Take-up of MMR vaccine falls for fourth year in a row.

[eldar]

Woody John said:

More visits. So what. I pay enough for it.

I see a cocktail of vaccinations in one visit akin to binge drinking.
The same number of drinks/vaccines spread out is much more manageable.

But oh no says the GP. Our evidence says its not a risk and rejected the request.
Not happy.

You might find a GP that would do what you want on a private basis. But, assuming you aren't an anti-vaxxer, the recommended regimen is proven to be the most effective way to provide immunity.

I'd be wary of paying too much attention to the conspiracy theorists. Measles is becoming more common, and you really don't want your kids to catch it.

[minimoog]

Jasandjules said:

But if you think a newspaper report has merit, well... What about this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3821823?fbclid...

You seem to be beating about the bush. What point are you trying to make?

I mean other than WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

Also, are you offspring vaccinated? Why won't you answer this question?

[julian64]

Woody John said:

I would prefer building natural immunity.

For example. Giving a child MMR should prevent them getting mumps young.
Instead they may well get it at 18 when the vaccine wears off. It is much more dangerous to adult males than young males.
This makes no sense to me.

Why are they vaccinating against STD's?
Very strange.

I don't think you really understand much about immunity.

[vonuber]

Woody John said:

I would prefer building natural immunity.

For example. Giving a child MMR should prevent them getting mumps young.
Instead they may well get it at 18 when the vaccine wears off. It is much more dangerous to adult males than young males.
This makes no sense to me.

Why are they vaccinating against STD's?
Very strange.

Rotavirus.
So a child picks up something and the body excretes it via diarrhea and vomiting.
All very natural. Why prevent this?

vonuber said:

I feel sorry for your children to be honest.

[Woody John]

eldar said:

Woody John said:

More visits. So what. I pay enough for it.

I see a cocktail of vaccinations in one visit akin to binge drinking.
The same number of drinks/vaccines spread out is much more manageable.

But oh no says the GP. Our evidence says its not a risk and rejected the request.
Not happy.

You might find a GP that would do what you want on a private basis. But, assuming you aren't an anti-vaxxer, the recommended regimen is proven to be the most effective way to provide immunity.

I'd be wary of paying too much attention to the conspiracy theorists. Measles is becoming more common, and you really don't want your kids to catch it.

Its nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

Most effective for who? The medical practice processing plant?
I have genuine concerns and was given a blunt no to spacing vaccinations.
Yet they are happy to have the childs vaccinations delayed because I wont have them all in one go.
Makes me question the very foundations of their agenda.

[Woody John]

vonuber said:

Woody John said:

I would prefer building natural immunity.

For example. Giving a child MMR should prevent them getting mumps young.
Instead they may well get it at 18 when the vaccine wears off. It is much more dangerous to adult males than young males.
This makes no sense to me.

Why are they vaccinating against STD's?
Very strange.

Rotavirus.
So a child picks up something and the body excretes it via diarrhea and vomiting.
All very natural. Why prevent this?

vonuber said:

I feel sorry for your children to be honest.

Is that the best you can do?

[968]

Jasandjules said:

If someone actually wants to read something, you know by doctors and stuff with history and data and indeed research references, try these:

You have this https://vaccinesafetycommission.org/pdfs/Kass%2019...

This one may also be interesting for some https://vaccinesafetycommission.org/pdfs/McKinlay%...

So I am an actual doctor with actual qualifications, some of which are in this area and you’re spouting dangerous nonsense with no basis. The anti vaccine movement has been thoroughly disproved. The whole basis of your argument here has been disassembled many times.

Interestingly you don’t seem to want to answer whether you’re own children are vaccinated or not.

Others here don’t seem to understand how the immune system works and how vaccinations work.

[Jasandjules]

minimoog said:

You seem to be beating about the bush. What point are you trying to make?

Perhaps you will answer the question that vexes me most.

Why do you feel it is right that if a child is killed or harmed by vaccines when under two years old, there is no compensatory award made to the parents or the child for the death or harm caused respectively?

(we will of course ignore the requirements for severe disability at this stage as plainly you are fully aware of the remit of that issue and what constitutes severe)

[968]

Woody John said:

Its nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

Most effective for who? The medical practice processing plant?
I have genuine concerns and was given a blunt no to spacing vaccinations.
Yet they are happy to have the childs vaccinations delayed because I wont have them all in one go.
Makes me question the very foundations of their agenda.

What agenda? To prevent your child from significant morbidity? The MMR is safe and has been proven categorically to be safe and effective beyond any doubt. So why not have the vaccination?

[minimoog]

Jasandjules said:

But if you think a newspaper report has merit, well... What about this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3821823?fbclid...

I'm unfamiliar with some of the terminology in that abstract, so perhaps one of the thread docs can help me out, but it seems to be saying that the outbreak occurred in those for whom the vaccination had not conferred full immunity, and that this was predominantly in those who had only received a single dose of the vaccine. Those who had received two doses had higher rates of immunity, and none of the children who were immune (either from a single or double vaccine dose) contracted the disease.

So again, what is your point?

[968]

Jasandjules said:

Perhaps you will answer the question that vexes me most.

Why do you feel it is right that if a child is killed or harmed by vaccines when under two years old, there is no compensatory award made to the parents or the child for the death or harm caused respectively?

(we will of course ignore the requirements for severe disability at this stage as plainly you are fully aware of the remit of that issue and what constitutes severe)

Let’s ask you again, are your children vaccinated?

