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.

I wanted to go on to say that I realise my friend is not typical. I know that she is possible one of a tiny minority who took such a lax view of her children's health & other's health at the time.

I am not suggestion all non vaccinating parents are like that!

Appletrees how can we say this any more clearly:

You are wrong
You have not provided any evidence in support of your opinion.
The overwhelming weight of research supports vaccination.
The huge majority of people support vaccination.

Fortunately science is not a democracy. Limbo, you are wrong and you have no case. I am really going to bedtime. Cat i would like to respond to your last post and will try to get on tomorrow.

lifeinlimbo, your last post honestly doesn't make sense.
""You are wrong
You have not provided any evidence in support of your opinion.""

APpletrees is arguing against the status quo which operates under the premise that it has hard scientific evidence to back up the mass vaccination of children, when in fact it doesn't have that sort of evidence, it just pretends to, so a person is entirely right to question the system.

"The overwhelming weight of research supports vaccination."

There is no context to this statement. The research is carried out overwhelmingly by stakeholders i.e organizations, corporations who make money out of vaccinations.

There is just as much evidence against vaccining. By not allowing human beings to contract the wild viruses we could be sowing the seeds to some real problems. We are already seeing "strange" viruses, more aggressive than ever before. They will out and if you don't allow children to become sick

"The huge majority of people support vaccination."

Throughout history, a "huge majority" of people have always supported things that were Not Good simply because they were told they were good, and they didn'T realise that you're supposed to ask questions and not follow the herd.

Now, I'm not anti-vaccine, mine have been vaccinated, but it was after much deliberation and questioning. I didn'T just stroll up to the doctors office and offer him my children's veins. I believe that children have been horribly damaged by vaccinces. There was a campaign a few decades ago, when autism rates suddenly increased "NO MYSTERY IT'S MERCUARY" . It wasn't doctors leading the campaign, It was mothers . I think that tells us a lot about how the system works. Same in japan now, it's mothers who are leading the anti- polio campaign after the vaccine gave their babies fucking polio....

All I'm saying is, you have to educate yourself and take the responsibility for vaccining onto your own shoulders. You have to decide for yourself whether it is worth it for your child.

Japan doesn't do MMR, just single vaccines

I had measles as a child. When we were about 14, all the girls in my school were given the Rubella vaccine, but I didn't because my mother had the good sense to ask for me to have a blood test. Turns out I was immune to Rubella, and will be for the rest of my life, because I had the wild measles.

There isn't just as much evidence against vaccination. There are anecdotes, yes - but not evidence. I do accept that some children have been damaged by vaccines. I do not accept that as a process it is inherently more risky than taking your chance with the diseases.

Sorry for my confusion over the Finnish thing. There are two studies showing no link between MMR and autism, not just one.

Appletrees - why is it you dismiss a study of 400 as "too small" yet presumably think Wakefield's "12" is reliable? How big a study would you need to change your mind? How many studies? Or do you acknowledge that your views are so entrenched that they could survey every child ever vaccinated, put the evidence in front of you and you'd say "nah, funded by pharmaceutical companies"

YANBU.

I know there are some children who can't be vaccinated due to health problems, but the majority of children I know who are not vaccinated have no problems, just the parents decided against it.

The only one I dithered over with was the mmr, but that was because when my eldest was born there was that mad panic that it may cause problems etc. She did have it in the end as we weighed up all the pros and cons and decided it made more sense for her to be immunised than not- especially as she was mixing a lot more at toddler group.

My youngest is up to date with all her vaccinations so far (7 months old) and she will definately be having the mmr- no worries this time around

Why do people want to vaccinate against mumps and rubella. Quite a few people will say that for them the risk of the mmr was much less than the risk of their children catching those terrible diseases but rubella is mild in childhood! Often it causes no symptoms at all! The same with mumps! I wonder if there were single vaccines available would you actually choose all three or do you only vaccinate against all three because there isn't another option (unless you go private)

This of course assumes that you actually read about mumps and rubella and realise that they are actually not that risky which unfortunately very few people do!

Fucking hell, did Lookto say that... !

Actually it was shergar who said that

Looktowindward, you can't have it both ways.

all the way through the thread you have been calling parents who do not vaccinate their children stupid.

when pressed last night by Appletrees, you (eventually, grudgingly) said you though we were merely wrong, not stupid.

which i it, please?

as Leonie's quote shows - you are happy ot call us stupid as a general mass - yet when push comes to shove, you can't quite bring yourself to say it.

so, am I a stupid liar (as you have made out all the way thorught he thread)? or "just wrong" - in which case, what am I wrong abot? - if I am wrong abotu the fact that my dd1 is severely autistic, has foul diarrhoea and bowel issues, severe digestive issues, as well as a seriously weird immune system - then hey, all the better fo rme (and her, naturally). however, since I am not wrong abut these things - you will, of course have ot take my word on this, but please believe me, my dd1 is not in a specialised SN chool for fun, nor does she have a team of paeds and doctors for the fun of it - then perhaps you can tell me which bit I am wrong about. maybe I am wrong about when her problems first started occurring? perhaps she doesn't respond well to treatments as set out for a vaccine damaged bowel?

maybe all the doctors who agree about what happened to her are wrong too?

as well as the doctors who agree that it would be a seriously bad idea to vaccinate dd2? (different team of doctors - what fun we have, surrounded by all these medics!)

following on form this, perhaps you would like to comment on the fact that the science as written in the 1998 paper has not been discredited? that it was described at the gmc trial as "an exemplary case series. good science, which still stands"? (by the prosecution, before you get carried away and say it was a Wakefield supporter)

how about the fact that the science has been replicated aorund the world, and peer reviewed? (clearly not by the peers you would like - but nonetheless peer reviewed. "peer reviewed" is not sme holy grail. it can happen for both sides of an argument.)

much is always made of the fact that the 1998 paper was "only" 12 children. yes. it was a case series, presented as a reason to do more research.

the team at the Royal Free treated hundreds of patients for similar issues, and found a very disturbing pattern. as Appletrees pointed out, there were hundreds of families involved in the litigation case before funding was inexplicably pulled.

can I just point out one thing - WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SMALL NUMBERS ANYMORE

as i mentioned earlier, the ASD dx rate in the UK is now 1 in 64 children. that is breathtakingly huge.

and as for your assertion that no link has ever been found between vaccinations and ASD. I noticed your little "in the UK" rider there. yes, no link has been proven in court in the UK (of course it would have been if the legal aid funding hadn't been pulled). it has, several times, in the USA.

