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)

oh this is a recent paper need to get up to speed on it.

No starlight. A certain percentage of women will require a c-section regardless. Not all those women can be a priori identified. It's exactly the same.

You can say you were right as much as you want Leonie. you have no scientific evidence to back up that decision. It's wishful thinking.

stata- are you talking about epidemiological papers? They really are no use at answering this because they treat autism as one thing. Which as many have said a million times it isn't.It just means their findings are fairly meaningless. If you were looking for a cancer trigger you wouldn't lump all cancers together. They are doing the equivalent.

There was one paper which attempted to refute Wakefield's findings by identifying a subgroup with particular symptoms. Unfortunately the symptoms they chose were not seen in Wakefields group so that was a fairly pointless piece of work as well.

I would love for there to be shown that there's no link between autism and vaccinations or autism and the immune system (unfortunately as you might see from the last few links that really doesn't appear to be the case, the immune system appears to be involved in some way in some cases). If these were shown to be all negative then it would make ds2 and ds3's future decisions much easier. I'd hang the bunting up. I don't actually want there to be a link.

My sons come from a family with no autism apart from ds1's very severe autism, none other and both families are huge so there's been plenty of opportunity for it to show. Immune disorders do run through one branch though. If you were in our shoes you might (like us) find the papers on autism and the immune system rather more interesting.

The studies are large enough and there are enough of time to pick up developmental disorders. Of course the findings aren't meaningless - there is no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. Maybe it can't be proven and in a few years there will be. I doubt it but I'm open minded enough to consider it. However, the current evidence is that there isn't.

I'm not trying to change your mind Leonie. It's like debating the existence of God with a Christian. You have your faith and belief system and you'll stick with it. I know that.

What I want to ensure that anyone who is reading this and considering the MMR isn't swayed by your pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo. I feel that a counter balance is needed.

but your counter balance is based on erroneous assuptions that epidemiological studies will show up stats about small minorities.

and they won't.

especially if they make no efforts to include the groups being talked baout here.

you can say it is not true all you like, but it is a fact that study afte study has shown that a history of autoimmune issues, allergies, and gut issues is implicated in some routes to autism.

and that is all that many of us have been saying, time and again, around and around.

not in all autism. and not all people with immune/allergy/gut issues.

but enough to make people cautious. and rightly so.

no one should have to be collateral damage.

statlover - but if you look for an effect between the vaccination and "autism" when in fact there are 10 different autism subgroups and only one of those has been MMR triggered then you will not see the effect. You do not have enough power.

FYI the accepted figure seems to be about 7% of children with autism have an association with MMR AND have a set of specific symptoms which groups them together- this might be dropping slightly because of brand specific effects (the worst brand was withdrawn a number of years ago). 93% of cases do not appear to have an association with MMR + the specific set of symptoms blah blah blah.

That group is the one that needs to be looked at. Not the other 93%. That hasn't been done yet. Actually there are practical difficulties with doing it.

There are not any studies, epidemiological or oterhwise, demosntrating a link between vaccines and autism.

Of course epidemiological studies with half a million plus children will show up small minorities. That's one the reasons why they're so big.

What bothers me with some of the posters here is that they reject scientific evidence informed decision making in favour of intuition and mumbo-jumbo. That's not rational and at least be honest about it.

With half a million children, saintly, you'd at least have seen a small elevated risk among all children with autism. That hasn't been seen.

pmsl @ mumbo jumbo - erm I have in the main posted peer reviewed journals. Not to show there's a link between autism and vaccinations (no-one knows if there is, and if there is how common that is), but to show the immune system does appear to be involved.

For the vast majority of people that isn't going to make any difference. But if you have already had one child regress after an immune event then it seems wise to be a little bit cautious. Which is the route we took.

Both ds2 and ds3 have developed normally btw. Thanks for asking. Right

Leonie, not one of saintly's links showed a link between vaccines and autism.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my rabies question but I guess you won't because it'll show how intellectually incoherent your argument is.

But as you said, saintly, you don't know if exposing yoru child to the full blown dz won't be worse. OK, so the immune system is involved - and what are the implications of that? Could it be that immunising is actually better???

And the mumbo-jumbo wasn't directed at you saintly. While I don't agree with your interpretation of the literature and evidence, I respect that that is the point of departure for you.

If you don't have any evidence to the contrary, then there is no reason to assume that you have an increased risk than anyone else.

Stata, if you have a history of autoimmune disease in the family, o allergies, or gut disorders, and you have read up on the research that is going on in autism fields - the research that is trying to understand what happened to children who have regressed, who are showing bizarre immune system reactions, who have suddenly developed gut issues overnight - and you have noted the big red warning flags, and the flashing neon signs that are saying "hmmm look at this - this needs further investigation. this needs to be looked at. this implies the immune system is part of it." and so on - you are saying if you were in that specific situation - with one child who has already regressed into autism, and shares a lot of the characteristics of the groups being studied - that oyu would lline up your next (and subsequent children) for the jabs because it was not yet written in black and white for you?

because I do not believe that you would.

you will probably say you would, but hten you have not been in that position.

I do not believe that you would take that risk. because there is a risk, just as there is a risk with everyhitng.

OK, but where's the evidence for that, silver?

How do you know that being exposed to the fullblown dz won't be worse?

An error of omission is just as serious as an error of commission.

Stata my daughter has immune system and digestive system deregulation following vaccination.

Of course what happened to her could have happened after a natural infection or after any other environmental trigger.

But that isn't what happened. What happened was that she had an adverse reaction to a vaccine. Actually she had three adverse reactions to the same vaccine.

Saying that the same or worse could have happened to her after infection by a natural route does not change the fact that she is vaccine damaged and always will be.

What I fail to understand is why is the medical community so resistant to studying children like mine and trying to prevent the same happening to children with a profile like hers.

We know now that a simple questionnaire could have prevented my daughter's health being destroyed by a routine medical procedure which was designed to protect her. She had several markers that identified her as being susceptible to not coping with the biological challenge posed by a combined vaccine.

Fact is, not many people give a shit about children like my daughter. She doesn't show up in massive epidemiological studies. She doesn't count, she doesn't exist as far as your much touted studies are concerned.

On an individual level however, she is my world and she has been terribly terribly hurt. She has been hurt through ignorance and medical negligence and laziness and corner cutting. She isn't the first and she isn't the last. It is just not good enough for that to be considered acceptable collateral damage for the vaccine programme.

Beachcomber, as much as I sympathise, I've never said that vaccine damage can't occur. I've only said that it's less risky that the dzs they protect against.