Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?

[phil4]

if it is safe to do so after balancing risks and benefits.

And that, there, is exactly my point. You have decided that the benefits do not outweigh the risks. Why do you feel you have the right to do that, as what is being proposed says you should not, have that right?

[wasabi]

It's simple, when you look at the data, so long as you're not in an at risk group it really makes sense to have them. It doesn't make economic sense for some, I wouldn't say kids should get rabies as a matter of cause, but anyone going trekking in parts where its endemic, it's just a good idea.

I'm diabetic so am in the at risk group so get a summons every year for the flu jab. Which I refuse to go to. Why? it makes me feel ill every time I get it so
Take jab = I'm feeling dreadful for 2 days guaranteed, versus
Don't take jab = risk of feeling awful for 3 days once every 4 years approx with flu.

I'm healthy otherwise so think this is a waste of resources too - I'm simply not going to die of flu and even if I were, i'm OK with that. My decision and I'll stick by it. However clinics now lean VERY hard on people to take the jab. I get chased up and asked to return a form saying I don't want it - which I refuse to do as I'm not getting into a game of clinics summoning me. I'm not keen on us getting into an opt-out NHS. But that is me, legally an adult, and not a child.

At the end of the day the issue isn't one of validity of research. That is beyond doubt. It is an issue of does the government have the right to overrule parents when government feels parents are making a bad choice with potentially life-threatening consequences.

[csgohan4]

And that, there, is exactly my point. You have decided that the benefits do not outweigh the risks. Why do you feel you have the right to do that, as what is being proposed says you should not, have that right?

Any responsible parent would do this just like choosing a school, you would do some research on that school any crime, bullying, grades e.t.c, same with a medical treatment, you read up from the NHS/ NICE websites and then go ahead. If it's not on the NICE guidelines, generally it's not worth the risk or cost.

However Vaccines universally are accepted as overwhelming benefits ergo no more small pox and polio well at least minimal in the developed world. Clearly a winner, compared to a fraudulent paper where many others have discredited. If you show me a better treatment I say prove it and I will accept it if reasonable. I am not stubborn but I am reasonable and open minded.

[phil4]

Any responsible parent would do this just like choosing a school, you would do some research on that school any crime, bullying, grades e.t.c, same with a medical treatment, you read up from the NHS/ NICE websites and then go ahead. If it's not on the NICE guidelines, generally it's not worth the risk or cost.

And that's exactly what I have been suggesting, that you read up on, weigh up the risks and then do what is hopefully obvious. That's why my kid is has had MMR. The post that started this suggested that the law be used to remove that choice. Which I feel is wrong, for exactly the reason you've just stated.

However Vaccines universally are accepted as overwhelming benefits ergo no more small pox and polio well at least minimal in the developed world. Clearly a winner, compared to a fraudulent paper where many others have discredited. If you show me a better treatment I say prove it and I will accept it if reasonable. I am not stubborn but I am reasonable and open minded.

I'm not saying you are not. I've not for one second suggested the only reason not to have MMR is because of a link to autism, real or otherwise. If you read the link I presented you'll see the NHS list of side effects from the MMR jab, some of which aren't great. While vaccines can provides amazing results, really to humankinds benefit, that doesn't mean they aren't without side effects.

And as someone above who could have had the flu jab has said, sometimes those risks put them off.

While we can call people names, the moment you step into decision where risk vs reward comes into it, people will have different views as to what risk they are prepared to take, and what reward is acceptable to outweigh it. Someone will almost certainly go the other way, because perhaps they are risk adverse (though clearly there's risk of vaccine side-effect against risk of disease effect).

My point has been all along to allow free choice, such that the end user makes a choice based on risk vs reward, having been provided with the facts.

[dcwt2010]

I would say that the problem is if you don't get vaccinated, even if you don't die or suffer greatly from the infection you'll still be a decent carrier and propagate the pathogen. If it's a serious disease then I think people should be held accountable for that.

[Smudger]

I do believe I was dyslexic before I had most of them too. Global Warming and Pirates people!

But you didn't have a big nose and bright pink skin...

[csgohan4]

And that's exactly what I have been suggesting, that you read up on, weigh up the risks and then do what is hopefully obvious. That's why my kid is has had MMR. The post that started this suggested that the law be used to remove that choice. Which I feel is wrong, for exactly the reason you've just stated.

