What on earth is wrong with vaccinating children ffs?

[poshsinglemum]

I'm sure this has been done before a million times.

A friend of mine who has gone all woo recently isn't vaccinating her dd because some quack gave a lecture on the evils of vaccinating. My ex boyfriends mum was a complete quack/chrystal healer and begged me not to vaccinate against typhoid, encaphalitus, rabies etc when I went to the third world. She gave me a homeopathic kit. Needless to say I got the jabs anyway.

I think that the ''evidence'' not to vaccinate is coming from the woo crew and is fuelled by paranoid conspiracy theories concerning the pharmeceutical industry. I am not completely convinced by the industry myself but I'd rather take a chance on them than my dd getting polio etc.

I just read the MIL thread but I have been meaning to discuss this for ages.

"LTW - it would be helpful if you would acknowledge that the risk is different for each child."

Absolutely.

Unfortunately most parents have no idea how to assess that risk.

Remember mso, over from BS? I wonder if this is more of the same. LTW is definitely a bloke.

Research and evidence showing no link between MMR and autism/ASD

jama.ama-assn.org/content/285/9/1183.abstract

pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/110/5/957

and take a look at the 60 or so articles listed in these links.

Peachy you are on much stronger ground when you are discussing ASD links with genetic and environmental factors (particularly smoking) - these are accepted causes. There IS also a link between autism/ASD and mothers who catch rubella - all the more reason to have the vaccine and not the disease.

There is a very small risk of allergic reaction (anaphylaxis). This is why vaccinations are carried out in a healthcare setting where it can be treated immediately and with no long term effect.

windward that is a very good point about the risk of paracetamol damage - there is a preliminary study that found using paracetamol after MMR was associated with Autistic spectrum disorder.

I could only find two, both of them completely worthless retrospective epidemiological studies.

Lil, you're plainly the sort of person who wouldn't believe grass was green unless you read it in a peer-reviewed paper.

That second one in particular is a pile of cock, it only deals with hospital admissions.

On the first, have a look at author affiliations

Immunization Branch, California Department of Health Services, Berkeley.

Now there's a study designed to produce a particular result if ever there was one.

Had another quick look, yes there's nothing in them. Very gullible to imagine they prove anything.

Link to paracetamol-Autism research:
aut.sagepub.com/content/12/3/293.abstract
This is interesting because paracetamol is also known to have gastro-intestinal (GI) effects, and they didnt find a link with ibuprofen (which doesnt have GI effects).

Link for known causes of autism:
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Autistic-spectrum-disorder/Pages/Causes.aspx

Appletrees - click here jama.ama-assn.org/content/285/9/1183.abstract and scroll down the page towards the bottom. Youll come across 60 or so related articles. I look forward to your rebutals for each of them

I'm not sure it's worth my time, if those two are the best you've got. Are they any better than the last two, or any comment? They were just really rubbishy. Are they all retrospective epidemiological studies by immunization departments or funded by pharmaceutical companies? Let me know. Or, give a little outline of each study, or the year of publication and location. That would help.

Bet you haven't even read them yourselves. Can't believe you posted those two as the best. They weren't up to much at all.

I'll think I'll side with the posters citing major peer reviewed scientific studies to argue their (often quite nuanced) point rather than the anti-vaccers on this thread who insist these who disagree with them are knob trolley wanker, smelly closet homo, troll cunt wankers who can fuck off.

I guess I'm a sucker for a politely argued evidence-based case.

what about the (so called) anti vaxxers who do no such thing?

hahahaha, what like accusing mothers of vaccine damaged children of lying, being in it for the money, the whole "bollox, mad people", "are you mental", "paranoid woo crew" and so on and so forth?

hahahaha cat -- have you even looked at silver and Leonie's posts?

You've made your mind up already flower. You're a sucker alright, but not the kind you think you are

Yes, cat, I'm to blame for all the name-calling on our side. There's only one of me, but there are legions on the other side.

