AIBU to think non vaccination is child abuse

[alittlevoice]

There was this discussion in another thread and i thought i would make a new thread so it doesn't over taken someone elses

To me not vaccinating your child is akin to child abuse because you are putting them at undue risk of disease which is preventable due to scare mongering or from quack doctors that have long been struck off the medical register and shunned from the medical community

I hate the assumption that because there has been no reported cases it means you shouldn't vaccinate your children it's because children have been vaccinated regularly that there has not been a epidemic

leading doctors (not the quacks) have been worried for some time about the rise of mumps because of the scare mongering and children not getting vaccinated and get seriously Ill and have to be saved by modern medicine (which quack parents are always keen to take up on with there anti vaccination stance)

rubella has a incubation period as many other diseases so if your child has it and you dont know and child is near a pregnant woman and she loses her child due to non immunisation I don't understand how as a parent you'd do that to another person

So the long and short of it is why are some parents touched in the head and think they have the right for there child to possibly kill unborn children and infect younger babies too young to have the choice (and for those saying this is far fetched its as plausible of something going wrong from immunisations)

My life experience gives me the right to comment on anything I like. In MN rules it doesn't say you have to have a doctorate to post about vaccines or be a qualified hairdresser to give an opinion about someone's hair, or be a vet to give an opinion about someone's moulting cat, or be a psychiatrist to give an opinion on whether or not another poster is being a pratt.

Reassurance is only acquired through objective research, which a vast majority of people can only cite what has been spoon fed to them through the mass media.

A psychiatrist likely wouldn't anyhow, not really their field, but a psychologist would.

if you look at statistics, whooping cough, menningitis, etc all do kill and more so than a high temp would and the "serious complications' of such illnesses far outweigh the complications of vaccinations - hence we would see far more consequences in A&E where i work! People underestimate their effects because their prevalence is so much lower. Without vaccination peoples responses to such infections would be hightened also due to over-prescribed antibiotics. In the past they worked well as they were new - i wouldn't trust the lower level antibiotics now on a serious illness as they are so commonly prescribed..

actually psychiatrist would be v able to talk of mood,behaviour,judgements being both medical doctor and psych by post grad study and clinical experience

not sure what you mean by your previous comment? I meant how you would feel generally as a parent??

Or maybe, even, a Psychiatrist who has an opinion about another person being a Prize Pratt Gotart

G. No your right but it does make your comments invalid to myself as I can't take on board a comment from someone that doesn't know the difference between a bacteria and a virus. Sorry. But I know you dont care so I'm off to bed. Night night.

So you feel anti-biotics being over-prescribe is an issue, but the long and short term affects of vaccinations not. In the past, they worked well, because that is what we were lead to believe. If the vaccinations were so damn good, why do they change every few years... because they are not.

they main ones which change are the viral based ones and they change because like all viruses their external wall mutates - thus the original vaccine will provide life long protection against that strain but not against the new mutated strain as it fails to recognise its external markers - thats nothing medical science can prevent - merely do their best to update - viruses constantly change and we should feel fortunate we have the technology to keep track of such infections. HIV didn't occur til 1989 (i think) and its difficult to find a vaccine because it mutates - if they did would anyone refuse it???

lest she ever finds herself on a thread with a smug Pratt again>

Oh scottishmummy Stop splitting hairs, my joke died, that's all. I was trying to convey that it was beneath a psychiatrist to discuss prattness where a psychologist would be all over it.

There is a vaccination for ovarian cancer and that young girls are suppose to getting it now but our government won't pass it because of lack of sufficient studies show that it does what it claims. They are however feeling the pressure from the industry because it losses money every time someone says no.

It's not exactly smug to say that you aren't going to be inclined to listen to any posts on a thread about vaccinations if the poster doesn't know the difference between a bacteria and a virus - just sensible. It also begs the question why parents who may know literally nothing about vaccinations are allowed to make a decision on behalf of their kids. May as well toss a coin.

