Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

why do parents refuse their baby / childs vaccines?

(346 Posts)
bethjoanne Fri 28-Sep-12 23:59:29

in the uk we are so lucky to have an nhs---- doctors ,nurses ,treatments and vaccines we should be so third world countries babies /children die of terrible diseases and also our relatives eg great great great grandmas would have done anything to have their children vaccinated IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE DREAM TO HAVE AN NHS AND VACCINES, instead they had to witness their child suffer i dread to think what they went through.
what country you are born in is luck of the drawer.
we should be grateful for medical care and vaccines available to us and have our baby/ child vaccinated.
i cannot believe some parents are so selfish and ruthless putting others at risk and starting an epidemic what happened in history and other third world countries .when the nhs is here to help and protect us now.x
ps think about babies 0 day old to 15 months who are too young to be covered /vaccinated.10 babies have died recently from whooping cough.also there has been 2 well known footballers had meningitis recently so there is reported cases,surely this needs nipping in the bud .
why are parents still refusing to vaccinate?

bebanjo Sat 29-Sep-12 00:03:39

because we live in a country where we have a choice.

WorraLiberty Sat 29-Sep-12 00:04:04

There are many threads on MN that will answer this question for you...I think the latest is today so probably on the front page still.

somedayma Sat 29-Sep-12 00:04:33

Why don't you directly ask the poster this is clearly aimed at? biscuit

LilQueenie Sat 29-Sep-12 00:09:18

its a choice and if it was made mandatory then you would have parents tearing their hair out and filing claims when a lot of babies had side effects and in some cases worse. doctor actually tried to bully me into it. I stood my ground. she said it was safe, my specialist told me NO not at that point. Now I knew it wasnt a good idea so why did it take one doctor and 3 nurses to ask others to leave and have me with PND in a small room alone trying to talk down to me and insist they were right? Thank god for choice.

LilQueenie Sat 29-Sep-12 00:10:23

and btw can you prove the footballers were unvaccinated or that they even had they type of menningitis that has a vaccine as there are different strains.

FreudiansGoldSlipper Sat 29-Sep-12 00:13:47

because the vaccination programme that is available now is not right for every child and not everyone believes the vaccinations in particular the mmr is as safe as they make it out to be

AgentZigzag Sat 29-Sep-12 00:14:13

It sounds like you're saying the parents who make the choice not to vaccinate are doing it against their better judgement and regardless of the consequences for their child and wider society.

That's not right, they must be doing what they think is the best for their child.

Like everyone else.

I've given mine whatever was going, but if I genuinely thought it would harm them in any way, I wouldn't give a fuck whether someone thought me selfish or ruthless (??).

Choosing not to vaccinate doesn't mean they're not grateful for the NHS and what it does.

NellyJob Sat 29-Sep-12 00:17:02

thats right, the meningitis C vaccine doesn't prevent you from having other strains of this disease.
My children had all their vaccines but the pre school booster for the mmr made my daughter vomit so violently that she couldnt eat properly for at least two weeks afterwards as her throat was so sore from vomiting bile. So my son didn't have his.
At least we have a choice, and its not an easy one, the last thing we need is slagging from other parents who have made different choices.
My daughter and I also chose for her not to have the HPV vaccine at school. So what?
Mind your own business.

Sossiges Sat 29-Sep-12 00:19:07

Did you copy and paste your post from the other thread? Or am I having deja vu?
Thread about a thread.

deleted203 Sat 29-Sep-12 00:20:09

I don't see that parents are 'selfish and ruthless, putting others at risk' if they decide not to have their child vaccinated against certain diseases. Whooping cough, which you cite, is given in a vaccination at 6 weeks. If you are concerned about your baby getting it before 6 wk old don't take them out in public before then. Stating 2 footballers have recently had meningitis is a ludicrous argument. Meningitis comes in many different forms and there is no vaccination against most of them. I actually have concerns about the amount of vaccinations given to small babies, TBH. And the fact that they are loaded with an awful lot of different diseases at once. Would you want to be fighting diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and Hib at the same time? This is not something that is ever likely to occur in nature, and yet we give injections of 5 vaccines at once. I did actually have my DCs vaccinated and am grateful for the choice - but it doesn't mean I automatically assume that anyone who is wary about having it done is wrong.

ProPerformer Sat 29-Sep-12 00:28:23

You know what..... I was arguing vehemently for vaccines on another thread as I really do believe in them. However the patents who chose not to vaccinate their kids do so for many reasons, some misguided, others very sensible, but all the time they are doing what they believe to be right for their child. No parent would willingly put their child at risk and neither are these parents. We may not agree with them but it's their choice.

ZigZagWanderer Sat 29-Sep-12 00:29:03

I think the poster who decided not to get the mmr vaccine got a lot of stick, unfair, aggressive comments were made.
I'm in two minds about the mmr jab as I've read different reports on studies carried out and the evidence doesn't make me feel better about going ahead.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

ZigZagWanderer Sat 29-Sep-12 00:30:56

Sowornout made some good points.

ProPerformer Sat 29-Sep-12 00:32:24

ZigZag think I was one of the ones arguing on the MMR thread! blush (Though don't think i was too abusive just a bit blunt!) kinda why I trying to rectify that here.... The poor OP and some others on that thread caught me on a bad day.

SarahStratton Sat 29-Sep-12 00:35:18

soworn, you can't tell if you have whooping cough for the vast majority of the time you are infectious. You'd have to avoid anyone with mild cold symptoms, and you're just as likely to bump into them in a hospital as anywhere else.

DD2 was infectious for well over a week before even becoming ill enough to be concerned it wasn't just a mild cold. During those days, she was out with her friends, went to the cinema, went out to eat, was on a sleepover. She had very mild cold symptoms, for the majority of those times, and it was hayfever season.

I feel terrible that she could have infected someone vulnerable, but I genuinely had no idea she was ill. It wasn't until she developed an awful cough that I realised she was ill at all, until then she seemed to have either a mild cold or hayfever. She's 15, I can't keep her at home for that.

deleted203 Sat 29-Sep-12 00:36:35

I don't know if you can still do this in UK ZigZagWanderer but I too felt really wary about MMR, particularly links to autism. I've taught a LOT of kids with autism over the years, mostly boys. So when it came to my (now) 7 yo DS I was very unhappy. Also, to me MMR are all pretty mild, ordinary childhood diseases. Yes, there are (rare) occasional complications but I'm in my 40s and as a kid most of us had measles or mumps at one time, without any problems. Weighed up against the possibility of my child becoming autistic there was no competition. (I know 3 people who are ABSOLUTELY convinced this is what happened to their son and severely regret MMR jab). Anyway - I spoke to GP who said that it was possible to have single injections privately. He told me to have single measles, single rubella and also that mumps injection only lasted 10 years and the only danger to boys was if they got mumps in puberty could occasional make them sterile. His advice was to have single mumps injection at age 9. So that's what I did.

SarahStratton Sat 29-Sep-12 00:42:25

Also, to me MMR are all pretty mild

Rubella - seriously, mild? Not to a pregnant woman.
Mumps - sterility, deafness, etc. I am partially deaf in one ear from mumps I caught a few years ago.
Measles - not a mild disease. Not at all. Not even close.

FreudiansGoldSlipper Sat 29-Sep-12 00:42:47

I wish my gp was as supportive about giving separate jabs and that they took it seriously that my son struggled with combination jabs. IF i have another child I would opt for single jabs

bethjoanne Sat 29-Sep-12 00:45:03

Thank you everyone for all your replies..
hi sossiges, i just wondered just out of interest all the different reasons.
sorry if i made you yawn! x

SarahStratton Sat 29-Sep-12 00:45:27

Mmm, I'd do single jabs now too, I didn't have that option when mine were vaccinated. I'd still choose the combination jabs over no jabs though, if I had no choice.

ZigZagWanderer Sat 29-Sep-12 00:46:34

I don't remember the names of the posters but she was called a fucking idiot which was harsh!
Being blunt and abusive are different things. smile

I think many people arguing against this just regurgitate what they have heard in the media or what nurses and Drs say without looking into it properly themselves.

What I've read about the MMR jab doesn't reassure me personally.
Just because the majority do something doesn't always make it the right thing.

I did vaccinate dd but I do think it is the parents right to choose

Sossiges Sat 29-Sep-12 00:49:25

I think there were plenty of reasons given on the other thread (and indeed on the many squillions of similar threads on MN).
Reading the same thing over and over again does tend to make yawn. I guess I just have a low boredom threshold smile.

ZigZagWanderer Sat 29-Sep-12 00:50:23

Sowornout so you didn't vaccinate at 1 and then 5?
I'd like to get individual ones but have no money. sad

Sossiges Sat 29-Sep-12 00:50:27

Make me yawn, bugger

AgentZigzag Sat 29-Sep-12 00:52:09

And the alternative to having the right to choose is to make it compulsory, how would enforcing that work? Criminalise parents who feel uncomfortable or not sure about giving their children the jabs as they are?

Inneedofbrandy Sat 29-Sep-12 00:54:53

I think it should be your choice whether to or not... but they can't be allowed to start school without up to date vaccines unless medical reasons.

AgentZigzag Sat 29-Sep-12 00:56:15

But you came on the thread anyway sossiges? grin

Not everyone's on the same thread, I don't think I've ever posted on or read a vaccine thread before because it's not something I'm passionate about.

But calling people selfish and ruthless for doing the best by their children is pretty blinkered.

ZigZagWanderer Sat 29-Sep-12 00:58:25

I don't get why people get so angry about it.
I couldn't have the whooping cough jab when I was little ( same as my 3 siblings) as my nan has epilepsy, I didn't get whooping cough. Not sure people were concerned that We were a risk to their kids .
Funny though how my GP had never heard of this before and insisted I immunised my Ds. Wish I looked into it more now. In fact I don't think I was asked any questions about health/ family history, which is a gamble.

Sossiges Sat 29-Sep-12 00:59:40

Shoot me now [closes eyes, holds hands up] grin

AgentZigzag Sat 29-Sep-12 01:02:06

Much as I disagree with what the OP wrote, it wouldn't be fair to leave her to clean up your splattered brain matter off the thread soss grin

Sossiges Sat 29-Sep-12 01:06:42

Oh, I don't
I think she deserves it for the x's

You're all selfish and ruthless x.

deleted203 Sat 29-Sep-12 01:08:01

ZigZag DS had single vaccines at about 13 months and then booster at 3 and a half which gives lifetime immunity. Although it's several years ago the jab was about £100, so not completely out of reach, hopefully.

SarahStratton appreciate your point on the question of 'mildness'. What I was trying to say was that these diseases are rarely fatal. Yes, I know rubella can cause terrible problems if you catch it when pregnant - but whose responsibility is that? I obviously wouldn't want my child to infect a pregnant woman, but she can hardly wander around unvaccinated expecting everyone else in the country to make sure she isn't put a risk, IYSWIM. And actually, with my eldest DCs they gave MMR at 15 months and BOTH eldest two caught rubella literally about a fortnight before they had jab!

SarahStratton Sat 29-Sep-12 01:08:57

Soss has a point.

Brain splat seems a fair punishment for x abuse.

SarahStratton Sat 29-Sep-12 01:10:42

Problem is, most diseases have a window where you are infectious without knowing you are ill with it. We'd all have to stay indoors, frantically washing our hands to avoid catching anything. And some children can't have the vaccinations for various reasons. Herd immunity is incredibly important for them.

Kleptronic Sat 29-Sep-12 01:12:17

There is no scientific proof that the MMR vaccination causes autism.

Measles, mumps and rubella kills and disables babies and children.

These diseases kill and disable more babies and children than death through adverse reactions/infection due to injections. In an unprotected population they are devastating diseases.

Herd immunity requires up to 95% (for some diseases, about 85% for many others) of the population to be immunised in order to wipe out disease in the total population.

Choice is indeed sacrosanct. Science is factual. Feelings are not facts. If people exercise the choice not to immunise children, or children cannot be immunised because of illness, I hope that herd immunity has been achieved by everyone else.

Sossiges Sat 29-Sep-12 01:16:23

I really must stop posting, it's dragging this poor old thread on and on, instead of kindly letting it die a natural death as it should have done about 36 posts ago.
See y'all

AgentZigzag Sat 29-Sep-12 01:20:44

'Science is factual'

A bit of an aside, but I suppose relevant, 'science' portrays itself as factual but really it's only educated guesses.

Which creates the problem in the first place because one 'side' says it has certain 'facts' and the other disputes them.

How are parents supposed to cut through to the truth what some scientists spend their whole working lives trying to unravel?

It might be difficult to measure feelings, but that doesn't mean they're any less real than something physical you can see, and they definitely shouldn't be discounted.

That's saying what these parents feel they are doing for their children isn't important, and that's just not true.

monsterchild Sat 29-Sep-12 01:20:50

sowornout just because you haven't seen first hand how deadly measles is doesn't mean it is a "mild" illness. It may have been mild where you were, (possibly because of immunizations) but it is one of the leading causes of death in children world wide. More than 160,000 children die of it every year.

In 1980, before widespread immunization 2.6 million died of measles each year. So it is far from "mild." Which is why so many people get so riled up about vaccinations.

I do think parents should have a choice, but they also need to educate themselves about it too, the risks are real, and need to be weighed against the risks of the actual vaccine. After that, I agree, do what is best for your child.

AgentZigzag Sat 29-Sep-12 01:29:14

I'm only going on my experience monster, but I would say the parents who say they'd rather not are much more clued up on the different sides of this than people (like me) who just do as they're told go along with what's recommended.

Kleptronic Sat 29-Sep-12 01:31:16

Whoa Agent, way to infer something and ride for the hills on it, that's not what I said at all. Still, whatever you choose to read into it, you are free to do so.

LilQueenie Sat 29-Sep-12 01:45:03

I also dont like the fact that our children are treated as lab rats. Some trials take place before a vaccine is released but it is monitored for years afterwards through children who have it.

whois Sat 29-Sep-12 01:48:03

Thread about a thread - kind of?

Two broad categories why people don't immunise their DCs.

1.) there is a genuine medical reason no to, as advised by health professional.

2.) they are misguided, idiotic, selfish, feckless, ignorent etc etc etc Anyone who believes that is ok to choose not to immunise their own child as they are so special threatens heard immunity, and threatens everyone.

monsterchild Sat 29-Sep-12 01:54:51

Agent I would hope so, but in my experience many parents seem to rely on more anecdotal evidence.

However it is, it certainly is out of order to say that by doing what they believe is best for their children is ignorant or worse.

missingmumxox Sat 29-Sep-12 01:58:12

Gosh! your Clip board has taken some serious hammering since the last post on this subject, copy,paste,copy,paste,copy,paste
I only charge £68 an hour for OH advice RSI but I imagine you carpal tunnel syndrome wouldn't just be down to that...;D

SomersetONeil Sat 29-Sep-12 02:01:35


My DH used to market vaccines - I'm as pro as you get. But honestly, there's another live thread on this topic, on this very page.

My kids are immunised, along with additional immunsations which we paid for privately. I'm happy that they're protected. If others don't want to take those steps, fair play to them. Let people make their own choices.

CrikeyOHare Sat 29-Sep-12 02:27:16

A bit of an aside, but I suppose relevant, 'science' portrays itself as factual but really it's only educated guesses.

That is completely and utterly untrue. If you want to be pedantic about it, nothing whatsoever can really be considered "factual". It's not 100% "factual" that the sun exists & supplies us with solar energy (in theory, it could be a figment of our collective imaginations) - but the likelihood that it's really there is so close to 100%, that it may as well be for all practical purposes.

So science simply cannot proclaim anything as a "fact". But that most certainly does not mean it only amounts to "educated guesses" - and I find that viewpoint really rather ignorant. Are you not familiar with the notion of evidence, data, research, the scientific method?

