jeanmark

The question is too general as many chronic conditions require medication. I agree it is good therapy for certain conditions but will not replace medication for a large number of diseases.

That makes more sense now and yes, I agree they should be covered by a lid that protect the content until needed.

I have never seen the programme but I understand the suicides happened at least two years after appearing on the programme so it may be a little unfair to assume the programme was the cause. Mind you I had never watched the Jeremy Kyle programme either but both attracted wide audiences.

But surely we are advised to wash all fruit and vegetables before use, a good practice to adopt whether wrapped or not. As to 'germs', well they can be spread in all kinds of ways, just standing in a queue is risky!

I don't believe the state is trying to interfere with a parents right to choose except when a community as a whole may be affected by one persons decision. On the whole, vaccines have saved countless lives in the world and continue to help reduce the risk from more virulent infections. Unfortunately there will be a small number of individuals who may come to harm and that is tragic for them and their loved ones. However, that is why protocols and guidelines are reviewed and revise to try and prevent further harm. How do we control certain infections that can save a child's life if we refuse too use the very thing that evidence indicates has worked for the majority?

I have been doing that for a number of months and it is so easy to take you own containers plus paper bags. Frozen food etc usually have utensils to use. Waitress has started but many supermarkets would oblige if you took your own containers.

I have to agree Marley444, the bursary for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals was stopped by this government with few having any hope of being high earners. It has been reported that we have over 40,000 nursing post vacant so how do we now encourage more to apply when all they see is debt? When people discuss degrees they tend to forget public servants such as nurses and teachers need degrees!

Sciences does provide data, not to be confused with industry. I try not to focus on the profit making pharmaceutical companies but rather the medical and scientific people who work to fight such infections. It isn't just about industries but scientific progress in the field of medicine. I certainly understand risk v benefit, it was a daily occurrence for me when working. I do believe in vaccines as I spent a large part of my career witnessing the results. I find it a little sad that you do not believe in vaccines as a whole as we have come so far in preventive work as a result of them. I assume you would discourage young girls from getting the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that can protect them from a high-risk type of HPV that has been found to cause the most common cancer in women under 35.

In general vaccines are effective at reducing the incidence and severity of vaccine-preventable diseases but no vaccine is 100% effective against a viral infection. It is also recognise that the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine is the least effective of the three components, providing 88% effectiveness. If I recall the MMR vaccine was introduced in 1971 and outbreaks decreased as a result. The Wakefield report caused a great deal of panic and as a result take-up of MMR vaccination decreased with a noted increase of outbreaks. Now I may be rather naive but I believe there is correlation between the two. There will always be documented outbreaks of viral and other infections in close knit communities, such as the military, but these tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Do you have the same beliefs regarding all vaccinations?

And now there has been a significant increase in mumps cases along with continuing outbreaks of measles. There were 795 cases of mumps in the first three months of 2019, compared with 1,031 in the whole of 2018 with young adults being affected. Do people still believe vaccination should not be made compulsory but the decision left to parents?

Be fair REKS, people are individuals and taste is very subjective. Having said that I don't drink but in the past I have drunk expensive and cheap wine both of which tasted terrible.....

This debate is not discussing the companies that produce the vaccine but its use in trying to prevent outbreaks. You obviously do not consider there is a link between the reduction in children being vaccinated and an increase in outbreaks of measles. If 50 years of a vaccines success has not convinced you of its value I am not sure what will.

If we lived in an idea world, then I would agree but we do not. One problem is that not everyone has the capacity to carry out research and truly understand what the issues are to enable them to make an informed choice. That is why we need experts in the actual field to guide us and I do not mean using social media etc to help make such important decisions. How many parents do you know that have weighed up everything about the future needs of a child before producing one. The majority of parents I know did not really understand the reality of things until the child was actually born, even those who are informed and planned for the event. I do believe that in general, a parent should decided on what is best for their child. However, what happens when their decision could have an impact on others within the community, in such cases is the individual of more importance.

The Oxford Dictionary defines Critical Thinking as "The process of analysing information in an objective way, in order to make a judgement about it". I have always found that people can find it difficult to make a rational, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence when a loved one is involved, particularly when they do not have the expert knowledge and understanding of the the information they trying analyse.

