My daughter, who I don't live with, was not immunised as her mother, who never consulted me, didn't think it was a good idea. To cut a long story short, I have full access to my daughter but her mother is a control freak and despite convincing herself otherwise, is very reluctant to cede any control of such things as immunisation to me.
When we did finally talk about it, she gave, as her reasons not to, the worry of the triple vaccine that was circulating around that time. Also her boyfriend (she has a child with him too) said that he believed the BMA were in the pockets of the pharmaceutical giants and that immunisations, or at least some of them, were not as important as we have been led to believe.
I would like to hear your views on the MMR and the attitude of the pharmaceutical companies wrt immunisation.
2007-09-02 05:30:08 · 7 answers · asked by tuthutop 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Medicine
The MMR vaccine does NOT cause autism, as other posters have already explained.
Pharmaceutical companies make most of their money on drugs that you have to take for long term treatment (like for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc). Think about it--they'd make more money if you did NOT immunize your kids, because then they could sell you all the drugs to treat all those illnesses. If your kid is vaccinated, s/he will not get sick and not have to buy any of those drugs.
Parents who don't vaccinate their kids are banking on the fact that other parents DO vaccinate their kids. It's called "herd immunity". If 999 of 1000 kids in a community are vaccinated against measles and a guy with the measles comes into town, the chances of that one unvaccinated kid getting measles is very low, because that kid will have to come into direct contact with the sick guy. If only 500 of 1000 kids are vaccinated, and your kid is one of the unvaccinated ones, even if s/he doesn't come into contact with the sick guy, one of the other 499 unvaccinated kids could come into contact with the sick guy, then spread it around at school before realizing they are sick. See how that works? Your daughter is lucky that other mothers see the benefits of vaccination.
Why doesn't anyone get smallpox or polio anymore? Vaccination.
2007-09-02 11:30:41 · answer #1 · answered by knowitall 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There seems to be a lot of evidence that MMR is safe. The GP who started off the whole scare is currently being investigated for misconduct. The publication of his paper was an example of peer review breaking down. There may be a problem with autism but there is no evidence that MMR is responsible. Proof of this includes epidemiology studies from Scandinavia where MMR is widely used. As for immunisation not being important, it is not while everyone else is being immunised. There is a lager increase in measles at the moment and this is not always a trivial juvenile disease.
2007-09-02 07:28:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The benefits of immunisation far outweigh the very rare possible side-effects associated with them. I'm sorry but the boyfriend is an idiot if the only reason he is using for not having immunisation is because pharma companies are wanting more money. The health of the child should always come first and preventing the illness (safely) is surely far better than waiting for them to catch it and then become immune? If the MMR triple vaccine is a worry for you, even though problems are very rare, then get separate vaccinations. Regardless it is better to be vaccinated than not.
2007-09-03 02:45:23 · answer #3 · answered by Hegs11 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To answer this in an American idiom, I'd say that immunizations are to the pharmaceutical industry as what tinted windows is to the auto industry. In other words, it's not their biggest moneymaker. Nevertheless, they have had to spend a lot of research dollars to make them safe and effective.
Your very respected medical journal Lancet retracted the article it published several years ago on the association between the MMR vaccine and autism.
Again, in the USA, measles was one of the top causes of death in children into the 1940's. I saw a lot of measles before the vaccine was widely used, and those kids were very ill.
If your ex wants to immunize your daughter with three separate injections, OK. At least see to it that the child is immunized.
2007-09-02 10:18:51 · answer #4 · answered by greydoc6 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
On the news this very week was the fact of a measles outbreak, and further in general, when you don't innoculate your child then they have no way to defend.
check out : http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26796
That whole MMR/Autism thing was hype and nothing more than bad research by Dr Andrew Wakefield, who if I'm not mistaken got charged with an offence. His whole theory was based on his own delusions and it's all been scientifically discredited.
Unfortunately, just like Edwina Curry and the eggs, once the media get hold of it, it scares people.
Why has measles broken out again? because the children are not vaccinated.
Good luck with the mother-in-law thing and I would question where her boyfriend gets the idea of BMA being in pharm-pockets? is that from personal research he has done or is he just spouting nonsense?
2007-09-02 07:32:25 · answer #5 · answered by Inquisitive 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A local GP is an advocate against the MMR and has written a book about it. I mean having three separate jabs seemed sensible when i was a kid so why change it. I would suggest that you speak with your ex again on the subject, you should not be left out of the loop. Consult legal counsel for advice.
2007-09-02 05:41:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm pregnant with triplets and Ive already decided what I'm doing
I'm going to pay and get them done separately perhaps this can be some kinda of compromise between you and your ex say you are willing to pay for the shots separately. that way your child gets immunised without the risk of the triple vaccine
2007-09-02 05:34:20 · answer #7 · answered by spongebobs biggest fan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