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.

Sorry, just had a quick read of the last couple of pages and was so impressed by everybodies 'passion' that I thought I'd throw my oar in.

Odd language being used here. People talking about hypothesis being 'proved' and 'disproved' and citing a handful of cases to back up their arguments. Nothing has been proved or disproved. When it comes to medicine, things rarely are. There is a growing body of studies that, when reviewed altogether can help us reach an informed opinion. It is easy to pick holes in individual studies - almost all of them will have their faults or limitations - hence the need for a panel of professionals - Doctors, Scientists, Professors - to review the studies available and come to the best available conclusion. The subsequent recommendations are then handed cascaded to the public, usually via government depts.

I will always doubt the person who backs up their argument by quoting a handful of studies or a couple of individuals. Professionals will disagree at times and any person can pick apart studies to support their own arguments. This is why the broader advice from DoH, GMC etc is so vital. Yes, there is the slim possibility of some corruption but bear a couple of things in mind:

• It is infintely harder to corrupt a panel of professionals than it is to corrupt one or two individuals.

• It would require a belief that the Government in some way wished to cause damage to the health of their public. There is no way in which this would be of benefit to anyone. (The 'BigPharma' argument falls flat on its face here by the way, as it effectively depends on the governments willingness to risk the health of its population for financial benefit and yet forgets that the health care of this country is the single largest cost to government overall when you incorporate NHS, DWP etc).

Oh, and to the person who wrote: "He is an amazing bloke. You only secure that composure when you know your opponents are wrong." about Wakefield. Please - does this mean we should now hang on the words of anyone who delivers them with a certain degree of composure? Sorry, but it is a ridiculous notion. There was plenty of good science in Wakefields study/studies, however there was also plenty of bad ethics. Some of his conclusions surive testing, some have been heavily called into question.

It is not - and probably never will be - a black and white issue. The guidance we have at present is the best we can go on. As trendy as conspiracy theories are these days, I don't see any logical route to reach a different conclusion.

brilliant post Deepheat,

deepheat - you makes some good points and I certainly don't think anything has been 'proven' only that more research is needed to try to identify those children who ARE more at risk rather than just sweeping them under the carpet as collateral damage.

Also, if you believe that the government truly has our children's best interests at heart how do you explain their delay in removing the Urabe mumps version of the mmr when it had been banned in the us and Canada? Or their delay in removing the mercury containing vaccines again much later that the US and Canada? I think you are a bit naive if you think the government don't occasionally put themselves first.

Actually, why on earth did they introduce the Urabe mmr when they knew that its use had been suspended in Canada? If that's not taking a gamble with children's health then what is?

bubbleymummy Agree with your first para - the point is that research hasn't stopped just because the hoo-ha has died down (a little bit!). For now though, I believe we have the best advice to go on. It may change in the future and I'm completely open to that. I think that there is a cultural issue today, where we've been conditioned to demand certainty, to have things clarified for us in black and white and unfortuntately this is simply impossible in many areas of science/life.

Re your second para, I disagree that I'm being naive. Re the urabe MMR, my understanding is that although the government was criticised in relation to the time that it took the decision to withdraw the vaccine was made, there hasn't been any plausible suggestion that this was done for financial/political gain. Remember also that the nature of healthcare in the UK as oppposed to the US does mean that these decisions invariably take longer to be made. Also worth bearing in mind that the political/NHS landscape has changed massively since the early 90s.

Please don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that the government are perfect (their failure to sufficiently consult scientists/doctors before they issued breastfeeding guidance following the WHO's report is a pretty good example that is quite pertinent) but I would contend that there is little to no political/financial benefit to be had from willfully allowing the health of the population to be put at risk.

Mitochindria, with the single jabs being unlicensed they don't know how long the intervals should be so they guess.
Babyjabs have recently changed their recommendation from 12 mths between jabs to anywhere between 6 mths and 12 mths.

Bloody hell somebody stop me.

Mito Wakefield specifically referred to the fact that the natural challenges of mumps and measles close together was known to be connected with autistic regression. Hence his call for caution and more research.

Deep heat: you are woolly. Claims of proof come from pro-vaxxers. "There is NO link". That's a definite. That requires belief that thousands of parents who witnessed regression, clinicians who found the same etc etc I have written this before, are wrong. I don't claim proof: I claim there's evidence. Which there is.

Plus: you are aksing me to believe something quite extraordinary, not the most likely scenario. You're asking me to believe that from nowhere, those thousands of parents independently of each other all witnessed their children regress after MMR and complained about it. From nowhere. What's the likely scenario there? The weight of evidence shows that something happened that arouses suspicion and merits investigation, not that they are wrong, despite the fact that no other cause was found. It is enough to say every single case is a coincidence?

This is why the credulity, I believe, lies wth the other side of the arguemtn.

Right I AM GOING.

Appletrees Does it get any woolier than, "He is an amazing bloke. You only secure that composure when you know your opponents are wrong"?

