Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Genuine question for anti-vaxxers

584 replies

Raisinmeup · 12/10/2025 12:25

I see a lot online about anti-vaxxers and I’m trying to understand where they’re coming from, so this is a genuine question, not rage bait.

My understanding is that some parents choose not to vaccinate their children because they believe vaccines cause harmful side effects, or they just don’t trust the government and big pharma in general.

But what’s the alternative? If everyone stopped vaccinating, wouldn’t we start seeing diseases like polio coming back? That would mean more infant deaths and lifelong disabilities. It just doesn’t seem like a rational trade off?

From what I’ve seen, there seems to be a belief that immune systems can deal with these illnesses naturally, but I wonder if part of that belief comes from the fact that parents of today haven’t actually seen what a world without vaccines looks like. We’ve grown up in a time where infant death from preventable diseases is almost unheard of, so maybe it’s easy to forget how serious these infections really are.

And lastly, if you haven’t vaccinated your child and they then catch one of these illnesses, do you not end up turning to the same big pharma for the medicine or treatment anyway?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
sashh · 13/10/2025 08:37

ThejoyofNC · 12/10/2025 13:24

I am unvaccinated as are my children.

I come from a culture where probably 75% of people are unvaccinated. I did an awful lot of research and put a lot of consideration into my decision as I didn't want to blindly follow my culture when it came to medical choices. I looked into each individual vaccine and the ingredients it contained.

Ultimately I came to the decision not to vaccinate and my husband supported this (he was vaccinated as a child with everything except MMR).

I am very satisfied with my choice. And I'm not some moron who believes social media conspiracies which I know people will jump to, in fact I'm not even on social media at all.

How did you do this research?

Do you understand the chemical terms?

I only ask because I have seen people think that 'sodium chloride' is a form of sodium. It isn't it is table salt. What it is made from is 'sodium' a highly volatile metal and 'chlorine' a highly poisonous gas.

What worried you about what is in the vaccines?

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 08:37

Mangoandbroccoli · 12/10/2025 21:33

@user098786533 Thank you for continuing to share your thoughts. Again, I don’t share them, but can see how you feel that having a 0% risk of vaccine injury is what motivates your decision making. What I don’t quite understand is your rational that a healthy diet and breast feeding to full term is going to prevent them from contracting deadly viruses? Like you, I exclusively breastfed my children, they have a very healthy diet, we have pets and spend lots of time outdoors - these are all things that I believe help their immune system (and perhaps also helped to spare us quite as many of the common nursery bugs) but I’m not under the illusion that this alone makes their defences strong enough to fight off TB, Polio, measles etc. Nor do I think that my anecdotal experience of 1 can stand up to the wealth of research and data that shows us that vaccines give us the greatest form of prevention.

I also note that you worry that you feel that it is unconscionable for you to actively give your children something that carries a risk, however small. I wonder, though, how you would feel if your children were suffering from something that you had been strongly encouraged by medical professionals, peers - almost everyone around you - to vaccinate against but had chosen to ignore that advice. How do you weight that one up, especially given that there is overwhelmingly more advice to vaccinate than to not?

Thanks. I'm learning here myself and reading everything, and I've considered vaccines a million and one times for my children. I've discussed with GPs and doctors also. I appreciate your engagement. My youngest child is increasingly ineligible for catch ups but I'd still consider taking her for jabs if I were convinced it was necessary for her optimal health.
I don't believe that a healthy diet and breast feeding to full term is going to prevent them from contracting deadly viruses?
I believe those things mean they are unlikely to suffer serious complications from regular low exposure to those viruses.
Yes, I'm relying on herd immunity. Yes, I'm being selfish.
I do wonder whether we would, as a population, be as at risk from these things as we were before sanitation and basic nutrition came about though. And I can muse this totally non-urgently as I'm in a very privileged position, and I'm taking full advantage of that.

Yes your last point has sent me into a few spirals when my baby coughed etc. it's honestly terrifying to think I've put them at risk.

I suppose it comes down to which you fear most. The lack of transparency and trust we can have in those who make and sell the vaccines certainly comes into it.

thecatfromneptune · 13/10/2025 08:31

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 08:24

They didn't and won't have the HPV either if it were my decision, but it's not really. Older one didn't have it.

The body clears HPV itself if we are healthy.

The body often clears HPV, but the cellular changes that lead to cancer are caused before the virus is cleared. That is precisely why we have seen huge drops in cervical cancer after the vaccine.

