Print Page | Close Window

Article about MMR vaccine and autism

Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: Fun Stuff
Forum Name: In the news
Forum Description: Have your say on hot pregnancy and parenting topics in the news!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33654
Printed Date: 27 April 2024 at 7:28am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Article about MMR vaccine and autism
Posted By: LittleBug
Subject: Article about MMR vaccine and autism
Date Posted: 26 May 2010 at 9:38am
Interesting reading:

http://www.3news.co.nz/World/Story/tabid/417/articleID/157415/Default.aspx - Vaccines and autism link

-------------
Chloe (4 years) and Oliver (3 years).



Replies:
Posted By: caraMel
Date Posted: 26 May 2010 at 10:08am
Heh, I was just coming in here to post http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html - THIS ONE .

A very interesting read.
While I choose to vaccinate my children I am very pro-personal choice on the matter and I think it is incredibly sad that so many people were misinformed and misled in their decision making because of such a money-hungry, cold-hearted, self-motivated, jerk/industry.
I'm glad he has finally been exposed and I hope that karma just keeps coming back to bite him.
Unfortunately that karma will be of little comfort to the families whose children have since suffered life-long effects after contracting measles etc.

Ok, that doesn't sound as unbiased as I meant it to, sorry!
Measles is a bit close to home for me as my father is profoundly deaf after contracting measles at age 5.
I really am all for people making an informed decision for their children though and it sickens me that so many people's choices were swayed by this.

-------------
Mel, Mummy to E: 6, B: 4 and:



Posted By: High9
Date Posted: 26 May 2010 at 10:13am
I will still vaccinate. I think I would rather Autism and take that 'chance' than Measles, mumps or rubella.

I've read elsewhere that it's just a coincidence that autism signs happen around the same time as the later vaccines.

-------------
http://lilypie.com">


Posted By: weegee
Date Posted: 26 May 2010 at 10:48am
That comic is brilliant Mel!

-------------

Mum to JJ, 4 July 2008 & Addie, 28 July 2010


Posted By: Booski
Date Posted: 26 May 2010 at 10:55am
Meh, I'm pro-personal choice too. I didn't vaccinate, and am happy with that.

The thing that really gets me is I am a scientist - how could this guy knowingly fudge results to get what some people wanted knowing the huge impact it'd have on wider society. Lack of morals doesn't really cover it.

Also that last paragraph in the TV3 story irritates me - having this study discredited doesn't prove immunisations are 'perfectly safe', it proves that guy was a w&#$er!!

-------------






Posted By: weegee
Date Posted: 26 May 2010 at 11:40am
Yes, it shows a bit of a lack of understanding of the way scientific study works - you can't really prove a negative (so it's in the too hard basket to definitively say vaccinations don't cause any harm).

-------------

Mum to JJ, 4 July 2008 & Addie, 28 July 2010


Posted By: ElfsMum
Date Posted: 26 May 2010 at 6:20pm
yeah I'm the same..I'm very pro vaccine and would always rather take the slight risk than have my child potentially die of preventable disease.. .. and also pro choice..as long as it is informed choice...ugh words dont even describe that guy!

-------------
Mum to two amazing boys!


Posted By: High9
Date Posted: 26 May 2010 at 6:57pm
I am pro choice too, but an informed choice is better than going with the crowd. I had a few doubt while I was pregnant but dp and I had a good talk about it and decided it was best.

-------------
http://lilypie.com">


Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 26 May 2010 at 8:51pm
I'm pro choice too. I just think it's sad so much money and time has been spent disproving one guy instead of trying to find out what is actually causing the increase in autism. It would probably serve better with increasing take up numbers if they found the cause of the increase cos until then parents will always have that doubt and lets face it pharmaceutical companies aren't that trustworthy so you can't blame people for being doubtful even after this research was shown to be wrong.

I would just like to add though that not everyone who chooses not to vaccinate has done so because they think there is a link between MMR and autism, we haven't given our children any of the vaccines and it was for many reasons with the possiblitly of the MMR autism link not being one of them because when we researched it we found nothing to actually back it up.
Just don't want people to assume when someone hasn't vaccinated that it was because of this and that they are ill informed (I expect some have and are, but not all of us)

-------------



Posted By: Nutella
Date Posted: 05 June 2010 at 4:49pm
Maybe there is no increase in autism just more cases are being recognised? I don't have a clue..just a suggestion. Lots of things would have been swept under the carpet in the past.