.

There is a difference making an informed choice and a stubborn choice to which some posters have made including use of fradulent data and standing by them. That is ignorant and putting their children in danger, that is what i have a problem with.

[wasabi]

There is a difference making an informed choice and a stubborn choice to which some posters have made including use of fradulent data and standing by them. That is ignorant and putting their children in danger, that is what i have a problem with.

Very difficult grey area. Where does government control stop? Nobody can prove religion yet we allow parents to do things to children in the name of it which would otherwise land you in prison for assault.

[csgohan4]

Very difficult grey area. Where does government control stop? Nobody can prove religion yet we allow parents to do things to children in the name of it which would otherwise land you in prison for assault.

Those parents should sign waivers and lose their rights to complain to the health authorities if their child develops the disease and get complications not through the fault of the hospital. This must be discussed with at length and the ramifications including discussion of complications.

[TheAnimus]

Very difficult grey area. Where does government control stop? Nobody can prove religion yet we allow parents to do things to children in the name of it which would otherwise land you in prison for assault.

Most of that has stopped afaik. Even America in deep pedo mormon land (some tenants believe its not just ok, but good to rape children, they also demand we respect them for this) they prosecute people who rape children. It wasn't that long ago that certain areas made this illegal inside of marriage.

[billythewiz]

There are several tragedies associated with the whole Wakefield/MMR debacle. One of the main ones is that scientists are now afraid to publish results that go against the accepted status quo (that all vaccines are always safe).

We know that isn't the case. Take for example the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak. You all remember that right ? It's the one where the disease killed 1 person and hospitalised 13. The vaccine killed 25 and caused 500 cases of Guillain–Barré syndrome. But that was a long time ago so let's ignore it.

The more recently vaccine used in the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak is now known to cause narcolepsy. This fact was difficult to expose. The first scientist to try was ridiculed and had difficulty getting his results published (The Lancet refused). The research "findings have now been replicated and confirmed by at least four independent teams of international scientists".
Read about it for yourself http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92K06620130321
It's quite a long article so I don't expect any of you to read it so I'll quote just one extract ....

Outi Vaarala previously worked in research on autoimmune diseases and diabetes. Since crossing over into the field of vaccinology, she says she has found herself harangued in emails and phone calls ...
"There's not the kind of open discussion we used to have. You're afraid you will lose your whole career if you say something bad," says Vaarala. "When you're dealing with vaccine it suddenly becomes like working in politics, or religion."

You're afraid you will lose your whole career if you say something bad

Most medics will admit that there is some risk with all medicines. Dr Richard Halvorsen explains very clearly how you can understand the risks of a treatment.
1) It has to work. There's no point in taking homoeopathy !
2) It has to be safe. No point in saving 1 person from Flu by killing 25 from the vaccine.
3) The disease has to be worth the effort. Why bother taking a risk for something that isn't a real problem.

Measles and its vaccine passes all of these. Even #3, but not as easily as you might think. There has been massive over-hyping of the disease. In the 1960s when the vaccine was first introduced there was a lot of debate as to whether it was worth the effort. Measles then, was a mild illness with rarely any complications. The disease hasn't changed but the vaccine manufacturers have notice that profits are proportional to fear.
Halvorsen's view on Mumps vaccine is that it is unethical to give it to boys (there are sound medical reasons for this view).
If you are interested you can hear his views on Measles, Mumps and Rubella, here http://www.cryshame.co.uk/index.php?...d=68&Itemid=80

There are many other vaccines that haven't been too successful. A very poignant example is the first version of MMR that was used in 1998. By that time it had already been withdrawn in Canada but it took the British government four years to finally withdraw it from Britain. It caused too many cases of Meningitis !

There are also more and more cases being settled in the USA (and more recently in Italy) where it has been shown that vaccines (including MMR) have caused brain injury that subsequently resulted in Autism. Probably the most famous was Hannah Poling. The real problem (for the authorities) was that her father was a Neurosurgeon. So we was wealthy enough, intelligent enough and educated enough (in the right field) to win his case. You can google it. Here's just one report
http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...721109,00.html

in a single day she was given five inoculations covering a total of nine diseases: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae. "That was just too many vaccines," says Terry Poling. "I didn't find out for several months that they had thimerosal, which contains mercury, a powerful neurotoxin. Had I known, I never would have allowed it to be injected into my child."

