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)

Wakefield's paper was retracted because it breached research protocols. Horton should have done it much earlier. He didn't for various reasons.

Why should Horton be available to speak to you? He's a professional and doesn't engage with mumbo-jumbo

Stata - Deer is a nasty piece of work who was very aggressive to the parents of autistic children at the GMC hearing. He may well disagree with them but that is no excuse for aggression and rudeness.

Of course you don't engage with science Leonie. You dismiss it for various reasons unless it agrees with your pre-conceived ideas. That's not engaging with science.

I'd agree with you on that point, edam. Doesn't mean he's wrong though. Just because Wakefield is 'nice' doesn't mean he's right.

i agree with you alittlevoice!

I'm sure his autobiography is the real truth, absolutely. It's not like he'd have any reason to lie at all.

And if Deer was lying and libelled him, its rather odd that he dropped the case and compensated Deer, isn't it? Not really the actions of the wronged party.

No, and I never claimed it did and have no idea whether Wakefield is nice or not.

The vicious campaign against him, though, smacks horribly of other scandals where the authorities were wrong and desperately trying to cover up their failings. I've seen it first hand (over Seroxat and suicides where the Royal College of Psychs simply would not accept there might be problem - too entrenched in their worldview or possibly relationship with Glaxo). That doesn't make him right, necessarily. He could still be wrong and the Dept of Health and medical establishment right. But their tactics are appalling. Playing the man, not the ball.

I know what you've written on here. And I've seen what you've said about science and journals - unless an article happens to agree with your point of view. Enough for me to make that statement. It's all very well getting defensive but you can't run down science and then start quoting the odd scientific article that may just back up what you're saying. It doesn't work like that. What you're doing is denialism.

Possibly Edam. But too much adds up with Wakefield. I don't have much sympathy for him. I think he was trying to play the system. BUt I agree with you that there are many other parties to blame in blowing up the vaccine scare and they haven't paid the price Wakefield has.

it must be exhausting to see conspiracies everywhere you look, everyone always out to get you.

And no, I won't make any judgements about science and medicine based one someones body langauge and tone of voice. I'm funny like that.

Btw, researchers are allowed to be wrong without having scorn poured on them and their careers finished. That's how science is supposed to work - someone develops a theory to explain something, they test the theory, other people test the theory, it may be accepted, further research is carried out, sometimes years later it shows that what everyone thought it wrong. That's all fine and dandy and how things should work. Look at H pylori. No need to demonise someone who proposed a theory that turns out to be wrong. The people who believed that stomach ulcers were caused by excess acid were wrong, but they weren't demonised. Why should Wakefield be demonised?

Sorry Leonie. It's a public forum. If you write rubbish, I'll call you on it. If you find it too much, you should go back to a forum where people will nod and agree with your pseudo-science.

Edam - that's quite true! And the best researchers WILL retract their own research if later research proves them wrong. That's scientific enquiry at its best.

What researchers aren't allowed to do is falsify patient records and engage in unethical behaviour. That's what Wakefield did wrong.

He was demonised not for being wrong, but for lying and scaremongering.
Science always accepts wrong answers, thats the point of it.

My GP is an asshole, with the body language of someone who loathes humanity as a whole. However he helped me when my son was very ill and the other doctors put his problems down to a neurotic mother, and he helped me when I was recent;y diagnosed with an autoimmune disease.

I feel sorry for you if you are so shallow as to judge everyones abilities on the way they stand, tbh.

Ah, but it's not just body language with Deer. It's his actions, too. Especially attacking parents of autistic children. The man is a rude, aggressive bully and I wouldn't cite him as evidence for anything. Except crap behaviour.

It's not hard to disprove what you say as it isn't based on scientific evidence. There's no bullying. ANd of course it'll be undermined if it's based on mumbo-jumbo. I'm sorry you feel undermined and disproved but since I think that what you are saying is complete rubbish, then of course I will present evidence to the contrary. I'm sorry you feel in such a weak position.

The only poster jumping up and down, attacking others for disagreeing and swearing like crazy is you (although admittedly the provocation of the OP didn't help). I'm just trying to have a reasoned debate.