I don't doubt that parents who refuse to vaccinate feel they are doing the best for their children - but their doubts about the safeness of MMR are based entirely on nonsense & misinformation. Interestingly, people on here have written about reading reports that suggest MMR is not safe. I say interesting because no such scientific reports exist. All studies that have been done have shown over & over & over & over that MMR is safe, and there is no link to autism & Crohn's disease.

I suspect what they're reading are not the reports themselves, but the interpretations of them by unqualified hacks in the Daily Mail like Melanie Phillips.

The only people who can justify not vaccinating their children are those where it's medically contraindicated - and those children are very, very much in the minority.

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 02:35:37

I agree that the problem is not the motives behind people who decide not to vaccinate (against medical advice of course).

The problem is the massive amount of misinformation, scaremongering and conspiracy theories on which their information is based and the deluded belief that this somehow constitutes 'having done research'.

I'd never criticise an individual decision, just the information on which it may be based.

AgentZigzag Sat 29-Sep-12 02:38:38

'and I find that viewpoint really rather ignorant. Are you not familiar with the notion of evidence, data, research, the scientific method?'

I'm very familiar with how it all works, which is why I said what I said.

If you find every 'truth' science comes up with equally as valid as the theory that preceded it, that's up to you.

I was really speaking generally about how scientific beliefs work and how they influence society as a whole, because as I said, this isn't a subject I feel passionately about.

Obviously you do, enough to try and discredit my view as ignorant.

It's not for you to say what is and what isn't valid about a parents decision to do what they think is best, to brush their feelings off as though they're not important just because they're not tangible, could be seen by some as equally as ignorant - which I would never say to someone just because they have a different viewpoint to me.

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 02:41:06

On the "science is factual" point, Ben Goldacre wrote a really good piece in teh Guardian quite recently about how we can't rely on many scientific studies. About four days ago? It was about how little we can trust the studies scientists produce to support their proofs and they often aren't proofs at all. e was specifically referring to studies funded by the manufacturers of medicine and drugs. So science is factual in the sense of, an apple drops to the ground, the sun is 93 million miles away etc, but not in the sense of xxx drug doesn't cause heart attacks etc. All science isn't the same.

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 02:44:23

So, I'm sorry I didn't read your post quite properly, I don't hink it's fair to say, well philosphically we can't know that anything at all is true ie that the sun is 93 million miles away and that is on the same scale of "not knowing" as the uncertainty surrounding various scientific studies. Look at how child rearing advice changes, and each change in recommendation is based on scientific studies. Lots of doctors think differently about these issues, but not one think the sun is not 93 million miles away!

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 02:45:58

Oh right I have just realised this is an am i being unreasonable thread, I am not up to this! Bye everyone!

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 02:52:22


You're quite right that one scientific study, on it's own, isn't really evidence of very much. But if study after study is replicated with the same kind of results, the body of evidence becomes very strong, even overwhelming in the case of vaccine safety. Its the whole picture which is important. There will always be doubters on the other side but it's the weight of evidence which is the determining factor.

AgentZigzag Sat 29-Sep-12 03:00:09

I didn't mean you can't 'know' anything grin but I agree some things are more ambiguous than others (although has anyone actually gone out with their yard stick and measured the 93 million miles? grin)

Aside from all the different influences on what 'science' gets produced, you can't ignore what the parents who choose not to vaccinate feel, because that's what's ultimately driving us all to one 'side' or another, how you feel about what you've read/heard on it.

I didn't read up on anything before going in for the vaccinations with both DDs, that makes me as bad as those who choose not to vaccinate in some peoples eyes doesn't it? Or is it OK because I went with the herd?

Probably just ignorance.

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 03:11:27

But agent zigzag, it shouldn't be about feelings! I don't see where feelings come into it?!

It's about misinformation, conspiracy theories and scaremongering - and I'd also say a desire to be 'different' - hence all the herd/sheep analogies.

No, you went with the medical advice. If you go against medical advice, you had better darn well know what you're doing and not assume that a few hours on google can replace years and years of scientific training and research.

margerykemp Sat 29-Sep-12 03:12:31

Before the mmr, so for everyone over c. 30 now the rubella job was given to girls only at the age of 11/12. There was no medical reason to give it to boys and girls at 15 months it was a purely financial reason to make mOney for the pharmaceutical company.

Pharmaceuticals are the biggest single export of the British economy. These companies have the government by the balls!

Their profit margins are bigger than some countries GDPs!

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 03:23:49

Thank you for demonstrating my point margery.

AgentZigzag Sat 29-Sep-12 03:26:44

If you don't factor what parents feel about the evidence they encounter and what makes them decide one thing or another Elaine, you're missing half the picture.

You can look what's portrayed as objective research all you like, but that research is nothing without the subjective opinions of the people interpreting it.

And that includes the parents.

Some might dismiss their opinions as ignorance, I would say that's patronising and underestimating the strength of feeling parents can have for their children.

Or is that not part of it either because it can't be measured?

SarahStratton Sat 29-Sep-12 03:27:28

God, I hate conspiracy theories.

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 03:33:03

I really don't understand agent zigzag. I don't doubt the motives and agree that parents who dont vaccinate love their children and, for the most part, think they're doing the best for them as much as parents who do. But just because they like stories, don't understand statistics and have a propesntiy for a good conspiracy thepry doesn't make it ok or right.

AgentZigzag Sat 29-Sep-12 03:50:55

'But just because they like stories, don't understand statistics and have a propesntiy for a good conspiracy thepry doesn't make it ok or right. '

People go on what resources they have available to them, they might not be reliable and valid evidence to some, but it's reality for the majority when they take day to day decisions.

How do parents weigh up the evidence vaccinations aren't linked with any risk, with those which are?

Not everyone can evaluate statistics and some do place importance on anecdotal evidence, it's a 'fact'.

You can tell them it's not plausible evidence, but if they believe all science must be true because it's claiming to be an objective fact, why would they believe that over the other objective facts they've heard?

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 04:04:56

No. That's why there are experts who discuss these issues and make recommendations. If you go against medical advice, you absolutely should understand the implications and the risks involved.

For example, i can do stats but I can't understand immunology or virology, way too complex for me. So I look to the NHS,CDC, WHO etc and go by their recommendations. I certainly don't think that a few hours on google qualifies me to understand this research. But many people who don't vaccinate fool themselves into thinking that they are more enlightened than the rest of us 'sheep' and understand way more than any expert possibly can (or alternatively that it's all one big conspiracy theory)

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 04:15:28

And on reflection, azz, I think I agree with what you're saying. Most people who don't vaccinate (against medical advice) either reject or don't understand the scientific method and are certainly not in a position to critically appraise the whole body of evidence. Yet they are very suspicious of experts and authority.

Which means that they are easily led by the crankosphere and the whole slew of websites which cherry pick evidence to suit their needs and hyper criticize any study demonstraing vaccine safety, post paranoid conspiracy theories, play on parents' fears with moving (and usually unsubstantiated) anecdotes of vaccine damage, and generally encourage a superior feeling of being the enlightened and more savvy parent (as opposed to the rest of the sheep).

I think it's tragic personally.

sleepywombat Sat 29-Sep-12 06:10:21

Now having realised the extent of the horrific state of my ds2's immune & digestive systems, I wish I hadn't had him vaccinated as a baby (many times, following the schedule), but waited until he was stronger & spaced them out instead of having 4+ at one time.

LesleyPumpshaft Sat 29-Sep-12 06:57:04

When DS was a baby (now 13) there was a huge scandal about the MMR vaccine being linked to autism.

If I recall correctly, even Tony Blair refused to say whether his child had had the MMR. Obviously this didn't instill much faith in the public. A surprising amount of people refused to let their babies have the MMR around that time - for obvious reasons.

CrikeyOHare Sat 29-Sep-12 07:08:31

AgentZigZag Ignorance means "without knowledge". That most of the parents of refusers are making decisions without knowledge is the simple fact of the matter, I'm afraid. If people don't have (and make little effort to get) the right information, how can they stand a hope of making the right decision? And how does calling them ignorant in this regard undermine the love they have for their children hmm?

There is only one place people should get their information from - the medical community. Not the newspapers, not obscure websites, not model/actresses etc.

And if you understand how science works, why say "it's all educated guesswork"? It's guesswork, is it, that keeps planes flying, puts man on the moon & rovers on Mars, provides your internet connection & keeps your computer working, that's eradicated smallpox from the world & saved millions upon millions of lives with antibiotics?

Of course not. Science works. Without it, most of us would not have survived beyond our 5th birthdays.

CrikeyOHare Sat 29-Sep-12 07:13:44

Lesley Yes, there was. All because of one paper written by one man, now struck off as a doctor because of dishonesty & child abuse. In the intervening time, hundreds and hundreds of studies have been done worldwide that show, beyond any real doubt, that MMR is safe & that there's no link with autism.

And Leo Blair did have the vaccine - but the Blair's took the view (rightly or wrongly) that their son's medical information was nobody else's business.

HecateHarshPants Sat 29-Sep-12 07:18:48

Yes Lesley, when mine were due the MMR it was that time. The whole MMR = Autism thing was new and it was scary! Really scary. You have your toddler, you want to protect them, you don't want them to be ill, you believe in vaccinations (in my case, I know that there are people who disagree with them in principle) in order to protect them from getting these illnesses and then here all over the news is the story that these vaccinations themselves carry a risk of triggering a life long disability. It's bloody worrying!

We discussed it at length and decided that they were not having the MMR. We paid for the single vaccines instead. Had our choice been MMR or nothing (as I believe it is these days) then I can't in all honesty say we would have given them the MMR. Not based on what was being said at the time. Because you base your decisions on the information you have at the time. And it was very clear and very blunt. have the jab and risk damaging your child, or don't have the jab and risk them perhaps getting a disease and maybe coming into contact with someone who perhaps will catch it from them and maybe have a bad reaction.

As a parent, what are your priorities? honestly? You're going to be thinking of your child. They're your first consideration. You balance all other considerations against the risk to your child. So although I believe in inoculations, I can understand the thought processes of those who choose to not vaccinate.

As it happens, my two both have autism any way. So much for my MMR fear grin

LesleyPumpshaft Sat 29-Sep-12 07:19:51

The goverment have a vaccine damage payment so I can see why some parents are concerned about the safety of vaccines.

On the other hand, it's not an issue for the vast majority. I only know one person who's child has been affected.

I had a severe allergy to tetanus vaccines as a baby and as a teenager. After my vaccines at secondary school I had some sort of mystery illness after a severe allergic reaction that lasted for two years and I was unable to attend school. I had tests to see what had caused the reaction and they told me it was the tetanus vaccine.

Mind you, DS didn't have any trouble with his tetanus vaccine.

CrikeyOHare Sat 29-Sep-12 07:21:13

Brycie Ben Goldacre was not critical of the science itself, in that article - he was highlighting the habit of large pharmaceutical companies of publishing only the experimental data that supports the effectiveness of whatever drug they are marketing, and "losing" any negative stuff.

HecateHarshPants Sat 29-Sep-12 07:24:11

[hhm] there should have been an 'or them catching it' in there, and maybe something about the possibility of complications.

I don't know. It's early. Stupid time to be up on a bloody saturday.

lozster Sat 29-Sep-12 07:24:54

Ben goldacre has indeed written recently about some mis-leading pharma papers. However he has also written at length about the ridiculous and damaging charade that was the mmr scandal. I can't do a link but go to his blog or google Ben goldacre mmr media hoax.

LesleyPumpshaft Sat 29-Sep-12 07:26:33

Tbh Tony Blair probably made the wrong decision. It just added fuel to the fire and worried parents jumped to the conclusion that he was keeping quiet because his son didn't have the vaccine.

HandHolding Sat 29-Sep-12 07:30:11

But that most certainly does not mean it only amounts to "educated guesses" - and I find that viewpoint really rather ignorant. Are you not familiar with the notion of evidence, data, research, the scientific method?

Having seeing how research in medicine is conducted and knowing that about half the research publish can NOT be reproduced, I would say you are TOTALLY right.
I would be VERY weary to trust any research, incl papers published in very respectable journals, as a proof that X, Y and Z are efficient and safe.

Actually history is showing us that what we once thought was the best thing after the wheel was actually detrimental to the patient (Again, I am thinking of recent research paper on chemo that shows it actually does more harm than good for patients).

Which is why saying 'Oh but research has proven that vax are good for you/the surrounding population' is actually quite ignorant in itself. As for any medicine, some people will be able to use it and some won't. Saying that everyone can take aspirin would sound crazy (Some are allergic to it, some will get very ulcers/bleeding that could or will kill them etc...). In the same way, saying that everyone can and should have a vax is just as crazy.

WofflingOn Sat 29-Sep-12 07:32:54

It is a choice, like with all medications.
The reason I can play the flute today is that my mother refused the offer of thalidomide when she was pregnant, despite the doctor's enthusiasm for it.

RubyStolenBootyGates Sat 29-Sep-12 07:41:42

Because some of us, who have highly qualified scientists and statisticians within the family have done guided research using scholarly papers and research and made a valid decision based on our own circumstances, family genetic conditions, and knowledge about the agenda of the government.

Because I have a child who I was forced to vaccinate with a known faulty strain of the MMR vaccine despite his having a very bad reaction to the first part of the vaccine. And this was pre-Wakefield who has NO BEARING AT ALL on our decision.

Because I don't agree with the schedule or the combinations the the NHS offers. Too much too early. Because I think adults who have a valid choice about what they choose to put into their bodies can and should get vaccinated.

Now our child is older and we have some financial stability we will be making an informed decision about what is necessary (eg:polio, menengitis, etc.) and having them done in a controlled and sensible manner.

Because our first responsibility is to my child and family and not "the herd" or your family. As is yours.

Because I find it hard to trust a government (of any ilk) that has such deep and nefarious links with big business and big pharma,

Because we wanted to be sure that if our second child was on the spectrum that we knew why and weren't groping in the dark for excuses. So delaying the components of the MMR that we do decide to have was a good idea (but not the only reason we delayed).

Because my first child was damaged by the Urabe strain of MMR, and if you think the government isn't prepared to make the same sort of decisions again for "the greater good" then you are probably not familiar with the way that government works.

Because we live in a free country where we are allowed to make those informed decisions for ourselves and our families.

Because I know doctors who agree with me and who have chosen either not to vaccinate or to selectively vaccinate their own families, and have discussed our decisions with them.

Finally, I urge you to read this Nice sane Telegraph link to help you to understand why we made some of the decisions we did]]

HandHolding Sat 29-Sep-12 07:42:58

So I look to the NHS,CDC, WHO etc and go by their recommendations.

@Elaine: But you realize that medical people also have their own preconceived ideas too? That they might think that 'Oh vax are good for you' so will, for example, have a positive paper on vax being publish wo much though but will look more deeply (and more likely reject) a paper that says vax are dangerous.
There is some research on that (even though not specifically on vax I don't think) that shows that preconceptions have a strong impact on whether a paper is published or not.
So we know that negative reports aren't published by pharmaceutical companies. We know that preconceived ideas means that some research papers aren't been published. And we know that half of the research published can not be reproduced (Note, the gold standard for good research is that it CAN be reproduced by anyone and give the same results).

On the top of all this, the NHS, WHO, NICE is then adding to the mix financial constrains to put forwards some recommendations.

Do you really think then that these recommendations will be the BEST one for your individual child? Would you actually trust that has been decided as the 'best' for the majority of people will be the best for yourself or your child?

Sorry, I can completely understand why one could feel overwhelmed byy all this information. And how you could think this is too much/too complex to really understand. But saying that all parents that take a decision do so out 'lack of knowledge' because 'if the NHS, WHO says so then it must be the truth' then this is also acting out of 'lack of knowledge'.

The reality is that, as a parent or as a patient, you are on your own to take the decision that you think is best for yourself/your child and it might not be the same than the one suitable for 'the majority of people'.

