Are we giving too many vaccines too quickly to children? No...

[Stuart Wright]

Hope this makes parents feel better about vaccinating their kids.

 

[AdrianMills]

I don't think it will help much - from what I've seen, the anti vaccination crowd is rabid in its insistence that vaccinations don't work, aren't needed or do harm and either way, their right not to vaccinate trumps other people's right to be protected from their unvaccinated kids. Science and logic don't seem to make an impact no matter how authoritative the source.

I think they should make vaccinations mandatory unless there are sound medical reasons not to (compromised immune system for example).

 

[Rorifett]

I guess making these sorts of things mandatory puts too much power in the hands of the pharmaceutical companies though

 

[Trollslayer]

That lines up with over cleanliness leading to asthma, the immune doesn't get enough stimulation.

 

[Rorifett]

As in over cleanliness does or doesn't allow asthma to flourish?

 

[Trollslayer]

When places are too clean the immune systems isn't stimulated to develop correctly so overreacts at times leading to asthma attacks.

 

[Rorifett]

Gotcha, wasn't sure if you were saying that was a fallacy along with power going to pharmaceuticals or whether over vaccinating was a potential cause.

 

[Trollslayer]

Basically we evolved while we still got mucky.

 

[AdrianMills]

That lines up with over cleanliness leading to asthma, the immune doesn't get enough stimulation.

Doesn't work that way - vaccines stimulate the immune system to produce anti-bodies just like the illness without the risk. And the saying that, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is a myth.

The "cleanliness" argument is different in that posits that people remove too much stimulation from the immune system.

 

[AdrianMills]

I guess making these sorts of things mandatory puts too much power in the hands of the pharmaceutical companies though

Why? The independent government bodies would still be in charge of approving the vaccinations. Just because vaccines were mandated wouldn't mean that pharmaceutical companies would have any extra say in the matter.

 

[Trollslayer]

That it removes stimulation from the immune system during development so it reacts abnormally later.
Off topic I admit.

 

[IronGiant]

Both my daughters have asthma and we are not best described as fastidious in our housework

 

[Trollslayer]

 

[Naaktgeboren]

This vaccination business is a hot subject in our household right now. Our youngest son (6) has cancer and the chemotherapy he has faced over the last 9 months has removed the benefit of all of his childhood immunisations. If everything goes to plan, in 3 years time, he will once again have to go through these vaccinations.

He is about to return to school and naturally we are very concerned. We kept his vaccinations up and are hoping that parents of children in his year also made the effort.

 

[AdrianMills]

This vaccination business is a hot subject in our household right now. Our youngest son (6) has cancer and the chemotherapy he has faced over the last 9 months has removed the benefit of all of his childhood immunisations. If everything goes to plan, in 3 years time, he will once again have to go through these vaccinations.

He is about to return to school and naturally we are very concerned. We kept his vaccinations up and are hoping that parents of children in his year also made the effort.

You have my sympathies and I can't begin to imagine what you've been through or the worries you must have!

Have you considered home schooling him until he's in less danger from stupid parents?

 

[imightbewrong]

When places are too clean the immune systems isn't stimulated to develop correctly so overreacts at times leading to asthma attacks.

Has this link ever been proven?

IIRC the immune system is 'fully developed' at about the age of three months, so presumably after this it would be fair game on detergent anyway

 

[Naaktgeboren]

You have my sympathies and I can't begin to imagine what you've been through or the worries you must have!

Have you considered home schooling him until he's in less danger from stupid parents?

He has been home schooled for the past 7 month's, technically, as he is about to move to a stage of treatment called maintenance, both his white blood cells and neutrophils (elements of his blood which help deal with fighting infection) should stabilise meaning his immune system should be comparable to that of a typical child of his age, therefore the risks are heavily reduced.

He has gained a lot from home tutoring although mentally, he needs the interaction with children of his age, he desperately misses that and its the only thing we cannot provide at home.