-------------



Oct 11


Posted By: High9
Date Posted: 05 June 2010 at 5:51pm
Originally posted by TaliP TaliP wrote:

Maybe there is no increase in autism just more cases are being recognised? I don't have a clue..just a suggestion. Lots of things would have been swept under the carpet in the past.


A lot more cases are being recognised, if you look at the stats it's risen heaps but it more a recent thing iygwim.
And lots of things were swept under the carpet!

Just think back to the 50's, if people had a child with a disability at birth they would give them away and say the child died...

-------------
http://lilypie.com">


Posted By: Delli
Date Posted: 05 June 2010 at 9:03pm
I hope this guy gets everything he deserves - it sucks that his study had such a huge effect on society. I wonder if he thought it would be as big a deal as it turned out to be?

I try to stay pro-choice but find myself leaning toward pro-vaccine. I understand people who delay vaccines if they feel their child's immune system isn't up to it yet due to allergies etc - but struggle to understand people who don't vaccinate at all. Not only are they putting their own child at risk but they are putting other children who haven't yet had the vaccine and unborn babies at risk if they catch one the diseases and go out in public with it.

-------------
http://lilypie.com">



Posted By: tommynomad
Date Posted: 08 June 2010 at 5:11pm
Wakefield has done more damage to the pro-choice movement than he ever did good.

I'm pro-choice, and old enough to remember 'measles parties' wherein everyone swapped lollys and tshirts.


Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 8:53am

Originally posted by Delli Delli wrote:



I try to stay pro-choice but find myself leaning toward pro-vaccine. I understand people who delay vaccines if they feel their child's immune system isn't up to it yet due to allergies etc - but struggle to understand people who don't vaccinate at all. Not only are they putting their own child at risk but they are putting other children who haven't yet had the vaccine and unborn babies at risk if they catch one the diseases and go out in public with it.

Hi, slightly OT, but as one of 'those people' who don't vaccinate their child (and trust me, it was a well researched, thought out, discussed choice), why would you be concerned about my child putting yours at risk if you are so sure that vaccinating your child will prevent them from getting the disease in question? Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.  As for my baby catching a disease and giving it to another unvaccinated child, is that unfair if she passes it onto a child who parents choose not to vaccinate or who just to those who haven't had a chance to yet? You can't distinguish between the two. There's heaps of Mums on this forum who don't vaccinate and are probably more elequent then I in explaining it but the gist seems to be among us that we would rather risk natural disease in our children than some of the crap and over medication that is put in vaccines.  And btw, I"m not anti vaccine, I'm PRO CHOICE, and I think you'll find anyone here who doesn't vaccinate has made a well researched and informed decision not to! I am always reviewing my decision and would quite like one or two of the vaccinations seperately however I have been told by several Dr's this is not possible in NZ, depsite it being possible overseas.  Not trying to be rude or anything here, just giving you 'our' side as well



-------------

http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Delli
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 1:56pm
Originally posted by Emmecat Emmecat wrote:

why would you be concerned about my child putting yours at risk if you are so sure that vaccinating your child will prevent them from getting the disease in question? Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.  



Where on earth did I say this? That statement doesn't make sense to me either. If my child is vaccinated, then no I am not concerned that he will catch whatever your child has. However, at the moment he is still young and hasn't had his MMR vaccinations yet. If your child caught one of those diseases and went to the same places as my child (could even be the drs surgery - full of young babies and vulnerable old people) then yes I would be concerned that he would be at risk.

Some people (not you, people in general ) talk of these diseases as if they are harmless and that measles parties are so much fun. I guess they don't know people who are blind from measles, have one leg shorter than the other from polio, are mentally disabled from meningitis or have died. Perhaps they don't know anyone that has suffered any of these effects from these diseases because they are so much less common than they used to be - and they are so much less common than they used to be because of vaccinations.