Night Pooandpops ... I'd say "sleep well", but I'm not a sleep specialist... I'd also say "don't let the bed-bugs bite", but I'm not a pest controller.

I do however have 'O' level Latin (being an old hag) so I will say, Tempus Fugit..... when you're having fun
.... must turn in myself, didn't realise it was that late.....

buttonmooncup Yes, I tossed a coin and it came up tails so I had them vaccinated...... child abuser? Apparently not.

The people who didn't have their children vaccinated must have done so because they don't know the difference between a bacteria and a virus so they must be child abusers.

No need to read up about statistics or the EFFECTS of vaccines, or the advantages in single vaccinations versus multiple vaccinations, or the likelihood of one's darling child getting said illness. No, base your decision on whether or not you know the difference between a bacteria and a virus.

wasnt aware pun intended.replied as statement fact

Did that small fact not crop up while you were doing all your research Gorge?

Actually I asked them what they were going to inject my DC with, and I obtained a list of the 'ingredients' - one of which was dogs' liver. I wasn't and am not in the slightest bit concerned about whether it was a bacteria or a virus and far more concerned about what EXACTLY was going into my child.

[hmmm]

Anyway, as the OP doesn't put me in the category of CHILD ABUSER I can sleep soundly tonight, even though I was allowed to toss a coin over whether or not to vaccinate. Also I can't be bothered to converse with a Twat as I'm not a Gynacologist.

Vaccination ingredient list I love the human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue ingredient.

do you know what child ause eans??I hate y keyoard right now!

kitkat - teh flu virus changes every year which is why that vaccine changes. The main viruses that we vaccinate against - measles, mumps, rubella, polio etc do not change. Their vaccines have changed though to bring in 'safer' vaccines and remove certain ingredients (which were previously called safe btw) Eg. thiomersal - a mercury containing preservative that was used in vaccines in the UK up until the 5-in-1 vaccine was introduced 5 years ago-even though it was removed from vaccines in the US several years before that. Or in the case of polio, to switch from the live polio vaccine to the inactivated version - because the live version was shown to be causing cases of polio.

The original MMR vaccine that was brought into the UK contained the Urabe strain of mumps and its use had been suspended in the US and Canada prior to its introduction here because it was shown to increase the risk of aseptic meningitis. The UK brought it in anyway but then followed suit and withdrew it a few years later because the concerns proved to be true. The MMR we use now is actually the MMRII which is a slightly more expensive vaccine (probably why they opted for the MMRI in the first place .

Based on their track record, it is a bit naive to assume that the UK government have our best interests at heart when it comes to vaccines. They delayed removing thiomersal from vaccines and they introduced a vaccine that already had a question mark over its safety. Who knows what we will find out about our current vaccine schedule in the future - reassurances that the previous vaccines were 'perfectly safe' certainly didn't prove to be true!

has our best interests...

Having had lots to do i havent posted in a couple of days and the thread exploded and the common theme seems to be

well i did lots of research and made a informed decision

and my reply is really? did you go into a lab conduct lots and lots of tests and have a test group and then came to a scientific conclusion? if your answer is yes then i will listen to this arguement but if however you just googled some articles and talked to people on message boards and through other people this is not a scientific study this is a culture of people who say one this and it gets passed around this is how old wifes tales are made and people actually think they are true

People in developing countries would chop off their right arm fo a chance to get any of these vaccines for their child and if you said to them chop it off and your child can have them i am sure a lot of them would be like wheres the saw they would not be swayed by one quack doctor whose report has been sited as being the cause of the rise of mumps cases or some people who think modern medicine is the devils work no they would go with i know my child has a injection and they wont get this disease which would make them ill ... you know its a good thing

The thing is something happens after a injction and straight away the injection caused it and no i am not talking about alergic reactions they can not be helped for those with a history of allergies they should be tested for those before hand