my children are vaccinated, but i chose to have it done by single vaccines rather than the mysteriously "must have" triple combined vaccine.
and it could only be defined as neglect not abuse, neglect is not doing domething whivh is to the detriment of the child whereas abuse is actually doing something to the child which is to their detriment. thus it could be argued that if there is a link between MMR and problems for the child (such as is believed to be the case in Japan where they have stopped MMR altogther or in the USA where parenst have litigated for damages to thier children or as in other Ec countires that offer the choice) then the state is actually abusing these children.
of course as eminants of the state, doctors should really give children the sinlge vaccines if that is all the parents will consent to, otherwise it is in contravention of the Children Act 1989. of course doctors are "persuaded" (by monetary reward) to ensure mbuttive uptake of the MMR and needless to say over half of the CSM are shareholders in the pharmacy company concerned.
this isnt about what is best for our children (i believe vaccination is though) it is about what is most profitable at the expense of our children
-- jon keep claude happy and snip the garbage to make it work