HandHolding Sat 29-Sep-12 07:45:34

I will also add that NICE, WHO etc.. can have opposite recommendations. And that's wo talking about the variability of recommendations from one country to the next.

How do you know who is right then?

LesleyPumpshaft Sat 29-Sep-12 07:46:46

I agree with those who support choice. What should we do, force parents to vaccinate children and impose penalties?

That's a very dangerous road to go down.

seeker Sat 29-Sep-12 07:55:18

Some people don't vaccinate because their child has medical issues that would make it inadvisable. There are some who have deeply held religious reasons not to.

The rest- because they don't understand the issue.

toptramp Sat 29-Sep-12 08:01:04

I'm with you op. Those who don't vaccinate are relying on those who do and those friends of mine who havn't vaccinated do live in fear of disease.

toptramp Sat 29-Sep-12 08:04:23

I hate conspiracy theories too and of course pharmeceutical companies are going to make a profit; they are not going to produce free drugs are they? (although we do get the vaccines for free). Thye need to pay the scientists, fat cats etc! grin

toptramp Sat 29-Sep-12 08:11:33

I don't feel that are kids are being treated like lab rats either. They have been vaccinated and therefore won't get the disease ; that's great isn't it? There is a real hippy mentality thst science is 'bad and against nature' and nature is 'good'. Measles and polio are natural but I don't want dd to get them.

HandHolding Sat 29-Sep-12 08:12:31

I think you are missing the point here....
What's the relationship between the fact that you need to pay for a vax and the fact a vax might be unsafe for an individual? confused

Pagwatch Sat 29-Sep-12 08:55:32

My main frustrations that the ignorance and scare mongering is on both sides.

If you read mn or the Daily Mail you would be given to believe that a whole swathe of mothers (because we 'blame' the mothers don't we) are refusing vaccinations because their chakra was wonky and it is nearly a full moon.

Only really on this issue do we buy into lazy stereotyping and chose, with moral outrage, to stigmatise and beat up a group of mothers. Any other group gets help support and understanding in the face of witch hunts but this issue is one where even normally sensible posters get dragged into the name calling and pitchfork mentality.

Yet the truth is, if the majority see vaccination as something do safe, so essential to the health and well being of their child, why would otherwise sensible people chose to say no?
My experience is it is always fear. A fear often born of a dreadful unforeseen reaction to a vaccine and one which is made worse, more scary, by the casual dismissal of Doctors and then posters on here.

Telling a parent who is frightened to vaccinate because of something they witnessed, something which alarmed them, that they are selfish, a fucking disgrace and that their child should not be allowed to go to school is not really mn finest hour IMO.

I suspect some of the pitchfork wavers have their own experiences and their own fears which fuel these attacks.
But it is horribly cruel and self defeating.

People may enjoy the flaming. I don't for a moment believe that the queue of people lining up to shout abuse at last nights op was made up entirely of people who had the faintest interest in the issue. Certainly most had no intention of engaging. It was just all good sport - an issue where you could just compete to be foul about killing babies with impunity.
The fact that the op was genuinely scared didn't matter. If she wasn't frightened then calls from her GP would be as water off a ducks back. The calls scare her because she is terrified about making the right choice.

Most people have the luxury that vaccination is a no brainier. I queued up happy as a pig in shit to get ds1 vaccinated. Only once I had seen a terrible vaccine reaction did I have all that certainty evaporate and life since then is an agony of choosing the least awful choice.

Those who care deeply about this issue yet pile into aibu are helping no one. And jumping on a bandwagon to shriek at worried parents is shameful. Just because the media and a few hapless posters provide a stereotype of thoughtless refusal does not excuse laying into parents about a really difficult decision.
It makes me ashamed every time I see it especially from those who pose as academics and intellectuals. You should know better.

And now I am getting on the train to get pissed at the meet up.

RubyStolenBootyGates Sat 29-Sep-12 09:15:46

I think this is quite interesting
""For example 5 percent of nonpediatricians would not use the Hib vaccine for their own child. Their reasons for declining the use of Hib for their own children included a lack of concern about the disease and the desire to reduce vaccines to a minimum. Similarly almost 5 percent of physicians did not use the MMR vaccine in their own children. According to the authors the reasons for vaccine refusal included “the wish to avoid the trivalent combined vaccines because of safety concerns, the preference for infection-driven rather than vaccine-induced immunity, and the conviction that homeopathic treatment allows a benign outcome of measles, mumps, and rubella.” Almost 10 percent of nonpediatricians would delay the initiation of DTaP vaccination beyond 6 months and 15 percent would not give the first dose of measles or MMR before 2 years of age."

EdMcDunnough Sat 29-Sep-12 09:22:26

I refused the MMR for ds2 as he might have already had measles and I'd heard/read that having the vaccine as well could cause complications. I'm not sure where I heard it.

The HPA tests he had were inonclusive so I thought it was better to be safe, though I wanted him to have the mumps single vaccine but it wasn't available.

Then they said it was too late to give him the MMR even if I wanted it.

Sometimes people's reasons are not just hesitation or generalised unsureness.

Sometimes they are founded on a real concern - and getting any sort of unbiased info out of a nurse or DR at the practice is IMPOSSIBLE because as soon as you mention the word MMR, there is an audible click as their brain switches into autopilot and they reel off a load of stuff about how safe it is.

It is no good trying to find anything out.

EdMcDunnough Sat 29-Sep-12 09:23:39

Sorry inconclusive

I mean one of the swabs was positive, the others I'm not sure.

they reckoned it might have been because of maternal antibodies as he was 10 mo, and I was bf. But they couldn't say for sure.

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 09:42:00

But Crikey - that still means we can't trust it, as for example someone was talking about a large body of evidence giving weight to the theory. If there is an even larger body of evidence underminding the theory but we aren't informed about it then it's not exactly fairis it. How can people make an informed decision, it's impossible. I think parents should definitely be able to choose. I've done most of them but I think, if I try to persuade someone to do it - and they have a bad reaction - well quite frankly I'm not going round there to deal with the problem, and neither is anyone else, it's not up to me to take such and such a risk with their child - I won't be there to deal with the consequences. It's up to them.

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 09:42:43

I meant to say, undermining.

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 09:44:37

Also,how are you supposed to know if your child has a medical condition which involves a severe reaction, until they actually severely react? I think that argument is a bit of a cop out, it's too late then.

HandHolding Sat 29-Sep-12 10:29:52

Applaud Pagwatch

SDeuchars Sat 29-Sep-12 11:00:51

Applaud RubyStolenBootyGates esp post at 07:41:42.

Part of the problem is that evidence supporting the level of immunisation given in this country (and other developed countries) is shaky. Many other things affect infant mortality, particularly good sanitation and nutrition.

A scientific article published a year ago finds that infant mortality rates increase with the number of routine vaccine doses: in other words, giving more vaccines does not result in fewer child deaths.

AgentZigzag Sat 29-Sep-12 11:34:41

'That most of the parents of refusers are making decisions without knowledge is the simple fact of the matter, I'm afraid. If people don't have (and make little effort to get) the right information, how can they stand a hope of making the right decision?'

You're 'without knowledge' crikey if you think it's that simple a matter, or that what you think of as the 'right information' is and should be right for everyone.

'There is only one place people should get their information from - the medical community.'

And choosing to play along with the authoritative role the medical community take as the last word on any and every subject they encounter, also reveals your lack of knowledge and understanding of how the system actually works.

Some people don't believe everything they're told to do unquestioningly.

If you have such a strong faith in the underlying assumptions of scientific research, I'm surprised you're not happy with that.

elizaregina Sat 29-Sep-12 11:43:14

parents that dont vaccinate because they have done lots of research and decided against it is one thing.

i was very shocked seeing two liverpudlian ladies on the news a while ago talking about NOT having thier children vaccinated but were then really shocked when thier children did contract a diesese i think it was measles - about how horrific it was?

that to me is so ignorant!

Ithinkitsjustme Sat 29-Sep-12 11:48:18

Lots of reasons why people don't vaccinate their children, hopefully those who make the choice (either way) have done some research for themselves and not just jumped on whatever bandwagon was trendy at the time. My cousin was born a perfectly healthy little girl and stayed that way until she was 13 months old when she caught measles and whooping cough. As a result she was in a mental institution from the age of 5 and died fairly recently from puenomia at the age of 50+ having spent the vast majority of her life in care. For me it was enough to persuade me to have all my children vaccinated. Other people argue otherwise, just make sure that whatever you decide you know why you have made that decision rather than base it on what the Daily Mail has printed this week.

RowanMumsnet (MNHQ) Sat 29-Sep-12 12:40:53


This isn't really an AIBU question so we've moved it to the Vaccinations topic.


Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 13:14:43

I just don't think it's up to anyone why people have made the choice, the fact is it's their choice.Not everyone can understand the studies, let's face it most of us don't. Unless you are willing to help with dealing with any difficult outcome, I don't think you should tell or order people to risk a difficult outcome.

mosschops30 Sat 29-Sep-12 13:24:58

I am pro vaccination, all dcs vaccinated for everything plus a few extras.
I totally support those parents who choose not to vaccinate because of family history or allergic reactions.
Those who dont vaccinate because they dont trust the government/read the daily mail/ believe conspiracy theories are not intelligent enough to raise children IMHO. (like i said just my opinion,no need for knicker twisting)

Id just like to put this out there though and see what others think.
I have worked in two very different areas lately, one very socially deprived and one quite affluent.
I noticed that 100% of mothers in the deprived area had vaccinated their children, every one, without fail.
However in the affluent areas there is a lot of children not vaccinated, for various reasons most saying that they dont believe in it or dont like overloadng their children systems or dont believe their children are at risk from these diseases

Whats that all about?

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 13:44:09

Perhaps it's an issue of better education. Better off people are generally better educated, but which comes first I don't know, the eduation or the being better off. But whatever the reason is, it's a broad truth. It would completely contradict the idea of non vaccinators not being intelligent enough to bring up children, which is quite rude I think.

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 13:56:32


You have also demonstrated my point. That article you linked to was awful and would never have made it into an epidemiological journal, you can see it at a first glance, it's cringeworthy! But because you don't understand epidemiology and research methods, you link to it as evidence that vaccines aren't all good.

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 13:58:23


I don't know one anti vaccinator (against medical advice) who is scientifically qualified. I know many who claim to know many others but that's different.

Intelligent -yes. Scientifically trained - no. Hubris - plenty!

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 14:00:21

It could also be because better off parents are more able to afford single vaccines. I think articles like Ben Goldacre's show how pointless it is up to a certain extent to argue about science proving this or that, because there is so much that is not published and not available to us, so parents do the best with what theyv'e got, and it's their right to it. I vaccinated my children for them, not the next door's neighbour's children's sake, my primary responsibility is to my child.

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 14:05:52

No, all research is not created equal and the ability to critically appraise the research is essential. As you showed, most parents are not in a position to do so and generally the non vaccinators rely on the crankosphere for their information. For areas where I am not in a position to understand the research, I look at the recommendations of people who do, not a crankosphere website.

RubyStolenBootyGates Sat 29-Sep-12 14:09:12

Mosschops30 I think the only way one could engage with you is to ask why, when lokking at local government statistics on the take-up of vaccination, the worse-off/lower standard of education areas have a higher take-up percentage than the better-off areas with parents with a higher level of education?

(The site appears to be down at the moment, but I've spent several happy hours wading through the stats.)

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 14:14:23

I don't think Ben Goldacre is crankosphere, and he is saying we can't rely on the science produced by what might normally be considered reliable sources. Also don't forget most people get their information from the internet nowadays including all of the reliable sources, so you can't really say to people don't even research it yourself. It's even worse than telling people they can't choose, to tell people they can't even look into it themselves?

Viviennemary Sat 29-Sep-12 14:28:01

There is no proof that MMR doesn't cause autism. And I have read about some parents who are certain that it does cause autism. Would it be wrong to say the jury is still out on this. Although in the UK doctors seem to have decided that it is safe.

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 14:29:13

I think you've misunderstood Ben gold actress and his message.

Bruffin linked to an excellent list of websites, with information anchored in science. That's where I go for info.

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 14:30:34

Yes, you are completely wrong to say the jury is still out. The jury is back and conferred a unanimous vote, as sure as can be on the available scientific evidence, of no relationship.

PosieParker Sat 29-Sep-12 14:36:24

There's no proof that fairies don't exist.
The burden of proof is on the people claiming that autism is caused by MMR.
The things MMR vaccinates against are, arguably, more dangerous than autism. Even if a link was proven, which it isn't and can't be, the threat of the alternative outweighs the risk of the vaccine.

margerykemp Sat 29-Sep-12 14:38:45

GlaxoSmithKline, one of the vaccine manufacturers is the 5th biggest company on the FTSE, it employes 97000 people, has £27billion annual income and £41 billion in assets.
Elaine- are you really going to deny that they are a powerful voice in the government's ear?

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 14:55:36

So why hasn't the government rolled out the chicken pox vaccine?

Surely three separate vaccines would be more profitable than just the mmr?

And if vaccine programs are successful, eradication can occur such as with smallpox which really reduces profits!

Based on your theory, every govt in the western world is in the clutches of evil big pharma and maybe sabotaging their own vaccine campaigns to ensure eradication doesn't take place.

What a load of tosh!

Viviennemary Sat 29-Sep-12 15:01:05

I'm sorry but I am not convinced. It's like saying that peanut allergy doesn't exist as most people aren't allergic to peanuts and the fact that some people have a reaction after eating peanuts is just a coincidence. This doesn't convince me I'm afraid.

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 15:11:56

No one has said that vaccine damage doesn't exist but it is extremely rare to have a reaction which causes lasting damage - even more so with modern vaccines. And, unlike peanuts where you could go through life not eating them with no I'll effects, not vaccinating is even more risky.

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 15:40:32

Well I dont'; want to do this forever but this is what he says is simple terms

"The doctors prescribing the drugs don't know they don't do what they're meant to. Nor do their patients. The manufacturers know full well, but they're not telling."

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 15:52:56

Elainebenes sorry I have just read another of your posts about intelligence and scientific training. A lot of scientifically trained people disagree about this too and there are doctors and paediatricians who use their right to choose not to have the full scheduel or any of it. Would you call them cranks as well, I think that would be more difficult.

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 16:00:54

I said I personally don't know any scientifcially trained people who refuse caccines. Just my personal experience.

Doctors can be wrong as well - look at Wakefield! I'd rather see what groups of experts recommend.

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 16:04:01

So basically vaccines are like any other medicine.

If you were pushing for better regulation of big pharma and more transparency, I'd be behind you 100%. But to suggest that vaccines are different than any other preventative medical product is ridiculous and to also suggest that doctors should stop prescribing medication is equally silly.

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 16:05:50

But that doesn't mean there aren't any, I wouldn't say it was really the point that you don't know any. If you're not a doctor (I don't know!) you're effrectively saying that you know better than those doctors and paediatricians what is better for their children. Just as sometimes people who don't vaccinate fully, think they know better than their doctors about what is best for THEIR children. Which just goes back to my point, that everyone should be free to choose, rather than be told what to do.

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 16:08:21

But I'm not suggesting that doctors shoudl stop prescribing medication, I'm just using that tosupport my point that we should have freedom of choice, because so many sources of information are unreliable. Doctors have years of training but they don't have years of training in xxx drug, they rely on the mnaufacturer, and the manufacturer doesn't always tell the whole truth. So a patient might have very good reasons for taking his or her advice as only one part of the picture, as it probably comes direct from the manufacturer, who can't necessarily be trusted, if what Ben Goldacre says is true (did you mean to say Gold Actress before?!)

CatherinaJTV Sat 29-Sep-12 16:09:48

mosschops30 - I will be shot for that, but I think that is because the mothers in the deprived area have real worries in life (what you observe is something all my paediatrician friends also say). And that is not to diss the parents with children who had bad vaccine reactions, but it is striking how "mainstream" vaccine-criticism appears an upper middle class phenomenon (in the US: a white upper middle class thing: children enrolled in Waldorf school, yada).

