Well, it's good to know that you feel you have 'won' - how childish! There are no winners or losers just differing opinions.

It's not an awkward question that has been sidestepped - Yet again you are trying to draw me into your perfect little hypothetical world (choose a or b ignoring everything else). All studies have to be paid for and the type of study you are talking about would cost billions - who would pay for this? This immediately puts bias on the results.

childish, me?

wateva.

I think you won mark lol.

denise xx

.....and......relax........no winners, no losers....just participants

I'd love to know if the anti-vax people take antimalarials when they travel to SE asia, or antibiotics when they are sick. Because really, you either believe in medicine, or not. Medicine is empirical. Show me the evidence, and all that. First, do no harm. If y'all genuinely think that pharma money would prevent a study showing a true causal relationship between vax and autism being published, you're frigging mad and there's no point even discussing it, because you're not open to logic.

BTW, any number of entities would pay for the study - research grants from academia, the NIH, CDC, WHO etc etc.

It appears that people choose to vaccinate for various reasons and I do not believe that any of their reasons are invalid. At the end of the day, the choice whether to vaccinate a child against a particular disease belongs to the parent - not the Doctor, the Government or the greater public. Despite what I choose, I would never condemn any parent for making a different choice.
I have seen some of the damages that vaccines have had on otherwise healthy children and adults, including death. I have witnessed their parents despair at not being told of the possible dangers and side effects of vaccines. I have read many different reports and studies and attended various lectures given by doctors, scientists and other medical professionals. I have not gone into my decision blindly and I believe I have made an informed decision, whether it be the right one or the wrong one.
It may turn out to be the wrong one - time will tell. Meanwhile however, my children continue to enjoy excellent health, afforded them through a healthy diet and lifestyle and an immune system that has not been overloaded at an early age with all kinds of frightening chemicals. I wouldn't spoonfeed my children formaldehyde, mercury, aluminium and other such chemicals so I would not inject it directly into their bloodstream either.
My children have had measles and chicken pox without any bother - in fact, they both fared much better than those in their classes who were fully vaccinated, many of them so ill that they were away from school for weeks and months. This proved to me anyway, that vaccinations would not have given my children better cover from the side-effects of these particular diseases.
At the end of the day, this debate will go on and on. Perhaps, as my own Doctor suggested to me many years ago, we should just agree to disagree.

With regards to anti malarials - two words 'never again'.

I was told that there were no side effects with Malarone tablets or at least minimal side effects.

Although I had to sign a form to say that I wouldnt become pregnant whilst taking them or for 3 months afterwards.

They raised my LFTs considerably (and my husbands), we were incredibly sick with them, had all the symptoms of raised liver enzymes including the itchy skin.

Then some smug prick on our holiday said 'Oh its better than malaria' - I say smug, because she was one of the lucky ones that had not suffered malarone sickness.

And yes, it was probably better than malaria which I am not disputing. But those tablets were so toxic that we were advised by a doctor on holiday to stop them - luckily we hadnt been bitten.

We felt so ill while taking them that we would have happily flown home because it was that bad.

Luckily our time to take them was in the last few days of the holiday, although it took a while after the last tablet to get back to normal.

If I ever went back to Africa I would either try and avoid malarial hotspots or I would take my chances.

Saying that, we used some DEET/Citronella wrist and ankle bands plus tons of DEET spray and perhaps that is why we were not bitten.

A very toxic tablet that while for some may be fine, for us it wasn't.

Really? I'm surprised at that. You should have been told "there is a small chance that you may have one or more of the listed side effects, some of which are serious." As we've discussed before, there are well documented side effects.

Have you gone back to the doctor to explain how you feel in terms of making an informed decision at the time? (If that makes sense.)

The travel clinic in London said that there were few side effects to malarone and 'everyone that she had dispensed it to had got on with it'

We didnt get it from our GP. Perhaps its true in the sense that her patients didnt have any side effects.

I remember you and I talking about side effects of malaria tablets, but when you go to a travel clinic, malarone is the one they push on the basis of 'fewer side effects'.

Sweet Jesus, if those are fewer side effects then god knows what the others will do.

Even our practice nurse at our GP said 'I am surprised you were ill with those, never heard that before' and she was genuinely shocked.

As I have never been to an area that has endemic Malaria (nor do I intend to) I have never looked into this. I do know that the antimalarials can have significant side effects (as Professional Princess has suffered). If I should ever have to travel to one of these countries I will research first then consider risk versus benefit.

It seems to be generally accepted that it was the many years of handing out antibiotics like sweets that has led to the proliferation of MRSA and other antibiotic resistant bacteria. Personally I haven't taken an antibiotic in years - I have had them prescribed to me but I haven't taken them. At the end of last year I had Influenza A and the doctor prescribed an antibiotic. We then had the following discussion -

'But Doctor, isn't flu caused by a virus?'
'yes it is.'
'So what good is an antibiotic going to be?'
'You should take it in case of secondary infection, just in case.'
'OK, thank you Doctor, I'll come back if I get a secondary infection.'

My other example is when I had an RTA and was badly lacerated, the Doctor prescribed antibiotics - same discussion as above but from the third line.

If my Daughter had life threatening Meningitis, yes I would give her antibiotics.

I think this rather over simplifies the field of medicine, there are many branches and approaches to healthcare, some good, some bad, some indifferent.

I don't think resulting to swearing at people really helps your cause.

Oh dear - where do you think these bodies get their funding from? Money doesn't grow on trees, much as we would like it to.

Government taxation, the general public & bequeaths, charities, lottery money?


(V weird that yr doc gave you ABx for a viral infection.)

Not really, this has happened to me several times - you have a virus, take these antibiotics just in case.

Just for the record, my decision not to vaccinate was taken before his initial findings were published and the media 'circus' began.

One other thing that people seem to forget is that Dr Wakefield was most definitely pro-vaccination.

Hi Trekrider... are you implying that you would only use anti-biotics as a last resort? (or am I reading too much into your words).

How about - if you had cut yourself, and the wound had started to become infected.... would you agree to a course of anti biotics?

cheers

Ok