not to challenge this antivaxxer mum at playgroup?

[CaptainWarbeck]

Chatting to a nice mum this morning about child health nurses, she says she's really struggled to find a 'good' one because they've made the decision not to vaccinate their youngest child.

Cue a bit of a monologue from her about how their oldest suffered a 'vaccine injury' (not sure what this was, he seems a regular kid) and it's really much better to vaccinate later, if at all, and her doctor has been very pushy and they've annoyingly had to switch practices because of it.

Argh. I diplomatically made sympathetic noises and did say we were big vaccination fans but each to their own and you've got to do what you think is right for your child yada yada.

Now I'm feeling like I maybe should have challenged her a bit more, rather than just being supportive of what I perfectly honestly think is mad anti-vaxxer nonsense. AIBU?

[Mulledwine1]

It's none of your business. I'm sure you would not like it if people challenged your parenting decisions (whether now or when your kids are older).

Only challenge something if it affects you - eg if your child is being beaten up by another child and the parent looks on.

Vaccine injuries do exist, that's why there's legislation to deal with compensation: www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment/overview

[moutonfou]

Without being aggressive, I would have gladly shared that last year my mum, another male family friend, and who knows how many other children, all got mumps after helping out at a youth group of which some delightful unvaccinated child was a member.

The male family friend in particular was at risk of serious complications and could have become infertile.

[Kokusai]

It's none of your business.

FFS the woman made it OPS business by telling her!

[elevenclips]

People make choices. You can't make the choices for them. You definitely shouldn't have challenged her.

[MoonfaceAndSilky]

Why should you challenge her? She believes what she believes and you believe what you believe - leave it alone.

[Sionella]

It's none of your business - until her child infects yours!

[Sionella]

(Pressed post too soon) - if you are taking your child to a playgroup and you haven't vaccinated, other parents need to know that. They could have autoimmune conditions; be pregnant... tell them and give them the choice.

One of my NCT friends didn't vaccinate. Didn't stop any of us from seeing them just the same. But that's because we didn't have a real risky reason not to!

[Allthewaves]

Think you rook the right approach tbh. U stated your opinion and she stated hers. Everyone has the right to choice.

I don't agree at all with anti vax people but they have to do what they feel is right

[NotISaidTheWalrus]

There is no arguing with stupid.

It is your business though. It's everyones business when people bring their unvaccinated children to school.

[LadyRoseate]

I have an antivaxxer friend, I never challenge her. I privately think her decision is daft and selfish from a scientific point of view - but there are other points of view, and ultimately I do support her right to decide. She may be right personally that vaccinations might be harmful to her kids - I can't prove they wouldn't.

I avoid discussing it though!

[FizzyGreenWater]

No of course you shouldn't have challenged her.

Yes, vaccine damage is extremely rare and most people believe - BELIEVE - that vaccination is the less risky option.

But as a previous poster links, there exists a thing called the vaccine damage fund. Click the link. It's there, a .gov page.

It's massively rare but it exists. So yes, you would be massively unreasonable to 'challenge' her as she may well have what she considers to be a good reason for assessing the risk to her children differently.

[NotISaidTheWalrus]

and most people believe - BELIEVE - that vaccination is the less risky option

WE don't need to believe, we know it. It's called facts and science. Belief is for things you can't prove with facts.

[ThumbWitchesAbroad]

YWNBU to not challenge her, it's her decision and her business. It is your decision whether you continue to associate with her though.
And agree with PP re. the Vaccine Damage fund - vaccine damage does happen, not often, but it does.

[JamieXeed74]

I definitely would have challenged her. Would not like to send my DC to a nursery with anti-vaxers. To risky.

[ThumbWitchesAbroad]

Walrus - but it's not a "fact" for some children/people. Some DO get damaged by vaccines, and therefore the vaccine was NOT the less risky option for them.
Also, as far as I'm aware, it's generally suggested that those who have suffered vaccine damage avoid future vaccines (depending on the damage, of course)

[JamieXeed74]

There is a difference between someone who cant or shouldn't have a vaccine and anti-vaxers, who have a twisted view of science. That is why we need everyone who can have them does have them.