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 16:28:23

Actually you're lucky that with vaccines there are plenty of studies by independent researchers demonstrating vaccine safety - and many who are trying to demonstrate its not! Vaccines, in that respect, are actually much safer than other medication.

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 16:30:10

And no, gold actress was iPad autocorrect!

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 16:34:51

Yes but who is independent, I watched a whole interview with David Salisbury who is the head of immunisation about two days ago and he referred to the comittee on vaccination as "independent" when quite a few of its members have financial interests with manufacturers. I'm not trying to say, it's right to not vaccinate, or wrong to not vaccinate, I'm saying it's up to parents to make the decision based on the information they can get their hands on, as this kind of science is not the kind that says, yes the sun is 93 million miles away - it's the kind of science which is open to distortion, misrepresentation, omission and so on. It's the sort of science in short where you can't rely on the experts, you have to choose who you trust.

mosschops30 Sat 29-Sep-12 16:35:16

vivian your post is idiotic! There is no proven link between mmr and autism. Wakefield research was a joke. A mahoosive study has been done in Japan with thousands and no link was found.

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 16:35:57

I did wonder if it was a sly dig at his "look at me " personal image!

Viviennemary Sat 29-Sep-12 16:38:42

I happen to think there might be a link. And would err on the side of caution. If this makes me an idiot. Then so be it. We shall see in the years to come if medical opinion has a change of mind.

mosschops30 Sat 29-Sep-12 16:45:42

We have seen in the 10 years following the 'research' that there is no link. How much longer do you need?
'I think there may be a link'! Really? What are you basing that nugget on knowledge on?

CatherinaJTV Sat 29-Sep-12 16:50:54

14 years actually and no change has happened. No one has ever reproduced Wakefield (and not for lack of trying). There is just no connection between MMR and autism. He lied (maybe to himself, too, who knows, pet hypotheses are difficult to let go of).

mosschops30 Sat 29-Sep-12 16:54:54

Sorry no idea why I put 10. Dd is now 16 and it was about the time she was due mmr

Viviennemary Sat 29-Sep-12 17:26:26

I am basing my opinion on the parent's who are totally convinced that MMR caused their child's autism. And that discredited doctor. I don't seek to convince others but I am just sayinig what I think personally.

Viviennemary Sat 29-Sep-12 17:28:12

Can't even use the apostrophe now!!

Mydogsleepsonthebed Sat 29-Sep-12 17:29:57

To answer the OP, I did not get DD vaccinated on medical grounds after discussion with her paediatrician and other specialists. To vaccinate her would be dangerous and potentially life threatening for her. HTH.

PosieParker Sat 29-Sep-12 18:08:39

It is not like saying the peanut allergy doesn't exist, at all. We categorically know that peanut allergies do exist and the reaction can be fatal.

Saying the MMR causes autism is like saying clouds cause acne because some people got their first outbreak on a cloudy day.

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 19:36:30

Posie, I think that sort of statement (your final statement) is why many people are so distrustful, they know (from statements like that) that if they do "as they're told" and have the vaccine, and if there's a bad reaction, they'll be treated as if they're really stupid.

Brycie Sat 29-Sep-12 19:53:47

Actually Pagwatch put it better than me: "A fear often born of a dreadful unforeseen reaction to a vaccine and one which is made worse, more scary, by the casual dismissal of Doctors and then posters on here."

ElaineBenes Sat 29-Sep-12 23:19:32

I agree with you there Brycie. I think parents' fears are real, for the most part. I just dont think they're justified.

Viviennemary Sat 29-Sep-12 23:30:58

Thirty odd years ago doctors were saying there was no link between diet and cancer. Now we know that diet is a factor in some cancers. So medical opinion changes. I don't think parent's fear of vaccine reaction is unjustified or parents are imagining a link between their child's autism and the MMR.

ElaineBenes Sun 30-Sep-12 01:07:29

People also didn't think that smoking causes lung cancer. Then epidemioogical studies started coming out showing that there was a causal association but the tobacco companies insisted that they were only statistics and that since there was speculation over the theory, cigarettes are safe. They ignored or hypercriticised the whole growing body of evidence demonstrating a link between lung cancer and smoking but pulled out the odd study which didn't show one, however flawed they may be.

What's happening with vaccines is the same but in reverse. Study after study demonstrates how safe vaccines are (or rather they're not linked to x bad outcome). But certain movements and the people who are persuaded by them have decided that vaccines are bad, so they employ the exact same tactics as the tobacco companies did.

Itnit that this hasn't been studied and we just don't know - it has and we do. the overwhelming weight of evidence is in favour of vaccine safety apart from a very very small few for whom the risk is greater eg immunocompromised children.

sleepywombat Sun 30-Sep-12 05:36:59

The cloudy day analogy is rubbish - you're not putting the clouds straight into a child's blood stream!

I think that mmr probably doesn't cause autism, but could be the straw that breaks the camel's back for a child with a severely compromised immune system & a possible genetic predisposition to asds & allergies. The problem is, that we don't necessarily know that the child has these problems until after the reaction to the vaccination, especially when babies are vaccinated so young.

As I said before, both my dcs are vaccinated, because I went with the herd, because I thought it was the best thing to do & because our government (Australia) offer financial incentives to follow the schedule, which begins with Hep B at birth, then 8 different ones at 6 weeks, 4 months & 6 months. Chicken pox is part of the schedule here too, at 18 months.

I really wish I had done more research before and hadn't got my ds2 vaccinated so young. He will not be having the MMR at 12 months. I think vaccinations are great for 'normal' children & no doubt have saved billions of lives. However, imho, doctors and parents should take into account medical histories & perhaps even test vulnerable babies before going ahead with the vaccinations. They could then retest a few months later, to see if the child is strong enough to cope & consider spacing out &/or using single vaccines.

I know this will never happen due to costs etc. I have lost all faith in the medical profession since our nightmare with ds2 began, tbh. If I had listened to the first 5 or so gps & paediatricians (I fought & fought to see them), he would still be failing to thrive, if alive at all.

MarchelineWhatNot Sun 30-Sep-12 06:15:39

I live in a country where immunisations are mandatory. If your DC are not vaccinated, they cannot go to school.

Brycie Sun 30-Sep-12 08:14:28

ElaineBenes of course they are justified. I said "Why many people are so distrustful, they know .. that if they do "as they're told" and have the vaccine, and if there's a bad reaction, they'll be treated as if they're really stupid."

That's the fear I was talking about, and going by this thread that's completely justified. Perhaps some people are reassured by the airy dismissal of those who say their children's problems were caused by such and such a vaccine. But others might think, actually if that's my child, I'll be on the other side of that "airy dismissal", no one will listen to me and they'll treat me as if I'm stupid.

The other fear, the fear of a reaction, which you say is unjustified, well that's affected by the same thing. People will say, well if nobody listens to those parents, how do we know that the numbers are accurate, as people say things like "it's the same as acne on a cloudy day" or whatever, when it's of course nothing of the sort.

RubyStolenBootyGates Sun 30-Sep-12 08:52:28

And actually the link I posted was about actual children who were actually damaged by a strain of the MMR vaccine that governments had already invested in and continued to use even after they knew it would damage a certain percentage of children (And indeed, had already done so.)

They were prepared to keep using it because, to them, your child is just a statistical likely-hood that they are willing to play the odds with.

I don't happen to believe that the way that any government behaves any differently now And while statistical chance is something they might feel justified in playing with, to me, my child is not just a statistic or acceptable odds . I"m not willing to sacrifice another one on the alter of the Procrustean bed

I'm neither paranoid nor a believer in conspiracy theories; merely someone who keeps a close eye on the behaviour of the governmental beast who always acts in a pragmatic manner.

RubyStolenBootyGates Sun 30-Sep-12 09:49:48

gah obviously can't type before caffeine.

crashdollGOLD Sun 30-Sep-12 11:21:39

*I think that mmr probably doesn't cause autism, but could be the straw that breaks the camel's back for a child with a severely compromised immune system & a possible genetic predisposition to asds & allergies."

Not entirely related but if a child had a severely compromised immune system, you would know about it because they'd have been very ill previously. Thus, surely you'd seek out an expert opinion before pressing ahead?

I do agree with your point though and have said on other threads that perhaps 'vaccine damaged' (only in inverted commas because I hate that term) children would have regressed anyway due to another virus.

JoTheHot Sun 30-Sep-12 13:12:29

There are several posters on this thread who are confounding criticism of fears with criticism of reasoning. I don't see many concerned posters looking for reassurance. I see several posters who say they have cogent, considered, researched views which justify not vaccinating. In such cases, I and others have sometimes resorted to calling a spade a spade. I realise this doesn't go down well with some, but people express themselves differently, and accepting this makes life less trying.

ElaineBenes Sun 30-Sep-12 13:27:03

Brycie. I said the fears aren't justified since there is no scientific evidence that there is any reason to be fearful. How this message is communicated is important but different. Which bad outcome are you thinking of anyway?

Jo, you're quite right. Someone coming and asking for advice, expressing fear, is totally different to the people who proudly state that they are now enlightened, would never go with the 'herd', are extremely 'well informed', and have done hours of 'research'. They seem rather proud of themselves for being so clever tbh.

Brycie Sun 30-Sep-12 13:31:22

ElaineBenes, that's not the fear I was talking about and I explained. I thnk you have done what JoThe Hot said and you have confounded that with a fear of reaction. I'm talking about the fear that people have, that if their child has a bad reaction, it will be dismissed and they will be called stupid. That is a very justified fear and it might be one of the reasons people take into account when deciding whether to do it or not.

Brycie Sun 30-Sep-12 13:34:38

Actually probably the greater fear is not that they will be called stupid, but that the reaction will be casually dismissed for example comparing it to "acne on a cloudy day", the earlier poster said. Now that does happen a lot, so that also is a justified fear.

ArthurPewty Sun 30-Sep-12 13:38:12

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ElaineBenes Sun 30-Sep-12 14:36:16

Not at my kids' school thankfully. No vaccination, no entry.

ElaineBenes Sun 30-Sep-12 14:39:35

It doesn't happen a lot at all Brycie. Ive never heard of it happenings among my friends and colleagues. That's just scaremongering and anti-vac talk.

Brycie Sun 30-Sep-12 14:48:31

Sorry what is scaremongering? In my experience if someone has very clear arguments and has doen research its very counter-productive to wave the arguments aside, for example that comparison above was like blaming acne on clouds. People will dig in their heels and won't listen and even worse they don't take it seriously. It is much better to linkto websites which I think you suggested earlier and which I completely agree with. It matches their argument with exactly the same kind of argument or response. JotheHot I don't know what you meant by calling a spade a spade but I think if you meant a very glib response without the detail and the research of the sort that Elaine was talking about, then I think it might be quite satisying but is ultimately not going to really change peoples minds.

Brycie Sun 30-Sep-12 14:53:58

I suppose I read posieparker's comparison ( I think it was her) and thought, that's just treating parents as muppets, and no parent wants to be treated like a muppet so they'll just switch off.

ElaineBenes Sun 30-Sep-12 15:04:24

I haven't seen any anti vaccination argument which is very clear or anyone who has done proper research who doesn't vaccinate (against medical advice).

There are a few posters who have genuine concerns and have spoken with gps/drs etc and come to an agreement regarding their dc's vax. That's the responsible way to do it.

But there are also a lot of posters who are misguided, misinformed, paranoid and deluded.

Brycie Sun 30-Sep-12 15:22:40

To be honest that is the sort of reaction I'm talking about. If you look at some of the posts on the thread you can see there are people who've got very clear ideas (and have talked to immunologistsk and statisticians!) and if you ignore all that, they are just going to ignore you. I have found that the best way is to present evidence which matches the sort of evidence and arguments they come up with. Again I would say, if you want to persuade people to vaccinate then it's going to be much more effective to come up with the evidence than to call them deluded! Not that I have ever called people deluded, I wouldn't do that, but it's definitely my experience that peopple take you more seriously if you take them seriously. If you just come up with the "acne clouds" comparison or say things like "deluded " they will think you are opinionated rather than informed, and to be honest even if you do come up wit the research and still are dismissive in that way, you won't have the effect you want. This is truly what I believe and I think it happens in all walks of life and all disputes! There is so much research out there to persuade people and if that's not enough then "calling a spade a spade" ! will DEFEINITELY not change their minds.

Pagwatch Sun 30-Sep-12 15:28:12

I agree with Brycie

The problem is that when any opinion questioning vaccination is offered, and the response is not simply negative but profoundly and aggressively hostile, those who have concerns end up having no place to voice those concerns or express doubt except for dodgy website.

Again. It may make people feel marvellous to be oh so very right and they can bask in the righteousness of their opinions. But the net result is that the hectoring, arrogant, name calling throws the baby out with the bath water.

I just wish people would behave like they are on a website 'by parents for parents' rather than fancying themselves internet science ninjas.

It's great. Well done. But you leave those with genuine concerns no where to go except straight into the arms of those you so despise.
It's pretty childish.

Are people going to listen and be swayed by someone who smacks the desk and tells them they are thick and deranged and ignorant? Does that ever work? Or someone who says 'you have concerns.what are they. Where have you looked for info. What would help you feel more comfortable' . It's not difficult.

Its just that's no fun. Far more fun to shout ' thick ignorant deluded ...

I don't understand, genuinely don't understand why the people who clearly feel entitled to the intellectual high ground behave in such a patently stupid way. It's just illogical.

And so any thread about vaccination never engages the concerned parent. Because who, without the hide of a rhino, would post 'I am really concerned. I haven't vaccinated because it feels so risky' . So the threads become about a few entrenched vociferous posters from both extreme sides of the argument relentlessly ripping each other apart. Anyone trying to say 'but it is complicated and scary and it is, for some, a really scary decision' gets shouted down.
It's batty.

And fwiw people who call a spade a spade are usually boorish whatever the topic.

ElaineBenes Sun 30-Sep-12 15:38:20

I think the ones who bask in self righteousness are those who believe they are so 'well informed' because they have spent a few hours on google and/or the crankosphere and aren't they marvellous for not being 'sheep' and going with the 'herd' unlike the other 'sheeple'. personally I think that they want to be defiant to authority and quite enjoy it

But their reasons for doing so are anchored in misinformation, lack of understanding and lack of realisation what they don't understand, as well as a hefty dose of paranoia and conspiracy theorising.

As I said, if you have genuine concerns then you should discuss with your gp and ideally get a referral. Not happy? Find another gp. I think parents do have a right to have concerns listened to and addressed.

Pagwatch Sun 30-Sep-12 15:40:07

Well we will have to disagree.
I think beating up on parents just because you feel morally entitled to do so is wanky. But you seem happy

Brycie Sun 30-Sep-12 15:43:17

Elaine, being completely honest here, we probably agree on the basics of this. But I think you will never ever change anyone's mind with a post like that.

ElaineBenes Sun 30-Sep-12 15:47:53

I haven't 'beaten up' on any parent and I certainly haven't moralised. Don't be silly

I've never criticised any individual's choice, just the evidence on which it may be based.

Brycie -whose mind am I trying to change? Actually, I have done irl. A mum at school was talking about Wakefield and the mmr. We ended up having a long chat and she did change her mind grin

Brycie Sun 30-Sep-12 15:49:49

grin aha but did you call her paranoid and deluded? I bet you didn't

Brycie Sun 30-Sep-12 15:52:51

And I must admit I thought you were trying to change people's minds on here! Apologies. But come on, talking about conspiracy theorising, delusion and paranoia is beating up on parents, admit it.

Pagwatch Sun 30-Sep-12 15:56:22

'misguided, misinformed, paranoid and deluded'

I think it is a bit lame ass to suggest that you don't criticise individual choice when you repeatedly stereotype and ridicule anyone who holds that opinion. Just because you don't say 'you, mrs miggins are misguided, misinformed etc etc does not negate the effect.