I don't think it is anythign to be proud of that the UK is lagging behind in this, and denying existence of diseases and illness. denying tha tthese children exist, and belittling their problems is something oyu would expect form a country with a poor human rights record, not a suposed world leader inthis area.

Wind:"I'm not going to cut and paste anything because I don't care what you've posted. If it had any value it would be published. I don't care what unreferenced, badly written junk some idiot posts on the internet."

You don't fool me for a moment. Your nastiness on this thread proves that if you could find another way to belittle and pour scorn, you would. You're not responding to my very cogent arguments quite simpy because you can't. You keep repeating "everyone is wrong" with nothing to back it up, no argument, no response. You're a joke. You have opinion, that's all, so firmly entrenched that you can't see reason or engage with it.

Different: your comment is interesting: " They are no more stupid, and no more a liar than I am, who believes that vaccinations have their place & are the best course of treatment for my children."

The thing is, I don't believe that every single person who thinks the way you do is absolutely wrong. Many children survive vaccinations successfully and for many they offer some protection from childhood disease.To what benefit is questionable, in my view. But there we are. However you MUST believe that every single parent, doctor, consultant, immunologist, clinical researcher who thinks the way I do, who reports an autistic regression in their child, is wrong. For whatever reaon. Some of your less pleasant co-believers have already given such reasons as mendacity, greed and idiocy. But for whatever reason, you must believe that every single one of those thousands of people is wrong, every clinical assessment mistaken, despite never seeing the children, never seeing their records, never seeing the parents or the doctors or the gastroenterologists or reading their reports, knowing what their qualifications are.

The same goes for Limbo, and Wind, and cat, and mito -- you all have this belief. That every single one of them is absolutely wrong. Now that's arrogant.

Cat: the problem with the "trade off" argument is that you are not just talking about a mild condition against fatal childhood disease. You are talking about a disorder that kills 1400 children every year, plus condemning thousands more to a lifelong chronic illness. However it's interesting that you are engaged with the view that we might be being asked to make a health trade-off of some kind in the vaccination game. Interesting because it's much more of a middle line, and in fact we end up where Wakefield ended up: let's have more research.

Mito: Wakefield never said his small study was proof of anything at all. He said he thought it would be wise in the light of it to conduct more research. A study of around four hundred children over four years claims to prove that there is no link between vaccines and immune overload. It doesn't stand up. How many studies? Well to be honest you could present a million and one, but if they're all as badly flawed in the way I've described, it doesn't matter a bean.

Actually for 1400 children read 1400 people.

Definition of evidence:

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

1. Something indicative; an outward sign.

1. Documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

There is plenty of evidence. You deny and ridicule its sources with no grounds to do so. You simply repeat "wrong". That's no argument, that's just rubbish.

For the record, my nobs and wankers do appear indiscriminate but they're all directed at those like wind, limbo, stata, the op etc etc who are unable to engage in reasoned discourse without resorting to murderer, idiot, imbecile, paranoiac, liar, mental, wishing death upon our children and so on and so forth. And for the record: nobs, the lot of them.

Why can't people accept some will have their children vaccinated and some won't.
There is no need for anyone to be nasty to those who are of a different opinion to yourself.

I wont be getting DS2 vaccinated as I know the effect the MMR has had on DS1. If anything that makes me a more responsible parent and more informed than I was when I put DS1 through the jab.

Appletrees, you seem to be arguing that vaccination in Africa has directly led to a rise in asthma? There are many other factors - changes in living conditions, the rise in larger polluted cities. If someone's got asthma in Lagos, it's almost certainly the terrible environmental pollution, not the measles vaccination. My 'trade off' argument was that it's better to take malaria medication than be born with sickle cell anemia and have slight raised protection. Modern medicine is better than the human body's 'solution' in this case.

Even if vaccines lead to a slightly higher risk of asthma (and I think this is unproven)parts of Africa have appalling infant mortality rates, illnesses are less survivable, and life for somone left physically disabled by polio, deaf or brain damanged by measles is grim.

Who knows what caused it? But given the measles estima link, years and years who round by WHO, it seems extraordinario to dismiss it. And in the uk the trade off looks far worse. And yet no research?

Years and years ago round by who

Estima - asthma

Round - found

aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/168/11/1277.full

just to show you that I'm capable of reading papers that don't agree with my point of view! however there's a "clinicalevidence" paper showing the protective effect of measles, and the above link serves to demonstrate the connection.

The measles asthma link sounds very interesting. In the UK with our hood sanitation, healthcare and nutrition where we are much less likely to be deficient in vitamin A (now known to be a main risk factor for measles) are we actually making a worse trade off?

There were 1204 asthma deaths in the uk in 2008. 29 were children under 14 and over 5 million people have asthma. ( source - asthma UK)

Hood= good

For example, there's no examination of other vaccines than MMR. It's not taken into account that children with asthma may not have been given the vaccine because they were already atopic. It's an interesting area.