But yes, I try to stay pro choice (but as I said, SOMETIMES I find it hard ) because as you say - best to research and research and come up with your own opinions. Funny how we probably researched and looked at the same material but have come up with two totally different answers

-------------
http://lilypie.com">



Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 4:24pm

lol Delli- totally agree with that last bit about reading the same research and coming up with different answers! It has been one of the hardest decisions I've ever had to make and its one I've made in conjunction and with the support of our GP. He is (obviously) pro vaccine but also very pro choice....and knows I have spent hours and hours reading research and listening to other peoples opinions etc before making my own. I do know they used to have measle and chickpox parties and TBH I'm still a little unsure as to why measles is such a big deal these days? Im genuinely curious....I understand of course there are some small risks of things going very bad with it, however isn't that the case for many things?  I just feel as a society in general we seem to live in an attitude of fear of what *might* happen, and that really worries me. It also concerns me what vaccines have in them now as preservatives and the amount of things we are vaccinating against, esp in our really wee babes.  This concern for me is exacerbated by the fact that I can't seem to find any health professional to tell me the answers to the above, despite my attempts to find one. Even the vaccinations nurse educator or whatever she called herself couldn't tell me if the preservatives in our common vaccinations was mercury or therimosal (sp) and even our paed said the only reason to jab our kids was 'just in case' there was an outbreak.

Sorry have taken this OT again, and so don't want an arguement about pros and cons of it all, just trying to explain how I feel as a very loving Mama who is trying to do the best by her bubba.  I am saddened and annoyed by the 'scientist' mentioned in the OP as he has done nothing at all for pro choice nor research in general IMO.



-------------

http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Mumoflots
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 7:35pm
Glad to see that there is some intelligent conversation about this. I would like to add that if your concerned about the MMR or the DPT or any of the other combination vaccines, which seem to be the ones linked to Autism and other child nasties, then you may request to have your shots done individually if you still wish to immunise


Posted By: Delli
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 7:48pm
Originally posted by Emmecat Emmecat wrote:

I do know they used to have measle and chickpox parties and TBH I'm still a little unsure as to why measles is such a big deal these days? Im genuinely curious....I understand of course there are some small risks of things going very bad with it, however isn't that the case for many things?  



Just one last thing, just because you asked. I am on a roll with this threadjacking business

If you are talking Rubella (German Measles) then the biggest risk is to unborn babies. 85% of babies infected within the first eight weeks after conception will be born with abnormalities.

If you are talking English Measles then there is a 30% chance a child that has contracted measles will develop complications such as ear infections, pneumonia or encephalitis. The chance of the disease being fatal is 1-2 in 1000. In the olden days EVERYONE used to get measles as it is highly highly contagious. It was still not cool if you got it but there was no escaping it. Which is why they used to have measles parties - because everyone was going to get it sooner or later they may as well get it sooner and be immune to it sooner, it was better to be crook as a child than as an adult. Imagine if everyone still got it now - 0.1% of 4 million people is 4000. Or to be more accurate - around 65,000 people are born in NZ every year. If there were no vaccinations around - approx 65 would die of measles.

Don't worry I'm not trying to convince you, or start up a debate on vaccinating vs non-vaccinating - I just answered because you said you were curious

Edited to fix my dodgy maths. Yes, I did get out of bed to come and fix this because I was lying there in shame when I realised what I'd done! Was wondering why 40,000 seemed a tad high. Embarrassing!

-------------
http://lilypie.com">



Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 8:15pm
I'm not entirely convinced that vaccination has done anything for the reduction of these diseases as most had declined due to better health care, living conditions, nutrition and education anyway. Take scarlet fever for example, there is no vaccine for that and the downward trend for it is the same as the ones that are vaccinated for and when they start demonising chicken pox and actively encouraging (scaring) parents into doing that one as well it really does make me wonder about things.

That article talked about one child in England dieing in 13 years due to lack of vaccination. So one death in 13 years out of how many millions that aren't vaccinated as it said levels had dropped to 50% in London and there are around 11 million people in London alone. Hmmmmm. I just wonder how it can be justified to give every child vaccinations that have potentially harmful substances in them (and I'm not referring to the autism link just what is in the injections in general) to have potentially have saved one life in 13 years and who knows that one kid might have been vaccinated, it didn't say.