As I said, we have to agree to is agree. I am just baffled that the desire to sneer and lecture overwhelms the desire to potentially persuade someone on line.

Marvellous that you have done it in real life. But I am sure that in real life your manner is less like Professor Umbridge.

Pagwatch Sun 30-Sep-12 15:58:03

Agree to disagree.

'Agree to is agree' sounds like an odd fortune cookie

ElaineBenes Sun 30-Sep-12 16:25:28

Sorry but I do find conspiracy theories rather deluded and paranoid - like all govts jn the western workd being in the pocket of big pharma??? And I did tell the mum at the school that I thought those theories were indeed developed by deluded and paranoid people. She had doubts, thats a different kettle of fish! But I certainly told her what I think and we discussed.

There's a huge difference between people who have concerns but are open minded to those who have decided that vaccines are bad and seek anything which will confirm their decision.

Viviennemary Sun 30-Sep-12 16:38:50

The aim is to have every child vaccinated. And if a child has a bad reaction that is still considered fine because of the benefit to the majority. But they will deny the bad reaction is caused by the vaccine. The same as they tell us GM crops are safe. Nuclear energy is safe. yeah right.

ArthurPewty Sun 30-Sep-12 16:41:34

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArthurPewty Sun 30-Sep-12 16:43:23

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ElaineBenes Sun 30-Sep-12 17:44:23

My kids go to private school, they make their own rules. But in new York state, exemptions are only for religious or medical reasons, so you'd basically have to like.

I don't think calling people who vaccinate 'sheeple' is a way to make friends, right leonie? hmm

Vivienne - you perfectly exemplify the attitude of anti-vaxers. For example, nuclear energy is one of the safest ways of producing energy and far better than carbon based fuels. Yet it seems scary so it's vilified. Same with vaccinations. It's distrust of authority.

ElaineBenes Sun 30-Sep-12 17:45:15

Lie, not like. And new York state does refuse exemptions.

OrangeandGoldMrsDeVere Sun 30-Sep-12 17:59:14

If anyone is interested.
I am very pro vaccine. Mine have had all of theirs and if DD was alive she would most definately have had the HPV vaccine.

However, despite this and despite me not really understanding or agreeing with those that do not vaccinate,
The people I know who don't are not the selfish old hippies I perhaps once imagined them to be.

I am sure there are people who don't vaccinate because they are lazy or stupid.
I can honestly say I have not come across them.
People think long and hard about it and whilst I rather they would, they have a choice not to.

You can have fully vaccinated children with parents who pontificate and preach yet think its ok to take their poxy kids out in public.

And I mean poxy in its literal since btw.

crashdollGOLD Sun 30-Sep-12 18:38:41

I've seen Leonie on this threads, she has no desire to make friends, only push her biased agenda in a rude manner. It would be nice to discuss this rationally (on BOTH sides) but I'm afraid it's far too emotive to do so.

crashdollGOLD Sun 30-Sep-12 18:39:26

*these threads

crashdollGOLD Sun 30-Sep-12 18:42:26

To add, I do actually understand why some people don't vaccinate and while I'm not sure I would do the same, I can understand their rationale. However, there are some people's opinions that I just can't understand and do think they're being unreasonable and irrational.

bruffin Sun 30-Sep-12 18:56:30

Can I just point out the article on infant mortality Sdeuchers pointed to is complete nonsense.
Firstly it doesnt take into account that each country has different definitions of infant mortality.
In the US a child that takes a breath is considered to have lived and died, in other countries the definition is born after a certain number of weeks sometime up to 26 weeks, others countries go on weight or body length, others dont count a live birth if the baby dies within the first day.
There the US has a higher mortality rate as it is including children that had no chance of living for longer than a short time and wouldnt be registered as a live birth in other countries.
This also means that the author is not basing his calculations on vaccinated children but including children that didnt live long enough to have any vaccines let alone the full regime.

ElaineBenes Sun 30-Sep-12 18:58:11

I think that's right crash doll. If I had a child was I thought was vaccine damaged, I'm not sure I'd vaccinate his or her sibling. People have many reasons for not choosing to vaccinate.

My problem is when the anti vaxers start with the conspiracy theories and misinformation. I think it was leonie who said no matter what evidence is placed in front of her, she'll never vaccinate. If someone put evidence in front of me that vaccines aren't safe, I certainly wouldn't vaccinate. The evidence should drive the decision, not the other way around!

JoTheHot Sun 30-Sep-12 19:04:04

pagwatch if you wish to drone from your soap box about inconsistencies in other people, you might set your own house straight first. You say you don't like the abrasive style of other posters, but your own posts are riddled with abuse. Your posts are also long on assumptions about people you don't know, and seem to be largely directed at straw-women. Where are these people saying that vaccinating is 'scary and complicated', and where are the posts abusing them for saying it?

My own view is that this is what most of the anti's actually think, but they're buggered if they're going to admit that they don't know what to think or who to trust. I get wound up by people claiming with great confidence to have researched and understood a topic which they clearly have not. If you built bridges for a living, and someone rolled up and said bridge builders have it all wrong, bridges should be made of salt, how would you respond? I respond to what people say, not to my best guess at their underlying psychology. You've thought a lot about why the pro's behave the way they do, but apparently not at all about why they get annoyed. Bad behaviour on forums is also complicated and never the fault of one side only.

Brycie, so you've read someone who has read Thomas Kuhn, and yes, science and scientists are far from perfect, but if you don't trust the science, how else are you supposed decide whether to vaccinate or not? Science is the least unreliable source of information for medical decisions.

ElaineBenes Sun 30-Sep-12 19:04:32

I know bruffin! What am awful article. It'd never have made it into an epidemiological journal! For me the biggest problem was the lack of any confounding variables! We also know that in developed countries, infant mortality is dependent on a million other factors and vaccination would only change infant mortality by a small amount - its one of many factors.

But this is the problem, people bring out these articles without any kind of critical appraisal or nderstanding of research methods and say look! Vaccines increase mortality!

Brycie Sun 30-Sep-12 21:50:20

JotheHot, what I'm trying to say is, the very hectoring posts like your last one may be quite satisfrying to type, but I don't think they inch people forward in terms of making a vaccination decision you might approve of. I'm not sure it's really about bad behaviour, more about if you want people to pay attention in a positive way, what will achieve that. On your last point, that is linked. I think if you don't understand the levels of mistrust people have simply because of the plain fact that manufacturers are often guilty of distortion, you aren't going to get very far. As I said before, parents are not muppets (most parents anyway!) and even if you enjoy treating them like muppets, which some people obviously do! then it's not going to earn you people's attention in terms of your actual message.

Brycie Sun 30-Sep-12 22:32:26

Anyway I t6hink I will retire from this conversation as I've said what I wanted to. I'm really pleased that some people agree with me but I think it's a shame that the point I'm making does not seem to have got across in some ways. Goodnight all, wish you well smile

ElaineBenes Sun 30-Sep-12 23:32:25

To be fair Brycie, the hectoring exists on both sides.

And i don't think the anti-vax folk posting are here to have their minds changed. They made up their minds a ling time ago.

I only post because I feel the need to counter balance the damage from the crankosphere. Otherwise it sounds like an equal debate when in reality on one side you have theoretical speculation, anecdotes, scaremongering and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories - and on the other solid empirical evidence.

Katiebeau Mon 01-Oct-12 00:13:19

Just wanted to add some facts regarding pharma hiding negative data. The legal regulatory and vigilance environment has been tightened up hugely in the past 15 years and this is no longer possible. All data, good, bad or indifferent must be submitted to the regulators.

In the past pharma exploited grey laws. They are long gone now (Vioxx, Seroxat etc exposed these major flaws in the law).

One poster remarked on their child being used as a guinea pig as vaccines are monitored for years post launch.

This is usual for all drugs and 1) is essential to monitor use and side effects outside in a real clinical setting and 2) can and does occasionally show that a drug is not suitable for wider use so it has a more limited use on its licence or is withdrawn.

Also re not trusting the conclusions of the drug manufacturers all data, every single piece, and it's source and it's generation (clinical trial data etc) are checked for accuracy and, to be blunt, to ensure its not made up by a truly independent regulator. It's amazing the details they dive into, even with family members, for conflicts of interest now.

All of the above is right to ensure rigour in the system. I just wanted to correct some misunderstandings I saw on the thread.

And with MMR I struggle so much with the hangover from one of the most shitty, unethical prices of research done in modern times. By a man on the payroll of the single vaccine manufacturers. But he forgot to disclose that didn't he.

Oh and OP it's personal choice. I have my opinion, others have theirs. We don't have to agree.

JoTheHot Mon 01-Oct-12 07:11:22

Brycie I appreciate that when someone says something outright thick or false, that saying as much is not always the best way to counter it, but I never claimed to be perfect. It seems to me the greater fault is with the person who says something really thick or false in the first place, not the person who runs out of patience. 2 anti's (Leonie and tabitha8) have recently posted to say that they'll post what they want, when they want, and there is no onus on them to check if it's true first. This passed without comment, while me and others who are copping it for being less than compassionate with such people.

Anyway, the hectoring issue wasn't your's at all. It was pagwatch's. Your point was that science is untrustworthy and so couldn't be used to counter peoples concerns. I asked you where else you turned for information.

Brycie Mon 01-Oct-12 08:16:24

Thank you Katiebeau, I know I said I was going, but your post is so informative and just what I am interested in, I just wanted to say thanks. Pagwatch, I must just say this as well as it played on my mind yesterday, which is I think the word "droning" about your posts was veyr personal and mean, I don't wish to start an argument with anyone else about this, it's just my opinion. I thought your posts were neither droning (nor hectoring!) to be quite honest. JotheHot sorry this is slightly argumentative, but informative posts like Bruffin's about how that study does not show what it is meant to, or the webstie liknks from Elianebenet are so usefu,l but I just cannot see the usefulness of upsetting people in the way that you seem keen to do.

Brycie Mon 01-Oct-12 08:18:10

Sorry Elainbenes, I think it was someone else who linked to websites and you pointed that out, that's what I was talking about (but I think you understand that!) Just in case anyone goes looking,

bruffin Mon 01-Oct-12 08:37:55

The problem is Brycie, Its not about just this thread. We are talking about the same people posting unsubstanciated misinformation for years. Its exasperating and its not surprising that sometimes posters get a bit short.
Also there is all this mistrust of big pharma bu they are quite happy to trust doctord like wakefield and halveson who make money out of scaremongering.

ArthurPewty Mon 01-Oct-12 09:22:43

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArthurPewty Mon 01-Oct-12 09:22:51

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArthurPewty Mon 01-Oct-12 09:24:18

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JoTheHot Mon 01-Oct-12 09:30:00

Brycie, you criticise my posts for their style, I criticise your posts for their content, and never the twain shall meet. I think accuracy counts above all else. You'll probably say what's the point in being right if no-one's listening. This style vs content divide seems to be a common feature of anti-science vs pro-science threads.

HandHolding Mon 01-Oct-12 10:01:55

Katie you said
all data, every single piece, and it's source and it's generation (clinical trial data etc) are checked for accuracy and, to be blunt, to ensure its not made up by a truly independent regulator.

Could then explain this article in the New Scientist (which actually refers back to articles in Nature etc...) as to how more than half of the trials can not be replicated?
Article here
so much so that that scientists themselves are actually asking to put in place a system that could help review studies and ensure that they are replicable
I am of course working on the assumption that it isn't possible to trust a study that isn't replicable.

seeker Mon 01-Oct-12 10:20:36

"Add message | Report | Message poster LeonieDelt Mon 01-Oct-12 09:24:18
and yeah Bruffin, its not surprising some of us get short with people posting the same unsubstantiated pro-vaccine-without-even-thinking stuff, over and over again [eyeroll]"


ArthurPewty Mon 01-Oct-12 10:22:13

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pagwatch Mon 01-Oct-12 10:29:37

Hello JoTheHot

Yes I am sure I drone. Feel free to ignore me, I won't be offended.

The thread was started by a woman for whom vaccination is scary and complicated. She is choosing to avoid vaccination out of fear and instead of anyone really tryingto reason with her she was called selfish and thick and responsible for endangering "millions" of people.
Did you not actually read the thread and missed that bit?

For me vaccination is scary and complicated but I am 'lucky' as my GP agrees so I get fewer 'selfish, baby endangering, nutter whose children shouldn't be allowed to shool' posts
Did you miss all the 'your children shouldn't be allowed to go to school or get any social services' stuff too?

You also missed the bit where I said that the problem is caused by the endless bludgeoning by the two extreme ends of the debate. The two ends.
I am more irritated by the 'we are right and you are thick' postings of the pro camp simply because the threads in question are rarely 'I am so happy that I vaccinated. Isn't it great' They are usually shouting at someone who hasn't vaccinated or is concerned to.

I have thought a lot about the issue because it is deeply personal. And yes I do get irritated because the whole issue of vaccination could be discussed in a much more productive way but people don't want to do that.
I am not the slightest bit anti vaccine. I would love to get my dc vaccinated and feel great about it. It must feel brilliant.
But I really do know what it feels like when it is not that straightforward and I don't understand why people won't even try to empathise.

But I am faintly grateful for your posts. My main thrust is that being hostile, aggressive and determined that you are right so who gives a fuck - they ask for it- is a bit thick and self defeating and you reply that you don't care because they are wrong and you are right. Well done.

Perhaps mnhq could just set up a rolling 'pro vs anti vacc' thread and everyone can cut and paste to their hearts content. And then posters with concerns can get dealt with with some kindness.

HandHolding Mon 01-Oct-12 10:32:30

Perhaps mnhq could just set up a rolling 'pro vs anti vacc' thread and everyone can cut and paste to their hearts content. And then posters with concerns can get dealt with with some kindness.

Again applaud Pagwatch

ArthurPewty Mon 01-Oct-12 10:34:27

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pagwatch Mon 01-Oct-12 10:38:37

Anyway. I hide vaccination posts for a reason and my son is not having a good day so I am going to hide this.

I apologise for being ruder than I would usually be on here. I apologise to anyone I might have offended.
But this knockabout, kick the shit out of each other, yah boo stuff is about my life. Every fucking day. Until I die.
It massively annoys me off that others just dip into a barney because it passes a morning and they might score a point and get to feel I feel sorry for other women who genuinely don't know what to do and just get name calling.

But that is my issue. I shall take it elsewhere.

PosieParker Mon 01-Oct-12 10:53:59

Hostility against those overly entitled "I've read an article and I believe weirdy conspiracies and cover ups" parents who do not vaccinate is understandable. Jeez the lack of take up, through psuedo intellectual enquiry not immune compromised, means we are all more at risk. I give the same judgement to people who smoke during pregnancy or near me!!

Katiebeau Mon 01-Oct-12 12:09:21

Handholding replication of data wasn't part of my post, at all.

Replication is complex and often when examining different trails the result vary up and down. The red flags are where no effect is seen using a similar patient demographic across multiple factors and same drug regime and endpoints.

I have a question. Why trust one negative trail over multiple positive ones? The same applies in reverse of course.

I have reviewed closely "negative" trials rebutting initial finding countless times. Some are right. And the drug reassessed in light of the new data. Some utter rubbish.

No overall trend towards right on one side only. Each case on its own merits.

Katiebeau Mon 01-Oct-12 12:15:17

leoniedelt. Reboxetine is certainly subject to historical data withholding which was addressed with the new law, hence the negative meta analysis being possible now as Pfizer released the old data.

I'm not daft, the law will keep tightening over time as some arseholes try and misuse it. And that's as it should be.

ElaineBenes Mon 01-Oct-12 12:44:10

Thank you for your informative posts Katie.

The answer to your question: confirmation bias.

ElaineBenes Mon 01-Oct-12 12:48:49


In case you don't know, pagwatch is referring to an earlier thread in aibu. This thread is a spin off. In the original thread, there was a mum concerned about febrile convulsions who (I agree) was treated very harshly and unfairly. That's how all this started.