I'm afraid that simply recognising my own limitations as a scientist and ceding to a group of professionals who are a) reaching a decision based on the studies available by consensus, and b) far better qualified to make such a decision than either myself or anyone else I know, doesn't necessarily mean that my thinking is wooly. Sadly, a great many people in debates such as this purport to be more knowledgable than they actually are.

Regarding the claims of 'proof' from pro-vaxxers. I think my original post makes it pretty clear that I would dismiss claims of 'proof' from either side of the debate.

You state that the weight of evidence of the claims of parents who claimed a regression in their kids after MMR "arouses suspicion and merits investigation." My point is that there has been a great deal of investigation and study, and the bodies that represent people who are qualified to make this judgement have come to the conclusion that the risk posed by not having the vaccine outweighs the possible risks from having it.

Cheerio.

Has this kicked off yet/

""He is an amazing bloke. You only secure that composure when you know your opponents are wrong"

Am bearing that in mind as I'm watching Tony Blair again at the Chilcot inquiry. That's composure.

""He is an amazing bloke. You only secure that composure when you know your opponents are wrong"

Or if you know that your little scaremongering tactic can earn you www.medscape.com/viewarticle/735721£43million

It's obvious Bruffin and Deep have only read a couple of pages.

If you think I consider that evidence you are either being stupid or disingenuous.

"Regarding the claims of 'proof' from pro-vaxxers. I think my original post makes it pretty clear that I would dismiss claims of 'proof' from either side of the debate."

Again, very woolly and doesn't stand up. If you believe there is NO link between MMR-asd-gut disorders you believe in an absolute. You believe thousands of people are wrong. You believe it is proved, even if you refuse to articulate it.

If you believe there MAY be a link between MMR-asd-gut disorders, and thousands of people may not be wrong -- welcome to the club

Again, very

again, very... nothing

I have read your, and silverfrogs and Leonie posts, in numerous posts over the years on mumsnet.I have read enough to know to take very little of what you have to say seriously.

it's mutual

so, bruffin - you are convinced that my daughter doesn't have vaccine damage, doesn't have a damaged bowel, and doesn't respond to standard treatments for either of those things?

I am, in fact, lying about these things?

I don't know anything about you, you are a stranger on the internet with an antivaccine agenda, you could be lying( i have come across people who have lied about their children being vaccine damaged on the internet), you may disillusioned, you could be anything. I do know someone who was vaccine damaged, she was badly braindamaged over 50 years ago and was left with the mind of a 6 year old. I have never said vaccine damage doesn't happen.

and, actualy, to add to that -

you don't think it is a good idea to NOT vaccinate a child who has a mitochondrial disorder, and

you think that Richard Horton did not describe the 1998 paper as "good science, which still stands", and

you think that the Lancet 12 (and all the other children that Wakefield et al treated) did not have any bowel damage, and

that the team at the Royal Free did not find a novel form of bowel disease, and

you think it is right that, before Wakefield et al started treating them, autistic children could not find a doctor who would take their gut issues seriously? that it is ok that they were turned away time and again, and told "oh well, bowel problems go hand in hand with autism"

you know, I could go on, but I expect there isn't enough there for you to take seriously

x-post.

and, FWIW, I am NOT anti-vaccine (how the fuck do you think dd1 got into this mess in the first place?!)

and at my dismissal as possibly lying, or possibly disillsioned.

I couldn't actually be right, could I?

I do take oyu rpoitn re: stranger otn eh internet, but please - I don't exactly only hang ot on vax threads - try having a quick look thorugh SN. I think I have probably served time enough there to show I am not jsut here in an "anti-vax" role.

the disillusiond part is just same old, same old, tbh. no, I ma not disillusioned about when or why my daughters problems started (it is all medically accepted, in her case),

But you believe she is lying or absolutely wrong. Or why the sneering? Why your believe in NO vaccine-gut-asd link?

You're as woolly as they come. Woollier.

And still it rumbles on...

"Claims of proof come from pro-vaxxers. "There is NO link". That's a definite."

Actually I believe (well certainly myself at any rate) that most people have simply said that there is no evidence of a link between the two, and despite an awful lot of asking you refuse to reference any of the copious amounts of evidence you claim exists.

Indeed your "evidence" seems to consist of "there are a handful of parents out there who's children have experienced a significant afflection around the same time as they've had a vaccination". That isn't evidence any more than my neighbours unfortunate experience with of reds cars is evidence that red cars are dangerous.

All the foot stamping and shouting "you're wrong" in the world won't change chat.

Do have a good evening won't you. ;)

And for the record, Wakefield is a discredited, lying, dishonest fraud - as say a panel of his peers.

....Wakefield is a discredited, lying, dishonest fraud according to a panel of his peers who ignored most of the actual evidence put before them, in favour of believing lies made up by a journalist who is himself a dishonest, lying, fraud

Er.. it's you lot doing the filt camping and Housing you're wrong.

Once again: you don't know your subject, you don't enjoy clarity of thought and you can't respond to a logical train of thought. Except to say you're wrong.