Thimerosal has now been removed from most child vaccines (not for any reason though ... "just in case" - yeah right, because Big Pharma is notorious for doing that). But it is present in 4 out of the 7 flu vaccines available on the NHS. It was also in the 2009 Swine flu vaccine. Interestingly that also contained squaline, which is linked to Gulf War Syndrome - but the Pharma funded research also refutes this.


Now I don't have the time to dig up (and I know you wont bother to read) any more evidence (there is loads more). But this seems to be enough to show that not all vaccines are as safe as all other and not all are as effective as all others. As such, I think it is right that parents be allowed to decide which vaccines there kids have and when.

If you go down the route of compulsory vaccines we will become just like the USA. That is being suggested by vaccine millionaire, Paul Offit.

But the US love their vaccines. They give Hepatitis B vaccine (a sexually transmitted disease) to 1 day old babies. Yes I typed that right, 24 hours old. We don't give it to anyone in the UK.

I have a friend with Multiple Sclerosis. Her consultant told her that it was probably the result of the Hep B vaccine she had. this is of course denied by the vaccine manufacturers and all the studies funded by them confirm this.

I think you should be allowed to decide whether or when your kids get these vaccinations. Not vaccine millionaires like Offit, or people like The Animus.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

ANY medical treatment can have side effects.

What people need to balance, WITH ANY MEDICAL treatment or procedure,are the effects of either having or not having it.

Are you more likely to die or get disabled as result of either having it or not having it??

These decisions should be down to doctors,who can make an informed decision based on available evidence,as the NHS is a public service whose cost is paid by all of us. If the parents have relevant concerns based on proper research,they should be forwarded to the doctors,who can take this into consideration,or request a second opinion,etc.

It is NOT a private medical service where people can make random decisions based on whatever DM article they read and then expect the NHS to make up for those very same decisions,if it ends up causing more harm than good.
What people don't understand is that it ends up draining resources from the treatment of other patients too.

If this is not what people want,and they want to make decisions not based on evidence,then if their children,get the illness,and it can be proved that the vaccine would have been:
1.)Fine for their children
2.)Would have helped them against the illness

then I support,they be made to pay for the treatment out of their own pockets and/or take some legal blame for it too.

The NHS is not perfect,and it does get things wrong but some of the people in the UK should try a third world medical system and realise how lucky they are to be living here,where in the former case operations and treatments can bankrupt families,and treatable diseases are rife.

I would say that the problem is if you don't get vaccinated, even if you don't die or suffer greatly from the infection you'll still be a decent carrier and propagate the pathogen. If it's a serious disease then I think people should be held accountable for that.

People do also need to consider this point too.

[Mrs Hex]

Measles, when it doesn't kill, leaves its victims blind, deaf and worse.

My (and Directhex's) son is vaccinated and is indeed part of a trial study to include Hepatitis B in routine childhood vaccination programs.

I go back to work in a fortnight and Nathan starts at nursery and I am terrified that he may contract Measles, Mumps or Rubella because the MMR isn't administered until 13 months.

[csgohan4]

There are several tragedies associated with the whole Wakefield/MMR debacle. One of the main ones is that scientists are now afraid to publish results that go against the accepted status quo (that all vaccines are always safe).

We know that isn't the case. Take for example the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak. You all remember that right ? It's the one where the disease killed 1 person and hospitalised 13. The vaccine killed 25 and caused 500 cases of Guillain–Barré syndrome. But that was a long time ago so let's ignore it.

The more recently vaccine used in the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak is now known to cause narcolepsy. This fact was difficult to expose. The first scientist to try was ridiculed and had difficulty getting his results published (The Lancet refused). The research "findings have now been replicated and confirmed by at least four independent teams of international scientists".
Read about it for yourself http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92K06620130321
It's quite a long article so I don't expect any of you to read it so I'll quote just one extract ....

You're afraid you will lose your whole career if you say something bad

Most medics will admit that there is some risk with all medicines. Dr Richard Halvorsen explains very clearly how you can understand the risks of a treatment.
1) It has to work. There's no point in taking homoeopathy !
2) It has to be safe. No point in saving 1 person from Flu by killing 25 from the vaccine.
3) The disease has to be worth the effort. Why bother taking a risk for something that isn't a real problem.