Not something I would have looked at, although the professors I worked with would have. They would also have been involved in advising the government on what was needed based their knowledge and experience. I do know I could never understand those people who contracted malaria whilst on holiday because they couldn't be bothered to continue, or even start, prophylactic medication to prevent it. Interestingly, many said they had listen to friends who didn't believe in such things, even though an expert had advised it! It is also worth recognising that many people will not have to check FCO guidelines as they will be local to that area, and not travellers. Even following the guidelines is not a guarantee of being free from risk of contacting certain conditions.

Well thetruth67, I think we are coming from different directions and will probably not find a middle ground. Having worked in the field of Infectious Disease, Tropical Medicine and HIV for many years, I witnessed the devastation that an infectious disease can cause to an individual and their family. As a result, I am probably less likely to accept that vaccines are more dangerous than the disease it is trying to prevent.

I believe they were awarded funding by UK Research and Innovation through the UK government's Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF) Medicines Manufacturing challenge, and is led by the Jenner Institute. It is based at the Churchill Hospital, Oxford. As to aluminium, my understanding is that because of the amount of aluminium in the environment you are more likely to ingest it via food and water than you would actually get from receiving vaccines. I agree there are those that would object to foetal cells from aborted foetuses being used to help research vaccines but there are also those that would support lives being saved as result.

I think most deaths from measles occur in developing countries where many may not have received the vaccine. There is a misunderstanding that a vaccines give 100% immunity, it doesn't. What it does do is reduce the chances when exposed to the infection and helps reduce the risk of a severe infection. I agree how do you define safe? Any medicine, in what ever form, may cause harm to an individual but we still use them. If you look at all adverse reactions that are true reactions to the actual drug, the number would still be small when compared to the number who benefitted from the drug. It will always be a risk/benefit analysis. The MHRA collects data under the Yellow Card system. Try The Oxford Vaccine Project although I am sure it will not change your thoughts.

I agree the data remans relevant but it is important to identify what the actual cause of the adverse reaction was, whether it is true adverse reaction that is intrinsic to the vaccine, or another cause such as the way it administered. That is why I believe one should be cautious about quoting statistics without background information. Of the statistics you have quoted there were 479 deaths, 656 life threatening and 1320 permanent disability against 56,555 reported reactions during a one year period, but you have given no indication of how many vaccines were actual given over that period or if they related to a specific vaccine such as measles. That would give some idea of frequency of reactions to all or any vaccine to inform parents who are trying to make the decision. In the UK it is the job of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to monitor drug adverse reactions.

Would it not better to use UK data when encouraging people to make an informed choice, it uses the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of adverse event.

I'm not sure what vaccine that child received in 1947 (possibly diphtheria or whooping Cough) but the first licensed vaccine to prevent measles didn't become available until 1963, with an improved measles vaccine introduced in 1968. The MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988. These days guidelines are strict on those children that should be excluded from being vaccinated because of some underlying problem or a family history of certain allergies.

AndjelkaG, I agree that exposure to an infection, particularly in a family setting, does not necessarily mean you will automatically develop the disease, but you may develop a degree of immunity. However, outbreaks of childhood infections do occur and those who have not been vaccinated are at greater risk of developing the infection, but at greater risk are those children unable to be vaccinated because of an underlying disorder and not just immunocompromised children and adults. I am sorry your son developed the infection as vaccines contain a very weak strain of the virus and are rarely infectious to others. It is true that vaccination is no guarantee of total protection, but it does usually meant the infection is less severe, otherwise why bother with any vaccination. This debate appears to focus on the single child rather than looking at the wider picture of the community, but it is a everyone within that community that can suffer as a result of any outbreak.

JinxB, there are some children that have to have single vaccines for a number of reasons. However, for those that can receive MMR but who's parent object, surely a single vaccine is better, posing a lower risk to vulnerable children than no vaccination.

As measles is predominately a childhood disease, the emphases for this debate is on children having the vaccine as that is considered to pose the greater risk of any outbreaks.

JacquelineG47, it is the other way round. If a child does not have the vaccine but is able to, there is an increased risk to a child unable to receive vaccine. As to vaccines with live virus, the virus is a much weaker strain and thus is not a risk to healthy people. The more people vaccinated the less likelihood there is of large outbreaks.

In respect for your communications I will watch but I'm not sure it will necessarily change my way of thinking but will give it a try, I have a great deal of respect and confidence in the experts who taught me so much and work tirelessly to try to tackle the devastation caused by many infectious disease, all have open minds. I also have an understand of how social changes contributed to changes to certain disease patterns.

