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)

No-one will infer it unless they are all about intuition and gut feelings and run around in a mad panic at the word mercury. And, anyway, there's mercury present in water and therefore in formula as well. It's unavoidable even if you live on a desert island since mercury occurs naturally.

OK, so let's all pretend that there's no mercury in breastmilk because breastfeeding mums aren't capable of rational thought and let's carry on pretending that vaccines cause autism because then at least there's something to blame.

Breastfeeding is the best option (compared with formula). It contains very small amounts of mercury. No problem with that statement.

Vaccines are the best option, even the older types with thimersoral (compared with the disease). They contain small amounts of mercury but even less than a baby gets through breastmilk. No problem with that statement either.

It's not every published word Leonie - it's the body of evidence that accumulates from many different studies. Unfortunately, intuition doesn't have a very good track record.

Non-vaccination = child abuse

YABVU - I can only assume you've had a crap week and are spoiling for an argument to get it out of your system - good luck with that

"I feel that vaccinations should be compulsary not voluntary. I under stand there can be certain side effects from some vaccines but not vaccinating is putting your childs life in danger. Specially with more and more foreign nationalities coming into this country."

what absolute shit, crap and racist bollocks

so you are arguing that a study of over half a million children is less reliable than a "study" of 12?

O-kay.

Oh buzz - can you seriously have read this whole thread (and the hundreds of others like it) and not understand the difference between looking at the entire population and then specifically looking at the small subgroup that may/may not be more at risk? I don't think anyone has said the MMR is not 'safe' (As safe as any vaccine can be) for the majority.

I would agree that there's room for improvement in science. It's not perfect. But it's still far far better than relying on intuition for establishing complex relationships.

Vinvino How many children have died because of vaccines? Very very few. How many children would die if we didn't vaccinate - many. As well as many others being left with permanent disabilities.

Take measles for example. The most conservative estimate, in the best conditions (well-fed population, good health system) is a case-fatality rate of one in 10,000. Now, there are nearly 800,000 births per year in the UK. Assume that all cohorts are the same size and all these children are unvaccinated and eventually contract measles. You would therefore expect 80 deaths from measles with the most conservative estimate. Do 80 children die a year from the MMR? If one child died it'd be all over the papers.

You'd expect at least ten times as many children to be left with permanent disabilities so you'd also have 800+ children left blind, deaf or brain damaged. Yes, there are a few vaccine damaged children but not 800+.

It's really not a difficult equation.

bubbly. When you have half a million children, you'll pick up the subgroups. Unless, these subgroups are tiny or the increased risk is very small. EIther way, not a reason for parents to worry in comparison to the disease.

I do understand the difference, what I don't understand is the reluctance of you lot to realise how the two are connected.
No grasp of statistics or scientific method, it would seem.

You don't need to grasp stats or science buzz if you have intuition and the university of google to guide your way.

ah, thats my problem, I only studied science and statistics at an actual university, silly me!

yep I do, thanks. Do you know the difference between a good researcher and a bad one? Hint, Wakefield = bad researcher.

This is perfect medical denialism. You dip into science only to cherrypick what fits your argument (as well as false heroes like Wakefield of course).

If you accept scientific enquiry as the basis for decision making, then you need to step back with no a priori views and look at what the body of evidence is saying. And the body of evidence is that vaccines are safer than the alternative.

Whether Wakefield did a study or case series is irrelevant. He falsified patient data. Garbage in = garbage out. If you start off with falsified data, then any results you get will be false. Again, it's not all that difficult to grasp unless you subscribe to medical denialism.

The Lancet retracted the paper. If you engaged with science, you'd know what a HUGE step that is for a paper. RIchard Horton had to put his hands up and say 'we messed up'. If you knew Richard Horton, you'd know that is not an easy thing for someone like him to do.

So, Deer is lying, the GMC is corrupted, the BMJ and the Lancet are just on the bandwagon. I'm sorry Leonie but you're worshipping a false idol. I understand it's hard if you've placed all your faith in a charlatan but that's the truth.

I would argue that years of investigations and tribunals and hearings that all came to the conclusion that he was bad researcher would be a hint. But I'm guessing that your "intuition" is that it was all a big conspiracy by big pharma et al and he's actually a lone genius?