Please do some proper reading about this because your ideas are very naive!

OchonAgusOchonOh · 13/10/2025 08:31

thecatfromneptune · 13/10/2025 01:30

But even when Wakefield’s work was first published, it was always obvious to anyone who had even done so much as a science A-level, that it was a preliminary piece based on a tiny sample size, with plenty of methodological problems, and as such highly likely to not replicate.

The work was discussed in the media and scientific media in depth at the time and thought extremely likely not to be true because of its limitations, even when it wasn’t known that he had falsified some data. It was also contradicted at the time by lots of other research. I did a case study for an A-level biology class on this at the time, and the evidence against Wakefield’s paper was overwhelming even then. There were no “eminent scientists” that accepted his work; rather the reverse: there was great consternation in the medical community at the time that the broadcast media like the BBC, This Morning etc. was effectively suggesting that it was much more reputable than it actually was, by giving the impression that the scientific community were equally divided o the issue, as opposed to the real situation, which was that Wakefield’s work was thought to be invalid by about 99% of people in the field.

You didn’t even have to have access to medical research to know this — there were plenty of scientific magazines for the educated layperson at the time (like New Scientist), and broadsheet media like the FT which provided detailed analyses of his work. Since the millennium it’s been more and more evident for 25 years that Wakefield’s piece was wrong.

There are plenty of medical papers and conjectural case-studies and pieces of scientific research (even published in the Lancet!), which don’t end up replicating. That’s just a basic aspect of scientific research.

Edited

Being published in the Lancet gave the work credibility as I order for that to happen it had to go through a peer review process in a journal that is very difficult to get published in. As a parent, a preliminary study suggesting the vaccine could cause serious damage would be likely to give many pause for thought until the work was either replicated or refuted.

ScaryM0nster · 13/10/2025 08:29

Raisinmeup · 12/10/2025 22:47

I understand that. I just don’t understand why vaccines feel like such a prevalent risk but deadly diseases outbreaking seems to be of no concern at all.

I suppose I have to concede after reading all the replies here, I perhaps just don’t understand the mentality of anti-vaxx.

To understand it, you need to be able to accept that some people are very selfish / selfish for their family.

It seems that you’re not. But you need to acknowledge that some people are. And they’re ok with prioritising them as an individual and rely on others making different decisions, and for them to then rely on that to minimise the impact of their decision.

If everyone around you is vaccinated, you can skip the vaccine with very little risk to you. It’s when they’re not that you start carrying any material risk.

(and yes, most won’t say that, because they haven’t thought it all the way through. They’ve looked into the more superficial stuff like infection rates in the population and vaccine risk and decided it’s ok. Not really acknowledging that a lot of that comes from others vaccinating ane creating that environment).

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 08:28

Yesimmoaningaboutbenefits · 12/10/2025 20:58

The thing about Wakefield that really pisses me off, is the response to not vaccinate meant people would prefer a dead child to an autistic child.

This is a false dichotomy. I want neither. It's about risk, it's about us, (antivaxxers if we must) not believing our kids are at risk of death from the illnesses.

Yes, we could be playing a dangerous game long-term, and it IS selfish. I'm just being totally honest as OP is genuinely asking.

I'm interested in MY child's health, not global statistics to scare me. I want my child to be as healthy as can be, and no, I don't want them to have brain injury if that's possible from vaccines.

Is it possible from vaccines? I have no idea but I do believe if it were it would be heavily suppressed.

So I'd just not rather risk it.

thecatfromneptune · 13/10/2025 08:26

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 08:07

You're right. It's a short sighted and selfish position.

Once my children are adults they will have come into contact with most of the things we have vaccines for, and have gained immunity or resilience.

I care about my children and want them optimally healthy.

I think hygiene, clean water, good nutrition, all came about as vaccines did. I don't think those who profit from vaccination would be honest about just how much of the heavy lifting this did.

Sanitation and nutrition cannot stop us contracting airborne diseases, but it still improves the chances of severe complications, which is the thing I'm worried about.

Collectively, our baseline health is stronger since vaccines were invented and I wonder how much damage the same diseases would do today compared to before vaccination, before sanitation and widespread good nutrition.

And I don't think that if it were the case that we could end vaccination programmes it wouldn't be that the pharmaceutical companies went 'oh cool, we can stop making these now, pass that down immediately'

I think instead they would say 'we don't want to lose this revenue, let's keep pushing this product forever'

Same as if it was found that vaccines were causing any kind injury I don't think pharmaceutical companies would champion that research. I think instead they would shut it down, vilify its proponents, and bury research in order to not damage the reputation of their product.

