Anti valuers are dumb and pathetic

Rather telling that the poster says "it gets expensive".

It's really sad that the grifters prey on the worries of others just to make money by selling more books.

You can still contract meningitis b even if youve been vaccinated.

Have a read of the debunk of the turtles book @CheesyToes sadly, these book sellers are out to make money out of people's fears. Not nice.

Sadly, many people are taken in by these types of books. It's not really their fault, most don't understand what peer reviewed means.

There are people out there making lots of money selling these types of books. The author didn't even put their name to it, probably didn't want people to check, what if any, scientific background they have. Lots of charlatans in the 'anti' market with lots of people to squeeze money from. Also lots of 'snake oil salesmen' with alternative products to sell. It's awful how some profit from the worries of others.

One of my Dc are of age of the Mmr debacle, and this is I think where anti vaxxing i stems from, it seems inbedded in people and it is just passed down, I had a few friends not vaccinate their children and as a result their children have not vaccinated their children so there is generations of unactivated people acting like it is "the norm" and think others are just blindly following the crowd without researching.

A quick Google suggest mandatory Smallpox vaccination ceased in 1948 when the NHS took over responsibility for childhood vaccination and the pertinent legislation was repealed, but vaccination as a matter of course continued until 1971 whereupon it ceased due to irrelevance.

This shows that yet again, there are precedents for the State taking the choice out of the hands of Guardians. As much as I'm not always in favour of State interference in private lives or medical choices, sometimes there are situations where the State has to step in and protect citizens from their own stupidity.

It's caring about the numbers!

But does require empathy and imagination too

Yeh. Where was this research done? In their own personal lab? Makes my blood boil.

What if the victim had contracted the actual disease?

It wasn't

Nor was German measles

Or mumps

Or chicken pox

And I can't tell you how thrilled my mother was when the polio vaccination came out. One of my classmates missed it and wore a caliper.
My older sister had eyesight damage from measles

I'm not an anti vaccine myself but do think folk should retain the right to refuse to have their children vaccinated. 🫢

I'm assuming the other books are also by antivax grifters then. When you say 'gravitate towards' What's actually happened is that you've been sucked into a conspiracy black hole.

Go on. Tell us the other books.

I don’t understand why people don’t want to vaccinate. Yes of course vaccines carry a -rare - risk of harm. But compared to the risk of the disease it’s worth it overall. My youngest caught measles aged 8 months, before he was old enough to get vaccinated against it. It was absolutely terrifying! We had to be isolated in hospital, public health contacted everyone we had been in contact with the week before, he was very very unwell. I am so so thankful he was ok in the end and doesn’t appear to have any long lasting consequences. But it could have been so much worse. All because someone refused to vaccinate and allowed it to circulate when it was virtually eradicated.

Have you similarly read the debunking of said book....and if not, why not?

Assuming you actually had a side effect of a particular vaccine, that does not preclude you or your family having other vaccines.

Please talk to your GP about it. Ask to be referred to an immunologist. Talk to actual professionals.

Don't just use this "vaccine injury" as an excuse to not vaccinate your children.

The antivax movement is lying to you. It's causing you to put your babies at risk. You can change your mind, you don't need to continue down this route.

This is fair enough, but the point still remains - while it is perfectly legal to opt against vaccination and there is no compulsion, the law can not then turn around at some arbitrary point in the future and prosecute you just because you took what was a perfectly legal decision.

What about the others who also took the same decision but did not contract an illness? Should the law just ignore them because they enjoyed good fortune and luck?

No, if you are going to talk about prosecution, then it can only be in the context of someone having committed an illegal act in the first place, not because they made a morally questionable but perfectly legal choice.

Agreed.

Suggestion of a book by an anonymous author so far. The book has no scientific accreditation and no peer reviewed claims. Clearly popular with individuals that are anti vax. The author doesn't even use their name, listed merely as 'anonymous'.

"Turtles All the Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth (2024, by "Anonymous") is a highly critical, independent publication questioning vaccine safety and efficacy. It is not peer-reviewed by mainstream scientific journals, but popular on platforms like Amazon. It argues that childhood vaccine clinical trials lack proper, inert placebos and suggests that vaccine safety data is consistently misrepresented.

Key Arguments and Perspectives

• Safety Trials: The book, also listed on Amazon, highlights studies, arguing that the control groups in clinical trials often use other vaccines or vaccine adjuvants rather than true inert placebos.
• Medical Establishment Critique: It presents itself as a "systematic demolition of the vaccine system," questioning the validity of vaccine science from the perspective of critics who believe they cause harm.
• "19 Polio Mysteries": The book includes a section examining the history of polio, suggesting that some illnesses categorized as polio were not caused by the virus.
• Data Compilation: It cites over 1,200 references from scientific papers, government documents, and manufacturer publications, aiming to consolidate scattered information in a way that is accessible to non-experts.

Critical Reception and Context

• Proponent Reviews: Supporters describe the book as a "must-read" for parents, arguing that it brings necessary attention to vaccine safety issues and provides detailed analysis.
• Skepticism: One review noted that the book may rely on older studies, overlook recent, updated data, or omit the broader scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe and effective.

Fits the narrative that the reader is looking for.

A few on the thread have mentioned bodily autonomy. One poster said that it’s no one else’s business if others don’t get vaccinated. Mostly, it isn’t my business what health care others do or don’t partake in. Vaccines are different because we’re talking about diseases that spread to other people. People who can’t be vaccinated because of their health conditions are reliant on herd immunity- they’re powerless to protect themselves, so they need the majority to choose vaccines to protect them. This is why I view choosing not to vaccinate as selfish (as well as ill-informed).

Start with Turtles, it gets expensive otherwise. But once you read that, you’ll gravitate to other books.

If a disease is preventable (e.g., through vaccination, proper safety protocols, or hygiene), it does not meet the requirement of being "impossible to guard against". An event that could have been avoided by reasonable care is not an Act of God.

What are the other books then?

Well, they reference the orignal vaccine studies so unless you’re suggesting vaccines are a Q Anon / MAGA thing then I doubt it.

Indeed I am

And I suggest 'research' on child deaths before vaccinations to those who think it's safer not to have them

Are all the other books written by people who push Qanon, MAGA nonsense too?