Belgium sends parents to prison for refusing to vaccinate their children

[bikuki]

Doctors (well, actually nurses, but anyway...) will administer any licensed vaccine if it is indicated. If you have come across a reluctant doctor then that's no fault of the system, but rather of that individual. I have met plenty of people having to pay the £80-odd for a non-NHS vaccine and never come across a doc unwilling to administer it even though it's not funded by the NHS.

[HedgeWitch]

the government wont license the individual vaccinations which prevents anyone routinely requesting them instead of the combined vaccination (which would make it free under the NHS). Thats why concerned parents have to travel to the local centres that charge an arm and a leg. It is licensed in other countries but our Government prefers the cheaper riskier option.

Can I presume you are in favour of amputation then where serious leg\arm injuries occur instead of long term and expensive treatment plans that would require more funding?

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by HedgeWitch

but our Government prefers the cheaper riskier option.

It's not riskier, though.

[HedgeWitch]

Theres enough doubt for Dr Wakefields' research to be reviewed and re-investigated.

Personally if theres doubt as parents we should have choice. Its a circular arguament .

[bikuki]

Again you have contradicted yourself - you say they're not licensed and then say you can get them at a private clinic. Are they simply not licenced on the NHS, as that is a different thing entirely.

I do not appreciate your condecending tone. I did not say 'get the cheapest option', I said that the most effective option should be the one available if the risks are not too great - as the risk of MMR vaccines is highly doubted in any educated circles then it should be the one available. You do realise that Dr Wakefield admitted that he made the whole thing up. The fact that the most effective vaccine happens to be cheaper is a happy bonus. My arguement about not funding the single vaccines is that it is a waste of money.

Originally Posted by HedgeWitch

Theres enough doubt for Dr Wakefields' research to be reviewed and re-investigated.

Personally if theres doubt as parents we should have choice. Its a circular arguament .

You do have a choice - if you're stupid enough to believe the hype then the NHS shouldn't have to fund your paranoia.

Also, speaking about 'vaccine-damaged' children - vaccine damage can occur with any vaccine, including the single vaccines. Risks are weighed up with benefits, and the MMR came up trumps.

[bikuki]

After some research I'm going to admit that I was wrong on one point - the single jags isn't licenced in the UK (and thus I don't know what you were talking about in reference to 'private clinics')
The reason for this - they haven't met safety standards and aren't recommended in any country they are available in. Would you rather give your child something that hasn't met the stringent safety standards of medicine in this country, or something that has been given to millions of children over the past 20 years with viritally non-existant percentage of ill effects?
There are plenty of reasons why the single vaccines are not recommended:
- they simply aren't as safe
- any side effects that can occur (which as I said may occur with any vaccines, and even more so with unlicenced drugs) have a 3-fold chance of occuring as you are giving the child 3 times as many doses of vaccine
- If a child has an adverse reaction to one of the injections there is an extremely high chance that the parents will be unwilling to bring him back for the remainder of the course. There is good evidence that this occurs on a pretty regular basis.
- The prolonged period between the vaccinations leaves the child more succeptable to both getting one of the diseases and passing it on to a friend or younger sibling.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by HedgeWitch

Theres enough doubt for Dr Wakefields' research to be reviewed and re-investigated.

Personally if theres doubt as parents we should have choice. Its a circular arguament .

The ONLY reason Dr Wakefield's "research" is being reviewed and reinvestigated is to try to clip the paranoia it has induced. Not working because the mainstream media are only interested in what scientists say when it's a good scare story. There is as much evidence for MMR causing autism as there is for the moon being made of green cheese.
Measles cases are higher now than they have been for a long time, on a scale which corresponds exactly with the scare stories. This is NOT a trivial disease.
It may seem like withholding the vaccine is the better risk because we've never had a big measles outbreak in any of our lifetimes because of the vaccine.

[bikuki]

Measles kills babies. There's a great scare story - AND 100% TRUE.

[HedgeWitch]

The nhs hasn't licenced the seperate injections, as we, the british government haven't done tests on it. However numerous other countries have tested it and it is found to be perfectly ok, with no adverse affects. Therefore it can only be obtained at certain clinics. I don't think i can make it much clearer than that and your confusion is confusing me.

There is enough doubt in educated circles to continue retesting to clarify Dr Wakefields results. The link that was given in his reasearch was tenuous because he tested on already autistic children and the test group was very small, this does not however mean it was a load of guff. We need to continue investigating until it is proven conclusively one way or the other. That is why we will continue going round in circles playing the "last word" game

My concern is that the government doesnt tell us the truth the whole time. Thats a fact. If 2 vaccines are available let us decide which ones our children get. We are not all imbeciles in this country and choice should always be available. Otherwise we get nearer and nearer to a dictatorship.

I'm not being condescending, i apologise if you read it that way, i'm just showing how your argument can be a tad brutal.

Just because its cheaper doesnt mean we should be obliged to use it. I pay my taxes too. Should NHS dentists only extract teeth instead of long term care plans as its cheaper? What about cancer drugs?? Or are we saying kids treatments arent as important as those available to higher profile illnesses??

What next sterilize people with certain genetic profiles, as its cheaper long term? Where does that lead?

[HedgeWitch]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

It may seem like withholding the vaccine is the better risk because we've never had a big measles outbreak in any of our lifetimes because of the vaccine.