RubyStolenBootyGates Mon 01-Oct-12 12:53:02

Posie, I have a masters in data/statistical analysis and qualitative and quantitive primary/secondary evidence analysis. How well qualified do I have to be before my research isn't pseudo-intellectual?

HandHolding Mon 01-Oct-12 13:20:10

The answer to your question: confirmation bias
I completely agree with that!

There is a LOT of bias in research, wo even going in the issue of why only the positive research are actually published and not the other 20 negative ones, and for me this IS the reason why I am always cautious when I read 'Oh such and such research has shown that xxx'. And why some people can be weary of the line 'But research has shown that ...' because tbh, if 50% of research can't be replicated, then as far as I am concerned, it means 50% of what we think we know isn't the truth (or rather we can not say it IS the truth. It might be or it might not. We don't know).

For one thing, I can not understand how it is possible to say that all children should be vaccinated when we all know (?) that not every drugs is suitable for any patient.
No one would ever say that all people who have headaches have to take let's say paracetamol or ibuprofen. Because we know that
1- some people react badly to them (eg: some 1000 people die every year from gastro intestinal issue following a course of NSAD)
2- they don't always work (eg they actually do cause headaches...)
3- well they just have side effects varying depending on the condition of the patient, incl the issue of association with other medications.
So why why should we assume that all children should have all the vax at the age given by the NHS (or whatever other health authority it is)? And that there can't be any side effects? Or that these side effects are just mild, they can't be that serious?

In the same way, we would all agree that it is the patient choice to follow (or not) a consultant advice regarding their illness. It is OK for a pg woman to say no to an induction or for a cancer patient to have such and such treatment.
So, why is it suddenly 'bad, irresponsible etc...' to actually use of our own free choice to choose to have a vax (or for our dc to have a vax)? Is that OK to force everyone to have a drug even if you know that X amount of patients will die from it/develop a serious illness? Even if if this number of people is very low? (Very important Ethical question there btw.)

Why is it that, as parents/patients, we are never shown the list of possible side effects and contra indications for vax?
I always read the ones on any medication I take. When I was taking some drugs to treat endometriosis, I knew from that list a side effect was high blood pressure (not that my consultant ever said a word about it...). When I was rushed to hospital with very bad headaches etc..., I could tell what was the cause.
Now what about vax? Have you ever been told about possible side effects (apart from the 'Oh he might feel a bit under the weather...') or contra indications? I do not believe these are the only possible side effects or contra indication for them but no one ever wants to honestly talk about it with patients (That's the result of the bias that 'vax are good for you' there). Sensible discussion wo anyone putting down the other would probably go a really long way to reassure parents who are worried or avoid any feeling of 'conspiraty' or 'big pharmas are just there to make money not to make people better'.

This whole subject of vax has become a very emotive issue. And everyone finds it easy to twist results etc... to make them say what they want.
A good example for me is the MMR.
I went to see paed for ds as he had chronic constipation. He had it since just after he had the first MMR. I raised the issue with the paed who, of course, told me 'But there is no link between the MMR and the vax. We haven't proven that there is any link'. (Add pissed off face and annoyed tone of voice)
I said 'Yes. But we haven't proven that there is no link either'.
He stayed silent for a bit and just said 'no, we haven't.' And that's right, the answer is we don't know. Not having found the link yet doesn't mean there is no link.

HandHolding Mon 01-Oct-12 13:25:16

Instead we just end up with people piling up saying that 'oh you can't be able to really analyse data in an appropriate way','Oh you can't read research' (put down), 'oh but you are putting millions of people at risk' (guilt), 'Oh but you are putting your child in danger' (fear) etc....
All of which are just emotional ways to get you way out of it wo a real discussion.

But it hardly ever brings the 'truth' (what ever that is) or the best solution though.

Katiebeau Mon 01-Oct-12 14:32:30

Handholding. You are right. No drug or vaccine is ever right for everybody. Ever. It is was it would be useless. All drugs/vaccines have advice on who not to treat/dose as all which do something have unwanted effects also.

Any GP ignoring reported adverse events is failing in their job. All should be recorded and investigated. How does a drug company and regulator update labelling if they don't receive reports???

Better still patients or parents can now report directly rather than going via their Dr.

ElaineBenes Mon 01-Oct-12 14:44:47


you're conflating confirmation bias and publication bias.

while you're right that you can't say a link between exposure x and outcome y doesn't exist if you haven't studied it, you could equally say that about any exposure and outcome - so you could say that there is no evidence that the MMR doesn't, say, cause brain tumours. But there's no theoretical reason to even suspect that it does but I still can't say that there is evidence that the MMR DOESN'T cause brain tumours.

There are various outcomes that have been studied, looking at their association with exposure to vaccines (of various sorts). There is strong evidence to show that vaccines are very safe with respect to those outcomes. Yes, there is a small chance that they are wrong simply through random chance even. But when study after study, with different non random biases as well (ie biases from the study design itself), comes up with the same results then the probability is strongly in favour of the vaccine being safe. Nothing's 100%, of course not, but the probability of, say, the MMR being the cause of autism (one which has been studied a lot) is negligible.

That's not to say that side effects can't happen and that those side effects can be serious. There are also a very small number of children for whom the risk of vaccination outweights the risk of not being vaccinated (although that often assumes that others WILL vaccinate). But the evidence is that the risk of long term damage from side effects from the vaccines routinely given in childhood in the UK is tiny, really tiny.

HandHolding Mon 01-Oct-12 15:29:32

Yes but it doesn't address 3 issues

1- Is it ethically OK to give a vax to all children knowing that some will be badly affected by the vax?
2- Why is it that parents are NOT told about the contra-indications and side effects (all of them!) of the vax like they would be with any other medicine?
3- Why is it that patients are allowed to choose what they think is right for them on any other procedure (so they can refuse an op for cancer for example) but this isn't an acceptable answer for vax?

Saying that the effects are negligible etc... will be of very little comfort for the child who has suffered from these side effects. They will be of little comfort to the parents either, especially if they had doubt in the first place (as it is the case in the OP that started this new thread).
Would be able to like with the guilt to have accepted to give something to your child that hurt him even though you didn't think it was suitable for them?

bruffin Mon 01-Oct-12 15:51:38

1. Because the amount of children that will be harmed by the actual disease if we dont vaccinate is far higher than those that are harmed by vaccination. You could say is it ethically acceptable to allow a disease that could harm and kill, when it can be easily be prevented.

2.The contradictions are not a secret they are easy to find out,

3.Because not having an op for cancer doesnt affect the rest of society in the way not having a vaccine may ie reducing herd immunity.

HandHolding Mon 01-Oct-12 15:57:00

But would YOU be happy to live with the guilt bruffin?
Would YOU be happy to have lost a child 'for the good of the society'?
Would YOU be happy to be disabled/ill knowing that was completely preventable?

I am sure that from far away the answer is a resounding 'YES it is better to take the risk' but when it is about you or your child... somehow I don't think that would be the answer.

crashdoll Mon 01-Oct-12 16:14:01

Would YOU be happy to have lost a child 'for the good of the society'?

That's not why most people vaccinate though. They vaccinate so their child doesn't get the diseases and thus, the potentially serious complications.

JoTheHot Mon 01-Oct-12 16:20:53

HandHolding When you talk about guilt, losing a child, and preventable, are you refering to vaccine damage or disease damage?

bruffin Mon 01-Oct-12 16:43:47

But would YOU be happy to live with the guilt bruffin?

The day before my ds's chicken pox spots came out we bumped to into a little friend who had leukemia. Luckily i could inform her mum that ds had chicken pox the next day and she could take preventative action. I would not have lived with the guilt if i found out that my ds passing on a preventable disease to a child that could easily have died from it.

Would YOU be happy to have lost a child 'for the good of the society'?
Not sure what you are really trying to say, but how many children have actually died from vaccine damage compared to the illnesses? The numbers are miniscule.

Would YOU be happy to be disabled/ill knowing that was completely preventable?

Again you are far more likely to be disabled/ill from the diseases themselves.

I told the story on the other thread. My DS has a genetic condition called GEFS+ which means he has had far more than normal febrile convulsions ie 20+ and the last one he had was at 13, the normal age to grown out of them is 5.
I had to weigh up the risk of him having a fc from the vaccination or the disease. I chose to vaccinate because the chances of him having an fc from the disease is much higher and the vaccination is "planned" so i know when to look out for one. If he were to catch the disease he would have one out of the blue and could have been anywhere.

seeker Mon 01-Oct-12 17:46:10

The bottom line is that there is no evidence at all that healthy children are made more than temporarily ill by current vaccines. And any child who might to be damaged- by beingbimmunosupressed, for example, would be flagged before vaccination. And before I get flamed, I am aware that there are some parents who sincerely believe that their child was damaged, but there just isn't any evidence to support this. And people on both sides of the debate have beennhunting for evidence for years and found none. And there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that children have been made very ill by the diseases that vaccines prevent. So it's a no brainer, as far as I can see.

seeker Mon 01-Oct-12 17:47:13

"Would YOU be happy to be disabled/ill knowing that was completely preventable? "

Completely preventable by vaccination?

ArthurPewty Mon 01-Oct-12 17:50:54

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ElaineBenes Mon 01-Oct-12 18:13:26

Exactly seeker.

Holding hands.
There's no 'no risk' option. And when faced with a situation like that you have two possible errors. One: You choose to vaccinate and your child is left dead/permanently disabled. Two: You choose not to vaccinate and your child is left dead/permanently disabled.

You don't have an option of zero probability of error. I personally don't care which error I am reducing, my point is to choose the error with the smallest probability of occurring. Since all evidence shows that the probability of error one is extremely small (probability of death - practically zero to all intents and purposes) and the probability of error two is (while still small) larger, the objective and rational decision is to vaccinate with the current childhood vaccinations.

There are some children for whom we know that error one is much greater than error two when all other children are vaccinated. This is a social good since we then allow them to reduce their probability of death or serious disability while at the same time reducing that of our own children, assuming they do not fall into this category. It also allows us to err on the side of caution. When people who can vaccinate their children, don't then they are not only plumping for the higher risk error, but they raise the risk for those for whom the risk is already elevated (although first and foremost, they raise the risk for their own children).

Brycie Mon 01-Oct-12 20:53:39

Really informative exchanges, thank you. I think the posts by ElainBenes and handholding have confirmed the view that I had earlier, which is in favour of the parents right to choose. Because of the way you describe the choices, ElaineBenes, it does highlight that we don't have the right to tell someone else to take the risk. When I took the "risk" of vaccinating, I did it for my own children, as crashdoll said, and if I had done it because other people wanted me to, the guilt of any adverse reaction woudl have been even more overwhelming. I do not like the idea of carryingthat burden having told or shamed somebody ielse into doing it.

ElaineBenes Mon 01-Oct-12 21:40:02

Yes, I agree Brycie.

My problem isn't with parents making choices but the misinformation, conspiracy theories and distortion that are very persuasively presented on the proliferating number of anti-vax websites.

After all, you wouldn't not give a child with cancer chemotherapy because you believe in the power of prayer and expect society to say that's OK, right?

Brycie Tue 02-Oct-12 07:21:49

7am! I must be mad. I tend to think it all balances out in the end. There is enough information on both sides. I feel for parents like Bruffin, and I think if you have a child tha suffers like that then you could make a decision that goes either way, and that's entirely up to the parent, and not even a doctor or paediatrician could make the decsision for them.

PosieParker Tue 02-Oct-12 14:44:19

I'm guessing to be qualified to comment you have to be a medical professional involved in administering vaccines or compiling research regarding vaccines. Alternatively you could be an advisor to the government or a minister.

I would prefer to live somewhere that if you don't vaccinate your children aren't welcome in state education, unless your child is one of the few that is advised not to have vaccinations.

RubyStolenBootyGates Tue 02-Oct-12 18:27:50

You do know whare having no medical choice leads don't you Posie? I'm glad I don't live there.

ElaineBenes Tue 02-Oct-12 19:08:12

I'm glad I do. Making vaccination mandatory for public school attendance means children who genuinely can't be vaccinated, especially those who are immunocompromised, can attend school with far less risk.

If you decide not to vaccinate your children against medical advice then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of that decision on others who are not in a position to make that choice.

You can't have it both ways.

ArthurPewty Tue 02-Oct-12 19:39:04

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArthurPewty Tue 02-Oct-12 19:41:22

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ElaineBenes Tue 02-Oct-12 19:54:32

No, I wouldn't but I also wouldn't bury my head in the sand and pretend there are no consequences for society.

The primary beneficiary would be your own children. That's why parents should vaccinate. But we're not going to agree on that one, especially since they are indeed benefiting from herd immunity.

Furthermore, if a decision not to vaccinate is taken against medical advice, it is not then right that you should then be allowed to knowingly put others at risk. It's your right not to vaccinate but it's not your right to put others at risk. That's why I totally agree with the US policy. And, as I said before, New York State only allows medical and religious exemptions - so I don't think you'd get one here anyway unless you lied.

ElaineBenes Tue 02-Oct-12 19:55:12

Qualifier - no I wouldn't if there were any evidence that that is the case, which there isn't, so it's a non issue.

ArthurPewty Tue 02-Oct-12 20:07:51

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArthurPewty Tue 02-Oct-12 20:08:56

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ElaineBenes Tue 02-Oct-12 20:41:01

I've never heard of a right to bodily sanctity hmm.

But glad you think you have the right to put others at risk. Charming.

Oh, and the right to lie to get what you want.

Very ethical...

seeker Tue 02-Oct-12 22:28:50

Leonie- presumably younhqve been advised not to vaccinate if your children are immunocompromized? Which means that it's a non issue as far as you are concerned.

And on earth is "bodily sanctity"?

RubyStolenBootyGates Tue 02-Oct-12 22:59:54

But it's not against medical advice because not all doctors are as keen on vaccinations as you'd like to think. And my child IS and will always be more important to me than your child. Just as your child is to you.

I have made a legal choice which is best for my family. Why do you think a random off the interwebs is going to change my carefully researched mind?

Brycie Tue 02-Oct-12 23:40:13

Posieparker said: I'm guessing to be qualified to comment you have to be a medical professional involved in administering vaccines or compiling research regarding vaccines. Alternatively you could be an advisor to the government or a minister.

I don't think this is true at all, it takes all the comment and decision making out of the hands of parents, and as I am one of them, I think I am very much able to comment on this thank you. If you compare a very well qualified/educated person like RubyStolenGates with your average health visitor (if you'd shown mine diagrams of an arse and an elbow she would have been hard-pushed to tell them apart) it's aboslutely impossible to say the health visitor is mroe qualified to comment!

Brycie Wed 03-Oct-12 00:02:24

Sorry that has made me really cross. What about Bruffin and the study she explained, what about parents with experience of a vaccine reaction they can share and help oethers with, I just think that's a really controlling thing to say.

ElaineBenes Wed 03-Oct-12 01:22:52

Unfortunately I'd have to agree with you about health visitor Brycie.some of the advice they give is truly appalling! But I don't think they're the ones making vaccine policy and if I had concerns about vaccines for my children, I'd want to see a doctor, ideally a paeditatrician or immunologist.

Ruby, I dont know who is trying to change your mind, if you've made a decision together with your doctor about your dc's care, I certainly wouldn't try to change your mind! The only thing which I would comment on is if you came out with some of the anti vax claptrap from the crankosphere.

Of course we all look out for our own children's interest but you also can't ignore the impact your actions have on others. I think it's very unfair for children who are unvaccinated against medical advice to expose other children who can't be vaccinated to increased risk. Of course, it should be legal but I think there should be sanctions, as in the us. But since your children fall in the latter camp, this would actually benefit your children (who of course you think of first and foremost).