I would like to as anyone willing to answer.

Can you lay out what you believe would happen if it were found that vaccines caused harm?

So a professional lays out to their superior how they believe vaccines cause harm.

What happens next?

Does it end in vaccines being pulled, or with that person vilified and their research buried?

Even if you won't put an answer here, think about it for a second.

Once my children are adults they will have come into contact with most of the things we have vaccines for, and have gained immunity or resilience.

This is simply untrue. We have herd immunity in this country for diseases like measles and are at elimination status for, eg., rubella. This means your child will definitely not have come into contact with “most of the things we have vaccines for” - rather the complete opposite. If, for example, your unvaccinated daughter were to visit another country with rubella prevalence whilst pregnant, she would have no immunity and could very easily contract it, and her unborn baby suffer lifelong serious deformation or disability as a result.

This was the very reason why vaccinating for rubella was so important — it typically doesn’t cause many serious complications in children who get it, but it really does in the unborn babies of pregnant women who catch it. There are several childhood illnesses which actually have much higher levels of serious complications in adults, pregnant women and immunocompromised people who catch them than they do in children, so childhood vaccinations also protect those people.

It sounds like you really don’t understand vaccination and need to read some proper information on it and how to evaluate risk. The idea that these diseases were eradicated by sanitation is wishful thinking (we have data from across the world and from the twentieth century showing that’s just not true, for one thing).

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 08:24

Raisinmeup · 12/10/2025 20:41

For argument’s sake, even if you are being selfish by refusing vaccination while still benefiting from herd immunity, my question is what happens when that herd immunity disappears? It’s unlikely we’ll ever find a solution with zero risk for anyone. Are you suggesting it’s more sensible to risk exposure to polio, even if it were widespread, than to be exposed to a vaccine?

I’m also not sure what you mean by the lack of data .. Are you implying that complications from these diseases don’t exist? or that they wouldn’t occur if the diseases returned?

To touch on an illness more prevalent in recent times than polio - would you allow your DC to have HPV vaccine or are you fearful of all vaccination? The HPV vax has already massively reduced HPV infections and cervical cancer. Yes, some people experience side effects, but would you rather risk your DC developing cancer rather than risk them experience a vaccination side effect?

I don’t mean to single you out but this thread has become huge!

They didn't and won't have the HPV either if it were my decision, but it's not really. Older one didn't have it.

The body clears HPV itself if we are healthy.

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 08:18

user44455557621 · 13/10/2025 03:14

But your children are at risk of developing shingles later, as a result of having had chicken pox rather than the vaccine.

The NHS used to rationalise on their site that we don't use a chicken pox vaccine routinely because children gaining routine chicken pox infection helps boost the community immunity to shingles in the older population.

Adding it to our routine schedule is going to see a spike in shingles for the older population, whose immune systems are generally lower and they're more susceptible to the flare up.

Clarabell77 · 13/10/2025 08:13

Bigearringsbigsmile · 12/10/2025 13:58

I think part of the problem is that the debate is so black and white. There is no willingness to allow people to discuss the grey areas. You either get full vaccinations or you are an idiot endangering your child and that makes people more obstinate.

My first child had a bad reaction to his first set of immunisations. My GP said it was just a coincidence but referred us to an immunologist anyway. He was brilliant and said " of course it's not a coincidence!" He did blood tests on my child and me and found exactly what the problem was. My child's vaccines were then administered much more slowly and individually with lots of checks between. The dr then predicted that the same problems would occur with our 2nd child and arranged to take care of him and his vaccination schedule which was great because it did happen snd more severely. We were able to be seen by a paediatrician more easily etc.

If our GP had stuck to her " ifs a coincidence: line and not referred then possibly we would have refused further vaccines.

Vaccine damage is a thing that noone wants to discuss.

I just think more open discussion of the issues would allay more people's fears resulting in more of an uptake.

I think the reason there’s not as much open discussion is because it would put people off and it is a tiny minority who have side effects to speak of. Most people accept the risk because it’s so minuscule and it’s outweighed by the benefits. There’s more risk of being in a car crash, we don’t go into any of those statistics when buying a car, or getting into one.

thecatfromneptune · 13/10/2025 08:12

My child is never going to be at risk of a vaccine injury. My children is at very minimal risk from complications from measles. By the time she is 10 she'll be at even lower risk from things like meningitis.