[AvoidingCallenetics]

There are some children for whom vaccine isn't appropriate - if her child did react badly then I can see why she is reluctant. We all do what we think is best for our dc.
If she was just anti vax, with no previous bad experience, I'd think she was mad to take that risk and selfish, but if her dc was sick from the vaccine then it is right that they benefit from herd immunity.

[putdownyourphone]

Unfortunately vaccine damage isn't massively rare, I am part of a network of thousands of mums (just in the U.K.) who have experienced vaccine damage. It's swept under the carpet. Many many people who are now anti vax are so because they have first hand experience of vaccine damage.

As for facts and science NOTISAID, the CDC refuse to do studies into risk vs efficacy. Vaccines aren't efficacy tested therefore the 'facts' don't exist. There was very recently the first ever study (independent) into risks vs efficacy of vaccinated and unvaccinated children and what it showed was that aside from chicken pox and whooping cough, the unvaxxed children were not any more at risk of getting childhood illnesses than vaccinated. What's more, levels of infections, asthma and auto immune disorders were much much higher in vaccinated children. This study was on a relatively small scale, but more than what the CDC have ever done. There is very little 'facts and science' on the risks of vaccines. There's thousands parents who swear there children have been permentantly damaged since having vaccines, over 3 billion dollars worth of vaccine damage court cases in the US (which pharma companies are exempt from paying out for, it comes out of taxpayers money), and a multi billion dollar agency who don't ensure all vaccines are all efficacy tested before being dished out to newborn babies and make billions from it and refuse to do a vaccinated vs non vaccinated study. I know who I trust.

[Dianneabbottsmathsteacher]

You can't argue with stupid op.

Hopefully her children won't make her regret her stupid decision

[FizzyGreenWater]

Walrus I think you misunderstand. I'm certainly not anti-vax. Poor choice of words on my part. 'Consider' would have also sufficed.

I meant believe in that most folk weight up the options and consider/believe the risk of vaccination to be far the best choice. However some might weigh up differnetly (either because they have a child with a previous bad reaction, other health issues, OR because they are rabid anti-vaxxers and believe that the government is out to poison them) and these folk make the choice not to vaccinate based on this different set of considerations.

I get a bit irritated at threads like this because I really don't think it helps when someone posts about someone refusing vaccines because of 'vaccine injury' and posters pile in to rubbish the entire notion, 'don't confuse her with facts' 'there is no arguing with stupid' etc.

Trouble is, you then look on the .gov page and there it is, vaccine damage injury fund. It exists. It just does. So your average anti-vaxxer reads the frothing and just ends up MORE convinced that everyone is brainwashed into accepting vaccines etc.

It would be soooo much more helpful if people would acknowledge that vaccine damage happens, yes, but it is SO rare that to not vaccinate your child is a very bad decision UNLESS there is positive medical evidence that they may be at increased risk. That is the reasoned view based on scientific evidence, not the 'refusing vaccination is just stupid' name-calling. This woman says she has a vaccine-damaged child. It's a rare thing but yes, she might do. So don't name-call her personally.

I think it just hands the argument to the antis. It's frustrating. The science doesn't say vaccines are 100% safe so when posters argue from the basis that they definitely are, it's science innit - I think it is actually less helpful in persuading people than acknowledging the (very slight) grey area.

[HeyHoThereYouGo657]

Can't argue with stupid ?

Fucking Hell . . That mother is entitled to her views and if she has a vaccine damaged child already who can blame her ?

But yea, carry on just calling her stupid !

[NotISaidTheWalrus]

Of course there is a vaccine damage fund, it happens. But it is much much rarer than claimed. It's like gluten allergies etc, the majority of people who claim to have them do not.
It's a cover for anti-vaxxers who don't want to be challenged as well.

[FeedTheSharkAndItWillBite]

Right.

I do not share her opinion. But I also don't think people should be allowed to circumcise their sons, for example.

And yet I certainly don't just call them "stupid".

Maybe her older son did indeed have a vaccine injury. Which- understandably! -makes her maybe a bit overly cautious now.

You successfully challenging her, when not evem her doctor could, won't make a difference.