We are putting a lot of procedures in place to help with his return, daily risk assessments (finding out early if there are kids in his year who are carrying around illnesses as some parents simply don't care)

Our greatest worry is chicken pox, this can be deadly so we will be keeping both our eyes and ears open for any reports in the area so we can keep him well away!!

 

[jimmyriddle77]

1. Big Pharma companies are immune from prosecution if your child dies from a vaccine allergic reaction.

2. UK Gov gives you £120k compensation if "problems" arise after vaccination.

Vaccine Damage Payment - GOV.UK

Food for thought, don't you think? Vaccines are safe but there is a compensation scheme from the Government????...sounds legit!

 

[AdrianMills]

1. Big Pharma companies are immune from prosecution if your child dies from a vaccine allergic reaction.

2. UK Gov gives you £120k compensation if "problems" arise after vaccination.

Vaccine Damage Payment - GOV.UK

Food for thought, don't you think? Vaccines are safe but there is a compensation scheme from the Government????...sounds legit!

There are always risks - some (extremely few) children will have an adverse reaction and that is not hidden or covered up. However, those risks are infinitesimally small compared to the huge risks of not getting vaccinated - and we aren't just talking about the risk to the individual but to those others who are too young to be vaccinated or are immunocompromised.

 

[jimmyriddle77]

There are always risks - some (extremely few) children will have an adverse reaction and that is not hidden or covered up. However, those risks are infinitesimally small compared to the huge risks of not getting vaccinated - and we aren't just talking about the risk to the individual but to those others who are too young to be vaccinated or are immunocompromised.

The risk is infinitesimal but vaccine damage is occurring enough for The Goverment to warrant a compensation scheme? Accepted losses doesn't sound right to me at all. I wouldn't be able to justify a child's death or serious health damage by saying well you knew the risks, we told you. !?! Or am I blowing this out of proportion?

I would be interested to know how the vaccine damaged is proved or what damage by vaccines is caused.

 

[Trollslayer]

If the risk is low it is a cheap; way to give assurances.

 

[AdrianMills]

Or am I blowing this out of proportion?

Yes.

The government has to have something in place to help those affected even if it's just 1:10,000,000 that is just good planning.

As far as I'm aware, the most serious adverse reactions result in anaphylactic shock which may result in coma, organ damage or death but doesn't always or even usually - I haven't any statistics on that but be my guest and google some. Usually, anaphylactic shock occurs fairly quickly so it's pretty obvious that the vaccine shot was the cause (and it's why you should always hang around the clinic for at least 20 minutes after the shot so they can administer treatment if necessary).

 

[Trollslayer]

The MMR vaccine was tracked om Scandinavia for well over ten years over 100,000 children with no significant issues. This was the period after vaccination with exactly the same vaccine used in the UK.

 

[PSM1]

The risk is infinitesimal but vaccine damage is occurring enough for The Goverment to warrant a compensation scheme? Accepted losses doesn't sound right to me at all. I wouldn't be able to justify a child's death or serious health damage by saying well you knew the risks, we told you. !?! Or am I blowing this out of proportion?

I would be interested to know how the vaccine damaged is proved or what damage by vaccines is caused.

Or you could flip this thinking on its head. The government spends a fair amount of money on vaccination each year and if the compensation they had to pay was high as well then they would soon stop. They obviously believe that the cost of vaccination + the cost of the occasional time it goes wrong is still less than the cost of not doing it. Obviously this does not make the impact of when it does go wrong any less.
I feel that vaccinations have been so effective that we know have whole generations who have no idea how bad these diseases were since they are under control. Hence we have no understanding of the consequences of not vaccinating. In the early years most people would still remember what these things did so would be more motivated to ensure vaccination occurred. Now we are a little complacent which then leads to the questions above since all people see is the stats of when a vaccination goes wrong. Hence (plucking figures out of the air) we now see say 4 people have a reaction to a vaccination but maybe 0 people harmed by the actual disease itself hence you could say the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease. However, before vaccination that figure for people harmed could well have been in the hundreds hence when looking at that the vaccine is by far the better option.

 

[Trollslayer]

If you have doubts about vaccination look up "iron lungs"