Before meningitis vaccinations (very recently available, eg only after 2000) there were big peaks of meningitis in the teens and twenties — there are lots of different strains of meningitis that cause infection peaks much later than 10.

You are clearly too young to remember the meningitis information campaigns of the 1990s. One of the first cohorts to be vaccinated against meningitis were university students. I was allowed to have the new Men B / Men C vaccinations in my twenties in the early 2000s precisely because I taught university students.

The risk of meningitis is far lower today thanks to the Men B and Men ACWY vaccines. But there are still strains that have no vaccine.

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 08:11

thecatfromneptune · 13/10/2025 07:55

This is totally wrong and if you think that’s the case, you don’t understand statistics or risk.

Look at my post above. Your child’s risk of complications from a disease, when everyone catches it, are much higher than if only a tiny number catch it. In the second case the risk of catching it at all is so small precisely because of vaccination. If every child in the population got measles, your child would be far more likely to suffer a serious complication of the disease — including things like hearing loss or blindness. As it stands, you are relying on herd immunity to decrease the risk of your child catching it in the first place.

The risk of, say, 4 in a hundred suffering serious complications when only a couple of hundred catch it in a year, is not the same as the risk of 4 in a hundred suffering serious complications when every child in a population catches it.

You can find a huge amount of information about prevalence and numbers here:

www.gov.uk/government/collections/measles-guidance-data-and-analysis

ukhsa-dashboard.data.gov.uk/vaccine-preventable-diseases/measles

Ask yourself: assuming you don’t actually think that there is some mass conspiracy to inject the population with alien nanoparticles or suchlike, why on earth would governments go to the trouble of expensive vaccination programmes and disease elimination strategies if these did not work or could be prevented by nutrition? It’s because vaccination is one of the huge success stories of modern medicine and has prevented huge amounts of suffering and death. Not because everyone is conspiring to hoodwink you.

Edited

Thanks for that. You're right I don't fully understand and am operating from fear. I will absolutely read what you have put here. Though my children are mostly too old for any catch up schedules anyway. I don't talk about this online usually as I wouldn't want to influence anyone.

To your last point though, vaccines do bring revenue for large pharmaceutical companies, and people who are in government often have financial ties to those companies. So I don't believe it's an altruistic top down initiative. I think, like everything that is done by billionaires, it's to make profit. And yes, I do believe that those in power conspire frequently, to that very end, and I don't believe that vaccinations are exempt from this.

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 08:07

Raisinmeup · 12/10/2025 20:20

I may have lit the touch paper here, but I still don’t feel like my question’s been answered.

As I said in my OP, I understand people fear adverse side effects from vaccination. What I still I don’t understand is why anyone worries about that risk but seems unconcerned about diseases returning and exposing everyone to far greater harm.

Calling these diseases low risk only works while we benefit from mass vaccination. If herd immunity disappears and outbreaks return, do we just wait until diseases are rampant before we circle back to vaccination again?

The vague suggestion given by some that complications from these diseases would still be unlikely is frightening. We are lucky not to have lived through illnesses like diphtheria. It feels privileged to benefit from herd immunity while downplaying diseases that historically killed infants.

You're right. It's a short sighted and selfish position.

Once my children are adults they will have come into contact with most of the things we have vaccines for, and have gained immunity or resilience.

I care about my children and want them optimally healthy.

I think hygiene, clean water, good nutrition, all came about as vaccines did. I don't think those who profit from vaccination would be honest about just how much of the heavy lifting this did.

Sanitation and nutrition cannot stop us contracting airborne diseases, but it still improves the chances of severe complications, which is the thing I'm worried about.

Collectively, our baseline health is stronger since vaccines were invented and I wonder how much damage the same diseases would do today compared to before vaccination, before sanitation and widespread good nutrition.

And I don't think that if it were the case that we could end vaccination programmes it wouldn't be that the pharmaceutical companies went 'oh cool, we can stop making these now, pass that down immediately'

I think instead they would say 'we don't want to lose this revenue, let's keep pushing this product forever'

Same as if it was found that vaccines were causing any kind injury I don't think pharmaceutical companies would champion that research. I think instead they would shut it down, vilify its proponents, and bury research in order to not damage the reputation of their product.

I would like to as anyone willing to answer.

Can you lay out what you believe would happen if it were found that vaccines caused harm?

So a professional lays out to their superior how they believe vaccines cause harm.