-------------



Posted By: blondy
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 8:30pm
Just wanted to put my 2cents in I'm still pro-choice for the most part, but the more research I do (recently wrote an essay for uni about both sides of vaccination), I'm also finding myself more pro-vaccine (which having worked as a virologist, does make sense! )

Re: the statement above about getting the MMR done separately, I tried to do that (as Nat reacts to the albumin in vaccines like MMR), but it's not available in NZ, even on special request.

Also, the general worry about letting the proportion of vaccinated individuals drop is a serious one. Diseases like measles are kept at bay from a huge outbreak by herd immunity, and for measles specifically, we need about 95% of the population vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity. We know that vaccines lessen the effects of any disease passed along, rather than protecting against infection (no vaccine does that) - but part of that is due to the fact that some of these diseases are not able to survive unless there are 'pockets' of individuals that are not vaccinated.

As soon as our society's herd immunity decreases, we are at risk of having multiple outbreaks - this is why some people may say that the unimmunised kiddies are actually being protected by the immunised ones (no digs at anyone here, just stating facts and what I've heard said previously).

an example of this is in Russia in the 90's where their immunisation schedule collapsed, and within 5 years they had over 50000 cases of diphtheria which resulted in the deaths of thousands of individuals. In Sweden, they phased out routine immunisation for whooping cough in 1979, and within 6 years they had had 2 outbreaks including deaths.

I think part of the problem is that we do live in a society that doesn't need to worry about these 'third world diseases' like polio, diptheria, whooping cough etc, and we forget that such huge numbers of children died because of them. We live in a society where we have the 'luxury' of worrying about possible side-effects of vaccines, rather than worrying about the diseases themselves. I know our grandparents grew up in a world of iron lungs, and a huge infant mortality rate, and while general improvements like hygeine and living conditions have contributed to those declines, vaccination has made a huge impact. I for one wouldn't want to go back to an era where I could lose a child to an easily-preventable disease.

(and we did delay MMR for a while due to allergies, but I would never consider not getting it done at all - measles is still a very nasty disease, and while in NZ not many children die from it, in less developed nations, it still has a 30% death rate).

As for the scientist (coming from an ex-scientist) - I also find it hard to believe that he really went through with presenting his data knowing how flawed it was, and also not having anyone else question the data closely before it was published......seems rather fishy! And what a horrible legacy he has left

Sorry for the essay also being slightly OT

Edit to fix my facts

-------------


Posted By: Delli
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 8:36pm
Ditto to everything you said blondy.

-------------
http://lilypie.com">



Posted By: mummyofprinces
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 9:01pm
Blondy that was so well written!

I normally stay away from these topics as I am pro-vaccine and dont see the point of argueing with people as they have done their research too and at the end of the day each to their own but that is what want to say but it would never come out that way....



-------------




Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 10 June 2010 at 7:44am

Well written blondy - I don't disagree with what's been said. You're right in that we have the luxury to not have to worry about polio, diptheria, whooping cough deaths etc in NZ and that's part of the reason I don't vaccinate (yet).  I would actually very much like the whooping cough vaccine for Clodagh but Dr's tell me I can't get it seperately.  Also, Clodgah has a rather nasty egg allergy which I didn't know when I chose not to vaccinate her, but do now and it worried me she may react worse because of this.  Even the paed said she may well react badly...so what am I meant to do???

 

 



-------------

http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 10 June 2010 at 8:07am

Oh and Delli- cheers for your post too  I understand the herd menality arguement however I'm not convinced immuinistaion is the sole reason behind death rates for disease dropping. Better food and hygenie have also got a lot to answer for!