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 08:32:18

Realistically, nobody who was making a difficult and controversial choice about their child's health care would rely on the advice of health visitors alone. And anybody who said that they had researched and then made an informed decision and this turned out to mean "I asked the health visitor" would have very little credibility.

RubyStolenBootyGates Wed 03-Oct-12 09:05:56

And Posie, whilst Doctors do have a general education in the drugs that they
administer, I doubt that they have the time to do specific number-crunching and report analysis for each one and for every patient. My view of qualified health professionals may however, be a little jaded.

In the case of my GP and his wife (also a Doctor) I wouldn't trust their opinion as far as I could throw them.

Mr Dr. Vinaygamoorthy was struck off last year and his delightful wife who found clearing ear wax a challange was on conditional registration

Their practice was shut without notification and we are currently without a GP. (And we haven't needed to visit one anyway for many years)

daytoday Wed 03-Oct-12 10:07:25

Christ alive, Why don't we just open our mouths and shove in anything?

Regardless of underlying health issues or family history.

We are all a cookie mould aren't we - exactly the same.

Yawn . . . .

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 10:09:08

"Christ alive, Why don't we just open our mouths and shove in anything?

Regardless of underlying health issues or family history.

We are all a cookie mould aren't we - exactly the same.

Yawn . . . ."

Because this is what anyone is suggesting........hmm

analogue Wed 03-Oct-12 11:19:31

These threads are always dense, IMHO. Some pople do what they're told because they have absolute faith that the establishment always acts in the best interests of them. Where would we be as a society if we couldn't rely on any bit of information that our government/professionals gave us.

But you also have people that understand that this is not always the case. The UNBIASED evidence available to parents when making vaccination choices is ZERO. WHen posters quote the research in respected medical journals, the research is always asking the wrong questions, or asking them in the wrong way.

SO in answer to the question of the thread, as a parent who refuses to have my babies vaccinated, the reason is that, on balance and based on a wide array of research from all sources, my child alone is better off without vaccination than with.

Nobody on this thread has the right to call me stupid, ignorant or anything else for that matter. I saw mentioned earlier that parents who don't vaccinate their children take a handful of random terms, like histamine, allergies and aluminium, and jumble them up into their own weird science.


analogue Wed 03-Oct-12 11:50:54

As an aside, if your child is vaccinated, how are they at risk from my unvaccinated child?

As an additional aside, do you know that when I was vaccinated against Measles as a youngster, and subsequently caught it, as did all of my friends, my mum was told that of course we would still catch it, we would just have a milder version.


seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 11:58:58

My child is at risk from your unvaccinated child before he has had his vaccinations. Or he is immunocompromized and cannot be vaccinated for sound medical reasons.

analogue Wed 03-Oct-12 12:08:12

Then your unvaccinated child (sorry, I thought we were talking about vaccinated children!!) is also at risk from you, and me, and everyone else he comes into contact with. Except, apparantly, vaccinated children.

The whooping cough vaccine barely works and the MMR don't work for a lifetime either. Basically, your child is at risk from everyone except the recently vaccinated (although that is also arguable) and those who have acquired natural immunity through being exposed to the actual disease. Now that often is lifelong.

OrangeandGoldMrsDeVere Wed 03-Oct-12 12:08:50

Lots of children are at risk.
For lots of reasons.
It is your choice not to have your Hilda vaccinated but please do not minimize the risks to others if our child becomes I'll.
And the hmm is out of place. This ubject is not a matter of 'what ifs' to some of us.

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 12:17:33

Immunity rarely lasts forever, however it is aquired. Whooping cough vaccination certainly lasts long enough to protect babies until they are old enough to deal with the illness.

And vaccination certainly lasted long enough to exterminate small pox, and to nearly exterminate polio.

RubyStolenBootyGates Wed 03-Oct-12 12:21:43

Except of course, where the polio vaccine actually causes polio.

"the problem is that while the oral vaccine has reined in wild polio, the wild virus is being replaced by vaccine-derived polio virus (VDPV), which causes acute flaccid paralysis. (Health officials don't call it polio because it isn't "wild.") The international meeting, organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) in collaboration with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Japanese Ministry of Health, is scheduled for May 30-June 1, 2012, in Geneva, Switzerland.

According to polioeradication.orgii:

"The meeting will review the available scientific information on VDPVs; discuss the scientific, policy and programmatic implications of continued VDPV emergence and transmission; and, help inform the 'roadmap for VDPV elimination' for the post-oral polio vaccine (OPV) era."

Environmental surveillance for VD

RubyStolenBootyGates Wed 03-Oct-12 12:28:05
PigletJohn Wed 03-Oct-12 12:31:28

The whooping cough vaccine barely works

I didn't know that, have you evidence to support your assertion?

Do you disagree with this:
"Before vaccines, an average of 157 cases per 100,000 persons were reported in the U.S., with peaks reported every two to five years; more than 93% of reported cases occurred in children under 10 years of age. The actual incidence was likely much higher. After vaccinations were introduced in the 1940s, incidence fell dramatically to less than 1 per 100,000 by 1970"

ElaineBenes Wed 03-Oct-12 12:42:20

The whooping cough vaccine is very effective against severe whooping cough. If you're vaccinated and get whooping cough, you're far less likely to have it severely.

Analogue, if you were as well researched as you like to believe you are, you would know that if you get breakthrough illness after being vaccinated, it is far more likely to be mild. True for whooping cough, chicken pox and measles. I think your skeptical emoticon exemplifies exactly the slightly paranoid crankosphere of non vaccinators.

ElaineBenes Wed 03-Oct-12 12:46:08


Ideally countries would move to adding inactivated polio virus vaccine to the vaccines given for individual protection along with opv to prevent transmission. The reason that doesn't happen is cost. Still better than not vaccinating at all, especially since polio eradication is on the cards.

analogue Wed 03-Oct-12 12:50:48

Yes. There is a LOT of evidence to support this.

From Pubmed for those who like university conducted research papers
Duration of immunity against pertussis after natural infection or vaccination.
Wendelboe AM, Van Rie A, Salmaso S, Englund JA.

Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.

Despite decades of high vaccination coverage, pertussis has remained endemic and reemerged as a public health problem in many countries in the past 2 decades. Waning of vaccine-induced immunity has been cited as one of the reasons for the observed epidemiologic trend. A review of the published data on duration of immunity reveals estimates that infection-acquired immunity against pertussis disease wanes after 4-20 years and protective immunity after vaccination wanes after 4-12 years. Further research into the rate of waning of vaccine-acquired immunity will help determine the optimal timing and frequency of booster immunizations and their role in pertussis control.

From personal experience:
I had it in early pregnancy, despite being immunised. It spread round my place of work and the local community like wildfire. Children and adults all had it. Sadly I didn't take a vaccine take up survey but roughly 90% take up means 9 out of every ten people that caught it were vaccinated. Some recently, some 20 or more years ago. All of those people were a 'risk' to newborn babies.

analogue Wed 03-Oct-12 12:52:01

Are you sure about this?
Evidence, please?
Analogue, if you were as well researched as you like to believe you are, you would know that if you get breakthrough illness after being vaccinated, it is far more likely to be mild. True for whooping cough, chicken pox and measles. I think your skeptical emoticon exemplifies exactly the slightly paranoid crankosphere of non vaccinators.

ElaineBenes Wed 03-Oct-12 12:56:31

We know that the pertussis vaccine immunity isn't as good as expected. The answer is to develop a better vaccine, not just to say 'oh well, not vaccinating then'. Some protection is better than none.

Theres plenty of scientific evidence analogue. I'm on the iPad and on my way to work so I have no time to link but I'm sure in your extensive research you must have come across this fact, no? Its been discussed on other threads. Just do a search. I'm sure you'll find lots of evidence. It's a biological fact I'm afraid.

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 12:57:44

Ok. Pertussis.

Natural immunity and vaccine immunity both have limited life span. However, if you have artificial immunity, you won't have had to have had pertussis- which is very dangerous for young babies, and incredibly distressing for anyone but particularly for young children.

And if you get the illness while you are "immune" it is likely to be mild.

analogue Wed 03-Oct-12 13:10:47

EB - I have heard it said many times. Still waiting for scientific evidence to prove it though. Feel free to provide some when you find yourself in front of a proper PC. Feel free also to ensure that your narrative is dripping with sarcasm. It always adds weight to mature debate.

Apparantly I am immune to both pertussis and Measles. I've had both naturally, following vaccination. I can assure you neither where mild. Particularly the WC which was really awful. I wouldn't want a little baby to catch it, no. But then there are lots of things I wouldn't want to happen to a little baby and damage or death from vaccines is also in that list.

Sadly the risks of the latter are 'likely to be' under reported because there is a general unwillingness in the scientific and medical community to acknowledge them for fear that it may make parents less inclined to tak ethem up for their babies. Sadly, that leads to the silly situation where people are having to make very important decisions with the wrong facts and figures.

The reason my first post said that these threads are dense is because we're all arguing from a position of relative ignorance (whether you happen to think so or not).

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 13:17:00

Analogue- in the meantime- could you expand on "the whooping cough vaccine barely works"?

analogue Wed 03-Oct-12 13:18:21

I mean that for something that carries risk of death and injury it doesn;t last very long!

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 13:21:13

Well, by your own account it can last as long as natural immunity. And pertussis carries a risk of serious illness and death- 10 babies this year, I think. What are the stats for death through vaccination?

analogue Wed 03-Oct-12 13:33:53

Apparantly no deaths at all from pertussis (and the rest) vaccination. In fact, it's so safe they are going to vaccinate pregnant women. I am confident that they have a vast body of evidence to be sure that this is safe for mother and child so who am I to argue?

PigletJohn Wed 03-Oct-12 13:44:09

analogue, unless you dispute the figures I showed, I don't see how you can sensibly claim that "the whooping cough vaccine barely works."

Do you still assert that, or would you like to reconsider?

analogue Wed 03-Oct-12 13:47:02

I still assert that PigletJohn.
I would not like to reconsider. Thank you.

PigletJohn Wed 03-Oct-12 13:55:59

Do you dispute the figures, or do you ascribe the enormous drop in cases following vaccination to some other cause?

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 14:05:56

So what exactly do you mean by "hardly works"?

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 14:07:33

Sorry- "barely works"

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 14:08:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 14:10:36

"brain issues"?

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 14:11:08


analogue Wed 03-Oct-12 14:16:02

In how many different formats would you like an expansion of my claim that it hardly works? I've said it at least three different ways now.

But all of this is a red herring to drag people away from the purpose of thread. To what end, I don't know.

Ultimately, you guys know what you're talking about far more than I do. What this should teach you is that you can't reason with an imbecile.

And on that note, I will bow out.

I promised myself not to get embroiled in these stupid threads again and here I am.

monsterchild Wed 03-Oct-12 14:16:11

ooh no, I'd hate to have brain tissue. Yuck!

PigletJohn Wed 03-Oct-12 14:17:51

"I agree it isn't a good vaccine"

Do you disagree with the figures I posted upthread then? confused

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 14:18:23

You said it" hardly works" because is only confers an immunity that lasts 4-12 years, unlike "natural immunity" which lasts 4-20 years. Is that what you mean?

PosieParker Wed 03-Oct-12 14:24:49

Nothing worse than parents who think they know best, above any actual research that is credible. I put them in the same category as other people who monumentally get on my nerves, and often overlap in these annoyances, like people who allow their precious children to queue jump and those that park on zig zags outside of schools.

ElaineBenes Wed 03-Oct-12 14:26:00

Or those who let their unvaccinated children put the lives of others at risk.

PigletJohn Wed 03-Oct-12 14:43:42

Well, analogue has gone now, so I suppose I'll never know what she meant by "barely works"

To my simple mind, the purpose of a vaccination is to reduce the rate of infection, illness and death resulting from a disease

analogue didn't dispute the figures which to my eye show that the pertussis vaccination achieved that.

So I deduce that she must be measuring its effectiveness in some other way.

I wonder what that is? confused

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 16:36:53

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PigletJohn Wed 03-Oct-12 16:51:40

Hello Leonie

"therefore most of the cases are in vaccinated children"

Do you know what proportion of vaccinated, and what proportion of unvaccinated, children become infected?

ElaineBenes Wed 03-Oct-12 16:55:15

Well, actually they are kind of typhoid marys. Sorry about that.

Who knows how many people your dd infected over the summer if she did indeed have pertussis.

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 17:04:13

"Stop making my kids into Typhoid Marys - they are not carrying any diseases, ta."

How do you know they aren't?

And the 10 babies who have died of whooping cough were all, I think, too young to have been vaccinated. They were depending on other people not passing the disease on to them.

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 17:11:53

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 17:13:53

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 17:14:55

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ElaineBenes Wed 03-Oct-12 17:17:16

My qualifying 'kind of' referred to the spreading of the disease, not the lack of symptoms. Just like whooping cough which she went around spreading.

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 17:18:09

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ElaineBenes Wed 03-Oct-12 17:19:39

YOU suspected wc, not me. If you did, then the responsible thing would to be have to kept her home for three weeks. Presumably if you had taken to the docotr, you'd have had diagnosis.

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 17:19:59

"But seeker, vaccinated children are just as likely to pass on WC as unvaccinated."

No they aren't!

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 17:21:36

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 17:24:11

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ElaineBenes Wed 03-Oct-12 17:24:31

I'm not the one boasting about how pleased I am that my child has had whooping cough.

If you had suspected WC (whether your GP had confirmed or not, since you know best), then surely the responsible thing to do would have been to have kept your dd home for 3 weeks.

You KNOW wc is contagious. You THINK your dd has WC. Did you keep her home for 3 weeks and away from other people?

Strange that your other dd didn't get it, considering how contagious WC is. But don't let that interfere with your narrative.

ElaineBenes Wed 03-Oct-12 17:25:42

Oh for gods sake Leonie. A little bit of common sense.

Most cases of whooping cough are in vaccinated children because most children are vaccinated.

What's important for an individual child is the RELATIVE risk. And you are far more LIKELY to get whooping cough if you're not vaccinated (and far far more likely to get it severely).

It's kind of basic statistics.

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 17:26:59

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 17:29:17

If you suspected she had whooping cough you should have kept her isolated for 3 weeks. Which is the responsible thing to do, so I am sure that's what you did?

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 17:31:26

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 17:31:36

But you asked why most cases of whooping cough are unvaccinated children- it seemed that you didn't know.

And presumably you introduced your daughter into the discussion- you made it personal!

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 17:33:13

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 17:33:33

The whooping cough cough is very distinctive- so if it didn't cross your mind qt the beginning it's unlikely that it was WC.

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 17:34:40

"seeker: then why are most cases of WC in vaccinated children?"

Was this rhetorical then?

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 17:35:16

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Faxthatpam Wed 03-Oct-12 17:37:11

Wow. Wakefield has a lot to answer for, I wonder how he sleeps at night.angry

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 17:37:11

So why are you on this thread? Not to debate, or to inform.... So what?

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 17:38:31

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArthurPewty Wed 03-Oct-12 17:39:52

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 17:44:01

Of course you don't. But you come and say unsubstantiated things, accuse people, bizarrely, of bullying, refuse to engage in debate- I was just wondering what you get out of it.

PigletJohn Wed 03-Oct-12 17:45:00

If only there was some way of making people less likely to catch WC; less likely to suffer badly; and less likely to pass it on sad

Oh - but wait - there is

seeker Wed 03-Oct-12 21:36:40

And we'll never know what "bodily sanctity" is.

PigletJohn Wed 03-Oct-12 22:36:31

"vaccinated children are just as likely to pass on WC as unvaccinated"

This is not true. Vaccinated children are less likely to catch the disease, therefore they are less likely to pass it on.

I gather you don't want to dispute the figures I posted earlier showing how enormously incidence of the disease dropped after universal vaccination.