Parents do have a choice but some are refusing the single vaccine as well.

I agree that research data can be skewed, Andrew Wakefield started the controversy with the measles vaccine following his paper. I also agree it is important to ensure any research is independent of financial gain or other influences and the results can always be replicated by other, independent researches. However, vaccines have been in use for many years and have proven to be successful for many diseases, for example think smallpox and polio. If 50 years of using a specific vaccine for a specific disease accompanied by a decrease in outbreaks of that disease, is not sufficient for you to consider the vaccine effective, I don't feel anyone will convince you of the need for their use.

Surely facts are more likely to be accurate when coming from experts. Facts are facts and the measles vaccine has been in use for 50 years with well documented success, so what alternative views would you except? Do you also question other vaccine efficacy or only that relating to measles?

I do believe there is a correlation between the drop in take-up of the measles vaccine and the increase in the numbers contracting the disease, and I wouldn't rely on one persons view, that is what started the problem. Experts across the world support the need for vaccines, they can't all be wrong. I have worked with experts in the field, most having 30-40 years experience and I never met one who didn't believe in vaccinating against certain diseases. There will always be some individuals who do not benefit from a vaccine, but I believe the number who do benefit make the benefits greater than the risks.

Roald Dahl on Measles: "Olivia, my eldest daughter, caught measles when she was seven years old. As the illness took its usual course I can remember reading to her often in bed and not feeling particularly alarmed about it. Then one morning, when she was well on the road to recovery, I was sitting on her bed showing her how to fashion little animals out of coloured pipe-cleaners, and when it came to her turn to make one herself, I noticed that her fingers and her mind were not working together and she couldn’t do anything. 'Are you feeling all right?' I asked her. 'I feel all sleepy,' she said. In an hour, she was unconscious. In twelve hours she was dead. The measles had turned into a terrible thing called measles encephalitis and there was nothing the doctors could do to save her. That was...in 1962, but even now, if a child with measles happens to develop the same deadly reaction from measles as Olivia did, there would still be nothing the doctors could do to help her. On the other hand, there is today something that parents can do to make sure that this sort of tragedy does not happen to a child of theirs. They can insist that their child is immunised against measles. ...I dedicated two of my books to Olivia, the first was ‘James and the Giant Peach’. That was when she was still alive. The second was ‘The BFG’, dedicated to her memory after she had died from measles. You will see her name at the beginning of each of these books. And I know how happy she would be if only she could know that her death had helped to save a good deal of illness and death among other children." Roald Dahl, 1986

Yes, they have the right to refuse, but do they have the right to increase measles risk to another child who is unable to be vaccinated because of an underlying problem?

Mrs Pat, I may have not made my point clear. There are children who are unable to be vaccinated for a number of reasons that are outside of the control of the parent and the NHS. The problem arises when a healthy child is not vaccination because of their parents beliefs, as a result that action puts other more vulnerable children at increased risk, is that fair or right?

But Mrs Pat, do they have the right to make that decision when it can be fatal for the child of a parent who doesn't have a choice? What about the rights of the parent with a child who is unable to be vaccinated because of some underlying cause?

Does a parent have the right to make a decision not to have their child vaccinated? If yes, do they have the right to allow another child to die as a result, if that child is unable to be vaccinated because of an underlying condition. Vaccination isn't just about protecting an individual, it is about protecting all in society.

Does a parent have the right to make a decision not to have their child vaccinated? If yes, do they have the right to allow another child to died as a result, if that child is unable to be vaccinated because of an underlying condition. Vaccination isn't just about protecting an individual, it is about protecting all in society.

May be if she consults with an expert medical consultant dealing with vaccinations and travel medicines - those specialising in Tropical Medicine and Infectious Diseases, she may get a better idea of what is possible and also what is actually needed, that would also satisfy travel insurers.

You can get a small number for free on the V&A museum website. Mind you they are in 2, 3 and 4 ply yarn. Also Pinterest is a good source for finding things, just type in your search and see what they find.

You can always take photos and put them on the Showcase. If you're on Facebook, try joining Handmade cards, drawings, painting, paper craft and general crafts and/or Handmade Card Making ideas/discussion where you can also post photos of your work. I assume you already use Pinterest for ideas and techniques.

Why not try asking instead of snooping?