I also understand about ruebella being very dangerous to unborn children and during pg, however that is a vaccination my daughter can get when she is older (as we did), as are tetenus and hepatitis. If she chooses to travel to countriesd where polio and diptheria are high risk of course I would reccommend her looking at her options to get vaccinated. I guess my arguement is that we are vaccinating our kids against all these things that MIGHT happen in a long shot in THIS country, rather than act when the threat is a bit higher. I'm probably not explaining it very well but as an example, tetenus is given to you whenever you have a bad accident even if you *are* vaccinated...I know from personal experience having been injured by my horses as a teen lol. And hepatitis?? That's sexually transmitted and or shared by bodily fluids! Why and how is my 12 month old gonna get that??? And even harder to imagine her getting it at 6 weeks old (considering I don't come from a high risk group for it I mean). Why are these disease being lumped in with arguebly more important ones like polio and diptheria? Again, I'm not being smart, I actually want to know and no one can tell me .

I may not be expaining myself as well as I could but it feels inherently wrong to me for us to be giving our children all these shots 'just in case'.  Especially when every few years more and more things are added to the schedule and the only people we have to trust that our babies 'need' them are the multi billionaire drug corporations who have a huge vested financial interest in our believing them!!



-------------

http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: mummyofprinces
Date Posted: 10 June 2010 at 9:02am
Originally posted by Emmecat Emmecat wrote:

And hepatitis?? That's sexually transmitted and or shared by bodily fluids! Why and how is my 12 month old gonna get that??? And even harder to imagine her getting it at 6 weeks old (considering I don't come from a high risk group for it I mean). Why are these disease being lumped in with arguebly more important ones like polio and diptheria? Again, I'm not being smart, I actually want to know and no one can tell me .




My understanding is that by the time they start putting things in their mouths they have an immunity...

Jake was picking things up and putting them in his mouth at 5months and now he has a habit of quietly sneaking into peoples bags and trying to drink out of their water bottles... Oh and he is good for dummy swapping/stealing too...

I dont know who has hep and who doesnt and I cant possibly watch my son every second of the day (he is quick and crafty) and he can get into a fair bit of mischief in a short period of time...

I was told you could get egg free vaccinations.. in fact I read it recently on here too... not sure if its true but its what I have been led to believe....

-------------




Posted By: blondy
Date Posted: 10 June 2010 at 5:37pm
viruses like measles and mumps (i think it's mumps rather than rubella) can only be grown in egg serum, and although many many steps are taken to remove all egg from the vaccines, there is still a trace amount of egg albumin remaining in the (eg) MMR vaccine. Nat is also highly allergic to egg, which is why we delayed the MMR, but I'm pleased to say she didn't react at all to the 15month ones (unlike the earlier ones!)

Hepatitis B and C is spread by bodily fluid contact, but Hep A is actually spread by food contamination (fecal contamination), so almost anyone could pick it up depending on whether you happen to eat some food that has been contaminated.

I think for me, even though I know Nat is actually at a very low risk of catching most of the diseases we have vaccinated against, part of choosing to vaccinate is because I feel it is our duty to society to maintain the level of immunised individuals, so that we don't get outbreaks in the future (as eradication of diseases like smallpox is a very rare thing!). Once again, I'm not criticising anyone, but just giving a possible reason as to why people still vaccinate, even though the chances of their child catching the disease are very low.

-------------


Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 10 June 2010 at 6:45pm

That's a fair point Blondy about why you immunise. Thanks too for explaining your viewpoint to me without telling me I'm doing something wrong or not respecting my opinion  Its a very hard decision to make and I can easily see both sides of the arguement. for now I'm still happy with our decision but am constantly checking with myself to make sure I still feel the same way....esp with winter coming on etc.  I'm still convinced that alongside vaccination ensuring we feed our children properly, keep them warm, have good hygenie and just use commonsense that those factors also will contribute to disease prevention.

Also, I have to say.....were it not for my deep distrust of pharmecuetical (sp?) companies (and huge multinationals in general lol), I would seriously reconsider my decision.....I cannot believe they create vaccines purely for the greater good without any financial interest involved...which I think potentially makes their ethics of what's put into them-and how they are tested- questionable (not saying there are not individuals within these companies who are not altruistic of course!)



-------------

http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: kiwi2
Date Posted: 11 June 2010 at 9:14pm
just out of interest (in a non confrontational tone and non judgemental way) are you concerned with the amount of people coming into NZ from third world countries etc who could bring in some of the disease that are not prevalant here. I was just thinking about this as after the whole bird flu and swine flu hoopla it sort of highlights that diseases are not contained by boundaries nowadays.