[deckster]

Woody John said:

vonuber said:

Woody John said:

I would prefer building natural immunity.

For example. Giving a child MMR should prevent them getting mumps young.
Instead they may well get it at 18 when the vaccine wears off. It is much more dangerous to adult males than young males.
This makes no sense to me.

Why are they vaccinating against STD's?
Very strange.

Rotavirus.
So a child picks up something and the body excretes it via diarrhea and vomiting.
All very natural. Why prevent this?

vonuber said:

I feel sorry for your children to be honest.

Is that the best you can do?

So how about, I feel sorry for your children because you appear to be one of those people who understands little and who is very bad at evaluating information sources. If we extrapolate that into other areas of life beyond inoculations, then we might be tempted to assume that you are prone to making poor decisions based on limited information and also unwilling to change your mind when presented with contrary evidence.

These aren't games we're playing. Getting your kids vaccinated is a deadly serious responsibility, in every sense of the word. Many very intelligent, diligent, and committed people have spent vast amounts of time in understanding what is best for both the individual and for society as a whole, and thinking that you know better because of a feeling, or because you don't understand, or because you read something on a website (or were told something by your plumber) is as arrogant as it is irresponsible.

[gregs656]

Woody John said:

I would prefer building natural immunity.

For example. Giving a child MMR should prevent them getting mumps young.
Instead they may well get it at 18 when the vaccine wears off. It is much more dangerous to adult males than young males.
This makes no sense to me.

Why are they vaccinating against STD's?
Very strange.

Rotavirus.
So a child picks up something and the body excretes it via diarrhea and vomiting.
All very natural. Why prevent this?

MMR doesn't wear off. Hep B isn't just an STD.

An infant isn't a child.

[minimoog]

Jasandjules said:

Why do you feel it is right that if a child is killed or harmed by vaccines when under two years old, there is no compensatory award made to the parents or the child for the death or harm caused respectively?

(we will of course ignore the requirements for severe disability at this stage as plainly you are fully aware of the remit of that issue and what constitutes severe)

Tell you what sunshine, you toddle off and show me where I voiced an opinion - agreement or otherwise - on the issue of compensatory awards or what constitues severe disability, then we can continue.

[eldar]

Woody John said:

Its nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

Most effective for who? The medical practice processing plant?
I have genuine concerns and was given a blunt no to spacing vaccinations.
Yet they are happy to have the childs vaccinations delayed because I wont have them all in one go.
Makes me question the very foundations of their agenda.

Most effective for all children. Yours and mine. You can choose to endanger your kids, I don’t want your choice to endanger mine. It’s sad you would imagine it’s acceptable.

[Woody John]

eldar said:

Woody John said:

Its nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

Most effective for who? The medical practice processing plant?
I have genuine concerns and was given a blunt no to spacing vaccinations.
Yet they are happy to have the childs vaccinations delayed because I wont have them all in one go.
Makes me question the very foundations of their agenda.

Most effective for all children. Yours and mine. You can choose to endanger your kids, I don’t want your choice to endanger mine. It’s sad you would imagine it’s acceptable.

You don't seem to understand the risk of administering the vaccinations.

Anyway if they are vaccinated why are you worried?

Edited by Woody John on Tuesday 12th March 19:04

[Jasandjules]

968 said:

So I am an actual doctor with actual qualifications

Great. Perhaps you will answer the question then:

Do you feel it is right that there is no compensatory award made when a child under two years old is killed or severely disabled by a vaccine?

You will of course be fully aware of what constitutes severely disabled for the purposes of this exercise and thereby noting exactly what level of harm is precluded in any event regardless of age of injury, for those who are unaware of the same.

[WinstonWolf]

968 said:

Jasandjules said:

Perhaps you will answer the question that vexes me most.

Why do you feel it is right that if a child is killed or harmed by vaccines when under two years old, there is no compensatory award made to the parents or the child for the death or harm caused respectively?

(we will of course ignore the requirements for severe disability at this stage as plainly you are fully aware of the remit of that issue and what constitutes severe)

Let’s ask you again, are your children vaccinated?

This question will be asked every time you ask a question until you answer it.

Why should you pose questions when you won't answer?

[Woody John]

julian64 said:

Woody John said:

I would prefer building natural immunity.

For example. Giving a child MMR should prevent them getting mumps young.
Instead they may well get it at 18 when the vaccine wears off. It is much more dangerous to adult males than young males.
This makes no sense to me.

Why are they vaccinating against STD's?
Very strange.

I don't think you really understand much about immunity.

So the risky vaccination prevents people getting a perfectly natural disease.
That disease then mutates and the vaccinated people end up getting a more complex version of the same disease.

Sounds like a lose lose to me.

[_dobbo_]

popeyewhite said:

Fortunately we live in a relatively tolerant society where parents don't have to have their children inoculated by the state just yet. Education, not making inoculations mandatory, is by far the best option.

Education isn't working. This thread is evidence of that. In this thread we have genuine comments questioning the "agenda" of the NHS when it comes to administering vaccines.

Jasandjules has been a member here for over a decade, and comes across as well educated whenever I've encountered their comments. But in this thread....

Education isn't working. MOre and more children are going un-vaccinated, and outbreaks of preventable diseases are increasing.

I'm quite happy for vaccinations to be optional. I don't think un-vaccinated children should be allowed into schools or pre-schools.