What happens next?

Does it end in vaccines being pulled, or with that person vilified and their research buried?

Even if you won't put an answer here, think about it for a second.

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 07:56

IndoorVoice · 12/10/2025 19:43

They seem healthier and more resilient than their vaccinated peers, and that's the data I go on.

What is the ‘data’ you have on your children’s vaccinated peers ‘seeming’ less ‘healthy and resilient?’

Edited

They're often sick with every bug going where mine are not.
I wonder whether artificially stimulating the immune system is a good idea overall or not.

thecatfromneptune · 13/10/2025 07:55

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 07:46

My child's risk of complications from disease stays the same no matter how many others vaccinate.

You're confusing the risk of serious complications with the risk of catching it.

I think you're either skimreading or not comprehending what is being said?

This is totally wrong and if you think that’s the case, you don’t understand statistics or risk.

Look at my post above. Your child’s risk of complications from a disease, when everyone catches it, are much higher than if only a tiny number catch it. In the second case the risk of catching it at all is so small precisely because of vaccination. If every child in the population got measles, your child would be far more likely to suffer a serious complication of the disease — including things like hearing loss or blindness. As it stands, you are relying on herd immunity to decrease the risk of your child catching it in the first place.

The risk of, say, 4 in a hundred suffering serious complications when only a couple of hundred catch it in a year, is not the same as the risk of 4 in a hundred suffering serious complications when every child in a population catches it.

You can find a huge amount of information about prevalence and numbers here:

www.gov.uk/government/collections/measles-guidance-data-and-analysis

ukhsa-dashboard.data.gov.uk/vaccine-preventable-diseases/measles

Ask yourself: assuming you don’t actually think that there is some mass conspiracy to inject the population with alien nanoparticles or suchlike, why on earth would governments go to the trouble of expensive vaccination programmes and disease elimination strategies if these did not work or could be prevented by nutrition? It’s because vaccination is one of the huge success stories of modern medicine and has prevented huge amounts of suffering and death. Not because everyone is conspiring to hoodwink you.

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 07:54

YourLoyalPlumOP · 12/10/2025 19:39

I had bacterial meningitis when I was 21

no immune problems or anything before. However there was an outbreak. Anyone can catch it.

Did you ever find out whether it was a bacteria that we have vaccines for?

thecatfromneptune · 13/10/2025 07:51

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 07:40

Statistically the risk of vaccine injury, I believe, is very low, but I don't think there is honesty around the actual prevalence.

I stated upthread that I realise the risk of vaccine injury is lower than the risk of complication from the disease.

But the risk of complication from the disease is still very low and decreases with age for most of them, and the risk of vaccine injury is zero.

So I don't want to improve an already low chance by a small amount to increase a chance that is currently zero.

But this only works for you if everyone else vaccinates. So it’s a fundamentally selfish position that relies upon others not doing the she.

Once herd immunity is lost, then the risk balance is very different, and the risk of serious complications from the disease becomes much much greater again than any risk of vaccine injury. That’s why people vaccinated their children in the first place.

Current US statistics suggest that out of around 300 per year getting measles, between around 4 in 10 need to be hospitalised. This doesn’t sound like a risk you would want to take if it was aggregated to a population level. Pre-vaccination, it was estimated that measles was so infectious that if one person with measles was in a room with ten other people, nine out of those ten would contract measles. In cohorts born pre-1960 they estimate that nearly every child in the population had measles.

Herd immunity is usually reached at around 94/95% of the population for measles. But you are essentially relying on everyone else being sensible so you can piggyback on them.

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 07:46

intrepidpanda · 12/10/2025 17:58

Until everyone stops vaccinating. The risk to your child is only low because others vaccinate theirs.

My child's risk of complications from disease stays the same no matter how many others vaccinate.

You're confusing the risk of serious complications with the risk of catching it.

I think you're either skimreading or not comprehending what is being said?

user098786533 · 13/10/2025 07:40

FunMustard · 12/10/2025 17:30

....so cite your sources then. And tell me why the low risk of complications is less of a risk than the risk from vaccine injury.

Statistically the risk of vaccine injury, I believe, is very low, but I don't think there is honesty around the actual prevalence.

I stated upthread that I realise the risk of vaccine injury is lower than the risk of complication from the disease.

But the risk of complication from the disease is still very low and decreases with age for most of them, and the risk of vaccine injury is zero.