I'm not clear what you mean? I'm not saying withold vaccines, i'm saying make the seperate vaccines available. That way the parents who are dubious about the mmr have another option available to them and there will be far fewer risks of outbreak. The government however leaves low income parents who don't want these jabs with no choice but to let their children go without as they can't afford the alternative. A rod for their own back i think. It's senseless.

[Semprini]

Originally Posted by HedgeWitch

What next sterilize people with certain genetic profiles, as its cheaper long term? Where does that lead?

To a strawman argument, by the looks of things.

[HedgeWitch]

Originally Posted by bikuki

Measles kills babies. There's a great scare story - AND 100% TRUE.

I know, it's awful. And such a shame they are not vaccinated until they are 2 years old. Perhaps medical science should come up with an alternative to give to younger babies.

Originally Posted by Semprini

To a strawman argument, by the looks of things.

Better than a flat earth theory

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by HedgeWitch

There is enough doubt in educated circles to continue retesting to clarify Dr Wakefields results.

I know Bikuki is very well educated and I'd like to think that I have a reasonable medical education. I think Bikuki, at least, is well positioned to take an educated stance on the matter.
In my experience in medical research, I've never met anyone who thinks Wakefield's research is valid.

[bikuki]

Originally Posted by HedgeWitch

The nhs hasn't licenced the seperate injections, as we, the british government haven't done tests on it.

Since when has the NHS started licencing drugs and the government started carrying out drug tests?

Originally Posted by HedgeWitch

However numerous other countries have tested it and it is found to be perfectly ok, with no adverse affects. Therefore it can only be obtained at certain clinics. I don't think i can make it much clearer than that and your confusion is confusing me.

As I said previously, just because other countries have licenced it doesn't mean it's recommended. Call me cynical but in a country dominated by private healthcare, such as the US, the more expeisive drugs are more likely to be used just as you are more likely to get any number of uneccessary and expensive investigations - the doc gets paid more.
And as I said above, the single vaccines are not 100% safe and effective.

Originally Posted by HedgeWitch

There is enough doubt in educated circles to continue retesting to clarify Dr Wakefields results. The link that was given in his reasearch was tenuous because he tested on already autistic children and the test group was very small, this does not however mean it was a load of guff. We need to continue investigating until it is proven conclusively one way or the other. That is why we will continue going round in circles playing the "last word" game

I still don't see why the NHS should fund something that they have deemed not safe and ineffective over on top of funding an established programme just because a few people are 'a bit worried about it'.

Originally Posted by HedgeWitch

My concern is that the government doesnt tell us the truth the whole time. Thats a fact. If 2 vaccines are available let us decide which ones our children get. We are not all imbeciles in this country and choice should always be available. Otherwise we get nearer and nearer to a dictatorship.

You may not be an 'imbecile' but you do not have all of the required knowledge and facts - why don't you trust those who do?

Originally Posted by HedgeWitch

Just because its cheaper doesnt mean we should be obliged to use it. I pay my taxes too. Should NHS dentists only extract teeth instead of long term care plans as its cheaper? What about cancer drugs?? Or are we saying kids treatments arent as important as those available to higher profile illnesses??

What next sterilize people with certain genetic profiles, as its cheaper long term? Where does that lead?

I can't decide whether you are deliberately misinterprating my arguement or simply that you cannot comprehend it - I have said on numerous occasions that the MMR vaccine is safer and more effective than the single vaccines. The concept of using NHS money to fund a less safe and less efficacious vaccine over ontop of the already funded one makes as much sense to me as funding Voodoo chants for those who do not believe in Western medicine*.
Take the case of infliximab - this is a ridiculously expensive drug, but a highly effacious one. You can't say I am against expensive drugs (or that the government is trying to block them) if you take that as a case in point.


*look, I can do ludicrously far-fetched analogies, too - but at least mine actually address the point in hand rather than deliberatly ignoring points which do not suit my arguement and attack the character of the person with whom I am having the debate

[HedgeWitch]

Originally Posted by bikuki

Since when has the NHS started licencing drugs and the government started carrying out drug tests?

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/index.htm

" Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

An executive agency of the Department of Health" - A government agency that licenses drugs for use under the NHS...

Originally Posted by bikuki

Quote:
Originally Posted by HedgeWitch
My concern is that the government doesnt tell us the truth the whole time. Thats a fact. If 2 vaccines are available let us decide which ones our children get. We are not all imbeciles in this country and choice should always be available. Otherwise we get nearer and nearer to a dictatorship.

You may not be an 'imbecile' but you do not have all of the required knowledge and facts - why don't you trust those who do?

to paraphrase ~ "Trust is a relationship of reliance. A trusted party is presumed to seek to fulfill policies, ethical codes, law and their previous
promises." - Do you trust the government unerringly on everything you are told; surely we should be allowed to question and not just listen to what we are told. Many parents have noticed significant changes in their children after take up of the MMR combined jab; how is this explained or is it a reasonable risk to take "the needs of the many over the few" etc - tell that to a parent who loses a bright sparkling child after the government tell them its safe - just like thalidomide was eh??.

All I want is choice - to get combined or seperate injections at my friendly local GP that I pay through the nose for in taxes NI payments etc.