it still represents the best case of getting it right again. Perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify your thoughts on the matter, you haven't yet and I'd hate for Readers of this thread to have the way they consider your posts, or rather posturing, affected, given the way you represent yourself over the issue.
Is it worth pointing out here that it does not require EVERY person to be imunised to stop the spread of disease? It only requires suficient numbers to be imunised so that the disease's infection rate is slower than the recovery rate. Or is shadow going to argue with that point too?
But, going back to my original point... No matter if "science" is right or wrong - in a democracy parents still have the right to make their own decisions. Remove that right and it becomes a dictatorship... If you are SO cvonvinced that medical science has all the answers, then put that case forward and let parents make their choice based on informed opinion. Just for the record, I think that most of the time they DO get things right. But I still defend the right of anyone to make their own choices...
That's absolutely correct Herd Immunity is a recognised fact, the problem comes when too many people decide to let everyone else be immunised which is exactly what happened in Swansea where at least one person is now dead of a preventable disease.