Measles and its vaccine passes all of these. Even #3, but not as easily as you might think. There has been massive over-hyping of the disease. In the 1960s when the vaccine was first introduced there was a lot of debate as to whether it was worth the effort. Measles then, was a mild illness with rarely any complications. The disease hasn't changed but the vaccine manufacturers have notice that profits are proportional to fear.
Halvorsen's view on Mumps vaccine is that it is unethical to give it to boys (there are sound medical reasons for this view).
If you are interested you can hear his views on Measles, Mumps and Rubella, here http://www.cryshame.co.uk/index.php?...d=68&Itemid=80

There are many other vaccines that haven't been too successful. A very poignant example is the first version of MMR that was used in 1998. By that time it had already been withdrawn in Canada but it took the British government four years to finally withdraw it from Britain. It caused too many cases of Meningitis !

There are also more and more cases being settled in the USA (and more recently in Italy) where it has been shown that vaccines (including MMR) have caused brain injury that subsequently resulted in Autism. Probably the most famous was Hannah Poling. The real problem (for the authorities) was that her father was a Neurosurgeon. So we was wealthy enough, intelligent enough and educated enough (in the right field) to win his case. You can google it. Here's just one report
http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...721109,00.html


Thimerosal has now been removed from most child vaccines (not for any reason though ... "just in case" - yeah right, because Big Pharma is notorious for doing that). But it is present in 4 out of the 7 flu vaccines available on the NHS. It was also in the 2009 Swine flu vaccine. Interestingly that also contained squaline, which is linked to Gulf War Syndrome - but the Pharma funded research also refutes this.


Now I don't have the time to dig up (and I know you wont bother to read) any more evidence (there is loads more). But this seems to be enough to show that not all vaccines are as safe as all other and not all are as effective as all others. As such, I think it is right that parents be allowed to decide which vaccines there kids have and when.

If you go down the route of compulsory vaccines we will become just like the USA. That is being suggested by vaccine millionaire, Paul Offit.

But the US love their vaccines. They give Hepatitis B vaccine (a sexually transmitted disease) to 1 day old babies. Yes I typed that right, 24 hours old. We don't give it to anyone in the UK.

I have a friend with Multiple Sclerosis. Her consultant told her that it was probably the result of the Hep B vaccine she had. this is of course denied by the vaccine manufacturers and all the studies funded by them confirm this.

I think you should be allowed to decide whether or when your kids get these vaccinations. Not vaccine millionaires like Offit, or people like The Animus.

I respect your views, just don't go to the same school as my unvaccinated children who are not due it yet, infact go to a school that shares your views and hope your children don't get ill. I don't gamble, but I guess you do.

[fuddam]

billythewiz: excellent post.

What a lot of people on this thread completely fail to acknowledge is HOW the vaccines are administered. I'm in my mid 40's. I had all the vacccines I was prescribed as a child, and didn't suffer any negative consequences.

HOWEVER, now the trend is for multiple vaccines in a single dose. It's given in the name of practicality, but no consideration is given to the massive impact of so many different beasties in one go. That is *completely* unnatural. The body is not built to be fighting so many wars on so many fronts.

Quite aside from the Thimerosal issue, which was the big plus in favour of single vaccines in the MMR uproar (the MMR jab had Thimerosal, the single vaccines did not, and many of the government ministers in favour of the multi-jab had financial interests in the company/ies advocating their use), this can lead to an overactive immune system. This then leads directly to the mass of immune-related problems that have risen like a rocket in recent years, particularly eczema, asthma and dietary allergies.

It's gotten so crazy that 10 years ago I was arguing with doctors who said eczema was now considered 'normal', as over 25% of children suffered from it. In what universe is this 'normal' (being based on very recent occurrences), and something that I probably saw only one or two children ever suffer from in my entire childhood??? It may be 'the norm' but that does not make it 'normal'.

If you want to give all the vaccines to your kids, fine. But do it knowing that the number of multi-jabs in such close sequence is not without the possibility of real complications.

[HalloweenJack]

someone told me that the vaccine girls are being pumped full of nowadays (cervical caner one) , is pretty much useless by the time they are 18.....