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)

Haven't read the rest of the thread and have no intentions of doing so. YABU. And in doing so you are trivialising and demeaning every assault, every broken bone, every beating, every burn, every rape, every suffering that a truly abused child recieves. Well done. Hope you are proud of yourself.

No one calls them collateral damage. No one prefers that htey don't exist apart from in the paranoid world in which some people here live. There is no conspiracy theory. What a load of unsubstantiated rubbish.

It is unethical to leave children exposed to fatal diseases. it certainly isn't a crime to vaccinate.

If anyone could present evidence showing that it is dangeous to vaccinate, I'd be more than happy to change my position. The first rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn due to side effects. DPT in high mortality settings has more side effects for girls than boys. We need to know why.

But there are also many good things that happen with vaccines that we don't really understand. Multiple vaccines actually interact to give the immune system an additional boost. No one really knows why but the effect is there. So there are question marks both good and bad.

Yes, bubbly, for the sake of a back of the envelope calculation I assumed everyone got measles. I also assumed the most conservative case fatality rate. It's not a precise figure but the order is correct.

Starlight, if you don't what risk group you're in, why would you assume higher risk if that group is tiny? You also don't know if your child is the one to suffer complicatins from the dz. You can't then say, vax are bad, your risk of getting measles is low because everyone else vaxes. That's not a coherent or logical statement. Once people stop vaxing their children, measles will return. Those who may have valid concerns about vax should be encouraging others who don't (ie the vast majority( to vax their children!

Completely untrue beachcomber

Oh really?

Well it is exactly the experience I had with my daughter.

If the medical community care about my daughter and children like her why are they not even bothering to count their numbers accurately?

You should read some of the reports and studies I have read - children like my daughter are called 'acceptable risk' or 'accepted risk versus benefit ratio' . This this exactly the same as collateral damage.

All that means beachcomber is that far more children would be hurt by not vaccinating. No one says 'collateral damage'.

All the studies I know make considerable effort to establish any harm caused by vaccines. And there is a system for recording side effects of all medications, including vaccines.

Clearly if you have a case for medical negligence then you should sue. That's a completely different kettle of fish.

What's the evidence of multiple vaccines giving an additional boost?

If you're happy to accept evidence you don't understand, how about accepting evidence of vaccine damage which you don't understand?

Instead the cry goes up: we don't understand what is causing these cases but we know it's not MMR or vaccines.

No. Actually. You don't know that. You are just repeating it endlessly. You are totally in denial.

I would be wary of accusing Beachcomber of talking unsubstantiated rubbish. She knows more about it than you do and she'll have you on the ropes in no time at all. I confidently predict that you'll end up running for the hills like you did on that other thread.

Oh and attempting to paint me as a paranoid conspiracy theorist because I'm not very accepting of the fact that a routine medical procedure administered to my healthy child destroyed her health is thoroughly offensive.

Such comments show a lack of empathy and respect that is typical of those who have a gung-ho approach to vaccines.

OK, right. I'm glad that you're bringing the debate up a notch with such aggressive language. Then you wonder why health care professionals are patronising , I wouldn't be surprised if you're using the sort of language my 7 year old uses in the playground.

I haven't got the paper at my fingertips, I'll check when I get to work. It was very interesting and unexpected. It was also found that the effect was increased (this is in high mortality settings though so probably not applicable to UK) by administering the MMR at a much earlier age than we'd normally give it.

I've already said a thousand times, I don't deny that vaccines may have side effects - those side effects are documented and studied. But there is no link between autism and vaccines. It doesn't mean that there couldn't be one but it's very unlikely as study after study after study hasn't found one.

The trouble with medals are that it's risks vary depending on your general health and of course vitamin A status. It is a very different disease in the malnourished versus well nourished. I had measles - remember it well - and was fine, no one became hysterical about it, my mum (post war poss malnourished ended up deaf in one ear).

Stata -yes we rather assumed that ds1's risk from vaccination was average. Some very simple tests/family history would have highlighted that his risk was actually above average and we might have altered the schedule (we might not). It's not that difficult to o - if it was plotically favourable to screen before giving vaccinations a screening programme could be organised very quickly and at limited cost. The govt spent millions on their ridiculous baby in a pushchair prowling lion mar ad campaign - that money could have been spent on setting up a simple screening programme.

Which vaccinations give improved efficacy from combination? Apart from DT which I'm aware of. Mumps appears to work less well in the MMR than as a monovalent, although studies keep revising it's efficacy downwards in anyway. Giving multiple vaccinations in the gulf appears to have been very problematic - although of ours that is possibly even more political than the mmr.

Of course the response will vary between individuals and I am intrigued by the studies that show a poorer immune response to vaccinations in those ih autism (one link above there are others if you can be bothered to search).