Silverfrog, I completely respect your posting style, even if we disagree on conclusions.

However, this is the second vacc thread where I've seen the same posters reduce it to 'my foes are secret fags who disagree as they can't fuck Wakefield, fuck off troll cunts naaaaahhhh!

aw shucks.

I thought I had you converted when you said "I guess I'm a sucker for a politely argued evidence-based case"

I can't see any pro vaxxers presenting that around here..

Yes well your reading is heavily selective. Pro vax brigade is far, far worse when it comes to name calling -- really cat you're being a bit hypocritical to ignore all the abuse in the other direction. Which, I must point out, topped off the thread. A vaccine damaged mother was called a liar. There was an accusation of "being in it for the money". Accusations of being mental, paranoid etc. But oh.. that's alright in your book?

I'm so sorry silver I meant the mother of a vaccine damaged child.. do apologise.

Appletrees
Last post before bed! There have been insults on both sides in a heated debate - neither acceptable. However Lenoie has maintained on (at least) two threads that a particular opponent's opposition to Wakefield is based on some bitter queer's unfulfilled desire for him. It's the usual homophobe stereotype that gays are uncontrollable perverts that will fight what they can't fuck, rather than arguing the evidence presented by both sides. Cock driven fags driven by thwarted desire rather than argument. Groan.

Similarly it's the anti-vaccers who have resorted to 'fuck off cunt' on a female-friendly forum. Sorry, I've got a gut reaction to that. I hate accusations of mental illness either but I loathe 'cunt' and think that you've run out of arguments when it's resorted to.

Personally I think Wakefield's a charlatan who has cruelly exploited sick children for financial gain and I feel desperately sorry for their parents.

It's been SOO much worse in the other direction. I'm afraid your opinion colours your objectivity.

You don't know enough about this subject to make the judgement of your last sentence. I think you'd find it very helpful to read a little more deeply into the subject. Try the Cry Shame Diaries, and Callous Disregard, as well as the scientific papers linked to by Leonie and Silver. Well read all of them, but remember to check the sources and try to think a little about the value and nature of the research and its professed findings.

You'll soon find your understanding increasing so that you're less prone to such sweeping statements that have no basis in truth.

Or you might just decide to maintain your prejudice. Up to you.

Catkins, you sound a bit weird [edging away from emoticon]. Also, are you stalking "Lenoie" from thread to thread? B a deer and get a grip, there's a good man.
Also there is a lot of foul language in your post which makes you sound like a bit of a cunt, sorry, no offence intended

Sossiges, definitely last post to explain before bed! I contributed to one earlier thread on vacc months ago in which Leonie made the 'secret homosexual' argument on Wakefield's opponents. Which she did on this one. I've not seen other threads and not followed her. Vacc's an area of interest.

My swear words on this thread were direct quotes from the ant-vacc people on this thread - knob, trolley wanker (???), C*nt etc (go back only a couple of pages to view).

I'm not a good man (probably a bad woman)

Catkins, don't post any more, just go to bed, there's a deer. You'll feel better in the morning. Nighty-night x

I had DS1 vaccinated right from the word go. He never missed one - he has ODD, suffers from RAS and 95% certain he has Aspergers as well.

DS2 has had very few vaccinations - he is healthier than DS1 ever was just the odd cold.

I refuse point blank to risk losing another child to his own world.
I myself know when the changes happened with him and I am not running the risk again.

Selfish? yes probably but I will stand my ground on this one.

DS2 is starting nursery on Monday, they know he has not been vaccinated and I have been assured if there is measles or anything else in the nursery I will be informed asap.

I think children need to build a natural immune system rather than a chemically enhanced one.

I think we can say right now with one hundred per cent certainty that mothers of vaccine damaged children were not anti-vaccination. Or how could their children have been damaged? So let's put that one down the loo and flush it away before it wastes any more of our time.