How do you define "a good vaccine"

Brycie Wed 03-Oct-12 22:42:03

The sentence has two meanings. It could have your meaning, PigletJohn, or it could have the meaning "you are much more likely to catch whooping cough from a vaccinated child than an unvaccinated child", which is true, because of the numbers.

Brycie Wed 03-Oct-12 22:48:13

I really don't think people should be shamed into vaccinating for putting others at risk, after all if someone said to me Do NOT vaccinate because you are pushing disease into riskier age groups and that puts my child at risk, I would do what is best for my child regardless of that.

I think people maybe need to admit that even if someone was sitting in front of them with a child on their lap saying "please put your child at risk for my child's sake", you would put your own child first. Because parents perceive risks differently, it doesn't matter how much you say "but it puts others at risk"-- nothing will change, because the word "risk" means different things to different people. Its pointless in my opinion to keep repeating it, the only way to change it is to align everyone's definiteon of risk which means as I said earlier providing the evidence and not jusst saying "do it or you are putting other children at risk". The words mean different things to different people

Brycie Wed 03-Oct-12 22:49:01

There should have been a full stop on the end there!

PigletJohn Wed 03-Oct-12 23:11:10

I don't believe it was intended to have the meaning "it could have the meaning "you are much more likely to catch whooping cough from a vaccinated child than an unvaccinated child", which is true, because of the numbers" because it would then be pointless.

Rather like saying "you are more likely to be run over by a sober driver than a drunk one." We would not accept that as an argument to favour drunk driving.

ElaineBenes Thu 04-Oct-12 01:03:59


Risk perception differs among people. The actual risk of outcome x (ie the probability of it happening) is constant, regardless of perception.

It is also important to remember that when people who don't vaccinate are doing their risk perception, the risk of their children contracting disease y is dependent upon the actions of others. It is highly unlikely that there is any young child for whom exposure to diseases like measles, diptheria, polio, whooping cough is preferable to being vaccinated and the risk of children being exposed to these diseases is low precisely because others vaccinate. So while you may argue it is not ethical to expect parents to expose their children to risk for the sake of society (which I would tend to agree with) it is equally unethical to expect other peoples children to take a risk to protect yours, especially when there really isn't any solid evidence that your children are at an increased risk from vaccination than any other child.

People who say that they wouldn't vaccinate anyway, regardless of herd immunity, have a very skewed perception of risk - I think caused by a lack of understanding of probability and a lack of ability to think abstractly about the damage that these diseases cause since deaths averted isn't very emotional.

ElaineBenes Thu 04-Oct-12 01:08:19


I did have a look at the UN declaration of human rights to see if a right to bodily sanctity was there, especially since leonie said it trumps ALL others. I'm afraid it wasn't there, we don't have a right to bodily sanctity (I'm guessing she treats her body like a temple, not having it defiled by nasty and polluting vaccines) according to the UN.

Brycie Thu 04-Oct-12 07:59:15

No but it is true that you are much more likely to catchwhooping cough from a vaccinated child. Your analogy is wrong, suggesting that the reason for this is because of the condition of the perso (vaccinated/unvaccinated sober/drunk), which is the mistake which you said saying Lionie was suggesting? Not at all, it's not down to the condition of the person (vaccinated or unvaccinated) as Elainebenese pointed out. It's down to the numbers of vaccinated people ie because there are so many more of them, there are of course more of them with whooping cough and therefore you are more likly to catch wc from a vaccinated person. It does not mean any specific vaccinated person is more likely to pass it on than any specific unvaccinated person, which is not true because they would be less likely to catch it in the first place.

Brycie Thu 04-Oct-12 08:02:58

On the subject of risk perception: social and environmental conditions are not the only ones relevant to perception of risk, you also have the parents' perception of risk for their own individual child, knowledge of its vulnerabilities, family history, personal plans for care and health issues and all that.

So I suppose I am diagreeing with myself in a way and saying it would be impossible to align everyone's definition of risk, which is the reason parents freedom to choose should be defended.

Brycie Thu 04-Oct-12 08:07:27

Oh sorry I missed the second part, I do understand what you are saying. Ipersonally don't expect anyone to take a risk to protect my child, mine don't need it. But have you asked people if they expect other children to do that? I know a number of people who don't vaccinate and they all say they dont' need to knw about other people in fact at least two have travelled to high risk countries without vaccinating so I don't think they are "kidding themselves" if you know what I mean. Canyou tell I have had a number of conversations about this.

PigletJohn Thu 04-Oct-12 19:01:06

"I know a number of people who don't vaccinate and they all say they dont' need to knw about other people in fact at least two have travelled to high risk countries without vaccinating so I don't think they are "kidding themselves"

I'm puzzled.

How do they react if/when their child contracts polio, TB or diptheria, in these high-risk areas?

ElaineBenes Thu 04-Oct-12 20:33:58

That's my point exactly. If you don't need to know about other people and you take no account of the probability of your child being exposed to and contracting disease x, you're hardly doing an objective risk assessment. Especially so if you travel to a country where certain diseases are even more prevalent.

Either they value different things (eg for me, risk of death or severe disability is the risk I wish to minimize - other people may value other things, like Leonie's bodily sanctity which is important to her above everything else) or they can't do probability. It really is that simple aside from some very extreme cases.

Brycie Thu 04-Oct-12 21:02:12

They didn't catch had those diseases, I suppose they assessed the risk of catching them and were right in the end. Each to their own.

Hi Elaine (again!) sorry why is it not objective. They woudl have assumed highest possible risk and still made the decision they did. Yes I think they have different values but that is their right.

PigletJohn Thu 04-Oct-12 21:36:09

were right in the end

were lucky in the end.

Do you believe that if or when they or their family do become ill, they will accept their fate with equanimity?

ElaineBenes Thu 04-Oct-12 21:52:31

That's right Piglet. Just because it works out in the end doesn't mean that (without a crystal ball) it was the (objectively) least risky decision to make to begin with iywsim. That's because it's probability. If we knew for certain, who needs to make a risk assessment?

I'm not arguing for forcible vaccination Brycie. I'm just contending that the non -vaccination standpoint, in particular when people claim that non vaccination is an absolute regardless of the risk to the contrary (ie regardless of where you go or what other people do) is a value judgement or a belief system and not one which is based in empirical scientific evidence.

Fine for people to have their beliefs. We allow male circumcision for religious reasons after all. We should just recognize non-vaccination for what it is and not pretend that is actually couched in science.

PigletJohn Thu 04-Oct-12 22:06:26

To my simple mind, the purpose of a vaccination is to reduce the rate of infection, illness and death resulting from a disease

Nobody on here has tried to dispute the figures which to my eye show that the pertussis vaccination (among many others) achieved that.

Does anybody dispute that, if you catch the disease, you are likely to be a lot more ill than you are likely to be from having the vaccination? That isn't a "sacrificing yourself for others" reason for being vaxxed, it's a self-interest point.

Brycie Thu 04-Oct-12 22:18:12

Why are you being hostile to me Pigletjohn, I don't like it. I feel pushed into feeling like it's bad to defend my friends when I have had quite the opposite kind of conversation with them. But I don't mind defending them, what they did is totally up to them. How do you know they were lucky, you don't know them or their children, where they went, how they planned their trip or anything. The fact is they made an assessment for their children and tehy were right, for their children. Why do you even mind that they did that, what difference does it make to you.

Elaine, PigletJohn has raised whooping cough but I would like to ask you something about that instead as you seem to be in the know. Is there a vaccine for the other kind of whooping cough that people are talking about ie not the one they already vaccinate for. Why are they not offering this vaccine? Do they know how many cases are which kind?

Brycie Thu 04-Oct-12 22:20:55

I didn't respond to your point Elaine. Yes, I agree. I don't know how many people are actually in favour of forced vaccination in the UK.

PigletJohn Thu 04-Oct-12 22:32:47

I don't think I 'm being hostile. I have a simple and direct mind. To me, the purpose of vaccination is to prevent and limit infection, disease, suffering and death. All good things, IMO. If the results of catching the disease are likely to be worse than the results of having the vaccination, I'm in favour of it.

As for risk assessment, I am very familiar with it. If I decide to go over Niagra Falls in a barrel, instead of walking down the footpath beside it, well-documented past experience tells me that I am much less likely to be drowned or smashed to a pulp going down the footpath. If I choose the barrel, and survive, that does not mean that I was "right" and that the barrel option was safe. I just means that (that time) I was lucky.

I don't mind people who go into the barrel with their eyes open, and deciding that the chance of a few seconds excitement, and the glamour and fame that may follow, is in their opinion worth more than the risk of being fished out of the water in several pieces downstream. However I do object to people who claim fallaciously that the footpath is more dangerous, because somebody fell off the wall into the water when posing for a photo, or that the barrel is safe, because somebody survived it in 1888.

Brycie Thu 04-Oct-12 22:37:22

To be honest I think it is quite hostile to ask questions like "if they are very ill will they accept that with equanimity" and that quite sarcastic or faux naive "i'm puzzled", it feels like game playing to me and I don't really like that, I like the conversation but I don't care for that. I'm sorry I've only read the first line of your last post accordingly!

ElaineBenes Thu 04-Oct-12 22:39:21

Sorry Brycie. Don't know much about that at all. I'm sure there'll be others who are more informed.

I do agree with Piglet though about your friends. If they said that it doesn't matter to them what other people do or where they go, then there's no way that they can make an accurate risk assessment since they don't know what the risk of the alternative is.

It would be like me vaccinating my children against Japanese encephalitis and yellow fever even though we're living somewhere where these diseases are not prevalent just because I've decided that vaccines are 'good'. Similarly, people have decided vaccines are 'bad' and this skews their perception of risk to the point that almost any risk for whatever bad outcome is deemed greater if you vaccinate, despite what the evidence shows. Especially true of people who refuse ALL vaccines, no matter what.

Brycie Thu 04-Oct-12 22:44:36

Thanks anyway Elaine smile I think you're taking the phrase "it doesn't matter" in a different way than I meant it. They haven't used it to me! I personally said they had to consider whether they were depending on OTHER PEOPLE taking the risk instead of them. The response was that they didn't expect anyone too and since they didn't think vaccines worked very well anyway (!) they had no idea who was immune or not, therefore they operated as if anyone could be a carrier of any disease. Normally you would think that means they would want to protect themselves from the highest risk, of course, but they firmly believed (still do) that they were protecting their children from risk in a different way. I won't say which countries they went to, I don't want to out myself, but they were places which do have the diseases which PigletJohn was talking about.

ElaineBenes Thu 04-Oct-12 22:46:27

I'm sure they did believe it. I don't doubt for a second the sincerity of those who don't vaccinate their children. I just think they're wrong grin

Brycie Thu 04-Oct-12 22:48:00

Thanks for the conversation Elaine, I don't know how long I can carry it on because I'm reaching the limits of my knowledge here and feeling a bit "under attack". Also I think I used rather too many exclamation marks at one point which makes me look rather shouty, which I'm actually not.

PosieParker Fri 05-Oct-12 15:55:24

I am definitely in the "vaccinate or don't get a free pre school or school place" camp.... unless medically excused.

Brycie Fri 05-Oct-12 16:22:00

Don't think anyone can tell anyone to take a risk with their children unless they're ready to share the consequences. I must say this, you were the person who said earlier : blaming reactions on vaccines is the same as blaming acne on clouds. Because of that, I wouldn't take your opinion very seriously after that. I'm not playing games, I just wanted to give my opinion. In the conversation I have been pushed towards sympathising more strongly with my friends! Their children are not a danger to yours (or mine). I put my children first, so did you, so can they.

seeker Fri 05-Oct-12 17:20:57

But they are not putting their children first- they are taking ridiculous risks with them.

And they may not be putting my children at risk, but they could be putting the unborn child of woman sitting next to them on the bus at risk, or the immune compromised child in their class, or the newborn baby they cuddle.

It's really not as simple as "you do your thing, I'll do mine". It really isn't.

Brycie Fri 05-Oct-12 17:38:40

Hello seeker, there was a conversation earlier between Elaine and I about aligning people's definition of risk.

seeker Fri 05-Oct-12 17:52:13

it is incontrovertible that you are an higher risk of serious illness, permanent disability qnd death if you are exposed to polio,TB and diphtheria than you are from being vaccinated against them. Incontrovertible. And exposing your child to those illnesses is grossly irresponsible.

Brycie Fri 05-Oct-12 17:56:21

There's no point telling me grin What I'm saying there are people who have different ideas of risks on the issue and unless we are going to be there to take the risk alongside them and pick up the pieces if it goes wrong, then we can't tell them what to do. Them not just being the people I know of course, I mean people who think along these lines.

ElaineBenes Fri 05-Oct-12 18:24:58

But Brycie, there's the risk itself - the probability of outcome x happening. And then there's the perception. With all due respect to your friends, there's no evidence that the risk of vaccinating, with some rare exceptions, is greater than the risk of the disease. Their perceptions don't change the underlying probability.

I appreciate that forcing people to vaccinate when they perceive or believe the risk to be higher is not the way to go. The beliefs are genuine even if the science is flawed.

But equally I don't think that people then have the right to deny other children THEIR right to go to school without being put at additional risk. We're either a society or we're not. The simple fact is that unvaccinated children are much more likely to transmit disease to others than vaccinated children.

So, my view is not forcible or mandatory vaccination, no - but sanctions to prevent unvaccinated children posing an additional risk to others, eg through attending pre-schools or state schools. Yes, I do agree with that.

I also appreciate that these are your friends and not you!!

PigletJohn Fri 05-Oct-12 18:30:31

If we get another scary disease outbreak, there will be people in queues a mile long outside doctor's surgeries begging for vaccination. It used to happen with Polio outbreaks.

Unvaccinated children will not be allowed into schools or nurseries.

Brycie Fri 05-Oct-12 18:31:52

grin Elaine you have been so patient.

JoTheHot Fri 05-Oct-12 19:16:55

Some people think the small risk associated with vaccinating is greater than the diseases themselves. The science collated to date refutes this position, except for a tiny minority.

A pro-vaxer who challenges an anti is at fault because they are being 'hostile'. A pro-vaxer who says an anti is wrong, is also apparently at fault because they didn't first make themselves available to help pick up the pieces in the event that the vaccination goes badly. Are we really condemned to stand silently by as people take unnecessary risks, principally with their own children, but also to a lesser extent with the children of other people? Does this only apply to decisions about vaccinations, or does it extend to all medical decisions, or indeed all decisions? Is being polite, patient and compassionate all that matters?

seeker Fri 05-Oct-12 19:28:21

I have a friend who genuinely believed that because her children were unvaccinated, their systems would be so strong they wouldn't get head lice. Until they did.

Sometimes people are just plain wrong.

PigletJohn Fri 05-Oct-12 19:28:44

It's my opinion that child-seats in cars are dangerous and may lead to haemmerrhoids. Is it right that I should be compelled by law to use them?

Surely I have the right to make my own decisions.

What right does the pro-car-seat lobby have to attack me?

seeker Fri 05-Oct-12 19:32:52

I know a child who was in a car crash and was injured while in a car seat. So I now don't put my children in car seats because they are obviously safer not in them.

PigletJohn Fri 05-Oct-12 19:38:18

Just like that person who was in a town where the pavements and offices were littered with people suffering from Whooping Cough, despite all having been vaccinated.

Brycie Fri 05-Oct-12 19:44:39

JotheHot: I said PigletJohn was hostile not because she said someone was wrong, you'll note Elaine said that! but for being fakely naive and sarcastic. I thought you were hostile when you used the terms droning from soapbox etc. It's got nothing to do with disagreeing with people, it's the way that it's done, which as I say may give satisfaction to a bad temper or some frustration, but is likely to be very countrproductive if you are trying to change people's minds. I acceptyou might not want to change peoples minds though and just want to vent.

Brycie Fri 05-Oct-12 19:46:33

Sorry seeker your post just now seems to be treating the whole thing as a joke. I shold have done what I said I was going to and buggered off a loooooong time ago.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now