Looks like this thread is about to run out of space but at least stata has learned that the immune system appears to be involved in some cases of autism in some way. He/she didn't know that yesterday.

Measles not medals! Bloody ipad

"And there is a system for recording side effects of all medications, including vaccines."

Yes a highly flawed and utterly inadequate one which lets 90% of reactions go unrecorded. Why is no attempt being made to rectify that?

It is unbelievable that the follow up system is a passive one. It is blindingly obvious to anyone who thinks evidence based medicine is a good idea, that ethics demand an active follow up on vaccinated children.

I won't hold my breath.

"There is no link between autism and vaccines."

And how did you go about proving this absolute negative?

You do realise that is what you are asserting, don't you?

Beachcomber, if you start with this business that no-one is interested in vaccine damage, no-one is interested in children who may have been damaged, no-one is bothering to measure them - then that to me smacks of the usual conspiracy theory that vaccines are some kind of holy cow. That's not true. I'm sorry if you find that offensive.

That's true jimjams. I did learn something from the articles you posted. I thought it was very interesting so thank you for that.

The reason the govt won't do a screening campaign is that the elevated risk is not established. It's a suggestion, a possibility which should be watched but it hasn't been proven.

The trouble with administering mmr early is that circulating maternal antibodies mean it's effects will not last. This is why infants vaccinated before 12 months are not counted as being vaccinated.

In a heavily vaccinated population with limited circulating disease it may beg that there are fewer mothers with active circulating antibodies in which case yes they can start merrily vaccinating earlier.

Have a search for mumps on pubmed. You'll find the mmr is less effective than monovalent. Also have a look at mumps figures (hard as it wasn't deemed serious enough to record data on until mmr was introduced) - numbers of adult cases are rising. It does seem to potentially be a diseases where removing it from childhood exposure and development of immunity has resulted in more adult cases - when of course it is potentially nastier. Congratulations all round on that one!

"start with this business"????

Not sure you know what you're talking about there Stata -- and you are being very offensive indeed. You should be listening to people like Beach and jimjams.

Indeed, your own attitude shows that you, at least, are not interested. People are saying "this is what happened" and you are ignoring it and denying it, and claiming that if people note the fact that you are ignoring and denying it, that's a conspiracy theory.

Well, here you are, ignoring and denying -- and then denying that anyone ignores it.

You are just a mess of self-contradiction.

Stata, I'm not having a debate.

This is not an intellectual debate for me - it is my every day life. My daughter's reality.

"Clearly if you have a case for medical negligence then you should sue."

PMSL - have you ever tried to even get a vaccine reaction reported?

I have spent quite a lot of time on the legal aspect of my DD's situation. I have spent a lot more on nursing her however. There is not a lot of time and energy left for legal battles.

"the elevated risk is not established, it's a suggestion"

Do you think it helps research into that "suggestion" when researchers interested in the field are smeared, reported to the GMC, when they're too afraid to ask questions or even take on children where autism might be connected with a bowel disorder? When the accusation "conspiracy theory" is routinely thrown around? When large scale case evidence is ignored? When flaws in epidemiological evidence are ignored and perpetuated?

I don't.

"But there is no link between autism and vaccines. It doesn't mean that there couldn't be one."

You are just all over the place Stata. This is blithering.

Well yes watching it would be a start but I think most people in public health have their eyes shut. if you want to find out you have to start recording every potential reaction. Every potential one - this does not happen. I can introduce you to chikdren who had seizures within a week of mmr - bad enough to end up in hdu. now severely autistic in nappies no speech etc those cases should have been yellow carded and fhe possibility of mmr involvement (no previous seizures, none since) should have been considered. But la la la no-one's looking. And no ones going to look be because they all 'know' it was just a coincidence. And they have the cheek to call the parents unscientific. :rolls eyes a million times:

If you want people to trust you you have to at least look.

"Beachcomber, if you start with this business that no-one is interested in vaccine damage, no-one is interested in children who may have been damaged, no-one is bothering to measure them - then that to me smacks of the usual conspiracy theory that vaccines are some kind of holy cow. That's not true. I'm sorry if you find that offensive."

For goodness sake stata the government itself admits that their own system for detecting vaccine reactions is 90% flawed.

What else is one to think?

That they really really care but haven't got the time or the inclination to count the actual numbers?

Clearly not beachcomber.

As someone who works in public health (albeit not UK), that's blatantly untrue. No one has their eyes closed. Huge efforts have been made to identify any damage from vaccines, especially given the level of side effects.

Unfortunately, I'm back to work now so don't have time for this any more. It's been a pleasure

What? And you accuse others of denialism? You are pretty shameless Stata.