So I don't want to improve an already low chance by a small amount to increase a chance that is currently zero.

nanodyne · 13/10/2025 07:12

BlueJuniper94 · 12/10/2025 21:20

https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-most-vaccine-hesitant-education-group-of-all-phds/

Interesting study from Carnegie Mellon on vaccine hesitancy by education. Follows a U shaped distribution, and finds those educated to PHD level to be the most likely to be vaccine resistant, or hesitant. The next most likely group as those with the lowest education levels, but this group is more easily persuaded, the PHDs are least likely to change their mind.

I wonder why... genuinely. This is fascinating.

This is based on an unreviewed preprint, and the article is from a website with a clear editorial bias. The research may or may not be true, but as of yet it's totally unverified by credible, qualified peers.

BertieBotts · 13/10/2025 06:47

ForeverDelayedEpiphany · 13/10/2025 00:44

Well, as someone who's been through hell living with an iatrogenic neurological movement disorder from an off label antipsychotic, I can say with certainty that it is sodding hell and difficult to live with a medication induced injury.

I literally lost control over my body movements when the antipsychotic gave me permanent brain damage. My tongue moving on its own, alongside various other bizarre and utterly pointless movements are just the icing on the cake which is alongside all the emotional turmoil and impact the devastating injury has had on my life.

To minimise the way these things that are affecting the minority who are harmed by drugs and vaccines is unfair. We're not all anti-vax or anti-medicatiom per se, but it is important to remember how much we are trying to get across our side of the trauma without sounding like we hate ALL drugs.

I appreciate that and I am so sorry, living with these things sounds horrendous.

My problem is not that medication-induced injury or even vaccine injury exists as I understand it does. And I also know that medical professionals DO cause harm due to ignorance - this is one of the exact cracks that the medical profession urgently needs to fix IMO in order to prevent people legitimately losing trust and turning to alternative sources.

My problem is the exploitation of some of these cases (but a lot more cases which are only dubiously linked to vaccines) in persuit of an agenda to discredit medicine, science, and vaccination in order to drive business towards unproven alternative health. This makes certain people a lot of money. That's not what you're doing and it's shit that you end up caught up in the discredition of that. Apologies because that wasn't my intention.

I am all for proper research supporting alternative health and the bringing of more holistic methods and more empathy and time into mainstream medicine. And all medications need proper accountability and safety and a good understanding/communication of the risk/benefit analysis.

IndoorVoice · 13/10/2025 05:49

MrsMorrisey · 13/10/2025 04:43

Mumsnet 4 years ago was so pro covid vaccine that it was unbearable.
It’s good to see it’s being discussed so freely now.
My son had got intersusseption from his rotavirus vaccine and he was very unwell. Thankfully better now and no visible signs of injury.
And yes I was told by multiple drs at the time ( 2012) that it was the cause.

I’m sorry that happened to your son, that must have been terrifying. I think it’s well known that vaccines can have side effects, they hand out a leaflet when you have them. It doesn’t make it less upsetting to be in the small
percentage that do, however.

I remember vociferous arguments on both sides, back then.

VoulezVouz · 13/10/2025 05:34

MrsMorrisey · 13/10/2025 04:43

Mumsnet 4 years ago was so pro covid vaccine that it was unbearable.
It’s good to see it’s being discussed so freely now.
My son had got intersusseption from his rotavirus vaccine and he was very unwell. Thankfully better now and no visible signs of injury.
And yes I was told by multiple drs at the time ( 2012) that it was the cause.

That’s not how I remember it.

VoulezVouz · 13/10/2025 05:33

Toadetta · 12/10/2025 22:31

I believe it's ableist to be anti vax
There's a "survival of the fittest" element to believing we should all just live alongside these illnesses and healthy people will be able to fight them off and survive. (Which isn't necessarily true but that's the belief.)
The same mentality was very prevalent during the pandemic and disabled/chronically ill people felt it deeply.

I agree with this. There are a few comments creeping in the thread about ‘nourishment’, ‘diet’ and ‘lifestyle’. That’s very similar to the Covid threads a few years ago. The ableism and ageism was horrific.

MrsMorrisey · 13/10/2025 04:43

Mumsnet 4 years ago was so pro covid vaccine that it was unbearable.
It’s good to see it’s being discussed so freely now.
My son had got intersusseption from his rotavirus vaccine and he was very unwell. Thankfully better now and no visible signs of injury.
And yes I was told by multiple drs at the time ( 2012) that it was the cause.