ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
to think it's not terribly helpful to keep referring to parents who haven't MMR'd as "whack jobs"...(865 Posts)
..or morons, or unfit parents, or up there with people who drink and drive?
I appreciate that people have very strong feelings around the subject, but I think that we need to understand that there are a significant number of parents who didn't/haven't vaccinated, not because they are crystal waving nutjobs, but because they are actually scared shitless and paralysed into indecision?
Surely there are ways and means to communicate information, and arrogantly shouting about how one person is right and anyone who disagrees is all kinds of nobhead is not going to be conducive in opening up reasonable dialogue?
But it supposedly doesn't work - according to you don't pretend I'm just making this up. The mmr is safe and there is no evidence it causes autism. Now if one day it is shown there is a small sub group who are affected and we are able to identify this subgroup - then yes of course they should be tested and an alternative found for this subgroup.
And can you really not understand that some children are more at risk from the vaccination than from the disease. Do you just not understand that, or are you simply pretending such children don't exist
There is no evidence that the subgroup you are worried about is at risk from regression caused by mmr.
I'm not anti safe vaccination, we have safe vaccination. I'm very much pro it.
I would have thought it goes without saying that I made an informed decision to enrol my child in a clinical trial. The people running the trial were also, as one would expect, extremely hot on the "informed consent" issue, what with them having little babies having injections and blood samples taken as part of their trial. I am a scientist, and was a research scientist before my daughter was born, so this is actually something I know something about. For you to so rudely suggest I enrolled in this trial because there must obviously be some personal benefit involved says more about you than me. For you to then accuse me of irresponsible behaviour towards my child is just frankly insulting and unpleasant and, put simply, really nasty behaviour.
On top of your earlier unsupported accusation that I called the parents of autistic children "stupid", it seems to me you have decided personally attacking me is a good idea. I'd rather you stopped, it adds nothing to this debate.
temp I think what cherries means is a general understanding of scientific principles.
There are many contentious issues eg
Homeopathy - a few people insist water has a memory
Climate change - lots of people do not accept this
Evolution - creationists and intelligent design much more of a big deal in
Oh the irony of you accusing me of personal attacks. And as the parent of a child who regressed it sounded very much as if you were saying we are all too stupid to recognise the reasons for a regression (not quite the same as 'stupid' full stop)
No I didn't say you enrolled because there would be a personal benefit I said you enrolled because (a) it was safe and (b) your child might gain some benefit from it? If those conditions were not met why on earth would you enrol in anything. Presumably if you thought there was no benefit then you would have assured yourself that the risk was absolutely minimal. It was you who said you did it for society, not me.
I was a research scientist as well - although I find medal waving a bit tiresome.
Whenshewas - but people who work in this field are already saying they think there's good evidence that some children are more at risk even if they can't identify exactly which ones yet or exactly why. Are you really saying if you had a child you knew to be in the group you would happily vaccinate just because no-one can tell you that they're definitely at risk? Wow.
<insert> *you thought before (a)
they think there's good evidence so there's no evidence yet.
they can't identify exactly which ones yet so the group that might might be at risk can't be identified yet.
I've already said if you could identify the at risk group (I feel the need to point out again that there is no evidence mmr causes autism) and if you could then prove there actually was a risk of regression to these patients then no don't give them the mmr.
Your question is entirely hypothetical and I've answered it before.
But there is far more grey area on this one WhenSheWas than any of those examples. It is really insulting to those of us who are actually informed and scientifically minded - there is overwhelming evidence that climate change exists, there just simply isn't any information that all vaccinations are safe for all children at all times. This is a fact.
Give up Saintly - you know have made decisions for your child based on the best available advice, evidence and, dare I say it, instincts. I don't see how that is either whacko or stupid.
,Oh the irony of you accusing me of personal attacks. And as the parent of a child who regressed it sounded very much as if you were saying we are all too stupid to recognise the reasons for a regression (not quite the same as 'stupid' full stop)"
Nobody is saying that parents are stupid. nobody. But it is surely impossible to say for certain what caused a regression- just because a parent says says what they think the reason is doesn't mean that is the reason.
I'm not equating doubts about vaccination with a belief in homeopathy. My point was simply there are lots of controversial issues and a better understanding of science in thd general population would be a good thing.
You really can't imagine being in the situation of having an at risk child can you? The researchers have given pretty good indications of the sort of children who might be at risk. My three all wave pretty big red flags. But you think I should just ignore that because they're not definitely at risk. You rarely get definite answers by the way. If your child has their first ever seizure a few days after vaccination you're not going to know for sure whether further vaccinations would put them at further risk, you have to make the decision without full knowledge.
If you really won't accept that some children inhabit a grey area where there is no established best practice then we're never going to agree. I will continue to assess vaccinations decisions on the risk/benefit ratio to my children and will continue to use the most up to date research relevant to them to do so.
Thanks temp you're right. Giving up. And I'm pleased that most docs I've met are like you. Thank you.
Nobody is saying that parents are stupid.
The whole thread began as a discusion of 'whack jobs' or stupidity in a less polite form.
Then - all quotes from this thread:
"It's stupid, it's selfish,"
"Unfortunately their stupidity impacts innocent people too"
"some people who refuse to vaccinate clearly are negligent and stupid."
"don't get me started on the stupidity of the "immunity through infection is better" argument. The whole point of immunity is not catching the disease, surely"
"Nevertheless, continuing to link MMR and autism is stupid."
"But the right to free speech most certainly covers abusing you for your decisions, be they sensible or stupid."
I don't think you can say that nobody is saying that parents are stupid because a number are, and this doesn't include the offensive posts which got deleted.
Sorry- what I meant is that nobody is saying that parents who connect regression with MMR are stupid. Clearly some of the people in the c&p s you did are stupid. Anyone who believes in homeopathic "vaccines" is stupid. Anyone who thinks that vaccines don't work at all, ever, is stupid. Anyone who thinks, as someone I know does, that their child won't get nits because they aren't vaccinated is stupid.
But stupid for thinking that your child's regression is linked to MMR? No- never stupid.
WhenSheWas, it looks as though this is just something we will continue to see from different povs.
I'm another past research scientist & supervise doctoral rx now as part of my nhs work. There are clearly well informed people on both 'sides', maybe an indication that it isn't very clear cut...
spink yes I think different povs is fair.
I would agree that name calling is not helpful and it is best to try and discuss matters calmly.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.