Mine are all vaccinated. We didn't have the choice although we had already vaccinated the older two. But if we hadn't we would have had to.   We lived in the USA and unless they had complete vaccinations (way more vaccinations than here) then they weren't allowed in public school. No choice at all other than to home school.   

The thought of autism caused by vaccines hit home to me. My youngest had issues and was being assessed for autism and I used to think what if it was my fault due to the vaccine. Luckily it was something else and it was all fixed with a simple operation. It makes me mad that there were so many flaws in his research and that paper made me second guess myself. (for over a year I wondered if I had done this to her) But I am thankful that I now have a healthy child.


Posted By: Limochick
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 8:49am
My oldest son has autism and his symptoms came out well and truely after his imms. I'm pleased to see that this man has been dis-credited because it might mean we have an increase in vaccinations. Yip I'm pro vaccine, just my opinion. He also has a heart condition and I would give him any injection if it meant he had a smaller chance of contracting an illness. He's going to fiji next month so he's going to get the typhoid injection this morning.

Just wondering (I'm not being condecending just curious) how many of you againist vaccines would go overseas to various countries without having the recommended injections??

-------------



Posted By: High9
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 8:58am
Your post at the end of last page Blondy is well written.

-------------
http://lilypie.com">


Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 9:06am
I would look into the individual vaccines and asses them and decide. We have looked at every vaccine on the schedule not just the MMR one and we certainly did not base our decision on one piece of research, so I doubt that anyone who has properly researched and decided not to vaccinate would change their opinion at all just because of what has happened over wakefield.

This is worth a read, for anyone willing to keep an open mind that is.

http://www.thedailybell.com/1089/Dr-Andrew-Wakefield-on-the-AutismVaccine-Controversy-and-His-Ongoing-Professional-Persecution.html


Posted By: AandCsmum
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 9:28am
Blondy, when did you delay Nat's vax until & did you do them all at once or over a couple of weeks?

-------------
Kel
http://lilypie.com">

A = 01.02.04   &   C = 16.01.09   &   G = 30.03.12


Posted By: blondy
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 9:50am
AandC'sMum - We waitied till about 18 months, and separated them all out by 2-3 weeks (did MMR first, then waited a couple weeks, then the next one, then the next one). Could have waited longer, but wanted to get them all done before I started studying fulltime and may have needed to keep Nat home to see if she reacted at all.

It's funny - I went in and told the GP and the nurse what the plan was, and they were totally fine with it - previously when I had been a little uncertain about what to do, I found them much bossier and more forceful. I really wanted to split the MMR up as well, but apparently (at least what I was told by my GP, and via the govt websites I hunted through) you can't even order them into the country separately, which I think is a real bummer.


Re: the above link for the article about Wakefield - I did read it, but I think the article is quite biased in how it presents the information...for example, it doesn't mention at all that Wakefield's studies were carried out in a (partially) non-ethical and certainly not blinded manner, and that single fact alone (for me) means that I would not trust anything he has to say.......in particular about "Big Pharma" - having worked in the pharmaceutical industry I know that the hoops you have to jump through are so so massive to get a drug to market (certainly having longer follow-up periods than 6 weeks), and the FDA (and other equivalent organisations) need such strict and impartial information and data; far more than what Wakefield's statements lead you to believe in that article.

I do think it's important to read both sides of any argument, and I know (hope!) that most people that choose not to vaccinate do their research well, but it's hard to avoid information presented in a biased way, especially when the material is so emotive.

-------------


Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 10:17am
Yep I read both sides, then draw my own conclusions, not much more you can do than that, and when I read either side I do bare in mind that they are biased, just a different way depending on which side. He isn't anti vac though, which a lot of people assume he is without reading what he has to say and I just thought that as well as reading all his bad press perhaps people should also read his side of it.

I find it uncomfortable that pharmaceutical companies are protected when it comes to vaccines, why bother to properly safety test if you are above reproach anyway? I'm sure they do test all other drugs properly cos otherwise they would get sued.


Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 12:13pm

My only comment is regarding the original article posted, and how dangerous a lot of so called reasearch can be.
Every week there seems to be reasearch being published in regards to what is and what isn't safe.

It will be interesting to see what we decide once our daughter is ready to be vaccinated as I'm pro-vaccine as I think the reason we have such a low incidence of contagious disease in NZ is because of vaccination.
Dh however isn't so convinced after contracting measles at 16, even though he had been vaccinated.

Someone mentioned Chicken pox - my understanding is this is viral and not able to be vaccinated against.
I've been vaccinated for Hepatitis not because its sexually transmitted, but because I was a volunteer lifeguard in my teens and the possible risk of transmission from coming into contact with bodily fluids.

For me having a daughter being vaccinated against rubella is a no-brainer - whether its done as a baby or when she's older if something I'll discuss with her GP. I got vaccinated at 12 and still have immunity.



-------------
http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">
[/url]

Angel June 2012


Posted By: blondy
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 12:47pm
Originally posted by caliandjack caliandjack wrote:


Dh however isn't so convinced after contracting measles at 16, even though he had been vaccinated.



Vaccination is generally not going to stop anyone from getting the disease, it simply lessens the effect as the immune system is already 'primed' against the pathogen. Vaccines can wear off over time as well - I'm not sure about measles specifically, but some vaccines may give only a certain number of years' protection.

Originally posted by caliandjack caliandjack wrote:

Someone mentioned Chicken pox - my understanding is this is viral and not able to be vaccinated against.



The Chicken pox vaccine is routinely used in the US and Australia (infact is part of the schedule there) - in NZ you need to pay for it, but there are 2 vaccines available for VZV (Varicella zoster virus, which causes chicken pox and subsequently possibly shingles).

twoboys - totally agree about the information being biased from both directions....which is why it is really hard to get a clear idea of the facts from either point of view.

-------------


Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 2:58pm

I've had chicken pox, and DH has had shingles - which seems to be much worse and quite painful.



-------------
http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">
[/url]

Angel June 2012


Posted By: lisa85
Date Posted: 30 July 2010 at 3:17pm
Originally posted by ElfsMum ElfsMum wrote:

yeah I'm the same..I'm very pro vaccine and would always rather take the slight risk than have my child potentially die of preventable disease.. .. and also pro choice..as long as it is informed choice...ugh words dont even describe that guy!


I agree

-------------
http://lilypie.com">

TTC #3 since Jan 2010 - PCOS
MC April 2010


Posted By: lisame
Date Posted: 02 August 2010 at 10:15am
two_boys, just a quick response to that story you've posted - I have a very good friend who was working at the Lancet at the time his original study was published. A lot of what he said happened at the time, and subsequently when the Lancet publicly apologised for publishing his paper, does not match what she has told me. The Lancet were given a completely different picture of his research to the way he explains it in that article - otherwise they never would have published it; they are a scientific mag not a 'let's publish a bunch of interesting case studies' mag.

A general comment - I'm really interested in the number of people who say they can't find un-biased information on vaccinations. I've just done an ante-natal course and a woman there said she had really struggled to find good 'anti' vaccination information, and that really surprised me as I've found loads.

It made me wonder if some people (like her) are already inherently for or against vaccinations, and so you are never going to completely believe or rely on any information you find as you've already made your mind up...

Just a thought, and maybe it would be useful to share some of the better websites some people have found when researching this?


Posted By: John129126
Date Posted: 14 September 2013 at 8:39pm
Very nice post. I just stumbled upon like this post and wished to say that I’ve really enjoyed surfing around this thread posts.
http://cerebrabraintech.com/" rel="nofollow - Treatment for ADHD


Posted By: starpath
Date Posted: 31 October 2013 at 10:43am
Have a look at the link in the first posting (LittleBug). You will find that the association of vaccination with autism has been retracted.


Posted By: starpath
Date Posted: 31 October 2013 at 10:51am
Originally posted by LittleBug LittleBug wrote:

Interesting reading:This information needs widespread distribution. Thanks LittleBug for posting.



http://www.3news.co.nz/World/Story/tabid/417/articleID/157415/Default.aspx" rel="nofollow - Vaccines and autism link



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2022 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net