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, you vaccinate in the interest of your own child. Yo don't know if you're higher risk. You also don't know if your child is the one to suffer complicatiosn from one of these preventable dzs. In that situation, you can only assume average risk.

The minority is a tiny minority or the increased risk is small - otherwise it would have come out in one of the studies. Why would you want to assume that you are in a group that is, say, 0.01% of the population? The overwhelming chances are that you are not.

You are joking starlight? It's already been on this thread. In developed countries (ie the best conditions), measles has a case fatality of at least one in 10,000. There are about 800,000 births a year in the UK. If you didn't vaccinate and they all got measles, you'd have 80 deaths per year from complications of measles. You'll have far more cases of blindness, deafness and brain damage, plus hospitalisations and treatment for complications like pneumonia and encephalitis.

How many children died this year from the MMR? Zero.

i don't agree with you smallwhitecat. I've seen parents spout absolute tosh.

starlight - the point is that there is no risk free path. Not vaccinating is a riskier choice.

How do you know that you are not in the 0.01% of the population who will die from measles if they get it?

It's just as an important question to ask.

Anyway, this argument is getting circular. And i'm getting tired. And quite despondent at the amount of ignorance. I think you've got my point.

Stata, that figure doesn't seem right to me... I'm a bit tired though! Surely that assumes that EVERY child will catch measles which seems a bit improbable.

If there were tins of food on the shelves, in the shops that were potential damaging to people. Poisoned in some way, not everyone would react, but some would. Do you think they would leave them on the shelves? Of course they wouldn't. It would be totally unacceptable to risk poisoning members of the public. All tins would be removed immediately and a public health warning given to any that might have consumed the food,.
However they are prepared to risk damaging children with this bloody vaccine. It's an absolute screaming travesty and they simply don't care.
The only people who can sit there being sanctimonious and glib about the benefits of vaccination are those without damaged children. Those who haven't got a bloody clue.

If not vaccinating is child abuse, what do we call happened to the children who are damaged by vaccines?

And Stata's "evidence based decision making" is very picky about the evidence it uses. It does tend to ignore a great deal of empirical and case study evidence in favour of flawed research papers.

That's a choice based on prejudice, not evidence based decision making.

It will all come out in the wash, in the end. It always does.

rightpissedoff, flippinpeedoff, we're a pair !

Evidence based medicine my arse. Who here really believes that studies, which are in the main funded by organisations which have a vested interest in the outcome of those studies, are 100% committed to evidence based medicine?

Anybody attempting to make big claims about the safety of vaccines should cite their sources - the government admits that its own safety data is about 90% incorrect as only about 10% of vaccine reactions are recorded.

The current situation is simply unacceptable and highly unethical.

Here is why;

We know that not all children react the same to vaccines. We know that some children will be very damaged by vaccines. We know that there are some markers which identity which children are susceptible to this damage. We know that we need to examine damaged children in order to expand our knowledge of these markers.

And yet - we are not attempting to exclude children from the vaccine programme who are likely to suffer damage. Very little is being done to expand our knowledge of vulnerability markers.

The current gung-ho approach of jabbing kids with every vaccine going, will remain irresponsible and unethical until the day comes where we have complete data and apply that data.

I recently asked my DD's specialist if her situation could have been prevented. She was very uncomfortable but she said 'yes'. She admitted that DD was high risk for vaccine damage and that a couple of tests, some questions and a wait and see approach would no doubt have led to her not being vaccinated.

Bit bloody late now though isn't it?

You know what is really bad though? - knowing that there are other babies like my DD who will be vaccinated under similar circumstances and that they could and should be excluded from the vaccine programme. But they won't be.

Ach well yunno, its all for the greater good so that makes it fine to not even attempt to exclude children like my DD. Right?

"If not vaccinating is child abuse, what do we call happened to the children who are damaged by vaccines?"

Currently we call them collateral damage. We also prefer to pretend that they do not exist and prefer to not count them accurately and not examine them in order to prevent the same happening to others.

This is called evidence based medicine dontcha know...

Good post beachcomber re: unacceptable and unethical.

And yes, collateral damage. You're right. It's a crime.

hello peed off, I did wonder if you were me, and then I wondered if other people might think we were each other, so now there can be no mistake

Here is what we currently work with;

How many children are damaged by vaccines? - we don't know and don't care.

Why are those children damaged? - we don't know and we don't care.

Will my child be one of those children? - we don't know and we don't care. Chances are they will not be as vaccines seem alright for most kids.

What will happen if my child is damaged? - we don't know and we don't care.

This is another example of what gets called evidence based medicine.